{"id":50303,"date":"2011-10-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011"},"modified":"2019-03-13T22:34:04","modified_gmt":"2019-03-13T17:04:04","slug":"moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Moti @ Mohit vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Moti @ Mohit vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed<\/div>\n
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                                           Judgment delivered on 31.10.2011\n\n+       CRL.A. No. 614\/2010\n\nRAJESH REKWAR                                           ...      Appellant\n\n                                      versus\n\n\nSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)                                    ...      Respondent\n\nAdvocates who appeared in this case:\nFor the Appellant            : Mr Rupinder Pal Singh\nFor the Respondent\/State     : Ms Richa Kapur\n\n\n                                       AND\n\n\n+       CRL.A. 711\/2010\n\nMOTI @ MOHIT                                            ...      Appellant\n\n                                      versus\n\n\nSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)                                    ...      Respondent\n\n\nAdvocates who appeared in this case:\nFor the Appellant            : Mr Haneef Mohd.\nFor the Respondent\/State     : Ms Richa Kapur\n\n\n\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH\n\n    1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the\n        judgment ?                                          YES\n\n\nCrl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                     Page 1 of 31\n      2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?               YES\n\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? YES\n\nBADAR DURREZ AHMED\n\n1.      These two appeals on behalf of the appellants Rajesh Rekwar and Moti\n@ Mohit are directed against the judgment dated 26.02.2010 delivered by the\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge, South-East-02, New Delhi in Sessions Case\nNo.53\/2008 arising out of FIR No.428\/2004 registered at police station\nDefence Colony under Sections 302\/380\/201\/411\/34 IPC. By virtue of the\nimpugned judgment, the appellants Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit were\nfound guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 302\nread with Section 34 IPC as also for the offence punishable under Section 380\nIPC read with Section 34 IPC. The appeals are also directed against the order\non sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 02.03.2010,\nwhereby both the appellants Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit were sentenced\nto imprisonment for life in respect of the offence under Section 302\/34 IPC and\nwere also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 2000\/- each. Insofar as the offence\nunder Section 380\/34 IPC is concerned, the appellants were sentenced to\nrigorous imprisonment for three years and were further directed to pay a fine of\nRs 1,000\/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo simple\nimprisonment for one month. The sentences were directed to run concurrently\nand the benefit of Section 428 CrPC was given to both the appellants.\n\n\nThe Charges\n2.      The charge against the appellants, as framed by the learned Additional\nSessions Judge on 03.05.2006, was that on the intervening night of 13\/14-08-\n2004 at time unknown at House No.24, Annexe Building, First Floor, Anand\n\n\nCrl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                    Page 2 of 31\n Lok, Delhi, the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, committed\nthe murder of Pushkin and Kuldeep and, thereby they committed an offence\nunder Sections 302\/34 IPC. The second charge against the appellants was that\non the said date, time and place, they had committed theft of a car bearing\nRegistration No.DL3C Y-8012 (Opel Corsa), one HP Laptop, one instant\ncamera, one Philips DVD Player, one Nokia mobile phone having\nNo.9810545330, one Seiko wrist watch, one portable CD Player with speakers,\none leather bag, one handcuff, some clothes, cash, CDs, Credit Cards of ICICI,\nUTI, Standard Chartered Bank and other articles belonging to Pushkin son of\nShri Anil Chandra and thereby they had committed an offence under Section\n380\/34 IPC.\n\n\n3.      As pointed out above, both the charges against the appellants were\nfound to have been established and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions\nJudge convicted and sentenced them accordingly.\n\n4.      It may be pertinent to mention at this stage itself that two other persons,\nnamely, Paramvir @ Munna and Jai Kishore were also tried alongwith the\npresent appellants. However, the said Paramvir @ Munna and Jai Kishore\nwere charged under Section 411 IPC. They were acquitted by the learned\nAdditional Sessions Judge. Thus, the present appeals are only concerned with\nthe remaining convicts, namely, Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit.\n\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n
 facts and Prosecution Case\n<\/p>\n
5.      The facts of the case, as indicated in the impugned judgment, are that on
\n14.08.2004 an information was received at police station Defence Colony
\nregarding the commission of the offence of murder in the first floor of the
\nAnnexe portion of 24, Anand Lok, New Delhi. The information was noted in<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                      Page 3 of 31<\/span>
\n the Daily Diary Register vide D.D. No.7-A and was assigned to the Additional
\nSHO (Inspector Ranbir Singh), who, alongwith Sub-Inspector Shiv Charan and
\nConstable Veer Bhan, reached the spot. There, in the drawing room, they
\nfound the dead body of a man of about 25 years of age wearing a white vest
\n(baniyan) and red shorts. They noticed that there were deep injuries on the
\ndead body on the throat, chest and both wrists, which appeared to have been
\ncaused by a sharp edged weapon. Inspector (Ranbir Singh) searched the house
\nand found another dead body of a naked man in the bathroom attached to the
\nbedroom. Both the hands of the dead body were tied at the back and both his
\nlegs were tied with a pant. There were injuries on the neck, chest and stomach
\nwhich appeared to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon and they found
\nblood spread around the dead body. Inspector Ranbir Singh also found two
\nblood stained knives, one of which was broken, lying near the dead body in the
\ndrawing room.\n<\/p>\n
6.      It is the case of the prosecution that Inspector Ranbir Singh recorded the
\nstatement of the complainant PW-5 (Anil Kumar Chandra), who stated that he
\nwas residing in the ground floor of House No.24, Anand Lok, New Delhi
\nalongwith his wife.          The first and second floors of the said house were
\noccupied by the tenants. PW-5 (Anil Kumar Chandra) also stated that his elder
\nson Pushkin Chandra was residing in the first floor of the Annexe of the
\nbuilding. According to the prosecution, A.N. Chandra stated that around 11.00
\na.m. in the morning, on 14.08.2004, his domestic servant, PW-1 (Hare Ram), as
\nusual, went to clean the room of Pushkin and when he opened the door, he
\nfound the dead body of an unknown person lying in the drawing room. He
\nrushed back and informed A.N. Chandra and thereafter he, alongwith his wife
\nand Hare Ram, went to the Annexe and saw the dead body of an unknown
\nperson. It is further stated that they immediately went to the police station to<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                      Page 4 of 31<\/span>
\n inform the police and came back to the spot alongwith the police officials. The
\ncomplainant A.N. Chandra identified the dead body which was lying in the
\nbathroom as that of his son Pushkin Chandra. He, however, could not identify
\nthe dead body lying in the drawing room. The statement of Anil K. Chandra is
\nExhibit PW-5\/A. After recording the said statement, Inspector Ranbir Singh
\nsent the ruqqa (Exhibit PW-14\/1) to the police station and recommended the
\nregistration of an FIR under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, the FIR (Exhibit
\nPW-6\/A) was registered and the investigation was assigned to Inspector Ranbir
\nSingh. The crime team as well as the finger print expert were called at the spot
\nwho conducted their proceedings. As per the prosecution, the finger print
\nexpert picked up chance prints from the two glasses lying at the spot and
\nmarked them as Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4. One chance print was also lifted from a
\nbeer bottle lying at the spot and the same was marked as Q5.\n<\/p>\n
7.      Thereafter, PW-14 (Inspector Ranbir Singh) seized the said two glasses
\nand the beer bottle vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-7\/A. He also made seizures
\nof several other articles, that is, cigarette butt, beer glasses, blood samples of
\nthe dead body lying in the drawing room and that of Pushkin Chandra lying in
\nthe bathroom, pair of sport shoes, one blood stained knife (Exhibit R-3) and
\nanother similar knife with a broken blade which was again blood stained
\n(Exhibit R-4) and two pieces of blade of a knife, which were also blood stained
\nvide memo (Exhibit PW-7\/7). The Investigating Officer also seized other
\narticles lying at the scene of crime. The dead bodies were sent for post mortem
\nexamination. The post mortem report in respect of the dead body lying in the
\ndrawing room is exhibit PW-4\/B. As per the said report, the cause of death has
\nbeen indicated as haemorrhagic shock due to cumulative effect of ante mortem
\ninjuries. The report further indicates that injury numbers 14, 15, 17, 19 and 22
\nwere individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                     Page 5 of 31<\/span>
\n that all the ante mortem injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon. We
\nmay point out, at this stage, that the dead body lying in the drawing room was
\nsubsequently identified as that of Kuldeep. The identification was done by his
\nfather Ranbir Singh and his brother Sudheer Kumar later in the course of
\ninvestigation by virtue of identification memos (Exhibits PW-14\/6 and 14\/7
\nrespectively).\n<\/p>\n
8.      The post mortem report in respect of the dead body of Pushkin Chandra
\nis Exhibit PW-4\/A, in which the cause of death has been indicated as
\nhaemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem injuries Nos.2 to 11, except injury
\nNo.6, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature
\nindividually as well as collectively. The report also indicated that all the
\ninjuries, except injury No.6, were caused by a sharp edged weapon.\n<\/p>\n
9.      In the course of investigation, PW-14 (Inspector Ranbir Singh) found
\nthat certain articles belonging to the deceased Pushkin Chandra were missing
\nfrom his place of residence. It was found that Pushkin Chandra’s car bearing
\nregistration No. DL-3CY-8012, make-Opel Corsa, was missing.               Pushkin
\nChandra’s credit card, laptop computer, mobile phones were also missing, as
\nindicated by Pushkin Chandra’s father PW-5 (Anil Kumar Chandra). The
\nInvestigating Officer thereafter obtained the statement of accounts of the credit
\ncards of Pushkin Chandra in respect of ICICI Bank, Standard Chartered Bank
\nand UTI Bank. From the said statements, it was found that the credit card of
\nICICI Bank in respect of Account No.4477460118500000, pertaining to
\nPushkin Chandra had been operated on 14.08.2004 and that two transactions of
\nRs 15,000\/- each had taken place from the ATM booths at Rajinder Nagar and
\nHotel Tripti at Karol Bagh. It is further the case of the prosecution that the
\nInvestigating Officer PW-14 (Inspector Ranbir Singh) obtained the black and<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                     Page 6 of 31<\/span>
\n white photographs and the CD which contained the photographs of the persons
\nwho had transacted at the ATM booths. It is the case of the prosecution that
\nsince no clue had been received till that time with regard to the identity of the
\naccused persons, Inspector Ranbir Singh circulated the photographs in the area
\nof police station Rajinder Nagar and Karol Bagh, and, in particular, to the beat
\nstaff of that area. It is further alleged on the part of the prosecution that
\nConstable Charat Lal and Constable Gorakh Nath of police station Rajinder
\nNagar had shown the photographs to one Jai Lal who was residing at 4, Janaki
\nDevi Memorial College, Rajinder Nagar and who identified some of the
\nphotographs as that of Rajesh Rekwar. We may point out, at this stage, that the
\nsaid Jai Lal has not been produced as a prosecution witness, but the defence
\nhad produced him as DW-1. He has not supported the prosecution version.
\nHowever, as has been noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, DW-1
\ndoes not seem to be a truthful witness.\n<\/p>\n
10.     It was found that Rajesh Rekwar was a resident of Balia, police station
\nMalhera, District Chhatarpur, M.P. and consequently PW-18 (Inspector H.C.
\nVerma) visited the native place of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar and on
\nidentification by his father Sant Ram, the appellant Rajesh Rekwar was
\nallegedly apprehended and arrested in this case vide Memo Exhibit PW-10\/C
\nand his alleged disclosure statement was recorded vide Exhibit PW-10\/A. The
\nappellant Rajesh Rekwar was allegedly found in possession of certain articles
\nbelonging to the deceased Pushkin Chandra. Those articles include a Philips
\nDVD Player (Exhibit P-7), one portable CD Player (Exhibit P-8), one blue cap
\n(Exhibit R-1), 10 coins of USA [Exhibit R-2 (Collectively)], one dark blue pair
\nof jeans, one half sleeve T-shirt with Reebok written in white on the left side of
\nthe chest portion (Exhibit R-3).     All these articles were seized by PW-18<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                     Page 7 of 31<\/span>
\n (Inspector H.C. Verma) vide seizure memo (Exhibit 10\/B).             As per the
\nprosecution, the appellant Rajesh Rekwar also got the following recovered:-\n<\/p>\n
        a) One car key (Exhibit P-15);\n<\/p>\n
        b) One key of the flat of Pushkin Chandra (Exhibit P-16).\n<\/p>\n
11.     These were seized vide memo (Exhibit PW-7\/13) on 30.08.2004 from
\nHouse No.B-26\/1, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. As per the prosecution,
\nPW-14 (Inspector Ranbir Singh) went to 24, Anand Lok, New Delhi to verify
\nthat the key (Exhibit P-16) was that of the flat of Pushkin. Similarly, the key
\n(Exhibit P-15) was also checked by visiting the police station where the car
\nbearing registration No.DL-3CY-8012 was parked and the said car was started
\nwith the help of the said key, which, according to the prosecution, confirmed
\nthat the key (Exhibit P-15) was of the car belonging to Pushkin. We must point
\nout that the car had been found earlier, having been abandoned. A T-shirt
\n(Exhibit P-17) was also recovered from the appellant Rajesh Rekwar and was
\nseized vide memo (Exhibit PW-7\/14). The prosecution alleges that the shirt
\n(Exhibit P-17) was the very shirt worn by the person seen withdrawing money
\nfrom the ATM in the photographs provided by the ICICI Bank.\n<\/p>\n
12.     The appellant Moti @ Mohit was also apprehended in the course of
\ninvestigation from Rupedia, Indo-Nepal Border (U.P.) and from his possession,
\nPW-18 (Inspector H.C. Verma) allegedly recovered five CDs [Exhibit J-2
\n(collectively)], 25 coins [Exhibit J-1 (collectively)], one Seiko wrist watch
\n(Exhibit P-2), shorts and shirt [Exhibit P-4 (collectively)]. Blood stained Levis
\nJeans (Exhibit J-3) and a shirt (Exhibit J-4). These articles were seized vide
\nmemo Exhibit 12\/A dated 04.09.2004. Apart from these articles, a laptop
\ncomputer was also recovered from the possession of the appellant Moti @
\nMohit and the same was seized vide memo Exhibit PW-12\/B.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                     Page 8 of 31<\/span><\/p>\n
 13.     As per the prosecution, the Investigating Officer had moved the
\napplication for Test Identification Parade (TIP) proceedings in respect of the
\nappellant Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit on 29.08.2004 and 06.09.2004
\nrespectively, but they refused to join the same.\n<\/p>\n
14.     The articles, which were seized during investigation, were sent to the
\nForensic Science Laboratory for examination and the reports are (Exhibit PW-
\n18\/A) dated 19.05.2006 and (Exhibit PW-18\/B) dated 28.11.2006. We may
\nalso point out that as per the prosecution, the Investigating Officer (Inspector
\nRanbir Singh) sent the post mortem reports of deceased Pushkin Chandra and
\nthat of Kuldeep Singh, alongwith the alleged weapons of offence, that is, the
\ntwo knives, one of which was broken, to the Department of Forensic
\nMedicines, AIIMS Hospital to obtain a subsequent opinion regarding the
\ninjuries on the dead bodies. The subsequent opinion is Exhibit PW-18\/C.\n<\/p>\n
15.     After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed and after
\ncommittal of the case to the Sessions Court, the charges were framed against
\nthe appellants, as already mentioned above. The appellants pleaded not guilty
\nand claimed trial. The prosecution, in all, examined 18 witnesses. Thereafter,
\nthe statements of the appellants under Section 313 CrPC were recorded. One
\ndefence witness DW-1 (Jai Lal), as mentioned above, was also examined.
\nAfter considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution as well
\nas on behalf of the accused, and after considering the evidence on record, the
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge, as already indicated in the beginning of this
\njudgment, convicted the appellants under Sections 302\/34 IPC and 380\/34 IPC.
\nThey were sentenced, as already mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                    Page 9 of 31<\/span><\/p>\n
 Submissions on behalf of Moti @ Mohit\n<\/p>\n
16.     The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Moti @ Mohit,
\nsubmitted that the case of the prosecution is based on the alleged circumstantial
\nevidence. The most important elements of the evidence being the testimonies
\nof PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob), who are the alleged “last
\nseen” witnesses.       Another circumstance, which has been read against the
\nappellant Moti @ Mohit is that of the alleged recoveries made at his instance
\non 04.09.2004. The alleged recoveries included the recovery of the laptop, a
\nbag, five CDs, 25 coins, Seiko wrist watch, shorts etc. The other circumstance,
\nwhich has been held against the appellant Moti @ Mohit, was his refusal to
\nparticipate in the TIP proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
17.     The learned counsel submitted that insofar as the testimony of PW-1
\n(Hare Ram) is concerned, the time gap between his having seen the appellants
\nand the time of death of Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep is too large and,
\ntherefore, cannot be regarded as evidence falling in the category of “last seen”
\nevidence. It was further contended that the testimony of PW-3 (Christopher
\nJacob) does not inspire any confidence inasmuch as he is alleged to have seen
\nthe appellant in the company of Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep at about 12.30
\na.m. on 14.08.2004 at a party at Sawant Nagar, when he himself was not an
\ninvitee. It was also contended on behalf of the appellant Moti @ Mohit that the
\nrecoveries are clearly not believable. According to the learned counsel, the
\nevidence of PW-18 (Inspector H.C. Verma) indicates that he returned from
\nRopedia, District Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh on 05.09.2004 and it is then that the
\ncase property was deposited in the Malkhana. The learned counsel submitted
\nthat this is belied by the fact that the Malkhana register (Exhibit PW-17\/3)
\nshows the HP Laptop already deposited in the Malkhana on 04.09.2004. It was
\nalso contended that PW-17 (Head Constable Ram Avtar) stated that it was on<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                     Page 10 of 31<\/span>
\n 04.09.2004 that Inspector H.C. Verma had handed over to him the exhibits of
\nthe case alongwith the seizure memo and the same were deposited in the
\nMalkhana. He also contended that there were other articles in the Malkhana
\nfor which no recovery memo was prepared by any of the police officials. Thus,
\naccording to the learned counsel, the recoveries, insofar as the appellant Moti
\n@ Mohit is concerned, are clearly not believable and cannot be regarded as a
\ncircumstance against the said appellant. With regard to the adverse inference,
\nas regards the refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings, the learned counsel
\nsubmitted that the refusal on the part of the appellant Moti @ Mohit was
\njustified inasmuch as he was under the impression and belief that his
\nphotographs might have been taken and might have been shown to the
\nwitnesses. Consequently, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Moti @
\nMohit submitted that there was no clinching evidence against the said appellant
\nand, therefore, he was entitled to be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
Submissions on behalf of Rajesh Rekwar\n<\/p>\n
18.     The learned counsel appearing for Rajesh Rekwar submitted that the
\ncircumstances taken against the said appellant, apart from the so-called “last
\nseen” evidence of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob), were the
\nalleged matching of chance print Q3 with the left thumb impression of Rajesh
\nRekwar (S1); the adverse inference drawn from the refusal to participate in the
\nTIP proceedings; the matching of the blood group of deceased Kuldeep with
\nthe blood stains found on the pants of Rajesh Rekwar; the alleged recoveries
\nfrom Rajesh Rekwar of the articles allegedly belonging to Pushkin Chandra
\nand the alleged recovery of T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) which was allegedly the very
\nsame T-shirt worn by the person who operated the ATM machine on
\n14.08.2004.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                     Page 11 of 31<\/span><\/p>\n
 19.     The learned counsel, insofar as the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and
\nPW-3 (Christopher Jacob) are concerned, reiterated the contentions of the
\nlearned counsel who appeared on behalf of Moti @ Mohit. As regards the
\nmatching of chance print Q3 with the specimen left thumb impression S1 of
\nRajesh Rekwar, the learned counsel took the plea that the specimen finger
\nprints of Rajesh Rekwar were taken in violation of the provisions of Section 73
\nof the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 inasmuch as no orders of the Magistrate were
\ntaken prior to the taking of the specimen finger prints of the appellant Rajesh
\nRekwar. Consequently, it was submitted that there was serious doubt with
\nregard to the finger prints having been manipulated.\n<\/p>\n
20.     The learned counsel submitted that insofar as the recoveries allegedly
\nmade at the instance of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar from his village Balia are
\nconcerned, the same were alleged to have been made on 28.08.2004 and were
\nallegedly deposited in the Malkhana on 29.08.2004, but, the Malakhana
\nRegister (Exhibit PW-17\/E), shows that the said articles were already deposited
\nin the Malkhana on 28.08.2004. Thus, according to the learned counsel, this
\nfact clearly belies the alleged recoveries at the instance of the appellant Rajesh
\nRekwar.\n<\/p>\n
21.     Insofar as the refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings is concerned,
\nthe learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar
\nsubmitted that it was not unnatural or unreasonable on the part of the appellant
\nto have refused to participate in the said TIP proceedings. He submitted that
\nthis was a highlighted case. There was a great deal of media attention and that
\nthere was apprehension that the police may have shown the photographs of the
\nappellants to the witnesses. As regards the matching of the blood group of
\nKuldeep with the blood group of the blood stains found on the pants of Rajesh<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                      Page 12 of 31<\/span>
\n Rekwar, the learned counsel submitted that the same was also manipulated and
\nwas false evidence created by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
22.     It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
\nof the appellant Rajesh Rekwar that the circumstances allegedly taken against
\nthe said appellant were not firmly established and, in any event, did not form a
\ncomplete chain. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment was
\nliable to be set aside and the appellant was entitled to an order of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
Submissions on behalf of the State\n<\/p>\n
23.     Ms Richa Kapur, appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that all the
\ncircumstances have been clearly established by cogent evidence on record. She
\nsubmitted that insofar as the appellant Moti @ Mohit is concerned, the
\ntestimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) have not been
\nshaken, although they were subjected to lengthy cross-examination.                She
\nsubmitted that though there are differences in the dates with regard to when the
\nrecovered articles were deposited in the Malkhana, they are only minor errors
\nand cannot belie the factum of the recovery itself which has been testified by
\nvarious witnesses. She also submitted that there existed no reasonable basis or
\nground for refusal on the part of the appellant Moti @ Mohit to participate in
\nthe TIP proceedings. She submitted that the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram)
\nand PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) clearly indicated that the appellant Moti @
\nMohit worked in tandem with the co-convict Rajesh Rekwar.\n<\/p>\n
24.     Insofar as the appellant Rajesh Rekwar is concerned, Ms Richa Kapur
\nsubmitted that there was clinching evidence against him. She submitted that
\nthere was evidence of withdrawal of money at the two ATM booths by use of
\nPushkin’s ICICI bank credit card. The T-shirt worn by the person at the ATM
\nbooth was identical to the T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) recovered from Rajesh<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                       Page 13 of 31<\/span>
\n Rekwar. The said T-shirt was not of a design or type which was commonly
\navailable. It had unique features. She further pointed out that the chance print
\nQ3 lifted from a glass tumbler at the scene of crime, had clearly matched with
\nthe specimen left thumb impression (S1) of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar and
\nthere was no answer or explanation for this. She further submitted that while
\nthere may have been some reasonable debate with regard to the date of deposit
\nof certain articles in the Malkhana, there was no such controversy insofar as the
\nrecovery of the T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) vide memo PW-7\/14 dated 30.08.2004 is
\nconcerned. The said T-shirt was recovered from the appellant Rajesh Rekwar’s
\nhouse in Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
25.     She further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
\ncorrectly drawn an adverse inference on account of the appellant Rajesh
\nRekwar having refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. She submitted
\nthat there is no indication that PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob)
\nhad seen the said appellant in the police station. On the contrary, she has
\ndrawn our attention to Exhibit PW-14\/11, which is the record of the TIP
\nproceedings, wherein the said appellant has stated – “Main shinakht parade
\nmein hissa nahin lena chahta kyonki Kajal jo party mein Sawant Nagar mein
\nhamein mile thi usne aaj thana Defence Colony mein mujhe dekha hai.” (I do
\nnot want to participate in the identification parade because Kajal whom we had
\nmet at the party at Sawant Nagar, has seen me today in police station Defence
\nColony). According to Ms Richa Kapur, the reason for not participating in the
\nTIP proceedings is not that the said appellant was shown to PW-1 (Hare Ram)
\nand PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) in the police station, but that he had been shown
\nto one Kajal whom he had met at the party at Sawant Nagar. Ms Kapur further
\nsubmits that this is also an admission on the part of the appellant Rajesh<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                     Page 14 of 31<\/span>
\n Rekwar that he had, indeed, attended the party at Sawant Nagar regarding
\nwhich PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) had testified.\n<\/p>\n
26.     She also submitted that insofar as PW-5 (Anil Kumar Chandra) is
\nconcerned, he has clearly identified all the articles belonging to his son, the
\ndeceased Pushkin Chandra. Some of the articles were recovered from the
\nappellant Rajesh Rekwar. Ms Richa Kapur further submitted that the pants
\nbelonging to Rajesh Rekwar had blood stains of blood group ‘B’. This was the
\nsame blood group as that of the deceased Kuldeep. She submitted that Rajesh
\nRekwar’s blood group was ‘O’. Therefore, it could not be said that the blood
\nfound on the pants belonging to Rajesh Rekwar was his own blood. She
\nsubmitted that this was a clear indication that the blood stains on the pants of
\nRajesh Rekwar were those of the deceased Kuldeep.            With regard to the
\nadmissibility of the specimen finger prints, Ms Richa Kapur submitted that
\nSection 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 clearly permits the police
\nofficers to take measurements, which, as per Section 2(a) of the said Act,
\nincluded the taking of finger impressions. She submitted that such specimen
\nfinger prints were taken in the course of investigation to which Section 73 of
\nthe Indian Evidence Act, 1872 did not apply inasmuch as, the said Section 73
\nwould apply only to proceedings pending before the court. Thus, according to
\nher, there was no legal infirmity in the taking of the finger prints in the course
\nof investigation and with regard to the admissibility of the same.\n<\/p>\n
27.     Ms Richa Kapur, therefore, submitted that the prosecution has clearly
\nestablished each of the circumstances, which it had proposed to establish, and
\nthe circumstances taken together, formed a complete chain. She submitted that
\nthere were no missing links and thus, no interference with the impugned<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                     Page 15 of 31<\/span>
\n judgment and \/ or order on sentence was called for. She requested that the
\nappeals be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Discussion\n<\/p>\n
28.     After considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties
\nand on going through the entire evidence on record, we find that the fate of
\nthese appeals hinges on – first of all, the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and
\nPW-3 (Christopher Jacob) insofar as they had allegedly seen the appellants in
\nthe company of the deceased shortly before their murders; secondly, the
\nrecoveries allegedly made at the instance of the appellants; thirdly, the issue of
\nthe appellants refusing to participate in the TIP proceedings; fourthly, the
\nchance print Q3 matching with the specimen left thumb impression (S1) of
\nRajesh Rekwar; fifthly, the alleged recovery of the T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) at the
\ninstance of Rajesh Rekwar and the fact that this T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) was also
\nworn by the person at the ATM on 14.08.2004; and lastly, the blood stains of
\nblood group B (which is the blood group of deceased Kuldeep) being found on
\nRajesh Rekwar’s pants.\n<\/p>\n
29.     It is not in dispute that Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal were
\nfound dead in the First Floor Annexe of House No.24, Anand Lok, New Delhi.
\nIt is also not in dispute that the deaths of both these persons were homicidal
\nand that the same were caused by sharp edged weapons. The subsequent
\nopinion (Exhibit PW-18\/C) indicates that the knives found at the scene of crime
\ncould have caused the fatal injuries found on the bodies of Pushkin Chandra
\nand Kuldeep @ Vishal. It is also not in doubt and has been clearly found to
\nhave been established by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the articles
\nbelonging to Pushkin Chandra, which were allegedly recovered from the
\nappellants, have been correctly identified by Pushkin Chandra’s father PW-5<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                     Page 16 of 31<\/span>
\n (Anil Kumar Chandra).        The dispute is not so much with regard to the
\nidentification of the articles, but with regard to the factum of the recovery
\nitself. In this backdrop, it would not be necessary for us to go into the details
\nof the injuries found on the dead bodies and the manner of infliction of the said
\ninjuries nor would it be necessary for us to go into the details with regard to the
\nidentification of the said articles at the instance of PW-5 (Anil Kumar
\nChandra). It has been established by the prosecution that Pushkin Chandra and
\nKuldeep @ Vishal were the victims of a gruesome double murder and that the
\nmurder took place sometime between 1.00 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. on 14.08.2004.
\nAt the same time, various articles belonging to Pushkin Chandra were removed
\nfrom his flat. It is also established in evidence that the dead bodies were
\ndiscovered by PW-1 (Hare Ram) at about 11.00 a.m. on 14.08.2004.\n<\/p>\n
Testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob)\n<\/p>\n
30.     Let us, first of all, examine the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and
\nPW-3 (Christopher Jacob). PW-1 (Hare Ram) stated in his examination-in-
\nchief that he was working with Anil Kumar Chandra as a domestic servant. On
\n14.08.2004 at 11.00 a.m., he had gone to the room of Pushkin Chandra, who is
\nthe son of Anil Kumar Chandra. He opened the gate and then opened the next
\ndoor and he found that all the articles in the room were scattered. He noticed
\nthat one boy was lying there and after seeing the dead body, be became
\n“perplexed” and informed his employer Anil Kumar Chandra. He stated that
\nthe said Anil Kumar Chandra went to the police station and the police arrived
\nat the spot. He further stated that the police inspected the site and, at that time,
\nhe came to know that Pushkin was also found dead. He stated that he had told
\nthe police that he had seen both the appellants, namely, Rajesh and Moti with
\nPushkin on 13.08.2004 between 6.30 – 7.00 p.m. He further stated that on
\n13.08.2004, both Rajesh and Moti had arrived at House No.24, Anand Lok<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                       Page 17 of 31<\/span>
\n alongwith Pushkin in the car at that time. He also stated that he had told these
\nfacts to the police officials. It may also be pointed out that PW-1 (Hare Ram)
\ncorrectly identified both the accused persons in court.\n<\/p>\n
31.     This part of the testimony that PW-1 (Hare Ram) had seen both Rajesh
\nand Moti alongwith Pushkin at the said house at about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m. on
\n13.08.2004 has not been shaken in the course of his cross-examination.\n<\/p>\n
32.     PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) stated that he was familiar with Pushkin as
\nalso Kuldeep @ Vishal. He stated that on the intervening night of 13.08.2004
\nand 14.08.2004, he had seen Pushkin and Vishal alongwith Moti and Rajesh
\nRekwar (the present appellants) at about 12.30 a.m., that is, in the early hours
\nof 14.08.2004. He further stated that he had seen them both alongwith Moti
\nand Rajesh Rekwar in a party at Sawant Nagar. He, however, did not recollect
\nthe house number. He further stated that Pushkin and Vishal arrived at the
\nparty at 12.00 midnight and had left at about 12.30 a.m. alongwith the
\nappellants. He stated that he could identify Moti and Rajesh Rekwar and he
\ndid so in court. In the course of his cross-examination, he revealed that he did
\nnot know the address where the party was going on, but that he went to the
\nparty on the request of a girl friend by the name of Kajal. He also revealed that
\nprior to 14.08.2004, he did not know the names of Moti and Rajesh Rekwar
\nand that they were introduced to him for the first time by Pushkin at 12.00
\nmidnight in the night intervening 13\/14 August 2004.          He admitted that
\nPushkin and he used to see blue films at Pushkin’s house and that he was a
\nbisexual. He also stated that he had spent the night at Kajal’s house.\n<\/p>\n
33.     From the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher
\nJacob), this much is established that PW-1 (Hare Ram) saw the present
\nappellants in the company of Pushkin at Pushkin’s house between 6.30 and<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                     Page 18 of 31<\/span>
\n 7.00 p.m. on 13.08.2004 and that PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) had also seen the
\ntwo appellants Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit in the company of Pushkin
\nChandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal at about midnight in the night intervening
\n13.08.2004 and 14.08.2004 at a party at Sawant Nagar.         It has also been
\nestablished that PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) saw that the appellants left the said
\nparty at about 12.30 a.m. alongwith Pushkin and Kuldeep @ Vishal.\n<\/p>\n
34.     The learned counsel for the appellants contended that insofar as PW-1
\n(Hare Ram) is concerned, his testimony with regard to him having seen the
\nappellants in the company of the deceased Pushkin and Kuldeep @ Vishal is of
\nno consequence, because, even if it is assumed that he has testified truthfully,
\nsubsequent to that, as per the case of the prosecution, PW-3 (Christopher
\nJacob) saw the four of them in the party between 12.00 midnight and 12.30
\na.m. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the testimony of
\nPW-1 (Hare Ram) cannot be placed in the category of “last seen” evidence.
\nFurthermore, they submitted that, in any event, the time gap between the time
\nof death and when PW-1 (Hare Ram) saw the appellants in the company of
\nPushkin, was between six to seven and half hours as the time of death has been
\nopined to be between 1.00 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. on 14.08.2004. They submitted
\nthat the time gap was so large that there could be many intervening
\ncircumstances and, in any event, if the testimony of PW-3 (Christopher Jacob)
\nis to be believed, it is clear that there were intervening circumstances in the
\nsense that the four of them had gone to the party at Sawant Nagr where they
\nmet others present in the party.\n<\/p>\n
35.     It was also contended on behalf of the appellants that insofar as PW-3
\n(Christopher Jacob) is concerned, he has only stated that he saw Pushkin
\nChandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal in the company of the present appellants when<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                    Page 19 of 31<\/span>
\n they arrived at 12.00 midnight and left at 12.30 a.m. on 14.08.2004 and that
\nthere is no evidence of anybody having seen the four of them entering
\nPushkin’s house after 12.30 a.m. and prior to the murders.\n<\/p>\n
36.     Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the
\ntestimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) do not
\nestablish the complicity of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
37.     We must note that the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3
\n(Christopher Jacob) are evidence in respect of one of the many circumstances
\nwhich are to be considered for the purposes of arriving at a finding of guilt.
\nWe do not agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
\nappellants that the testimony of PW-1 (Hare Ram) is completely meaningless
\ninasmuch as, subsequent to his having seen the appellants in the company of
\nthe deceased, PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) had also seen them several hours later.
\nGoing by the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob)
\nin conjunction, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to
\nestablish that the appellants and the deceased Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep @
\nVishal were in the company of each other from at least 6.30 p.m. – 7.00 p.m.
\non 13.08.2004 till 12.30 a.m. on 14.08.2004 when, PW-3 (Christopher Jacob)
\nsaw them leaving the party at Sawant Nagar. The time of death has been fixed
\nbetween 1.00 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. on 14.08.2004. Although, insofar as PW-1
\nHare Ram’s testimony is concerned, the time gap is about six 6 to 7.30 hours,
\nbut, when the same is considered in conjunction with the testimony of PW-3
\n(Christopher Jacob), it becomes apparent that the appellants and Pushkin
\nChandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal were together throughout this period, that is,
\nfrom 6.30 – 7.00 p.m. on 13.08.2040 till 12.30 a.m. on 14.08.2004. Shortly,
\nthereafter, between 1.00 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. on 14.08.2004, Pushkin Chandra<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                   Page 20 of 31<\/span>
\n and Kuldeep @ Vishal were brutally murdered in the First Floor Annexe of
\nHouse No.24, Anand Lok which was the residence of Pushkin Chandra.
\nTherefore, we cannot sideline or push aside the testimonies of either PW-1
\n(Hare Ram) or PW-3 (Christopher Jacob).\n<\/p>\n
38.     As pointed out above, the learned counsel for the appellants had sought
\nto challenge the credibility of PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) by questioning him
\nwith regard to the exact address at which the party was held and whether he
\nwas an invitee in the party or not. According to us, that would not make any
\ndifference. This is so because, the testimony of PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) has
\nnot been shaken in its material particulars and, that is, that he knew both
\nPushkin Chandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal prior to the incident and that he had
\nseen them alive with the appellants at 12.00 midnight and leaving with them at
\n12.30 a.m. on 14.08.2004. The fact that PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) was not an
\ninvitee in the party, but had gone alongwith Kajal, who was an invitee, does
\nnot, in any way, disturb the credibility of PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) as a
\nwitness to the fact that he had seen the present appellants in the company of
\nPushkin Chandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal. The fact that the said Kajal has not
\nbeen produced as a witness by the prosecution would also not dent this
\ntestimony.\n<\/p>\n
Recoveries at the instance of the appellants of the articles belonging to
\nPushkin Chandra<\/p>\n
39.     We have already noted above that the learned counsel for the appellants
\nhad contended that there are discrepancies between the depositions of the
\nrecovery witnesses and the dates on which the allegedly recovered articles were
\ndeposited in the Malkhana. We are of the view that the learned counsel for the
\nappellants have raised a legitimate concern about the discrepancies with regard<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                   Page 21 of 31<\/span>
\n to the dates. Insofar as the recoveries allegedly made from Moti @ Mohit are
\nconcerned, while the testimony of PW-18 (Inspector H.C. Verma) reveals that
\nhe returned to Delhi on 05.09.2004 and thereafter the case property was
\ndeposited in the Malkhana, the Malkhana register (Exhibit PW-17\/3) shows the
\narticles, including the HP Laptop already deposited in the Malkhana on
\n04.09.2004.\n<\/p>\n
40.     Similarly, in the case of Rajesh Rekwar also, we find that the articles
\nseized as per seizure memo (Exhibit PW-10\/B) on 28.08.2004 at Ballia, M.P.
\nare already shown to have been deposited in the Malkhana Register (Exhibit
\nPW-17\/E) on 28.08.2004. The testimony of the recovery witnesses is to the
\ncontrary and, that is, that the recovered articles, as per Seizure Memo (Exhibit
\nPW-10\/B), were deposited in the Malkhana on 29.08.2004.             The question
\nwhich arises in both the cases is – As to how the articles sought to be recovered
\nwere already entered in the Malkhana Register prior to the alleged date of
\nrecovery? The learned counsel for the State submitted that the fault lay in the
\nmaking of the entries in the Malkhana register and that there was enough
\nevidence of the recoveries having actually been made as alleged by the
\nprosecution. She also submitted that the recoveries were established by the
\nseizure memos which have been proved.\n<\/p>\n
41.     Although we find that the recovery witnesses have supported the
\nprosecution case with regard to the recoveries of the articles belonging to
\nPushkin Chandra at the instance of the appellants, the discrepancies in the
\nentries in the Malkhana register does create an element of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
42.     However, we find that insofar as the recovery of the T-shirt (Exhibit P-\n<\/p>\n
17) by virtue of the seizure memo (Exhibit PW-7\/14) is concerned, there is no
\nsuch problem.       The said T-shirt was recovered from the appellant Rajesh<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                     Page 22 of 31<\/span>
\n Rekwar from his house in Delhi on 30.08.2004 and the same was subsequently
\ndeposited in the Malkhana. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove the
\nrecovery of the T-shirt (Exhibit P-17). This is a very important circumstance,
\nas will become clear hereinbelow.\n<\/p>\n
Refusal of TIP\n<\/p>\n
43.     As noted above, both the appellants Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit
\nhad refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. As per Exhibit PW-14\/19,
\nthe reason given for refusal of participation by the appellant Moti @ Mohit was
\nthat his photograph might have been taken and the same might have been
\nshown to the witnesses. We do not find that there is any evidence that his
\nphotograph had been taken or that it had been shown to the witnesses and, in
\nour view, this was just a lame excuse. Insofar as the appellant Rajesh Rekwar
\nis concerned, it is evident from Exhibit PW-14\/11 that he did not want to
\nparticipate in the TIP proceedings, because, according to him, Kajal, who was
\nin the party at Sawant Nagar, had seen him in the police station- Defence
\nColony. We notice that it is not the case that Rajesh Rekwar had been shown
\nto PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) or that his photograph had
\nbeen shown to them. The case is that he had seen Kajal, who was present in
\nthe police station- Defence Colony on that date and, therefore, he did not want
\nto participate in the TIP proceedings. It is also evident from Exhibit PW-14\/11
\nthat Rajesh Rekwar has virtually admitted that he was present in the party at
\nSawant Nagar and that he had met Kajal there. Consequently, we agree with
\nthe submission made by the learned counsel for the State that an adverse
\ninference will have to be drawn against the appellants with regard to their
\nrefusal to participate in the TIP proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                   Page 23 of 31<\/span><\/p>\n
 Chance Print Q3 matching with specimen left thumb impression S1 of
\nRajesh Rekwar<\/p>\n
44.     PW-11 Sub-Inspector P.K. Bawa (Finger Print Expert, Finger Print
\nBureau Malvia Nagar) deposed that on 14.08.2004, she was posted at the said
\nFinger Print Bureau and that, as per the direction of the Director, Finger Print
\nBureau, she, alongwith the police photographer, Constable G. Ganeshan,
\nreached 24, Anand Lok for examination of the scene of crime. She inspected
\nthe site carefully and thoroughly. She stated that Inspector Ranbir Singh was
\nalso present at the spot. She stated that she lifted 5 chance prints from different
\narticles and that her detailed report in this regard was Exhibit 11\/A, which
\ncontained her signatures at point ‘A’. It is pertinent to note that PW-11 (Sub-
\nInspector P.K. Bawa) has not been cross-examined on behalf of any of the
\naccused, although opportunity had been given. Thus, her testimony with regard
\nto the lifting of five chance prints and with regard to the fact that her report was
\nExhibit PW-11\/A is unchallenged.          Exhibit PW-11\/A discloses that the
\nexamination was conducted between 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 14.08.2004 at
\nthe First Floor Annexe, 24, Anand Lok, New Delhi. Three chance prints Q1 to
\nQ3 were lifted from one glass tumbler. One chance print Q4 was lifted from
\nanother glass tumbler and one chance print Q5 was lifted from a beer bottle
\n(glass). The report of the Finger Print Bureau dated 23.11.2004 (Exhibit PW-
\n9\/A) clearly indicates, inter alia, that the Finger Print Bureau received the
\nchance prints marked Q1 to Q5 from Ms P.K. Bawa, F.P. Expert of FPB Delhi.
\nThe report further indicates that the questionnaire was, inter alia, whether the
\nchance prints marked Q1 to Q5 developed by Ms P.K. Bawa FP Expert of FPB
\nDelhi on 14.08.2004 are identical with any of the finger \/ palm prints of the
\npersons mentioned in Annexure A or not? The result of the examination, as
\ndiscussed in the said report (Exhibit PW-9) is that chance print marked Q3 was
\nfound to be identical with the left thumb impression marked S-1 on the finger<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                       Page 24 of 31<\/span>
\n print slip of Rajesh son of Sant Ram (accused). The report also indicated that
\nthe duly marked enlarged photographs of identical prints marked Q3
\n(developed on 14.08.2004) and S-1 alongwith description of the points of
\nidentity were enclosed with the report in support of the opinion.\n<\/p>\n
45.     From the above, it is clear that chance print Q3 lifted from one of the
\nglass tumblers at the scene of crime matched with the specimen left thumb
\nimpression S-1 of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar.\n<\/p>\n
46.     The learned counsel for the appellants had raised suspicions with regard
\nto the said chance prints and stated that the same were planted. However, we
\nfind from the evidence on record that this is merely a bald allegation. The
\nchance prints were clearly lifted on 14.08.2004, as evidenced by the report
\n(Exhibit PW-11\/A) of the same date which has not been challenged by the
\ndefence. The same were sent to the Finger Print Bureau on 23.08.2004. Rajesh
\nRekwar was arrested later, that is, on 28.08.2004. His specimen finger prints
\nwere taken on 24.09.2004 and were sent on the same day. The report of the
\nFinger Print Bureau (Exhibit PW-9\/A) is dated 23.11.2004. This sequence of
\nevents clearly shows that there was no opportunity of any manipulation.\n<\/p>\n
47.     This leaves us to consider the objection raised by the learned counsel for
\nthe appellant Rajesh Rekwar that the specimen finger print S-1 was not
\nadmissible in evidence because no order of the Magistrate had been obtained
\nprior to the taking of the specimen finger impressions and, therefore, Section
\n73 of the Indian Evidence Act had been violated. We do not agree with this
\ncontention. The learned counsel for the State has correctly referred to Section
\n4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, which permits a police officer to
\ntake measurements, which includes, by virtue of Section 2(a) of the said Act,
\nfinger impressions. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 comes into<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                      Page 25 of 31<\/span>
\n play when there are proceedings pending before a court and would not be
\napplicable when the matter is under investigation. Therefore, in our view, there
\nis no legal impediment to the taking of the specimen finger impression S-1 and
\nits comparison with the chance print Q3.\n<\/p>\n
48.     It is, therefore, clear that the appellant Rajesh Rekwar’s finger
\nimpression has been found in one of the glass tumblers taken from the scene of
\ncrime. This establishes his presence at the scene of crime.\n<\/p>\n
Recovery of T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) and its being found identical with the T-
\nshirt appearing in the photograph taken at the ATM<\/p>\n
49.     PW-9 (S. Krishan Murthi, Chief Manager, ICICI Bank Limited) testified
\nthat on 24.08.2004, he was posted as Chief Manager at the Regional Office of
\nthe ICICI Bank Limited at NBCC Place, Pragati Vihar, Lodi Road, New Delhi.
\nHe stated that on 23.08.2004, the police officials had reached his office and
\nasked for details of the ATM withdrawals in connection with the credit card
\nwhich was in the name of Pushkin Chandra. He stated that on 25.08.2004, he
\nhanded over the statement of the credit card and also handed over a Samson
\nDigital 48X CD which contained images taken by the camera installed at the
\nATM at Hotel Tripti, Karol Bagh. The statement with regard to the aforesaid
\ncredit card is Exhibit PW-8\/B and the photocopies of photographs of a person
\nwithdrawing amounts from the banks are Exhibit PW-8\/C and Exhibit PW-8\/D.
\nThe witness testified that an amount of Rs 30,000\/- was withdrawn in two
\ninstallments of Rs 15,000\/- each from the said account on 14.08.2004 and the
\nrelevant entries are to be found at point ‘X’ at page 5 of Exhibit PW-8\/B. The
\nfirst transaction was carried out at about 10.20 a.m. at the ATM situated at
\nHotel Tripti, Karol Bagh and the second amount of Rs 15,000\/- was withdrawn<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                    Page 26 of 31<\/span>
\n from the Old Rajinder Nagar ATM at about 10.33 a.m. Although, in cross-
\nexamination, this witness has stated that he cannot identify the person by
\nlooking at the said photographs, it is clear that the T-shirt worn by the
\npetitioner in the said photographs exactly matched the T-shirt (Exhibit P-17),
\nwhich was recovered from the appellant Rajesh Rekwar, as already mentioned
\nabove. In order to ascertain the likeness of the T-shirt in the photograph and
\nExhibit P-17, we had also required the same to be produced before us. The
\nsaid Exhibit P-17 as also the CD was produced from the Malkhana for our
\nperusal. We examined the T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) and compared it with the T-
\nshirt appearing in the said photographs, as also in the colour photographs
\navailable on the CD and we found the same to be identical. It is, therefore,
\nclear that the prosecution has been able to establish that Exhibit P-17 which
\nwas recovered from the possession of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar from his
\nhouse in Delhi on 30.08.2004 was identical to the T-shirt worn by the person
\nshown in the photographs taken at the ATM at Hotel Tripti, Karol Bagh. It is
\nalso clear from the statement of the credit card account that on 14.08.2004, two
\nwithdrawals of Rs 15,000\/- each were made from the above mentioned two
\nATM machines. We must recollect that by then Pushkin Chandra was already
\ndead as the time of his death was between 1.00 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. on
\n14.08.2004. From this, it can be easily inferred that the person who was
\ninvolved in the murders of Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal, was also
\nthe person who made the said withdrawals of Rs 15,000\/- each. Thus, although
\nthe face of the person is not visible in the photographs taken at the ATM, the T-
\nshirt worn by him is clearly identifiable and it matches exactly with Exhibit P-
\n17, which has been recovered at the instance of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                     Page 27 of 31<\/span><\/p>\n
 The blood stains on the pants of Rajesh Rekwar matched the blood group
\nof the deceased Kuldeep<\/p>\n
50.     Exhibit PW-18\/A is the Forensic Science Laboratory Report dated
\n19.05.2006 with regard to various articles. Exhibit E-6a (one banian having
\nbrown stains) was said to belong to the deceased Kuldeep. Exhibit E-17b
\n[pants (jeans) having brown stains] was that of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar.
\nExhibit E-20 (Gauze cloth piece having brown stains) was the blood sample of
\nthe appellant Rajesh Rekwar. The result of analysis, as per Exhibit PW-18\/A
\nindicated that the blood was detected, inter alia, on exhibits E-6a, E-17b and E-\n<\/p>\n
20. The report of the Serological analysis was attached with the said report
\n(Exhibit PW-18\/A).           The Serological Report indicated that Exhibit E-6a
\n(banian) had blood stains of human origin of blood group ‘B’. Exhibit 17-B
\n(pants) also had human blood stains of blood group ‘B’. Exhibit E-20 (Gauze
\ncloth piece), on the other hand, had human blood stains of blood group ‘O’.
\nFrom the above, it is clear that the deceased Kuldeep’s blood group was ‘B’
\nand that of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar was ‘O’. It is also clear that Rajesh
\nRakwar’s pants (Exhibit E-17b) also had blood stains of blood group ‘B’ which
\nwas the same blood group as that of the deceased Kuldeep. This is also a very
\nstrong piece of incriminating evidence against the appellant Rajesh Rekwar.\n<\/p>\n
Conclusion\n<\/p>\n
51.     It is clear that the prosecution has been able to establish that both the
\nappellants were definitely with the deceased Pushkin and Kuldeep @ Vishal
\nfrom 6.30-7.00 pm on 13.08.2004 till 12:30 a.m. on 14.08.2004 when PW-3
\n(Christopher Jacob) saw them leave the party at Sawant Nagar, together. Since
\nthe time of death of Pushkin and Kuldeep @ Vishal has been fixed at 1:00 a.m.
\nto 2:30 am on 14.08.2004, their being seen together is so proximate as to rule
\nout the possibility of any third person intervening. The use of the ICICI Bank<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                     Page 28 of 31<\/span>
\n credit card of Pushkin and the two withdrawals of Rs 15,000\/- each at two
\ndifferent ATMs after Pushkin was already dead also establishes the fact that not
\nonly were the deceased murdered but that the credit card had also been stolen.
\nThe person operating the ATM at Hotel Tripti, Karol Bagh was wearing a T-
\nshirt which was found to be identical with the T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) recovered
\nfrom Rajesh Rekwar. Chance print Q3 lifted from a glass tumbler found in
\nPushkin’s residence was found to be identical to Rajesh Rekwar’s specimen
\nleft-thumb impression (S1). Both the appellants avoided participation in Test
\nIdentification Parade on false pretexts. And, the blood group ‘B’ of the blood
\nstains on Rajesh Rekwar’s pants matched with the blood group of Kuldeep @
\nVishal. All these circumstances taken together clearly establish the complicity
\nof both the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
52.     Another important aspect is that of injuries found on the appellant
\nRajesh Rekwar. The MLC (Exhibit PW-4\/C) in respect of Rajesh Rekwar was
\nproved by PW-4 Dr Sanjeev Lalwani of AIIMS, New Delhi. As per the said
\nMLC (Exhibit PW-4\/C) dated 29.08.2004, Rajesh Rekwar, inter alia, had a
\nhealed wound with partially peeled off scab on dorsum of left hand near base of
\nleft thumb with red base of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm. The duration was said to be
\nconsistent with that of history. The said MLC indicates that the history of
\nsustaining the injury in the night of 13\/14.08.2004 by knife on the left hand
\ndorsal aspect near base of the thumb was narrated by the person examined (i.e.,
\nRajesh Rekwar). Since the appellant Rajesh Rekwar was taken for his medical
\nexamination in police custody, we are discounting the statement in the said
\nMLC to the extent it mentions the manner in which the injury on the left hand
\nwas sustained. The only thing of relevance is that as per the MLC (Exhibit
\nPW-4\/C), the injury could have been sustained around 13th or 14th of August,
\n2004. It is also relevant to note that the factum of the said injury is not<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                    Page 29 of 31<\/span>
\n questioned by Rajesh Rekwar. In fact, in answer to question No.26, in the
\ncourse of his statement under Section 313, CrPC, he does not deny that he was
\nmedically examined on 29.08.2004 and that his MLC was prepared and his
\nblood sample was collected and the same was seized vide Memo Exhibit PW-
\n14\/9. His answer was that he “received injuries while playing cricket”. PW-4
\n(Dr Sanjeev Lalwani), when cross-examined, however, stated that he could not
\ntell the exact time and date on which the injuries were sustained by Rajesh
\nRekwar as the injuries were ‘healed and old’. He denied the suggestion that the
\ninjuries were two to four months old. He also denied the suggestion that
\nRajesh Rekwar had not told him the history of his (Rajesh Rekwar) sustaining
\nthe injury in the night of 13\/14.08.2004.\n<\/p>\n
53.     It is, therefore, clear that Rajesh Rekwar had the aforesaid injury on his
\nleft hand and that the injury could have been sustained around the time of the
\nincident, i.e., 13\/14.08.2004.    The answer given by the appellant Rajesh
\nRekwar that he received the injuries while playing cricket does not impress us.
\nThe fact of the injuries on the person of Rajesh is not, by itself, suggestive of
\nhis complicity in the crime but it does lend support to the other circumstances
\nestablished by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
54.     In the case of Moti @ Mohit also, there is a similar MLC (Exhibit PW-
\n4\/F) dated 05.09.2004. As per the said MLC, which has been proved by PW-4
\n(Dr Sanjeev Lalwani), Moti @ Mohit had a healed incised wound of size 6 cm
\n0.5 cm on the right thigh middle one-third anteriolateral aspect. The said MLC
\n(Exhibit PW-4\/F) further indicates that Moti @ Mohit had himself stated to the
\ndoctor that he had sustained the injury about 20-22 days back. The opinion of
\nthe doctor as recorded in the said MLC and as testified by him (PW4) in court
\nwas that the duration of the injury was consistent with the history and that the<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                      Page 30 of 31<\/span>
\n injury had been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. It is also important to note
\nthat the testimony of PW-4 (Dr Sanjeev Lalwani) with regard to Moti @
\nMohit’s injury has gone unchallenged. Thus, as in the case of Rajesh Rekwar,
\nso also in the case of Moti @ Mohit, there is evidence that the latter received
\nthe injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon around the date of the murders of
\nPushkin and Kuldeep @ Vishal. This also lends support to the prosecution
\ncase inasmuch as it suggests that there was struggle in which the assailants
\ncould have received injuries. Of course, this by itself is not sufficient to
\nestablish the complicity of both Moti @ Mohit and Rajesh Rekwar but, it
\ncertainly lends support to the other circumstances which have clearly been
\nestablished by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
55.     From the above discussion, it is apparent that the prosecution has been
\nable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the
\nmurders of Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal. The circumstances taken
\ntogether form a complete chain and point only in the direction of guilt of the
\ntwo appellants. The appellant Rajesh Rekwar is on interim bail which was
\ngranted to him on account of his medical condition. He be taken into custody
\nto serve out the rest of his sentence. The appellant Moti @ Mohit is already in
\ncustody.\n<\/p>\n
        The appeals are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J<\/p>\n
                                            MANMOHAN SINGH, J
\nOctober 31, 2011
\ndutt<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos.614\/10 & 711\/10                                   Page 31 of 31<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Moti @ Mohit vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 October, 2011 Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on 31.10.2011 + CRL.A. No. 614\/2010 RAJESH REKWAR … Appellant versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) … Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50303","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMoti @ Mohit vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Moti @ Mohit vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-13T17:04:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"48 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Moti @ Mohit vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-13T17:04:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":9082,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Moti @ Mohit vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-13T17:04:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Moti @ Mohit vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Moti @ Mohit vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Moti @ Mohit vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-13T17:04:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"48 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Moti @ Mohit vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-13T17:04:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011"},"wordCount":9082,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011","name":"Moti @ Mohit vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-13T17:04:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-mohit-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-31-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Moti @ Mohit vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50303","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50303"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50303\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}