MANOJ & Ors. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2014 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Reference No.4/2013/DA/8 and Criminal Appeal Nos.3 and 266 of 2014 respectively. Ms. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Adv., Kaustubh Anshuraj, Shri Singh, Ms. Shivani Misra, Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Anirudh Sanganeria, Ms. Sridevi Panikkar, Advs. for the Appellants. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AAG, Sunny Choudhary, Ms. Saumya Kapoor, Siddhanth, Shikhar Kishore, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

The present judgment will dispose of three appeals1 preferred by three accused persons. They were convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) (3 counts) imposed with death penalty by the judgment and orders of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Indore2. This was confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore3. 1 Criminal Appeal No. 248-250/2015 2 Dated 13.12.2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 536/2011 3 Dated 29.09.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3/2014, 266/2014 & Criminal Reference No. 04/2013 B C D E F G H 468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 9 S.C.R. A B C D E F G

The appellants (Manoj, Rahul @ Govind and Neha Verma, hereafter referred by their names) were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (three counts) for committing the murder, during the course of robbery, of Megha Deshpande, Ashlesha Deshpande and Smt. Rohini Phadke on 19.06.2011. All three appellants were sentenced to capital punishment with fine of 1000/- on each count, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 6 months additional rigorous imprisonment (RI) on each count. Under Section 397 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional RI. Under Section 449 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of 1000/-, and in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional RI.Manoj and Rahul@ Govind were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 25(1-B) (B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 1 yearRI with fine of 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional RI.Rahul wasalso convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 3 years RI with fine of 3000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional RI. Facts

The facts are that PW-1 Niranjan Deshpande rented a part of House no. 24 Shrinagar Main from its landlord PW-5 Vishal Pandey, few days before the date of incident i.e., 19.06.2011. Niranjan’s wife Megha, daughter Ashlesha and mother-in-law Smt. Rohini Phadke were at those premises, residing there. In the evening of that dayanother tenant PW-2 Dipti Kapil who lived on the same floor told PW-5 Vishal Pandey that Niranjan’s flat was bolted from the outside and reported seeing patches of blood on the door. On receiving this information, the landlord went to enquire. When no one opened the door, he looked through the open window and saw the dead bodies of the deceased persons lying near the bedroom door and blood was on the floor. He called his neighbour PW-9 Mahesh Parmar and Mukesh on the spot, before telephoning PW- 1 Niranjan Deshpande to reach there immediately. PW-5 Vishal Pandey also lodged a first information report (FIR) at Police Station MIG Colony, Indore4 which was recorded by PW-31 Inspector Mohan Singh Yadav (investigating officer” IO”). The FIRalleging that some unknown persons murdered the three deceased ladies with sharp weapons and fled the H 4 FIR No. 401/2011 dated 19.06.2011 MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.] 469 scene, registered offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and 25 Arms Act. A

The police reached the premises and prepared a spot map of the crime scene. Several articles found at the spot were seized. It was later (on the next day) reported that Megha’s golden bangles and Mangalsutra, Rohini Phadke’s two gold bangles, and Ashlesha’s mobile phone, camera and ATM cards were missing. Investigation started and on 22.06.2011 at around 06:00 AM, PW-28 Vijay Chauhan while on patrolling duty, spotted Neha Verma outside an ATM near L.I.G, under suspicious circumstances. On receiving this information, the IO (PW- 31) along with PW-4 Banno Solanki and others, reached the spot. Neha Verma was searched. This yielded an ATM card, which belonged to the deceased Ashlesha. Neha was taken for questioning; her disclosure statements led to her subsequent arrest. Based on information she provided, the police recovered some robbed articles from her house.

Upon disclosure statements of Neha the other accused i.e., Rahul @ Govind and Manoj were arrested and from their possession the robbed jewellery, knife anda pistol was seized. Investigation revealed that during the alleged incident Rahul @ Govind inadvertently shot his own foot and recorded a false FIR in this regard at the Annapurna Police Station by dehatinalisi dated 19.06.20115 against unknown persons. Accordingly, an FIR6 was registered by PW-30 ASI R.S. Makwana for offences punishable under Sections 294, 307 and 34 IPC. Manoj was also injured during the incident and secured treatment from PW-8 Dr. Achutmal Tejwani. The clothes and shoes worn by the accused were seized; and parts of the broken and disposed mobile phone and camera were also recovered and seized pursuant to their disclosure statements. The appellants underwent identification parade. Their fingerprints were examined, the seized articles were sent for chemical and DNA test and permission for prosecution was taken.

After conclusion of investigation, the police filed a final report indicting the appellants for commission of offence under Sections 302, 397 and 449 IPC and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act. The trial court framed charges against the accused under Sections397/34 in alternative 302/34 5 Ex. P103-C 6 Ex. P107 B C D E F G H 470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 9 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H and 449 IPC, and besides these charges Manoj was charged under section 25(1-B) (B) of Arms Act, 1959 and Rahul @ Govind was charged under S. 25(1-B) (B) and 27 of Arms Act. All the appellants abjured their guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 36 witnesses and produced certain documents (Ex. P1-P129) in support of their case. After recording the evidence of prosecution, the appellants’ statements were recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code(CrPC). The appellants examined a total of 6 defence witnesses and produced certain documents (Ex. D1-D50) in support of their case. Trial Court’s findings

As the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence, upon appreciation of the material evidence adduced by the prosecution, thetrial court concluded that the accused persons were present at the scene of occurrence on 19.06.2011 at about 5:00-5:15 PM and that evidence of experts who lifted the fingerprints of the accused (from the house) along with the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, PW-9 and PW-31 proved that they had entered into the house. Upon recovery of the knife and firearm which caused the death, it was established by way of chemical, DNA as well as ballistic examination that those articles were used and that during the sequence of the incident, blood of the deceased persons was found on the clothes of the accused persons. The trial court further concluded that the footprints at the crime scene were similar to those of the shoes recovered from the accused persons, and the gun shot injury caused by the bullet which hit the foot of Rahul @ Govind as well as the bullet which hit the body of the deceased, were fired from the same weapon, which was recovered from his possession. It was held that this left no doubt in establishing the guilt of Rahul and Manoj, and duringthe whole incident The evidence also proved Neha’s presence at that time. The trial court held that this established her involvement in the crime along with the accused persons; every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused was ruled out.

After considering the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the appellants of committing the offences they were charged with. On the point of sentence, the trial court took the view that given the magnitude and diabolic manner in which the offences were committed, the case on hand fell under the category of rarest of the rare case and warranted death penalty. MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.] 471 High Court’s findings confirming the Trial Court’s order A

The Division Bench of the High Court7 confirmed the sentences imposed on the appellants and the reference made by the trial court was answered in the affirmative. The High Court concluded that the forensic experts as well as the neighbours and the investigating officer had seen the blood-stained floor, walls, and bedsheets, and that the evidence produced on record with respect to them did not leave any major lacuna in the case of the prosecution; further, the presence of the accused in the house, their intention of committing such a heinous crime, and the manner in which the accused persons had caused the death, had been duly proved.

The High Court relied upon the statements of fingerprint expert PW-24 K.K. Dwivedi who visited the site and lifted the chance fingerprints which matched with the appellants’ fingerprints, as well asjewellery recovered from their possession -which was identified by PW-1 and PW-3 as belonging to the deceased. The weapons (knife and country made pistol) used for the commission of the offence were recovered from the accused and the same was proved. Also, the accused persons were duly identified in open court by the witnesses pursuant to their depositions.

The High Court further held thatthe accused, during their examination under Section 313 CrPC failed to explain their conduct and even gave incorrect and false answers. It therefore affirmed the trial court’s conclusions and findings.

Upon examination of whether this case would fall in the category of “rarest of rare case” to justify the imposition of capital punishment on the appellants, the High Court was of the view that as the incident shook the collective conscience of the community and the acts of murder committed by the appellants were so gruesome, merciless and brutal, the aggravating circumstances far outweighed the mitigating circumstances and hence, this case fell under the category of rarest of the rare case which manifests society’s abhorrence of such crime. Contentions on behalf of the Appellants

Ms. Anjana Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing pro bono for Rahul and Manoj, contended that the evidence of witnesses, 7 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore vide order dt. 29.09.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 3/2014,Criminal Reference No. 4/2013and Criminal Appeal No. 266/2014. B C D E F G H 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 9 S.C.R. i.e., police witnesses and private witnesses in this case raise questions as to whether Neha was arrested at the time and at the spot claimed by the prosecution, whether her disclosure statements were genuine, whether the disclosures were made as claimed, and whether subsequent arrests and recoveries were in the manner claimed by the prosecution.

It was urged that PW-4 lady constable Banno Solanki deposed to having gone to the ATM machine, searched Neha, leading to recovery of Ashlesha’s ATM card. However, she contradicted the IO and other witnesses about the place of her interrogation. PW-4 deposed that Nehawas interrogated at the Police Station where she said that some ornaments and ATM cards were in her house. This was confirmed byPW- 6 Triyambak @ Prafulla and PW-36 Mulayam Singh Yadav. However, the prosecution did not explain why no arrest memo/information memo was prepared at the Police Station. It is argued that this is pertinent as there is a serious dispute about the arrests and recoveries itself, as also the manner claimed by the prosecution. Also, PW-4 the female constable escorting the female accused, did not corroborate the prosecution that any recoveries were made from Neha’s house after her interrogation. She was silent about whether she was part of the police team which went to the house of Neha in her examination-in-chief. In cross examination she deposed to sitting in the same vehicle as Neha while going to her house. The presence of PW-4 is only confirmed by witnesses of the search team (i.e., PW-3 Dr Deepak Hari Ranadey and PW-31 IO Mohan Singh). PW-4 further did not support the prosecution that Neha had disclosed the names of Rahul and Manoj or having accompanied Neha (which would be expected, the accused being a woman) to the house of the two accused and the resulting subsequent recoveries. She deposed that the police party returned to the police station from Neha’s house inthe private vehicle. This suggests that the arrest memo (Ex. P9) and Information Memo (Ex. P10) made at that time and place is false and as a result, the subsequent story of Neha leading the police party to the houses of Rahul and Manoj are also false.

It was further stated that PW-31 deposed that PW-28 Vijay Chauhan, informed PW-19 Y.R. Gaikwad, about spotting a girl standing suspiciously near an ATM for which PW-19 made a Station Diary entry and informed him via wireless. PW-31 therefore went to the police station, constituting a team – comprising himself, PW-4, PW-19, PW-28 and PW-36 – which left for the ATM spot and thereafter to Neha’s house A B C D E F G H MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.] 473 (and those of Rahul and Manoj). It is submitted that neither was the Station Diary produced, nor did PW-19 corroborate the deposition of PW-31 at all. Likewise, there was variance between the statement of PW-28 and PW-31, on whether he was in the raiding party that went to Neha’s house.

Counsel further argued that PW-31 deposed about various persons accompanying him, when he learnt about Neha loitering suspiciously. However, he omitted to mention PW-19, who received information and told him about Neha’s movement, at PW-28’s behest. This suggests that Neha was in fact, interrogated at the Police Station. So, there was no reason for not preparing an arrest memo or recording disclosure statement at that point in time, in the police station itself, even though the ATM card had been recovered. PW-31 did not offer any explanationas to why the disclosure was made on the way in the police vehicle. Counsel also referred to PW-4’s deposition, which was silent on this aspect. Furthermore, counsel highlighted that though family members, particularly Neha’s father were available, they were not intimated about her arrest, nor were their signatures taken on the arrest memo. It was urged that all these in fact corroborate the defence submission that Neha’s arrest did not take place as contended by the prosecution.

Moving on to the arrest of Rahul and Manoj, some discrepancies in the form of injuries found on their person and the manner their occurrence was recorded before their disclosure statements (Ex. P12-P13 in the case of Rahul and Ex. P15-P16 in the case of Manoj), were pointed out. How these injuries occurred in fact was recorded before the disclosure statement. It was submitted that after Neha’s arrest, recoveries were made from Rahul’s house (Ex. P14) at 09:10 AM. Here, Ex. P12 i.e., arrest memo dated 22.06.2011 of Rahul @ Govind made no mention of any injury on Rahul’s foot despite mentioning an old firearm wound on the left elbow in column 9 of the arrest memo, which is where the police noted the injuries. It was urged that this was an irreconcilable circumstance against the prosecution’s case that Rahul had a bullet injury on his left leg.

It was submitted that Manoj’s arrest then took place at 10:05 AM from his house (Ex. P15). His disclosure statement was recorded at 10:15 AM (Ex. P16) and seizures were made at 10:35 AM (Ex. P17). The arrest memo of Manoj (Ex. P15), however, does not record the injury on the elbow even while it notes signs of an injury on the nose in A B C D E F G H 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 9 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H column 9 of the arrest memo which is where the police is supposed to record injuries present on the body of the accused at the time of arrest. The prosecution case is that on 22.06.2011 from 6:00 AM till 4:40 PM various seizures were made and documents were prepared. However, there is evidence to show that a press conference was held in the office of DW-3 Sanjay Rana, IG Indore between 12:30 PM to post 1:00 PM and even before the press conference, PW-31 IO had informed him that the investigation was done and Neha was arrested, and that he had conducted the seizure procedure from the accused. This falsifies the story of the recovery of shoe at the instance of Rahul Ex. P21 [reliance is placed on DW-3 and DW-5].

Ms. Prakash contended that PW-31 IO deposed to interrogating Rahul on 23.06.2011 before two witnesses -but did not name them. Rahul reportedly disclosed that he had kept his clothes and knife in a bag in his motorcycle and Manoj had broken the stolen mobile and camera and thrown them near a Maruti Showroom. He then prepared the information memo (Ex. P28) at 07:50 AM. He interrogated Manoj in the presence of two witnesses (who he did not name) who allegedly confessed that he had concealed the clothes and shoes worn by him in his father’s almirah and had thrown a broken mobile near the Maruti showroom at Rau. He then prepared information memo (Ex. P31), recorded at 08:05 AM. PW-31 also interrogated Neha in the presence of two witnesses (who were again, not named) who revealed that she had kept her clothes and sandalsworn by her in the dicky of her Scooty. He then prepared information memo (Ex. P34) at 08:15 AM. It was submitted that since the accused had made their disclosures on the date of their arrest, it appears strange and unnatural that truncated recovery statements would be given at different stages of investigation. Counsel urged that there was no explanation as to why PW-31 IO does not reveal either the time of recording of statements or the names of the witnesses.

Commenting on the recoveries made on 23.06.2011, it was submitted that no explanation was furnished as towhy truncated recoveries were made on different dates, aswas claimed by the prosecution. Further, the witness to these recoveries PW-7 Sandeep Narulkar, appears to be a stock witness who stated that he reached the police station at 8:45 AM on 23.06.2011, i.e., after the disclosure statements (Ex. P28, P31 and P34) were recorded. In the chief examination, this witness deposed that Rahul disclosed before him that he could get the clothes, knife, lens of camera recovered. Manoj disclosed MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.] 475 keeping his clothes in his father’s house and Neha about having kept her clothes in her vehicle parked behind a hospital. Then police prepared memos Ex. P28, P31 and P34 respectively and recovered articles of which memos were prepared as Ex.P29,P31 &P34 respectively. It is pointed out that PW-7 does not say anything about a lady police officer in the team which would have been required on account of involvement of female accusedNeha. It was urged that non-examination of the other witness (Prakash lchke) assumes great significance and without any explanation for his non-examination it cannot be said that the recoveries are reliable.

Counsel cast serious doubts as to the recovery by police on 22.06.2011 and 23.06.2011. She particularly pointed to the fact that a photograph of Rahul wearing a black beaded bracelet was found from his house and seized as Ex. P14. This was not made pursuant to any disclosure and apparently was seized during the process of seizing other items. During the cross-examination of PW-31 IO, a suggestion was made that this picture was clicked when the bracelet was forced to be worn by the accused. The IO denied the suggestion. Likewise, a photograph of Manoj, wearing sunglasses was seized from his house and exhibited as Ex. P17. This was in the course of his disclosure statement leading to recovery of other articles. However, in Rahul’s case, there was no disclosure statement. Neither of the seizure memos mentioned from where in the premises, these articles were found. Further, the recoveries were not spoken about in the depositions of the recovery witnesses.

It was next argued that neither PW-3 nor PW-6 said anything regarding the sealing of the seized items Ex. P11, P14 and P17) in their presence on 22.06.2011 and 23.06.2011.Similarly, the witness (for recoveries made on 23.06.2011)PW-7, did not mention who placed seals on the items Ex. P29, P30, P32, P33 and P35. PW-6 could not recollect the sealing of the articles on 22.06.2011. Likewise in Ex. P35 disclosure by Neha and recovery of items on 23.06.2011 do not mention the sealing of the items. Counsel also compared the depositions of the panch witnesses with the evidence of PW-12 Tehsildar and PW-36 Mulayam Singh Yadav (head constable, MIG). It was submitted that these witnesses nowhere mentioned the particulars of sealing, what kind of seals were placedor the signatures of persons, who had witnessed the recovery and sealing of the articles. It is therefore argued that the recoveries on 22.06.2011 are unreliable. Learned counsel submitted that A B C D E F G H 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 9 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H in all likelihood, the accused were in police custody for a longer period than what was projected, which raises doubts over the veracity and voluntariness of the disclosure statements by them. She also submitted that recoveries of next day i.e., 23.06.2011 are similarly unreliable as they were not recorded in the presence of witnesses PW-7 and Prakash Ichke. PW-7 arrived at the police station that day at 8:45 AM, the disclosure statements however were recorded earlier between 7:50 and 8:15 AM – evidenced by Ex. P28, P31 and P34. Signatures of the witnesses were taken on those documents. It was submitted that the oral evidence completely undermines and falsifies preparation of documents at the date and time mentioned. Therefore, recoveries are dubious inasmuch as they purport to have been made pursuant to disclosure statements on the same day, which were recorded before the witnesses even reached the police station. Another suspicious circumstance according to counsel was that recoveries were made in the afternoon, starting from 02:45 PM after a gap of 6 hours. The timing of Ex. P29, P30, P32, P33 and P35, are shown in this regard. It is argued that when the disclosure statements were recorded latest at 8:15 AM, the police did not offer any explanation why the recoveries took place in the afternoon only after a lapse of six hours.

It was further submitted that recoveries are also suspect because the details were published in newspapers, both on 22.06.2011 and 23.06.2011. Learned counsel relied on Ex. D4, published on 22.6.2011 which mentions the recovery of a pistol and knife from the accused. These recoveries were made that day at 9:30 AM and 10:35AM. Importantly, thelearned counsel argued that the chain of custody of the shoe allegedly belonging to Rahul which was seized from an open place within jurisdiction of the Annapurna police station on 22.6.2011 as propounded by the prosecution, issuspectas it was soon photographed in a newspaper published on 23.6.2011, while in the hands of the police officer. Reliance is placed on Ex. D6 in this regard.

It was next pointed out that the accused were produced before a magistrate on 23.6.2011. The record reveals that the arrests were made in the morning of 22.06.2011, and several articles were seized pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused and consequently, recoveries effected. However, the magistrate was not shown these articles nor was any memo produced before the magistrate at the time of the production of the accused on 23.6.2011. This procedural irregularity as highlighted by the senior counsel is contrary to Section 102(3) CrPC MANOJ & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.] 477 which requires every police officer to forthwith report seizure of any article to a magistrate having jurisdiction. Counsel relies on Umesh Tukaram Padwal & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra8, to say that non- compliance is fatal to the prosecution story.

Ms. Prakash also contended that PW-10 Dilip Sen is a chance witness whose testimony is unreliable because it contains contradictions and material improvements. It contains a material contradiction regarding his reporting to the police about seeing all the three accused. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he read about the incident in the newspaper and therefore, went and informed the police about the incident. In his cross examination, however, he said that he did not read the newspaper and went to the police station without reading the newspaper. He also mentions going to the police station for another reason (to get a gumasta license) and upon overhearing discussions going on there about this case, he volunteered information. Further his testimony is unbelievable as, given the description of the scene of crime, the clothes of the accused should have also been smeared with blood. The recovery memos of the clothes of the accused (Ex. P29, P32, and P35) shows that the clothes worn by the accused on the day of the incident were light in colour on which blood would have been easily visible. Moreover, PW-10 explained his presence near the place of occurrence since he wanted to check if House No. 23 was available for rental purposes. However, the prosecution has not sufficiently established his presence near the place of occurrence as the owner of House No. 23 was not examined and no other evidence was led to confirm the presence of PW-10 at the place of occurrence. PW-10 further improved from his statement under Section 161 CrPC (Ex. D7) with respect to Neha’s presence at the place. Likewise, learned counsel submitted that PW-8 Achyutmal Tejwani (whose deposition was relied on by the prosecution, to say that he treated Manoj), is an unreliable witness. His credentials as a medical practitioner, was doubted: counsel relied on the witnesses’ cross-examination and submitted that this witness had migrated to India from Pakistan, and in all probability was beholden to the police.

Learned counsel submitted that the delay of 25 days in conducting the test identification parade (TIP) is unexplained. The delay assumes significance since unveiled photographs of the accused were 8 (2019) 8SCC 567 A B C D E F G H 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 9 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H published across newspapers starting from 23.06.2011. In this regard, reliance is placed on Ex. D6,D45 and D48 which are newspaper articles containing photographs. Furthermore, it was submitted that the procedure of the TIP was questionable as Rahul and Manoj were made to stand together in the TIP line-up. The identification memo does not record the appearances of the other persons. Ms. Prakash submitted that Rahul and Manoj do not look similar - she relied on the arrest memos Ex. P12 and P15 to support her argument. PW-10 in his cross examination stated that some persons were tall, others were short; some were fair and others, dark. Therefore, the combined TIP procedure was faulty and could not have been relied on. In this regard, counsel relied on Lal Singh and others v. State of U.P9, Muthuswami v. State of Madras10 and Mohammed Abdul Hafeez v. State of AP11 to say that in the absence of individual distinguishing features, a TIP of the accused conducted after a relatively long time may not be relied upon by the courts.

Learned senior counsel submitted that there was serious doubt about the identity of Rahul, who was referred to as “Govind” in all documents until the preparation of his arrest memo Ex. P12 on 22.06.2011. There was no reason why an alias for Rahul was associated with him in the arrest memo. This raises doubt about the identity of the individual. All documents relating to the medical treatment for the bullet injury as well as the case proceeding (Crime No. 377/2011 registered by PW-29 crucially on the date of occurrence) refer to him as Govind. These were Ex.P103 – dehatinalisi at 10:30 PM on 19.06.2011; Ex. P97 - letter of police to the District Hospital & report of District Hospital Indore after examination of wounds and referring him to M.Y Hospital; Ex.P104 - Crime details recorded at 11 PM on 19.06.2011; Ex. P105 - FIR of the shooting incident at 12:15 AM on 20.06.2011; Ex.P101 -case closure report on 29.06.2011; Ex.P113 at MY hospital signed by PW-32 Dr. Nilesh Guru on 20.06.2011.

Learned counsel submitted that the non-identification by the treating doctors (PW-26 and PW-32) of Rahul, or even of PW-30 RS Makwana (of PS Annapurna) in TIP or in court, on the one hand, and his identification by PW29 Gourishankar Chadar (of PS Annapurna) in court as Govind @ Rahul, assumes significance. Rahul was allegedly admitted