Delhi High Court
Jeetu Saini vs State, N.C.T. Of Delhi on 20 May, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 829/2014
Date of decision: 20.05.2015
JEETU SAINI ..... Appellant
Through Mr.S.S.Gandhi, Sr.Advocate
with Mr.Arvind Nayyar, Adv.
versus
STATE, N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP for
the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
1. Jeetu Saini challenges his conviction by the impugned judgment
dated 28th May, 2014 for having committed murder of Sonu Rana on
26th August, 2008. By the order on sentence dated 31st May, 2014, the
appellant Jeetu Saini has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and
ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he
shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The
conviction and sentence arises from the charge-sheet filed in FIR
No.222/2008, Police Station Vikas Puri.
2. The impugned judgment acquits Shivani Wasan. The State and
the legal heirs of the victim have not questioned the said acquittal.
3. The appellant disputes and calls in question the Trial Court‟s
reliance and acceptance of the testimony of the two police officers,
namely, Ct. Subhash (PW4) and HC Satpal (PW7) as eye-witnesses. It
is pleaded that they were neither the complainant nor the first
informant. The first informant/complainant, Bhanu @ Jaswant
(PW14A) has been disbelieved by the Trial Court as a trumped up and
contrived eye-witness. The Trial Court, it is asserted, has for cogent
reasons rejected the testimony of the foisted "eye-witness" Vinay
Sharma (PW18). Drawing our attention to the FSL report marked
Ex.PW13/L, Ex.PW22/A and Ex.PW13/K, it is highlighted that blood
could not be detected on the all metallic weapon of offence. It is thus
submitted, that the police version, that the appellant was apprehended
at the spot after committing the offence is far-fetched and
unbelievable. Reliance is placed upon the testimony of Rahul Kapoor
(DW1). It is pleaded that the appellant has been falsely implicated in
the present case, since he happened to be present at the spot as he had
gone to see a movie with DW1.
4. We have also heard the counsel for the State who has contested
the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.
5. At the outset, we record that we are inclined to partly accept the
finding of the Trial Court that the renditions by eye-witnesses Bhanu
@ Jaswant (PW14A) and Vinay Sharma (PW18) as to the occurrence
are not reliable or trust worthy. In all probability, they had not seen the
occurrence. However, we would partly rely on their narrative on the
question of motive and the background to the occurrence. At the same
time, we find that the Trial Court was justified in convicting the
appellant Jeetu Saini as the perpetrator of the crime, relying upon the
testimonies of Ct. Subhash (PW4) and HC Satpal (PW7). We shall
now elucidate and elaborate our reasons for accepting their
testimonies and other corroborative and supporting circumstances
which show and prove that the appellant Jeetu Saini was the
perpetrator who had murdered Sonu Rana on 26.8.2008 at about 9 PM.
6. HC Satpal (PW7), on the relevant date and time, was on
patrolling duty at the PVR Cinema, Vikas Puri along with Ct. Subhash
(PW4). At about 9 P.M., observing that a group had gathered towards
the south side of the police booth, he and Ct. Subhash (PW4) went
there. They saw that one person was stabbing the other with a knife.
The person who had inflicted the knife wounds was apprehended and
Ct. Subhash (PW4) snatched the knife from his hand. HC Satpal
(PW7), thereafter, identified the appellant as the person who had
inflicted the knife injuries on the deceased and was apprehended and
detained. The SHO was called and reached the place of occurrence in
a gypsy. The injured was taken in the gypsy to the Deen Dayal
Upadhyay Hospital (DDU Hospital) by HC Satpal (PW7). There, he
was declared as „brought dead‟. We have gone through the
examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of PW7 and do not
find any cogent reason to reject the factual assertion narrated by PW7.
Presence of PW7 at the place of occurrence was not incidental or by
chance. His presence at the place of occurrence was on call and
certain. In his cross examination, PW7 has stated that PW4 had
remained at the spot and he alone had gone to the hospital. The
appellant was detained and remained in the custody of PW4. PW7
specifically denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the
incident because he was not present at the spot and had not seen the
accused inflicting knife injuries on the deceased Sonu. PW7 accepted
as correct the suggestion that he did not know the injured, but,
subsequently came to know his name after he had examined his
visiting cards. The aforesaid testimony of PW7 finds assured
corroboration and support from the MLC of the deceased
(Ex.PW6/DA). The aforesaid MLC was put to Constable Suresh
Kumar (PW6) in his cross examination.
7. Dr. Vinal Sharma, Medical Officer, DDU Hospital (PW14) had
also proved the MLC Ex.PW6/DA, which was signed by him at point
B. He had affirmed that on 26.8.2008, he had examined an unknown
injured patient brought by HC Satpal (PW7). The patient described as
an unknown person was brought dead. Articles like three golden rings,
two golden ear rings, one locket with stone, one ATM card, one PAN
Card, money and visiting cards were found in a black purse of the
deceased person and were handed over to HC Satpal (PW7). Learned
counsel for the appellant has contested this assertion, by drawing our
attention to the cross-examination, wherein PW14 has stated that the
articles mentioned in the MLC Ex.PW6/DA were brought to him by
HC Satpal (PW7), who had stated that these had been removed from
the body of the deceased. This discrepancy is insignificant and
flippant and hence, irrelevant. Further, the MLC Ex.PW6/DA
specifically records that three golden rings, two golden ear rings, one
locket with some stone, one SBI ATM card, one PAN card, currency
and some visiting cards were found in a black purse and handed over
to HC Satpal (PW7). The written note is signed by PW14. The MLC
Ex.PW6/DA does not mention the name of the deceased, his parentage
and the place of residence have been described as unknown. However,
the age of the patient is mentioned as 35 years. The time and date
when the patient was brought to the hospital is mentioned as 10.05 PM
on 26.8.2008 and the person who had brought the patient to the
hospital was HC Satpal (PW7). The details and identity of the
deceased were ascertained after he was brought to the hospital.
8. Deposition of Ct. Subhash (PW4) is almost identical and in
seritum. At about 9 P.M. on 26.8.2008, he and HC Satpal (PW7) were
on patrol duty at the PVR cinema, Vikas Puri. While on patrol near the
south side of PVR cinema, they noticed a crowd. They entered the
crowd and saw that one boy was stabbing the other. They apprehended
the assailant namely, Jeetu Saini (the appellant). PW4 identified the
appellant in the Court. A knife/dagger recovered from him was also
identified as Ex.P-1. The SHO reached the spot after sometime and the
injured was removed to DDU hospital in the vehicle of the SHO by
HC Satpal (PW7). Ct. Subhash (PW4) remained at the spot with the
appellant. The crime team reached the spot and took photographs.
Sketch of the dagger (Ex.PW4/A) was prepared by PW4 and was
signed by him at point A. The dagger was seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW4/B ,which was prepared and signed by PW4 at point A. Blood
stained T-shirt of the appellant was seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW4/F and sealed with the seal of GSM. One motorcycle bearing
No.6464 was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/G at the instance
of the appellant. PW4 identified the T-shirt as Ex.P2. We clarify that
the registration number of the seized motorcycle was DL6SAA6464,
which was subsequently taken on superdari by the brother of the
appellant named Arun. The identity of the motorcycle is not disputed.
PW4 in his cross examination has deposed that his patrolling duty
would start at 9 AM or 10 AM and he used to remain there till the
cinema closed at about 1.30 or 1.45 AM. On the said day, he had
joined duty at about 9 A.M. HC Satpal (PW7) had come to the
complex at 5 PM. At the time of the incident, public had come out of
the cinema as a movie show had ended. He denied the suggestion that
the injured fell from the stairs and had hit some metallic article which
had caused the said injuries. He had remained at spot till 6 A.M.
Again, a minor discrepancy as to when PW7 had joined the duty is
inconsequential, for what is material is whether he was present on duty
at the time of occurrence. There is ample evidence to show and accept
the presence of PW7.
9. Constable Suresh (PW6) has corroborated the version given by
PW4. He has testified that on 26.8.2008, he was posted at Police
Station Vikas Puri and at about 9.30 AM after receipt of DD No.42A,
he along with SI Umed Singh had visited DDU hospital from where
the MLC Ex.PW6/DA was collected. Thereafter, he along with the IO
reached the PVR cinema. He noticed that blood had spilled at the
place of occurrence. The accused i.e. the appellant Jeetu Saini was in
police custody.
10. SI Umed Singh (PW8) has stated that after DD No.42A was
recorded, he had visited DDU Hospital along with Constable Suresh
(PW6). He collected the MLC Ex.PW6/DA. Subsequently, after
handing over the rukka, he came to the spot where Ct. Subhash (PW4)
and Ct. Suresh (PW6) were present. Thereafter, the investigation was
transferred to Inspector G.S. Meena. Ct. Subhash (PW4) had
produced Jeetu Saini before Inspector G.S. Meena along with the
knife. Sketch of the knife (Ex.PW4/A) was prepared and he had
signed the same at point B. Knife was also seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW4/B which was signed by him at point B. The T-shirt which the
appellant was wearing was taken into custody and sealed with the seal
of GSM and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/F. The motorcycle
bearing registration Number DL6SAA6464 was taken into possession.
As recorded above, the said motorcycle was subsequently given on
superdari to the brother of the appellant.
11. Inspector G.S. Meena (PW20) has stated that he was posted as
Inspector Investigation at Police Station Vikas Puri. At about 1 A.M.
on 27.8.2008, a copy of the FIR was handed over to him for further
investigation. At 1.20 A.M., he reached the PVR cinema complex at
Vikas Puri and met Constable Subhash (PW4). He interrogated the
appellant Jeetu Saini and formally arrested him vide seizure memo
Ex.PW4/DA, which was signed by him at point X. He affirmed that
he was handed over the dagger by Constable Subhash (PW4) and the
sketch and seizure memo was prepared. Similarly blood stained T-
shirt worn by the appellant was seized and converted into a cloth
pulanda which was sealed with the seal of GSM vide seizure memo
Ex.PW4/F. The arrest memo of the appellant Ex.PW4/D is dated
27.8.2008 and the time of arrest recorded is 2.45 AM. The name of the
arresting officer recorded is G.S. Meena i.e. PW20. It is apparent that
the appellant had remained in the custody of Ct. Subhash (PW4) after
he was detained at the spot itself till the investigating officer Inspector
G.S. Meena on reaching the place of occurrence, formally arrested
him. We do not, therefore, read or find any discrepancy in the
statement of PW4 and the prosecution version that the appellant was
detained at the spot i.e. the place of occurrence at about 9 A.M. The
contention that the appellant was arrested belatedly and therefore, his
presence at the place of occurrence should not be accepted is not
correct.
12. Ct. Raj Kumar (PW9) was working as a photographer with the
crime team West District and had reached the place of occurrence at
10 P.M. on 26.8.2008. By then, the injured had been taken to the
hospital. He took 27 photographs of the spot, marked PW9/1
collectively. The photographs show the presence of blood splashes on
the ground and on other objects in the vicinity. Photographs of the
persons present at that time were not clicked.
13. The aforesaid depositions make it crystal clear that appellant
Jeetu Saini was detained at the spot itself by PW4 Constable Subhash
and PW7, Head Constable Satpal. Subsequently, he remained in
custody of Constable Subhash (PW4) till he was formally arrested by
Inspector G.S. Meena (PW20). The aforesaid facts were put to the
appellant when his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
In response to question No.41, the appellant had stated as under:-
"This is a false case. I had gone to PVR Vikas Puri for
watching a movie as one of my friend had his office there.
When I was about to meet my friend a quarrel started
nearby. I went to police officials who were present in the
nearby police booth to inform about the quarrel. The police
officials made me to sit there and subsequently I was taken
to police station and falsely implicated in this case."
14. The aforesaid answer would affirm that the appellant has
accepted the prosecution version and the testimony of the witnesses
Ct. Subhash (PW4) and HC Satpal (PW7) to the effect that he was
present at the place of occurrence and detained. He claimed that he
had gone to watch a movie at PVR cinema, Vikas Puri as one of his
friends had an office there. When he was about to meet his friend, he
had noticed that some persons were quarrelling. He proceeded to the
police booth to inform the police officers about the quarrel. He was
made to sit there and subsequently taken to the police station and
falsely implicated.
15. Rahul Kapoor, DW.1 was produced as a defence witness and
deposed that he knew the appellant Jeetu Saini who used to give him
tennis coaching. He along with the appellant Jeetu Saini had made a
programme to watch a movie at 9 P.M. at the PVR cinema. On
reaching the spot, he learnt that there was some quarrel and a
sportsman-type boy who had gone to the police post for giving
information, had been asked to sit there. He went to the police post
and saw the appellant. Two or three constables were also present. In
his cross-examination, DW-1 accepted that he did not inform the
family members of appellant Jeetu Saini about the incident as he was
not aware of the address of the appellant or phone numbers of his
residence or any family members. Statement of DW1 contains nothing
to counter the prosecution evidence in the form of deposition of PW4
and PW7. It is highly debatable whether DW1 had at all come to the
place of occurrence in view of his statement in the cross-examination.
16. It is imminent and lucid that the aforesaid factual narration in
the testimony of PW4 and PW7, that the appellant was arrested at the
spot itself, is correct and incontrovertible. PW4 and PW7 have also
stated that they had apprehended the appellant with knife/dagger in his
hand. They have stated having seen the appellant giving knife blows.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the FSL
report (Ex.PW13/K) wherein it is mentioned that on the metallic
weapon of offence, no blood could be detected. This is correct, but
blood of group A was detected on Exh.P8 i.e. the T-shirt which was
worn by the appellant Jeetu Saini. The blood group of the deceased
was „A‟ as per the report Ex.PW13/A. It is somewhat surprising that
the FSL report (Ex.PW13/K) has described the dagger or knife as an
„all metallic weapon of offence‟. The sketch of the dagger Ex.PW4/A
gives its dimensions. It is clearly a dagger as normally understood.
The second FSL report (Ex.PW13/J) mentions that Ex. 4 was a dagger
with dark brown stains. It also gives the dimensions of the dagger and
the blade. In the second report Ex.PW13/J, the Senior Scientific
Officer had examined the dagger and the cut marks on the clothes
worn by the deceased. He opined that the cut marks on the T-shirt,
Capri pant and the underpants of the deceased, on physical
examination under magnification, corresponded to the cut marks made
with the dagger Exhibit 4. It was accordingly opined that the cut
marks on the clothes could have been caused by the dagger (Exhibit
4).
17. We have deliberately and intentionally not referred to the
testimonies of Bhanu (PW14A) and Vinay Sharma (PW18). As
recorded above, we agree with the finding of the Trial Court that the
testimonies of Bhanu (PW14A) and Vinay Sharma (PW18) on the
eye-witness acount are not reliable. However, we would like to record
our reasons as to why we feel the eye-witness rendition by Bhanu
(PW14A) and Vinay Sharma (PW18) should not be accepted. PW14A
had claimed that on 26.8.2008, the appellant Jeetu Saini had called the
deceased on landline phone at 8.45 PM and thereafter he along with
the deceased and one Vinay had reached the PVR cinema in a car at
about 9.05 PM. Over there, Shivani Wasan and the appellant Jeetu
Saini were present along with 3-4 other boys. On seeing them, Shivani
Wasan identified Sonu and had yelled that today he should be
finished. Thereupon Jeetu Saini took out a knife from his pants and
had inflicted knife blows at Sonu. He claimed that both Jeetu Saini
and Shivani were apprehended at the spot itself. Almost identical
statement is made by Vinay Sharma (PW18). As per the charge-sheet,
Shivani Wasan was arrested subsequently on 17.9.2008. She was not
apprehended at the spot. Ct. Subhash (PW4) and HC Satpal (PW7)
have not deposed about the presence of Shivani Wasan at the spot.
Other police officers including Ct. Suresh Kumar (PW6), S.I. Umed
Singh (PW8) and Inspector G.S. Meena (PW20) have also not
accepted and testified about the presence of Shivani Wasan at the spot.
Ct. Subhash (PW4) or HC Satpal (PW7) have not stated or claimed
that Shivani Wasan had fled or escaped after the occurrence. This is
not even the version and statement of Bhanu (PW14A) and Vinay
Sharma (PW18). Bhanu (PW14A) and Vinay Sharma (PW18) may
well have reached the place of occurrence afterwards. However, the
deposition of Bhanu (PW14A) and Vinay Sharma (PW18) are relevant
on the question of motive and what was the impelling cause for the
crime. Bhanu (PW14A) has stated that the deceased Sonu knew
Shivani Wasan. Sonu used to organise Jagran functions and Shivani
Wasan was a singer. There were differences between them. Sonu Rana
had purportedly advanced of Rs.25,000/- to Shivani Wasan, who had
refused to perform at his programmes or return the money. The
appellant Jeetu Saini was aware of the said differences. Similarly,
Vinay Sharma (PW18) has stated that Sonu Rana @ Surjeet Singh was
his friend who used to organise Jagran functions being a singer.
Shivani Wasan was also a signer and a member of Sonu Rana‟s group.
Three months prior to the occurrence Shivani had taken an advance of
Rs.25,000/-, but on one pretext or the other, had refused to perform
and sing at the jagran functions. On this account, there were
differences between Sonu and Shivani Wasan. The Appellant Jeetu
Saini had intervened and intruded in the said dispute. Whatever may
have been the reason and cause, it is apparent that there were
discerning and perspicuous issues. It is apparent that Shivani Wasan
was the common factor. She knew the deceased Sonu and the
appellant Jeetu Saini.
18. Learned Additional Standing Counsel has drawn our attention
to the statement of Shivani Wasan recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
wherein she had stated that the deceased Sonu Rana was interested in
being friends with her but she had ignored and had refused to attend
his Jagran parties. This was the reason she had been falsely
implicated and she did not know what happened between the appellant
Jeetu Saini and the deceased Sonu Rana. However, we would not like
to rely upon the said statement of the co-accused (who has been
acquitted) recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as such. But at the
same time, we have no hesitation in holding that Bhanu (PW14A) and
Vinay Sharma (PW18) have underlined and have broadly explained
the motive and the cause why the occurrence had taken place. It is
also obvious and can be logically held that the deceased Sonu and the
appellant Jeetu Saini knew each other and had consternation amid
them. There were disputes and differences inter-se the two of them
regarding Shivani Wasan.
19. The prosecution has also relied upon the visiting card of Shivani
Wasan marked as Ex.PW19/B which mentions her two telephone
numbers 9818961436 and 9213914452. Photocopy of the visiting
card was marked as Ex.PW2/D. This photocopy also has the same
telephone numbers. The visiting card Ex.PW19/B was also proved by
Sunil Kumar (PW2) who has deposed that he used to do computer
designing and printing and had printed the said card along with
another visiting card Ex.PW2/B of Ashok Hasti, father of Shivani
Wasan. We do not agree with the reasoning given by the Trial Court
to discredit the testimony of Sunil Kumar, PW2 regarding printing of
the visiting cards undertaken by him at the behest and on the asking of
Shivani Wasan. PW2 had voluntarily deposed that his phone number
was printed on the back side of the card at point A. The mere fact that
PW2 did not have a printing press and used to get the cards printed
from a printer is not a good ground and justification to disbelieve and
discredit Sunil Kumar (PW2). Noticeably, the photocopy of the
visiting card was also put to PW2 in his cross examination on behalf
of Shivani Wasan and was marked Ex.PW2/D. The telephone number
9818961436 was allotted to appellant Jeetu Saini. As per Ex.PW11/A,
the call records of the telephone number 9818961436 from 01.06.2008
to 27.08.2008 have been proved. The telephone number of the
deceased Sonu Rana @ Surjeet Singh 9891009732 has been proved
and exhibited vide Ex.PW17/A. R.K. Singh (PW11), Nodal Officer of
Bharti Airtel Limited, had proved the call records Ex.PW11/A going
into 48 pages which had the seal of the company and the initials of
PW11. He had also stated that the mobile number 9818961436 was
allotted to the appellant Jeetu Saini r/o B-106. Raghubir Nagar, New
Delhi. He was not cross-examined inspite of opportunity given.
Similarly, Pawan Singh, PW17 has stated that he was working as a
Nodal Officer in Idea Cellular Limited and telephone number
9891009732 was allotted to Surjeet Singh r/o RZ near Tent Wala
School, Gali no.5. West Sagar Pur. He had proved the details of these
numbers vide EX.PW17/A, which was initialled by him at point A. He
had also proved the call records of 9891009732 marked Ex.PW17/D.
The deceased Sonu Rana was also known as Surjeet Singh as deposed
by Vinay Sharma (PW18). At this stage, it would be necessary to
record that the counsel for the appellant has submitted that they had no
objection to the call records being exhibited and read in evidence and
they would rather rely upon the same. This discredits the assertion
that a call was made to the deceased Sony Rana at his land-line
number. The call records have been referred to by us only to show that
the appellant Jeetu Saini was known to Shivani Wasan and Shivani
Wasan knew the deceased Sonu Rana @ Surjeet Singh. This aspect is
important and relevant as it also affects the alibi that due to fortuitous
circumstances, the appellant has been falsely implicated, for he was
coincidentally present at the PVR Cinema. The aforesaid evidence is
revealing and confirms that the appellant Jeetu Saini knew the
deceased Sonu Rana and the deceased was not an unknown person.
The motive of the crime can be inferred and palpable from the facts
noticed above.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the factum
that the deceased Sonu Rana has died a homicidal death. However,
for the purpose of clarity, we would like to refer to the MLC
Ex.PW6/DA, testimony of Dr. Vimal Sharma PW14 and testimony of
Dr. Komal Singh (PW10) who had conducted the post mortem and
proved his report as Ex.PW10/A. The MLC records that the patient
was brought dead to the hospital and the said fact has been affirmed
by Dr.Vimal Sharma (PW14). The post-mortem report (Ex.PW10/A)
refers to 11 injuries on the body of the deceased which included clear
lacerated and incised wounds. PW10 has opined that injury nos.5, 6 &
7 were sufficient to cause death in the normal course individually as
well as jointly. PW10 has also stated that all injuries i.e. injuries nos.1
to 10 were possible by a sharp edged weapon and were ante mortem
and were caused at one time. Injury nos.5 & 6 had penetrated the
chest and heart respectively. Injury No.7 was over the kidney. The
medical evidence thus corroborates the eye-witness version given by
Ct. Subhash (PW4) and HC Satpal (PW7).
21. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment
dated 21.03.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.296/1997 titled
Rajinder v. State of Delhi and others. We have examined the said
judgment which proceeds at its own facts. In the said case, the
deposition of the eye-witnesses was not accepted for the reasons set
out therein. In the present case, we notice that the appellant was
apprehended and caught at the spot itself when the crime took place.
This fact has been proved beyond the doubt and debate. The appellant
was apprehended by Ct. Subhash (PW4) and HC Satpal (PW7). Their
presence is also corroborated by the fact that HC Satpal (PW7) had
taken the deceased to the hospital. Both of them are on duty near
Police post at PVR Cinema Vikas Puri on 26.08.2008 at about 9 P.M.,
i.e. when the occurrence had taken place. Their presence at the spot
was not by chance but normal and natural. No doubt the prosecution
had initially relied upon the statement of Bhanu (PW14A) and also
claimed that Vinay Sharma (PW15) was an eye witness but this would
not be a good and sufficient ground to reject the unquestionable and
positive depositions of Subhash (PW4) and HC Satpal (PW7) as
detailed above. Their depositions are duly corroborated by
surrounding facts and other incriminating evidence brought on record.
In fact, the appellant did not in the trial, dispute his presence at the
spot but had claimed that he was an innocent and unknown bystander
who has been falsely implicated without any reason or cause. We
have in the aforesaid paragraphs referred to the fact that the appellant
knew Shivani Wasan who has been acquitted by the Trial Court and
also knew the deceased Sonu Rana @ Surjeet Singh. Motive and
reason for the crime are apparent and not difficult to decipher and
encrypt.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in
the present appeal. The conviction and sentence of the appellant
Surjeet @ Jeetu Saini is upheld and maintained. The appeal is
dismissed. Trial Court record will be sent back.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
Judge
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Judge
MAY 20, 2015
ab
