IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORDER XXI RULE 3 (1) A SCR 2013

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2025

(ARSING OUT AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND

FINAL ORDER DATED 13/11/2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PARDEH AT SHIMLA IN Cr.M.P
No. 4584 OF 2024)

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

IN THE MATTER OF :

State of Himachal Pardesh

PETITIONER

VERSUS

Sarv Sheel Mago & others

RESPONDENT

CRL M.P NO. OF 2025

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN

PERSON

CRL M.P NO. OF 2025

 APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING OFFICIAL
TRANSLATION

CRL M.P NO. OF 2025

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED

COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER

CRL M.P NO. OF 2025

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL

DOCUMENTS

CRL M.P NO. OF 2025

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP

CRL M.P NO. OF 2025

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING

SLP

PAPER BOOK

{FOR INDEX, KINDLY SEE INSIDE}

PETITIONER IN PERSON : SANJAY BAHRDWAJ

H.No 707,SECTOR -2

PANCHKULA (HARYANA)
 A4

INDEX OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Srl Date of Proceedings

No.
1. Copy of the order dated
2. Copy of the order dated
3. Copy of the order dated
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has passed so many

judgments related to Re-Trial of a criminal case .The

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has expressed its

opinion in follwing judgments .

In case of Nar Singh vs. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCC

496 to remit the matter to the trial court for proceeding

afresh. In Nar Singh’s case, some of the important

questions like Ballistic Report and certain other

incriminating evidence were not put to the accused

and the same was not raised in the trial court or in the

High Court. It was felt that the accused should have

been questioned on those incriminating evidence and

circumstances; or otherwise prejudice would be caused

to the accused. In such peculiar facts and

circumstances, Nar Singh’s case was remitted to the

trial court for proceeding afresh from the stage

of Section 313 Cr.P.C.

In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. vs. State of

Gujarat and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 158, [Best Bakery case]

being an extraordinary case, the Supreme Court was

convinced that the witnesses were threatened to keep

themselves away from the Court and in such facts and

circumstances of the case, not only the Court directed

a ‘de novo’ trial but made further direction for

appointment of the new prosecutor and retrial was

directed to be held out of the State of Gujarat. The law

laid down in Best Bakery case for retrial was in the

extraordinary circumstances and cannot be applied for

all cases.

The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Ghoshal

Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2017(2) M.P.L.C. 28

(S.C.) has held as under :-

''11. Though the word "retrial" is used under Section

386(b)(i) Cr.P.C., the powers conferred by this clause is

to be exercised only in exceptional cases, where the

appellate court is satisfied that the omission or

irregularity has occasioned in failure of justice. The

circumstances that should exist for warranting a retrial

must be such that where the trial was undertaken by

the Court having no jurisdiction, or trial was vitiated by

serious illegality or irregularity on account of the

misconception of nature of proceedings. An order for

retrial may be passed in cases where the original trial

has not been satisfactory for some particular reasons

such as wrong admission or wrong rejection of

evidences or the Court refused to hear certain

witnesses who were supposed to be heard.

As stated in Pandit Ukha Kolhe vs. State of

Maharashtra (1964) SCR 926, the Court held that:

"An order for retrial of a criminal case is made in

exceptional cases, and not unless the appellate court is

satisfied that the Court trying the proceeding had no

jurisdiction to try it or that the trial was vitiated by

serious illegalities or irregularities or on account of

misconception of the nature of the proceedings and on

that account in substance there had been no real trial

or that the Prosecutor or an accused was, for reasons

over which he had no control, prevented from leading

or tendering evidence material to the charge, and in

the interests of justice the appellate Court deems it

appropriate, having regard to the circumstances of the

case, that the accused should be put on his trial again.

An order of re-trial wipes out from the record the

earlier proceeding, and exposes the person accused to

another trial which affords the prosecutor an

opportunity to rectify the infirmities disclosed in the

earlier trial, and will not ordinarily be countenanced

when it is made merely to enable the prosecutor to

lead evidence which he could but has not cared to lead

either on account of insufficient appreciation of the

nature of the case or for other reasons."

After going through the evidence and the facts

mentioned above this Court is of the view that both the

alleged offences are connected with each other in such

a way that a serious prejudice has been caused to both

prosecution as well as defence by the separate trials in

the said cases. This Court feels that unless the

evidence of both the FIRs is scanned together by the

Court to arrive at final conclusion, it may lead to failure

of justice.”

A three Judge Bench of this Court in Mohd Hussain v.

State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 14 dealt with the

question of retrial under Section 386 CrPC. In that case,

a foreign National was subjected to trial for causing a

bomb blast in a public transport vehicle. The trial Court

convicted the accused and imposed the death

sentence. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the

appeal, confirming the sentence. However, the two

judge Bench of this Court observed that the trial was

vitiated. While one of the learned judges ordered the

accused person’s release, the other ordered for a time-

bound retrial. A larger Bench confirmed the second

view directing a retrial, however, observing that the

power must be exercised by the appellate Court in

exceptional situations. It was observed that keeping in

view the gravity of the offence and the denial of due

process, a retrial was warranted. That brief facts

relating to the present case are as under :-

That after a long standing love affiar of more than 5

years on 15.05.1999 both petitioner Sanjay Bhardwaj &

Nidhi Mago left their respective homes and went to

Delhi where on 16.5.1999 they got married to each

other in Arya Samaj Mandir Lajpat Nagar New Delhi in

presence of their friends without the consent of their

respective parents.Therefore an F.I.R No 87 dated

27.05.1999 u/s 363, 366, 376, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B

was registered at Police Station Sector 36 Chandigarh

against Sanjay Bhardwaj his father and friend Rahul

Mehtani on the complaint made by father of Nidhi i.e

Sarv Sheel Mago. In this F.I.R No 87 Sanjay Bardwaj ,his

father and friend Rahul Mehtani were clearly acquitted

on merits by the Hon’ble Court of Sh.V.P.Sirohi

Additional and Sessions Judge Chandigarh vide detailed

Judgment dated 01.09.2011 wherein it was held

marriage between petitioner and Nidhi to be a valid

marriage .

That petition filed by Nidhi Mago dated 16.9.1999

under section 12 of H.M.A at Tis Hazari Courts New

Delhi alleging her marriage with petitioner to be result

to force & coercion filed by petitioner Nidhi Mago was

dismissed by Sh.Gurdeep Singh Saini, Additional

District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi vide Judgment and

decree dated 11.1.2008 while holding marriage dated

16.05.1999 between petitioner and Nidhi to be legal

and valid marriage.

That appeal filed against Judgment dated 11.1.2008 by

Nidhi Mago was dismissed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court

vide order dated 15.07.2014.

That a petition was filed before Panchkula Courts by

petitioner in-person under section 13 of Hindu Marriage

1955 (Act No 25 of 1995) for dissolution of marriage

between petitioner and Nidhi Mago U/s 13(1) (i) (ia) (ib)

on the grounds as mentioned therein. Ex-Parte Divorce

to petitioner was granted by the Hon’ble Court of

Sh.Rajesh Garg, Additional District Judge , Panchkula

vide Judgment and order dated 05.12.2012.

That on 28.05.1999 the very next day after registration

of above F.I.R No. 87 Sarv Sheel Mago fixed

matrimonial alliance of Nidhi with one rich NRI Sh.

Parshant Arora, son of Lt.Col. S.N.Arora of Karnal. On

01.6.1999 Sh.Parshant Arora and Nidhi entered into a

matrimonial alliance with each other.On 02.6.1999

marriage of Nidhi and Sh. Prashant Arora was

registered before Registrar of Marriages Karnal after

sweraing false affidavits and making false statements

to the effect that on 02.6.999 that Nidhi was

unmarried. When fact of marriage of Nidhi with

petitioner came to knowledge of Sh Prashant Arora &

his family ,then Sh.Parshant Arora snapped their

relation with Nidhi Mago and his family. After few days

i.e on 07.6.1999 Sh.Parsant Arora went back to Canada

after snapping all the relationship with Nidhi.

Resultantly a series of litigations started between

Sanjay ,Sarv Sheel Mago ,Nidhi Mago , Sh.Parshant

Arora and Lt.Col. Sada Nand Arora and his family

members before various Hon’ble Courts .

That even after the registration of case of rape Nidhi

Mago started meeting Sanjay Bhardwaj therefore Sarv

Sheel Mago had again made a false complaint to police

on 13.8.2000 on which police had registered the F.I.R

No. 318 under section 364 of IPC at Police Station

Sector 5 Panchkula against the petitioner. This case

was thoroughly investigated by Panchkula police and

then by Special task force Ambala. Basing on thorogh

investigation police found that Nidhi Mago was never

kidnapped by the petitioner rather she herself

accompanied the petitioner.Police cancelled this

present F.I.R and cancellation report has been

accepted by the Hon’ble Court vide order 13.05.2010

and had initiated the proceedings u/s 182 of IPC for

giving false information to police against Sarv Sheel

Mago and Nidhi which is still pending before the

Hon’ble Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

Panchkula.

That one case pertaining to F.I.R No. 586 dated

21.12.1999 Under Section 307, 34 of IPC was

registered at Police Station Sector 17 Chandigarh

against Sarv Sheel Mago and Aman Mago on the basis

of statement made by petitioner Sanjay Bhardwaj

dated 21.12.99. Respondent Aman Mago along with

respondent Sarv Sheel Mago by stabbing with a knife in

abdomen of Sanjay Bhardwaj made an attempt on life

of complainant Sanjay Bhardwaj on 21.12.99 in

order/with intention to kill him. Initially Chandigarh

police was not ready to present the challan in the

present case. Challan was only presented only when

petitioner moved an application before Hon’ble Punjab

and Haryana High Court with a prayer to file the

challan. That due to stab injury condition of petitioner

became so critical that even dying declaration was got

recorded by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

Chandigarh in P.G.I on 28.12.1999.Due to material

lacuna left by police during investigation both were

acquitted by Hon’ble Court of Sh V.P.Sirohi,Additional

Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide Judgment dated

31.5.2011.

That during trial of above titled case Devendra

Parsad handwriting expert appeared as defence

witness on behalf of respondent Sarv Sheel Mago

and respondent Aman Mago has given a false

report regarding Ex P-4 and Ex-PW-16/A which

has been proved by the report of Sh Sumit

Kumar Arora handwriting expert which clearly

proves that respondent no 1 Devendra Prasad

has given a false report regarding Ex P-4 and Ex-

PW-16/A and intentionally made false statement

on oath in Hon’be court at behest and conspiracy

of respondent Aman Mago and respondent Sarv

Sheel Mago in order to save them from

conviction for the heinious crime they both had

conducted with common intention.Petitioner will

be filing application under section 391 Cr.P.C

before Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.

That on 29.10.2000 at about 6.15 p.m while petitioner

was walking in Sector 5 Panchkula a blue coloured

Maruti car bearing no. HR-49-1250 coming from behind

stopped in front of petitioner. Respodents and one

more , whom petitioner do not know came out of the

car and knocked petitioner down. Respodent Komal

Mago applied a plaster type on petitioners mouth.

Petitioners hands were tied by respodent S.S.Mago and

by respodent Aman Mago and by the fourth man.

Petitioner was forcibily put into the car and made to sit

between Aman Mago and S.S.Mago in the rear seat.

Respondent Komal Mago was sitting in the front seat

and the fourth man was driving the car. Some thing like

chunni was put on petitioners face. Respodent Komal

Mago took out a knife from her purse and handed it

over to respodent no Aman Mago. Respodent Aman

Mago placed the knife on petitioners stomack and

threated to kill if petitioner tried to move. The handing

over the knife by respdent Komal Mago to respodent

Aman Mago and placing of the knife by respodent

Komal Mago on my stomach took place soon after the

car started. Petitioner was taken in the car towards

Baddi via Pinjore. At Baddi barrier , respodent Komal

Mago came out of the car to pay toll tax. Respodent sat
in the car then the car was taken on a road which is in

the right hand of Baddi . The car was then stopped.

Now petitioner came to know that area is Sai Road.

Respodents stayed there for some time.Then respodent

again took the car further. Near some hills the car was

stopped. Petitioner was taken out of the car. There was

a george on the right side of the road. Petitioner was

standing on the right side of the road surrounded by

respodents. Respodent Komal Mago instigated

respodent Aman Mago to kill petitioner. Respodent

S.S.Mago took the knife from respodent Aman Mago

and then respodent Sarv Sheel Mago stabbed on

petitioners stomach while he was attempting a second

blow petitioner moved a bit into and fell into gorge

about 25-30 feet.below.Petitioner was feeling severe

pain with great difficulty petitioner was able to untie

his hands and removed the tape with great difficulty

petitioner climbed up the road.Petitioner also sustained

some bruses on his backdue to fall into the gorge.

Petitioner was siitting on the road under a severe pain

as his intestine were coming out.Just then a man on a

scootter came there. Petitioner narrated the incident to

him.He brought petitioner on his scooter and dropped

petitioner about 100 to 150 feet away from Malohtra

clinic at Baddi. The man did not disclosed his identity

to petitioner.There were shops at the place where

petitioner was dropped.Two of them were open.

Petitioner went to a shop and narrated the incident to

the shop keeper. Two persons were present there.

They took petitioner to Malohtra clinic. Later on

petitioner came to know that these two persons were

Kiran Pal and Govind Singh. At Malohtra Clinic the

doctor gave an injection to the petitioner and was told

not to disclose this fact to anyone. Petitioner narrated

the incident to the doctor.Doctor obtained telephone

number of petitioner and informed petitioners parents

as well as to the police.After a while police came. Police

took petitioner to some clinic. But the clinic owner did

not open the door. Police then took petitioner to

Nalagarh Goverment Hospital in a private vehicle.There

petitioner was examined by the doctor named Dr.Ajay

Sethi. At that time MLC was also issued by Dr.Ajay

Kumar Sethi .At Nalgarh hospital Police recorded

statement of petitioner.Therefore an F.I.R No.170 dated

30.10.2000 Under Section 307, 364 , 506 police station

Barotiwala was got registered at 2.40 A.M. After some

time father of petitioner accompanied by some of his

friends came there at the hospital.The doctor at

Nalagarh hospital had reffered petitioner to P.G.I.Then

petitioner was taken to the P.G.I Chandigarh. The

police accompanied petitioner to P.G.I.Then petitioner

was opearted upon at P.G.I. by Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan

along with others doctors and thus petitioner was

disharged from P.G.I on 07.11.2000. Therefater

petitioner was remained admitted in Manimajra

dispensry fro 3-4 days That it is pertinent to mention

here that respodent Sheel Mago is an inflential person

with political clout and due to his links with high profile

politicians as well higher officials of Police Department,

neither proper investigations were conducted by police

nor Police had arrested respodents Sarv Sheel Mago,

Aman Mago and Mrs Komal Mago in this case. It is

admitted fact by Police that petitioner was in injured

condition when he was taken by Police person from

Baddi to CHC Nalagarh on 29.10.2000 and from where

he was reffered to PGI Chandigarh for further treatment

of injury where Sanjay Bhardwaj was operated &

treated for the injury suffered by him.

However instead of filling challan, Police choose to

cancel this F.I.R and a cancellation report was prepared

by the SHO on 31.12.2000 and was filed in the Court of

Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate Nalagarh on

03.10.2001. A complaint was also filed by petitioner

Sanjay Bhardwaj as complainant on 6.6.2001 regarding

the same occurance. After disagreeing with the

cancellation report, Learned S.D.J.M Nalagarh took

cognizance vide order dated 2.9.2002 and directed

Sarv Sheel Mago,Aman Mago and Kamal Mago to put

up appearance before the Court on 11.10.2002.

Accordingly accused person in that case Aman Mago

and Sarv Sheel Mago put in appearance on 11.10.2002

while Komal Mago appeared on 30.11.2002 and the

same day copies of challan were supplied to them.

That the Learned S.D.J.M, Nalagarh committed the

case to the Ld. Sessions Judge ,Solan and the accused

persons were directed to appear before the said

Hon’ble Court on 6.2.2003. That investigation in this

case was not done by the police properly and lot of

lacunas have been deliberately left by the police during

investgation as the police were hell bent upon to help

the accused. No efforts were made by prosecution to

bring material facts and evidence on record during

trial. Sh. Bhim Chand Additional and Sessions Judge ,

Fast track Court, Solan acquitted all acused on benefit

of doubt vide Judgment dated 12.10.2004.

That In this case State of Himachal Pardesh filed

Criminal Appeal No 181 / 2005 titled as “State of

Himachal Pardesh Versus Sarv Sheel Mago and others”

before Hon’ble High Court which was dismissed by

Hon’ble Bench of Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta and

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma vide Judgment and

order dated 18.07.2012.

That in the above mentioned case on 19.1.2006 P.W-5

Sarv Sheel Mago filed an application under section 340

of the code of criminal procedure before the Hon’ble

Court of Sh.Bhim Chand ,Additional Sessions Judge ,

Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court Solan against the

accused Late Dr.Ajay Kumar Sethi, Dr. Kuldeep

Dhawan,Sanjay Bhardwaj and Dev Vert Sharma.

That Ld. Additional Sessions Judge ,Fast Track Court

Solan had summoned all above mentioned accused.

Copy of the complaint under section 340 Cr.P.C for

conducting inqiry in which all the accused were

summoned .

That accordingly on the directions of the order passed

by the Hon’ble Court , Sh. Shayam Sunder Gupta ,

Reader of Fast Track Court Solan presented the present

complaint as a complainant . In this case, after long

trial, petitioner ,his father Sh.D.V.Sharma and

Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan were clearly acquitted on merits

by the Hon’ble Court of Sh.P.P.Ranta ,Additional

Sessions Judge Solan vide order & Judgment dated

17.11.2014.

That it is pertinent to mention here that State of

Himachal Pardesh filed a Criminal Appeal No 220 of

2015 before Hon’ble High Court at Shimla titled as

“State of Himachal Pardesh Versus Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan

& others” which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Bench of

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan Judge and

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sushil Kukreja Judge vide order

dated 25.07.2024.
That now following points is liable to be bring to the

kind consideration of this Hon’ble Court.

That whether respodents kidnapped the petitioner from

Sector -5 Panchkula and was forcibly taken to the hilly

area of Baddi and where petitioner was stabbed and

from where petitioner reached at Malohtra Hospital and

from there police brought petitioner to Nalgarh Hospital

where petitioner was medicolegally examined by

Dr.Ajay Sethi and from where he was refferred to P.G.I

whereafter petitioner had reached at P.G.I at 3.00 a.m.

on 30.10.2000 where he was operated and treated in

P.G.I by Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan and other team of doctors

and thereafter on 07.11.2000 petitioner was

discharged from P.G.I.

That it is pertinent to mention here that in this

Judgment dated 12.10.2004 (Annexure P-4) while

acquitting all the accused Hon’ble Court observed

following specific discrepancies in the medical evidence

assume significance in view of following facts: That it

was specifically observed by the Hon’ble Court in the

complaint under section 340 Cr.P.C i.e Exhibit P.W-2/A

at Para No 3 ( n ) (11) in Annexure P-7 at page no

that :- Complainant’s father Dev Varat was employed in

medical department It was not difficult for him to

procure false medical certificate. That it is a matter of

fact that the complainant’s father Sh.Dev Vert Sharma

was employed in General Hospital Sector 16

Chandigarh as a male staff nurse which was admitted

by Dev Vart Sharma in his examination in Chief during

trial of F.I.R No. 170 that he was working as male staff

nurse at Civil Hospital Manimajra Chandigarh. “That

from the year 1991 till 2003 I had been working as

Male Staff Nurse in Civil Hospital Manimajra”. however

it is admiited fact that the petitioner was treated and

operated in P.G.I Chandigarh and there staff are

separate and independent .It is admitted by P.W-8 Dr.

Rajinder Singh durinng his examination that Hospital of

General Hospital sector 16 are different and there staff

are seperate and independent.It is relevant to mention

here that Dev Vert Sharma was employed as Male Staff

Nurse in General Hospital Sector 16 Chandigarh and he

was in any way , not in a position to influence Head of

Department of General Surgery-2 PGI Chandigarh,Team

of Doctors including Junior residents as well as Senior

residents present or posted in General Surgery-2 or

Emergency ward, Para medical staff,Account Staff and

other members of PGI Chandigarh who

admitted,operated and treated Sanjay Bhadwaj in P.G.I

As a matter of fact PGI Chandigarh is an autonomus

institution of high repute where influencing so many

people along with so many different dapartment and to

procure false medical record is not possible. Further it

is a known fact that General Hospital Sector 16

 Chandigarh as well as PGI Chandigarh are two different

hospital and there staff are separate and independent,

not linked to each other in anyway which is a fact .

That it was specifically observed by the Hon’ble Court

in the complaint under section 340 Cr.P.C i.e Exhibit

P.W-2/A at Para No 3 (n)(11) that at Annexure P-7 page

no “It was astonishing that injury on complainant’s

person was caused on 29.10.2000 on the abdomen

exactly on the same site at which it was caused on

21.12.99(regarding which case was stated pending in

Chandigarh Court). Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan, during his

examination–in chief i.e exhibit P.W-2 /K recorded

during the trial of F.I.R No. 170, clearly stated that :-

“ When I say that the Injury is on the same site it means

the injury was inflicted on the internal organ that is

which we have repaired at the time of earlier

operation. The external stab wound of the second stab

may or may not be the same at same place or

previous stab but what happened in this case is that

this time tip of the weapon hit the organ in the

abdominal cavity at the same site which we have

repaired at the time of the previous surgery.” DW-8

Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan clearly stated regarding injury to

be on same previous site in his examination during

trial of F.I.R No. 170.

That it was observed by Hon’ble Court in the complaint

under section 340 Cr.P.C i.e Exhibit P.W-2/A at

Annexure P-7 Para No 3 ( n ) (111) at page no that :-

That “Another astonishing factor was on both the

occassions complainant was examined by the same

doctor at P.GI though the second occurance happened

more then one year after the first”.P.W-8 Dr. Rajinder

Singh, Professor and Head of Department of General

Surgery, PGI, Chandigarh clearly stated during his

Examination–in-Chief regarding examination of patient

by same doctor after one year of occurrence. Relevant

portion of his Examination –in-Chief is reproduced here

below:“ If it is a new case it will be attended by the

unit on call and will be discharged finally under units

head name.If it happens to be old patient (already

treated in P.G.I) then it will be treated by the unit

which has treated earlier and those doctors will be

informed and called for” .

In present case statement of Sh.Jeewan Kumar

Medical Record Technician, Department of Central

Medical Record P.G.I Chandigarh was recorded on

17.3.2009 during the trial of the present case who

brought case file of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj which

was subsequently Exhibited by prosecution as Exhibit

P.W-8/B which is attached as Annexure P-3

P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh proved the case file of P.G.I.

Relevant portion of his examination–in-chief is

reproduced here below:-“ I have seen the patient case

file of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj noted in Red circle

Ext.P.W-8/A are in my hand and bears my signatures

which dated 19.1.2009. As per the case file of patient

Sanjay Bhardwaj admissions 90826 the patient had

been admitted under Professor S.M.Bose and other

treating team members were Sr. Residents Dr.Kuldeep

and Dr.Sibu, Dr.Murti and Dr.Devinder. The case file of

patient is Ext.P.W-8/B. Emergency OPD card in the

case file is Ext.P.W-8/C which is a part of file. I do not

recognoze the writing on ExP.W-8/C again said admit

card is Ext.P.W-8/B and not Ext.P.W-8/C. Generally

Ext.P.W-8/D is filled in first and subsequently

consultation form Ext.P.W-8/C is filled in . As per Ext.

P.W-8/C and Ext.P.W-8/D , the patient was admitted at

3.10A.M on 30.10.2000.”

That perusal of above said case file of P.G.I i.e Exhibit

P.W-8/B as well as statement of P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder

Singh clearly proves that patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was

admitted at 3.10.a.m on 30.10.2000 in PGI Chandigarh

on 07.11.2000 was discharged from PGI Chandigarh.

P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh proved the case file of P.G.I.

During trial of the present case following medical

record has come on record which proves the

authenticity and genuineness of Medical record of

Patient Sanjay Bhardwaj from PGI Chandigarh. Bare

perusal of Exhibit P.W-8/B reveal that it is a complete

case file of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj prepared at P.G.I

by not one person but by various doctors and

medical /para medical professional from various

departments of PGI Chandigarh during stay of patient

Sanjay Bhardwaj for his treatment of stab injury

suffered by him on 29th oct 2000 and was

admitted ,opearted ,treated in P.G.I on 30.10.2000.

Medical record Exhibit P.W-8/B file of PGI Chadigarh of

patient Sanjay Bhardwaj clearly proves the follwing

things.

(a) That a letter from the Medical

Superintendent Nehru Hospital P.G.IMER

Chandigarh was written to

Prof.S.M.Bose ,Head of the Department for

completion of MLC duly sighned by Deputy

Central Registrar.

(b) That a letter was written by S.I Vijay Kumar

to the Medical Superintendent P.G.I

Chandigarh on 03.12.2000 to know

regarding the opinion of nature of Injury

wherin some remarks and signatures were

given by P.G.I doctors / staff.

(c) Medical Legal Case summary preapred and

duly signed by Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan.Income

declaration form duly filed and on it recipt

no. 160026181 is written.

(d) Report of Opeartion prepared and duly

signed by Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan.

(e) Progress sheet and shifting notes prepared

and signed by some doctors along with

Dr.Ashish.

(f) Progress Sheet and plan sighned by

Dr.Parvin.

(g) Reprot of Department of Haematalogy.

(h) Report from Department of Medical

Microbiology duly signed and date of

dispatch is stamped on 02-Nov-2000.

(i) Report from Department of Bio Chemistry

duly signed by Officer Incharge Clinical

Biochemistry Lab.

(j) A letter written and duly signed by some

doctor of G.S-2 on 07.11.2000 to the Police

Officer Incharge ,Police Post PGI Chandigarh

to inform that Patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was

dischrged on 07.11.2000.

(k) Page of Drugs and vetments as well as diet

and external treatment.

(l) B.P Chart of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj shows

that it was firstly recorded at 4.35 A.M on

30.10.2000.

(m) Details of Intake and out put record of food

of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj.

 (n) Out patient ticket prepared by

Dr.Ranganathan E.W-5 /G-S-11 ,Junior

resident ESOPD on 30.10.2000 at 3.10 a.m

which is exhibited as exhibit D.W-8/D

(o) Exhibit D.W-4/A i.e New Out patient Register

of Nehru hospital PGI clearly proves that

patient Sanjay Bhardwaj reached at P.G.I at

3.10.a.m on 30.10.2000 as his enrty is there

on regsiter.

(p) Exhibit D.W-4/B i.e New Out patient Register

of Nehru hospital PGI clearly proves that

patient Sanjay Bhardwaj reached at P.G.I on

30.10.2000 as his enrty is there on regsiter.

(q) Exhibit D.W-6/D i.e Advance receipt of

money deposited at P.G.I clearly revels that

at 05:08:26 on 30.10.2000 Rs 350/- was

deposited on the name of Sanjay Bhardwaj .

P.G.I file exhibited as Exibit P/W-8/B is attached as

Annexure P-3 .

That the above mentioned facts regarding case file of

P.G.I Ex P.W-8/B clearly proves that medical case record

file of Sanjay Bhardwaj was not prepared by one person,

but by many of Doctors a well as staff members of from

various departments of PGI Chandigarh. Further perusal

of medical record file clearly revaels that more then 30

staff personnel of P.G.I Chandigarh including doctors,

nurses para medical staff as well as officials from

Accounts branch attended Sanjay Bhardwaj during his

stay in PGI Chandigarh .

That P.W-7 H.C Sewa Singh was the first Police official

who saw Sanjay Bhardwaj in injured condition at Malhotra

Clinic at Baddi after receiving telephonic message. It is

admitted fact that it was H.C Sewa Singh who took

injured Sanjay Bhardwaj to Civil Hospital Nalagarh.

Statement of H.C Sewa Singh recorded during trial of FI.R

No. 170 wherein he clearly stated that he found Sanjay

Bhardwaj in a injured condition Relevant portion of his

Statement/Examination –in-chief is reporoduced here

below:-“There I saw Sanjay Bhardwaj lying in injured

condition on the bench”. “I recorded the statement of

Sanjay Bhardwaj at 1.30 A.M at Nalagarh Hospital” “I

moved application Ex P.W-7/A for medical examination of

Sanjay Bhardwaj and issuance of his MLC. I obtained the

MLC from the doctor”.

That a perusal of Exhibit D.W-5/A i.e F.I.R.No. 170 dated

30.10.2000 under section 364,307,506,34 of IPC

registered at Police Station Barootiwala will reveal that

this F.I.R was registered at 2.40 A.M on 30.10.2000. A

perusal of F.I.R No 170 last paragraph also proved that at

1.30 A.M on 30.10.2000 H.C Sewa Singh had already

completed all the formalities of recording statement etc.

H.C Sewa Singh is the person who remianed with injured

accused from Malhotra Hospital Baddi onwards as well

during recording of statements as well registration of

F.I.R and obtaining MLR after writing of application to

Duty Doctor ot Civil Hospital Nalagarh .This fact is

already proved and stated by H.C.Sewa Singh dring his

Chief examination.

That Sh. Kiran Pal on 08.06.2004 appeared during

the trail of F.I.R No 170 as P.W-5 .Statement of P.W-5

Sh.Kiran Pal clearly proves the Stab injury and he clearly

stated that he along with Govind took petitioner to

Malohtra Hospital.

That on 08.06.2004 Doctor Mukesh Malohtra of Malhotra

Hospital appeared as P.W-4 during the trial of F.I.R No

170 who clearly proved the injury as well as well as

making call to the mother and informed her about the

incident and proved regarding informing the police on

telephone .

That during investigation of F.I.R No. 170 it was clearly

stated by P.W-7 H.C Sewa Singh that he took blood

stained clothes of petitioner vide fard Exhibit P.W-1/C

which was duly signed by petitioner and also by witneses

Sh.Sanjeev Katoch and Sh.Dev Vert Sharma vide dated

30.10.2000. This fard clearly proves that there is a cut

mentioned at the shirt and Jeans and blood was present

on them.Statement of Sh.Gobind Singh and Statement of

Sh.Kiran Pal recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C recorded

by Sub Insepctor Sh.Vijay Kumar on 10.11.2000 clearly

proves that incident was of night at around 10 or 10.30

p.m and blood was oozing out from his stomach.

That Sh.Rahul Parashar appeared in this case as D.W-7

who had clearly proved that the date of incident was

29.10.2000 when accused no 3 Sanjay Bhardwaj was

stabbed by his father –in-Law . Relevant portion of his

Examination –in-Chief is reproduced here under :-

“On 29.10.2000 at about 11.10-11.15 p.m I received

phone call of accused Sanjay Bhardwaj father, both

accused Sanjay and his father are present in the Court

today .Sanjay Bhardwajs father told me on phone that

Sanjays father –in Law had caused stab injuries to Sanjay

some where in Baddi. The name of Sanjays father

(wrongly typed instead of father-in-law) is S.S.Mago. I

was also told on phone that Sanjay was at Baddi .” “On

receiving this telephonic information immedieatley

rushed to Sanjay’s house Sector -2 House No 707

Panchkula. Neighbours had also gathered in house of

Sanjay at Panchkula. From there I along with 3-4

neighbours of Sanjay left for Baddi in the Indica car

owned by Sanjay’s father .But on the way , one of the

occupant of the Indica car received phone call on his

moblie and he was told that Sanjay Bhardwaj had been

shifted from Baddi to Nalagarh Hospital. So, we all went

to Nalagarh Government Hospital and reached there at

about 1.20-130 a.m on 30.10.2000. Sanjay’s father along

with his neighbours, was already present there” “Sanjay

was in critical condition and his intestine were coming

out from his stomach. Blood was oozing and bed sheet
was having blood stains. I also noticed blood on the

clothes of Sanjay ”. “Sanjay was in critical condition and

his intestine was coming out from his stomach. Blood

was oozing and bed sheet was having blood stains. I also

noticed blood on the clothes of Sanjay” Rahul Parashar

clearly proves that his nick name is “Bobby”. “Police had

also arrived there . They recorded statement of Sanjay

Bhardwaj . I also had talked with Sanjay .He told me that

S.S.Mago lifted him from Sector 5 Panchkula and brought

to Baddi where caused injuries to him by means of

knife .Police carried out the proccedings . “Doctor on

duty issue MLR and referred Sanjay Bhardwaj to P.G.I

Chandigarh at about 1.45 a.m..

That chief examination of P.W-2 Dev Vert Sharma clearly

proves that he along with other reached at Nalagarh

Hospital on 30.10.2000 at about 1 A.M .Relevant portion

as staed by him is :- “Then we went to Nalgarh

Hospital.We reached there at about 1 A.M on

30.10.2000.When we reached there , we saw that my son

was lying on a bed Examination table ”. “We reached at

P.G.I at about 3 A.M on 30.10.2000” . “ Sanjay Bhardwaj

was wearing a shirt which was having a cut of knife.

There was blood on the shirt and also on pants ”. “I

inquired from my son as to what had happened . He told

me that he was kidnapped from Panchkula by the

accused person present in the Court and one more whom

I do not know and that he was stabbed by them

somehwere near Baddi in a jungle .Sanjay Bhardwaj was

wearing a shirt which was having a cut of knife.” “Then I

inquired from my son as to what had happened.He told

me that he was kidnapped from Panchkula by the

accused person present in the Court and one more whom

I do not know and that he was stabbed by them

somewhere near Baddi in a jungle.” “The doctor at

Nalagarh told me that the matter was serious and the

patient was being referred to PGI. We then took Sanjay

Bhardwaj to P.G.I ”.

That in order to prove allegations levelled in complaint by

P.W-5 S.S.Mago, Dr.Rajinder Singh, Professor & Head of

Department of Surgery , P.G.I Chandigarh was

summoned in present case by prosecution as P W-8.

During examination –in-chief as well as during cross

examination Copy of chief and cross examination of P.W-

8 Dr.Rajinder Singh is attached as Annexure P-10 . PW-

8 Dr Rajinder Singh completely demolished case of

prosecution by proving facts regarding admission of

accused Sanjay Bhardwaj at P.G.I at 3.10.am on

30.10.2000 as well as about tretament and operation

performed by Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan & other doctors at

P.G.I Chandigarh thereby supported defence of accuseds.

Perusal of testimony of P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh clearly

proves that all allegations levelled in complaint of P.W-5

S.S.Mago regarding admission, treatment and operation

of accused Sanjay Bhardwaj at PGI Chandigarh are totally

false. Details regarding the same are explained in the

subsequent paragraphs. Perusal of examiantion of

Dr.Rajinder Singh would reveal that no suggestion was

made to P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh that patient Sanjay

Bhardwaj was not opearted, treated and remained

admitted in P.G.I Chandigarh from 30.10.2000 to

07.11.2000. No suggestion was given to P.W-8

Dr.Rajinder Singh that Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan had not

operated upon Sanjay Bhardwaj.As stated above P.W-8

Dr.Rajinder Singh proved the case file of P.G.I. which is

exhibited as Ext.P.W-8/B. Perusal of above said case file

of P.G.I i.e Exhibit P.W-8/B as well as statement of P.W-8

Dr.Rajinder Singh clearly proves that patient Sanjay

Bhardwaj was admitted at 3.10.a.m on 30.10.2000 in PGI

Chandigarh on 07.11.2000 was discharged from PGI

Chandigarh. Relevant portion of his Examination – in-

Chief is reproduced here below:-“As per Ext. P.W-8/C and

Ext.P.W-8 /D ,the patient was admitted at 3.10 A.M on

30.10.2000 ” “As per Ext.P.W-8/D the patient was first

examined by Dr.P.Ranganathan, Jr.Residents on

30.10.2000 at 3.10.AM. Self Stated I am not acquainted

with his signatures but his name is clearly written over”.

“As per the case file of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj

admissions 90826 the patient had been admitted under

Professor S.M.Bose and other treating team members

were Sr. Residence Dr.Kuldeep and Dr.Sibu ,Dr.Murti and

Dr.Devinder” “It is correct that patient has been admitted

under professor S.N.Bose consultant incharge”. “ It is

also correct right from the admission till discharge of the

patient is looked after by number hospitals personnel

including sisters,wardboys besides the doctors as has

been said earlier” . “It is correct that patient stayed in

the hospital for seven days , so besides Dr. Kuldeep

Dhawan , he would have been looked after by other

doctors and nurses” .

That it is pertitinet to mention here that most important

star witness in this case is D.W-8 Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan

who clearly demolished prosecution story . A perusal of

his chief as well as cross examination would clearly

reveal that he had explained complete details regarding

Admission, Injury, Operation, treatment and discharge of

injured Sanjay Bhardwaj in P.G.I Chandigarh. Copy of his

chief eamination and cross examination is reproduced

herebelow for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court :-

Defence evidence on behalf of accused Kuldeep Dhawan.

DW-8 Statement of Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan, House No.1

Sector-7, Panchkula, (Haryana) Without Oath

16.11.2012

In the year 2000 I was posted in the department of

Surgery PGI Chandigarh as Senior Resident. As per

record of the PGI file patient Sanjay Bhardwaj aged 29

years came in PGI Emergency at 3.10 a.m. On

30.10.2000 as depicted in Ex. PW8/D. As per the

record of the file he was brought by Rahul (friend)

resident of 679, Sector-4 Panchkula (Haryana). He

was first seen in the Emergency Surgical OPD by Dr.

P. Ranganathan who as Jr. Resident Emergency

Surgical OPD at that time. the patient was attended

by Dr. P. Ranganathan as far as treatment and history

is concerned the made the diagnosis and planned the

treatment. The treatment is duly depicted in Ex.

PW8/D. It is duly signed by Dr. P. Ranganathan as I

worked with him and know his signatures. Thereafter,

Dr. P Ranganathan sent the call to the General

Surgery 2nd Unit on call on that day. I attended the

call as I was the Senior Resident General Surgery 2 nd

Unit on call on that day. Admit Card is prepared by

the Clerk posted in the Emergency Reception. After

making the Card patient was seen by the Jr. Resident

posted in Emergency Surgical OPD and he was Dr. P.

Ranganathan on that day. I gave the consultation

after the emergency call was received by me. I

advised the same things as was advised by the

Emergency doctor i.e. Dr. P. Ranganathan and

advised to collect all the investigations and arranged

the Samaan (articles) and blood. As per the record Ex.

PW8/D Dr. P. Ranganathan made the diagnosis stab

injuries abdomen with omental herniation with the

diagram made by him on the Emergency OPD ticket

Ex.PW8/D. Patient. Sanjay Bhardwaj was admitted on

that day in Emergency Ward No.5 under General

Surgery Unit-II by Dr. P. Ranganathan as endorsed in

red circle on Ex. PW8/D. Patient was advised number

of investigations like blood tests X-rays of the chest

and abdomen and blood was arranged in the

Emergency OPD itself by Dr. P. Ranganathan. All

these investigations were done by different

departments i.e. department of Bio-Chemistry,

department of Radiology, department of Blood

Transfusion Medicine etc. Patient was shifted to

Emergency Ward No. 5 under General Surgery 2nd Unit

after admission and again was seen by Dr. Sarabjeet

Singh who was Final Year Jr. Resident posted in

Emergency Recovery Ward No. 5. I got the certified

and attested photocopy of the original file Ex. PW8/B

from PGI Chandigarh and the same in Mark-X. He saw

this patient at 5.32 a.m. On 30.10.2000. He examined

the patient thoroughly and wrote the complete history

on the file with the diagram of the abdomen. He

collected all the investigations. He got the patient

prepared for surgery. He got the pre-anaesthesia

check up (PAC) of Sanjay Bhardwaj done by Dr. Sushil

who was Jr. Resident in the Department of

Anaesthesia. This PAC record is marked as Dx-1 which

bears the signature of Dr. Sushil who conducted PAC.

As per the record on PGI then patient was operated by

me i.e. Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan along with Dr. Amarpreet

Singh, Dr. Moorti and other team members as Ex. Dy

which bears my signatures and Dr. Amarpreet Singh.

Post operatively patient again was shifted to

Emergency Recovery Ward No.5 as per record. After

that patient was seen by Jr. Posted in Emergency

Recovery. After that patient was shifted to Ward

under General Surgery Unit-II. As per shifting note

Ex.DW8/A on 31st October, 2000.(Objected to). After

reaching the ward patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was again

examined by Dr. Ashish who was Jr. Resident in

General Surgery Unit-II whose notes are there in the

file Ex.PW8/D. Again on 1.112000 on the second post

operative day patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was again

seen by Dr. Ashish and other Jr. Residents. Likewise

patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was repeatedly examined

and seen by Dr. Pravin and Dr. Ashish who were

posted in General Surgery Unit-II as per file Ex.PW8/D.

Whenever patient got admitted in the PGI he has to

deposit certain money which is there as Ex.DW6/D.

Patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was admitted under Profesor

S.M. Bose who was Head of General Surgery Unit-II.

Ex. Dy is in my hand and its back side is in the hand

of Dr. Amarpreet Singh. Ex.PW2/R is copy of Ex. Dy.

This Medical Legal Case Summary was prepared by

me on the written directions of Medical

Superintendent and Professor S.M. Bose. I have seen

original Medical Legal Case Summary in the file

Ex.PW8/B the copy of which is Ex.PW2/U which bears

my signatures.

xxxxx by Sh. R.C. Bakshi Ld. P.P. for the State xxxxxx.

Cross examination is deferred at the request of Ld.

P.P. and at the request of complainant.------

RO & AC Sd/-

Sd/- Kuldeep Dhawan Addl.Sessions Judge,Solan

District Solan (H.P)

Defence Evidence on behalf of accused Kuldeep

Dhawan

D.W-8 Statement of Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan ,House

No1 ,Sector -7 Panchkula (Haryana)

Called for Cross Examination as the cross

examination was deferred On 16.11.2012 without

Oath 21.12.2012

xxxxxx on behalf of accused Sanjay Bhardwaj and

Dev Varth Sharma opportunity given. Nil

xxxxxx by Sh. M.K. Sharma, Ld. P.P. for the State

xxxxxx

Xxxxx on behalf of Accused Sanjay Bhardwaj & Dev

Varth Sharma Oppurtunity given Nil XXX by Sh M K

Sharma Ld PP for the state I don not remember

exactly as to how many senior residents were there in

the unit on 30.10.2000 but I can tell after seen the

file.I donot know as to who was on emergency OPD on

30.10.2000. Self stated, I can tell after seeing the

record.It is correct that as per PGI Record Ex CW2/C

on 29.10.2000 Dr Raman Dhanda was on emergency

duty during the intervening night of 29/30.10.2000. It

is correct that as per record Ex CW 2/C I was not

posted on emergency duty during the intervening

night of 29/30.10.2000. Self stated that I was on

emergency call. As per record of PGI Ex PW 8/D

pati9ent Sanjay Bhardwaj was precented in

Emergency PGI at 3.10 AM on 30.10.2000. As per the

record , once I was called in emergency by

emergency doctors I came to give my consultantion

under Prof S M Bose.I don’t remember time of arrival

as it is not mentioned in the record. EX PW-8/D is not

in my hand.Accordingly to the record of PGI Ex PW

8/D there is alleged history of sustaining staff injury of

abdomen on 29/10/2000 at 9.PM near Baddi during a

fight by some persons. No history LOC /ENT bleed

unconsciousness. History of one episode of vomiitting

present which were undigested food particles. Past

History of Stab injury abdomen in decemeber 1999 for

which he was hospitalised for 39 days. Intraoperatiev

finding- Multiple illeal perforations with

heamoperitoneum. Patient devekloped DIC and sepsis

in the post OP perido with shock improoved.Patient is

non alcholic and non smoker. As per record it is

correct that patient pulse was 80 Blood pressure was

130/80 mmg which is with in normal limits. It is

correct that as per record as per diagram made on

that one 1 cm stab wound at the level of umblicus

through which omentum is herneatintg.As per the out

patient record Ex PW-8/d Patient was broght by Rahul

( Friend) as per the record I do not know whether or

not police was informed as nothing was mentioned

was mentioned in the record. I was not knowing at

that time that patient was earlier treated at CHC

Nalagarh as the same is nopt metioned in EX PW-8/D.

At that time I knew nothing that the case was

registered at PS Barotiwala and one constable had

accompanied the patient. Question : The referring

doctor from CHC Nalagarh musy have given docket in

which injured was reffered to PGI which should in the

present file of PGI Answer. I do not know about this

thing. Ex PW-8/C is in my hand this also bears time

3.10 AM . It is correct that I started writing GS II

Consultation under Dr G Singh than I cut it and again

wrote GS II under Prof S M Bose. I have not mentioned

the arriavl time in EX PW-8/C it is incorrect that it is

not mentioned in EX PW-8/C that who had sent call to

me. Self stated the call was send by JR Emergency

duty as per exhibit PW-8/D.It is correct that I have not

mentioned the name of doctor who had sent call to

me. Self stated call is sent through the pager in

normal practise in those days. Time of examining the

patient by me is not written in the record and same is

not remebered to me . I have not mentioned the

dimension of injuries as the omentum wa sprolapsing

from wound. Though I have depicted position on

diagram. I do not remembered who narrated history

to me but in normal practice the doctor who examines

the patient in emergency narrates. It is correct t hat

in my writing ex PW-8/C I have written alleged history

of stab by Father in law, where as in ex PW8/D with

alleged history from some known person. It is correct

that I worte previous history of injured qua dated

21/12/99. Then I made the plan to collect the work up

the meaning of that is to collect the all investigations,

NPO-IVF-RTA-PUC-CVP,I/O Charting injection

cephron,inj Metrogyl,Arrange saman,arrange blood,

shift to emergency recovery ,fix.Chest xray report was

showing no gas under diapharagm ,asr.It is incorrect

that only Dr Raman Dhanda Sr Resident could have

admitted and shifted to emergency recovery Self

state din normal practise the unit on call seniro

resident is called for consultation in emergency when

ever team of emergency thinks that patient needs

admission/intervention in dire emergency when the

emergency team does not have time to follow this

protocol Sr Resident posted has the power to admit.

In this case I ordered to admit this patient on behalf of

Prof S M Bose .Question : There are panel of Doctors

on call for each surgical units in PGI and you were not

in the panel on alleged date i.e during the intervening

night of 29/30 .10.2000.Ans: There are nothing like

panel of doctors in PGI for attending emergency

patients. Infact there are 3 surgical units; GS1,GS2 &

GS3. Each unit has its call days rotation wiseliek GS1

on Monday, GS 2 on Tuesday,GS III On Wednesday

abd so on. If a ptient who is already been admitted to

any unit previously and he comes again in emergency

,the concerned unit will be called in emergency for

that patient irrespective of the unit on call. It is

incorrect that I was not in capacity to give

consultation to Mr Sanjay Bhardwaj patient as already

examined by Prof & head doctor Rajinder Singh in his

statement. It is correct that every unit of surgery is

headed by on professsor and GS II was headed by Prof

S M Bose. I do not know that Dr G Singh was on call or

not on that day but I gave this consultation under Dr

SM Bose.It is correct that X Ray film & report is not

present in file procured from PGI. It is correct that

name opf patient is written as Rakesh Kumar and age

is 50 years which was conducted on 31/10/2000 on

ultrasound report in file EX PW-8/B.Selfstated that

may be mistakenly of some other patient .Question:

Can you tell the during and exact time during which

he was operated.Answer: I cannot tell the exact time

at which the patient was taken in for surgery as lot

many page sare missing in the original file shown to

me but total time of operation is 2 hrs & 10 minutes

Part of Ex DY on page 17 is written with my hand

according to the record the blood loss in the surgery

is 50 ml and in this record , 2 hand full of clots along

with 500 ml of blood was present in peritoneal cavity.

This paper was prepared by me immediately after

surgery in the emergency operation theatre only as in

normal parctise. My Assistants during operation is Dr

Amanpreet Dr Murthy Dr Chauhan, Dr Pooja. Dr

Chauhan and Dr Pooja were the anestheist and nurse

was Manchander.Record of Anesthetist is missing in

PGI file ex PW-8/B .However I have obtained certified

copy of that and produced in the court as Mark DX/1.

Question : During examination in chief Dr Sushil has

got pre aneasthesia check up ( PAC) of Sanjay

Bhardwaj whereas in your docket prepared during

operation Ex DY reflects of Dr chauhan & Dr Pooja .

Ans: It is correct that PAC was done by Dr Sushil as it

is mentioned in Mark DX/1 but Anesthesia was given

by Dr Chauhan & Dr Pooja . There is no record

showing Dr Chuahan & Dr Pooja was present and

prepare dany record regarding anesthesia of Sanjay

Bhardwaj ?Ans; As per record, it is incorrect to say

that Dr Chauhan and Dr Pooja did not give

anesthesia.As per record , Dept of Blood transfusion

issued 1 unit of blood on the name of mr Sanjay

Bhardwaj Patient was numbered as 581369/O+ve on

30/10/2000. According to the record it is no where

mentioned when the blood was given to patient .It is

correct that the performa issued by department of

blood transfusion is blank.It is incorrect that cutting

on Ex DY With regard to unit professor ,blank

performa of blood transfusion, report of Dr Sunil are

going to show that I have tampered the case file in

PGI being senior resident in PGI. As per the record

patient Sanjay Bhardwaj previously stabbed in the

year 1999.It is correct that my eveidence was

recorded in that case Ido not know whether or not

that case has been decided.I do not know that court

has given finding in that case that I remained

associated with Sanjay Bhardwaj from the beginning.I

saw Sanjay Bhardwaj in PGI when he was earlier

admitted in GS II which was our unit in the year 1999.

I do not know at that time that sanjay bhardwaj had

been reffered from General hospital in sec 16

chandigarh. I do not know that court has given finding

that the application written for treatment of Sanjay

Bhardwaj on behalf of police was in my hand.I do not

know that sanjay bhardwaj remained with police at

Nalgarh on 30.10.200 till 7.00 AM. It is incorrect that I

have fabricated the record Ex PW8/C and Ex

PW-8/D.Time written on EX PW-8/C is not in my hand.

Patient may or may not become unconscious in such

type of injuries.Self Stated as per record patient was

conscious in this case.I can tell as to at what time

patient was operated upon as lot of pages are missing

from PGIrecord.it is correct that in such type of injury

patient is operated up on within hours of admission.I

do not know that doctor who has examined Sanjay

Bhardwaj at Nalagarh as mentioned that he has 2

inch stab injury. I do not know that there is another

mark of previous stab mark mentioned by doctor. It is

correct that I have not mentioned the previous stab

mark.again said I have mentioned medico legal case

summary has been prepared me in this case as per

written orders of Prof S M Bose our head of

Department on 13.12.2000 .The date of discharge in

medical legal case summary is 10.12.2000.It is

correct that as per discharge record the patient was

discharged on 7/11/2000

Self stated the date of discharge on medical case

legal case summary was written after seeing the file

where by mistake it was written 10.11.2000 but the

fact is patient was discharged on 7.11.2000 as so

many times explained. It is incorrect that I have

intentionally mentioned wrong date of discharge on

medical legal case summary in connivance with

Sanjay Bhardwaj and other accused. It is incorrect

that I have operated on sanjay bhardwaj at 5.pm on

30.10.2000.It is incorrect that Prof S M Bose had

never authorised/ ordered me to issue medical legal

case summary which was marked by PA of Prof S M

Bose.Mark DX is partly in my hand and date of

discharge is also in myt hand. I do not remember that

mark DX was prepared on 10/11/2000. It is incorrect

that Sanjay Bhardwaj has not sustained grevious

injury and I prepared the record incorrectly in

connivance with the co accused

Sd/-

R.O. & A.C. Addl. Session Judge, Solan,

Sd/-Kuldeep Dhawan District Solan

(H.P.)

That judgment passed by Sh.Bhim Chand Presiding

Officer, Additional Sessions Judge, Solan dated

12.10.2004 is merged into the Judgment of the

Hon’ble High Court of Shimla (H.P). A perusal of

Judgement of Hon’ble Himachal pardesh High Court

will reveal that Hon’ble High Court had not in any

way found the medical record of P.G.I to be

manipulated or fabricated.

That it is pertinent to mention here that Sarv Sheel

Mago who remained as S.D.O in Haryana

Government has links with politicians and high

ranked police officals like D.G.P and various I.G of

various states.He was a close assosicate of son of

former Chief Minister of Haryana .That a perusal of

F.I.R No. 170 dated 30.10.2000 Under Section 364 ,

307,506 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station

Barootiwala District Solan Himachal Pardesh would

reveal that Police have not even arrested Sarv Sheel

Mago and others. The place of occurance in sector -5

Panchkula exactly behind C.B.S.E office from where

petitioner was kidnapped was an isolated area and

after 24 years still is isolated area .Police make no

efforts to bring this evidence on record .Police

intentionally did not collected toll tax slip of the toll

barrier, which came on the way while accused Sanjay

Bhardwaj was taken from Panchkula to Baddi, inspite

being told by accused Sanjay Bhardwaj in his

statement to police. Police made no efforts either to

recover knife from the accused. During investigation

police had not send blood stained clothes of accused

Sanjay Bhardwaj for C.F.S.L examination.

Investigation done by Investigating Officer was very

unsatisfactory. Petitioner Sanjay Bhardwaj has no

controll over investigating agency and negligence of

Investigating officer could not effect credibility of

statement of Sanjay Bhardwaj. Investigating officer

during investigation was not conscious of his

responsiblities. At many occasions Himachal police

saw accused Sanjay Bhardwaj first at Nalagarh

Hospital and as well as P.G.I in a injured condition,

however rather filing a challan against P.W-5 Sarv

Sheel Mago & others, Police filed a cancellation

report. That the above mentioned facts clearly

proves that how Barootiwala Police was hell bent to

help Sarv Sheel Mago and others in order to save

them form the crime committed by him.

That the medical evidence which is documentry as

well as occular has come on record in the present

case by defence as well as by prosecution pertaining

to Nalagarh Civil Hospital and P.G.I Chandigarh in

respect of time and date, injury,treatment, operation,

admission and discharge of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj

is totally consistent with occular evidence in the

present case and there is no infirmatory in medical

evidence which is duly proved during trial of present

case . That a clear cut evidence regarding

time , date , injury, presence of accused Sanjay

Bhardwaj at CHC Nalagarh on 30.10.2000 at 1.45 a.m

and admission of accused Sanjay Bhardwaj at

3.10.a.m on 30.10.2000 at P.G.I and thereafter

regarding the operation,treatment and discharge of

accused Sanjay Bhardwaj from P.G.I. has come on

record in the present case. It was duty of prosecution

to bring all these evidence on record during the trial

of F.I.R No. 170 which was even available at that

time. It is evident that by not bringing above said

evidence on record, police did not conducted

investigation and trial of F.I.R No. 170 in a fair

manner in order to help Sarv Sheel Mago. It is

pertinent to mention here that Sarv Sheel Mago, in

order to set his personal score with petitioner Sanjay

Bhadrwaj and with his father, did not spared

Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan and Dr.Ajay Kumar Sethi, doctors

who attended/operated/treated Sanjay Bhardwaj and

implicated them also in this false case .It is pertinent

to mention here that Dr Kuldeep Dhawan and Dr Ajay

Kumar Sethi belong to nobel profession and who

were performing their duty by attending patient

Sanjay Bhardwaj in injured condition and by stating

truth during the trial of F.I.R No 170.

That it is pertinenet to mention here that the

evidence which was led during the case of 340 Cr.P.C

was already avaialble when trial of F.I.R No 170 was

going on. However police made no effrorts to bring

that evidence on record. That it is pertinent to

mention here that these two cases i.e case titled

“State Versus Sarv Sheel Mago pertaining to F.I.R No.

170 dated 30.10.2000 u/s 307 ,364,506 IPC ” as well

as “ State Versus Dr.Ajay Kumar Sethi & others u/s

340 IPC” are 2 inter connected cases with same

evidence which was presented in both cases. Keeping

in view of above stated facts and specifically as held

in judgment dated 25.07.2024 i.e Annexure A-9,

present case titled “State Vs Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan &

Others arisen out of F.I.R No 170 dated 30.10.2000

U/s 307,364,506,34 IPC Police Station Barotiwala

registered against Sarvsheel Mago, Aman Mago,

Komal Mago is a fit case for RETRIAL.

 A retrial is not the second trial . It is continuation of

the same trial and same prosecution under Section

427 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha ,2023 deals with the

powers of the appellate court. As per Section 427

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha ,2023 , in an appeal from a

conviction, the appellate court may:-

(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or

discharge the accused, or order him to be re-

tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction

subordinate to such Appellate Court or

committed for trial, or

(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or

(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the

nature or the extent, or the nature and extent,

of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the

same.

That ‘De novo’ trial means a “new trial” ordered by an

appellate court in exceptional cases when the original

trial failed to make a determination in a manner

dictated by law. The trial is conducted afresh by the

court as if there had not been a trial in first instance.

Undoubtedly, the appellate court has power to direct

the lower court to hold ‘de novo’ trial.

That from the above mentioned facts it is very much

clear that the original trial has not been satisfactory

due to the reason for wrong rejection of evidences .

That “a de novo trial should be the last resort and that

too only when such a course becomes so desperately

indispensable; it should be limited to the extreme

exigency to avert ‘a failure of justice’. An order of re-

trial affords the prosecutor an opportunity to rectify

the infirmities disclosed in the earlier trial, and will not

ordinarily be countenanced when it is made merely to

enable the prosecutor to lead evidence which he could

but has not cared to lead either on account of

insufficient appreciation of the nature of the case or

for other reasons."

That from the above stated facts it is very much clear

that in the present case the lapses are so grave so as

to prejudice the rights of the petitioner .There was a

‘shoddy’ investigation . That a perusal of Judgment i.e

Annexure P-9 clearly proves that there was serious

irregularities in the prosecution case thereby

necessitating retrial and these irregularities pointed

out resulting in miscarriage of justice thereby

constraining the High Court to set aside the judgment

of the Sessions Court and direct for retrial .Such lapses

actually affect the prosecution case; or such lapses

have actually resulted in failure of justice.

LIST OF DATES IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

WITH RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS OR EVENTS.

15.05.1999 That on 15.05.1999 both petitioner and

Nidhi left their respective homes and

went

to Delhi and for the night of 15.05.1999

both stayed at the residence of their

common friends Seema and Mansi at

Lajpat Nagar New Delhi.

16.5.1999 That on 16.5.1999 the petitioner and

Ms Nidhi married each other at Arya

Samaj Mandir, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi

acoording to Hindu rites and ceremonies

in presence of their common friends .

The said marriage was soleminized

against the wishes their resepctive

families .

19.05.1999 That both petitioner and Nidhi went to

Golabanda Cantt by train as it is sea

beach area and one of their common

friend Col. Rajeev Gupta was posted

their.

21.05.1999 That both petitioner and Nidhi Mago

reached at Golabanda Cantt and reached

at the residence of Col. Rajeev

Gupta.From

their address and telephone number of

Col.
 Rajeev Gupta was provided to Sarv Sheel

Mago .

22.06.1999 That before comming to Golabanda

Sarv Sheel Mago filed an application under

section 156(3) CrP.C in Court at

Chandigarh.

23.05.1999 That during the stay at

Golabanda petitioner and Nidhi enjoyed

their honeymoon and went to Sea Beach at

Golabanda went to See movies attended

Army Party and went out for dinner.

25.05.1999 That Sarv Sheel Mago along with his

nephew reached at the residence of Col.

Rajeev Gupta and met petitioner and Nidhi

and requsted both to come along with him

and assured them for giving a reception

party and thereafter along with his nephew

went back to Hotel.

26.05.1999 That in the morning of 26.05.1999

petitioner and Nidhi Mago was picked up

from the residence of Col. Rajeev Gupta by

Sarv Sheel Mago and his nephew an reached

Bhuvneshwar. From Bhuvneshwar all of

them boarded a flight and same day

recahed

to Delhi and after that to chandigarh. At that

time Sarv Sheel Mago took Nidhi Mago along

 with him and told petitioner that he will have

a talk of reception party with the parents of

petitioner .

27.05.1999 That on 27.5.1999 petitioner came to

know that Sarv Sheel Mago took Nidhi Mago

to

the Court at Chandigarh where her

statement

Under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded by

Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Chandigarh

with the allegation of forgery ,abduction and

of Rape.

28.05.1999 Nidhi Mago was subjected for medical

exmination in General Hospital Sector 16

Chandigarh.

29.05.1999 Sarv Sheel Mago took Nidhi to Karnal and

fixed her matrimonial alliance with one well

settled and rich NRI Sh.Parsahnt Arora son

of Lt.Col. Sada Nand Arora.

01.06.1999 Nidhi Mago and Sh.Parshant Arora entered

into matrimonial Alliance at Karnal in

presence of their family members and

relatives.

02.6.1999 That Nidhi and Sarv Sheel Mago

furnished false affidavits and made false

statement before Registrar of Marriages

Karnal to the effect that on 02.06.1999

 Nidhi Mago was unmarried where as the

fact was that on 02.06.1999 Nidhi Mago

was legally weded wife of the petitioner

in terms of their marriage soleminized

on 16.05.1999 Therefore marriage of

Nidhi Mago and Sh.Parshant Arora was

got registered before Registrar of

Marriages Karnal and a marriage

certificte of the marriage was also issued

by The Registrar of Marriage Karnal.

04.06.1999 That after few days Sh.Parshant Arora

and their family members came to know

that Nidhi Mago and Sarv Sheel Mago

had cheated them as they did not

disclosed to them regarding her previous

marriage therefore Sh.Parshant Arora

snapped his relatioship with Nidhi Mago

and her family members .

07.06.1999 That on 07.06.1999 after snapping his

relationship with Nidhi Mago Sh.Parshant

Arora went back to Canada.Therefater a

series of litigation started between all of

them in different Hon’ble Courts.

16.09.1999 That petition filed by Nidhi Mago dated

16.9.1999 under section 12 of H.M.A at

Tis Hazari Courts New Delhi alleging her

 marriage with Sanjay Bhardwaj to be

result to force & coercion filed by

petitioner Nidhi Mago was dismissed by

Sh.Gurdeep Singh Saini, Additional

District Judge Tis Hazari, Delhi vide

Judgment and decree dated 11.1.2008

while holding marriage dated

16.05.1999 to be legal and valid

marriage. That Appeal filed against

Judgment dated 11.1.2008 by petitioner

Nidhi was dismissed by Hon’ble Delhi

High Court vide order dated 15.07.2014.

That on one petition filed before

Panchkula Courts by Sanjay Bhardwaj in-

person under section 13 of Hindu

Marriage 1955 (Act No 25 of 1995) for

dissolution of marriage between Sanjay

Bhardwaj and Nidhi Mago U/s 13(1) (i)

(ia) (ib) on the grounds as mentioned

therein Ex-Parte Divorce was granted by

the Hon’ble Court of Sh.Rajesh Garg,

Additional District Judge , Panchkula vide

Judgment and order dated 05.12.2012.

27.11.1999 and the respondent no 2 threatened

the petitioner to withdraw a case.

29.11.1999 That the petitioner made numerous

requests to the Police to protect the life

of the petitioner but as the respondent

no 2 is a very influential person the

police did nothing. The petitioner

through his lawyer also sent legal

notices dated 29.11.1999 , 18.12.1999

to the respondent and a copy of the

same to SP, Panchkula and had

requested to take action against the

respondent no 2 for the threats issued

by the respondent no 2 to the petitioner

to withdraw a case filed under section 9

of the Hindu Marriage Act by the

petitioner.

21.12.1999 That as the petitioner was not complying

with the illegal demands of the

respondents Sarv Sheel Mago and Aman

Mago that therefore on 21.12.1999 when

petitioner was going to Chandigarh

Sector 16 to meet his frined on the way

Sarv Sheel Mago and Aman Mago way

laid the petitioner and with an intention

to murder the petitioner and Aman Mago

made attempt on the life of the

petitioner by stabbing the petitioner in

the abdomen of the petitioner. A F.I.R

 No 586 dated 21.12.1999 under section

307,34 IPC at Police Station Sector 17

Chandigarh was registered against Sarv

Sheel Mago and Aman Mago by the

Chandigarh Police. The petitioner was

operated in PGI Chandigarh and

remained in Hospital for 39 days. As per

the doctor the injury inflicted on the

petitioner was “dangerous to life”.

29.10.2000 That on 29.10.2000 at around 6.15 P.M

petitioner Sanjay Bhardwaj was

kidnapped by respodent Sarv Sheel

Mago , Aman Mago , Komal Mago and

one another unknown person and was

taken towards hills of Baddi where

petitioner Sanjay Bhardwaj was stabbed

in abdomen by Sarv Sheel Mago.

30.10.2000 That on statement of petitioner Sanjay

Bhardwaj recorded by Police at Civil

Hospital Nalagarh an F.I.R No. 170 under

section 307, 364, 506,34 of IPC was got

registered at 2.40.A.M on 30.10.2000 at

Police Station Barootiwala District Solan

(Himachal Pardesh) Copy of the F.I.R No.

170 is Exhibited as Exhibit

–D.W-5/A.That it is pertinent to mention

here that P.W-5 Sarv Sheel Mago is an

 inflential person with political clout and

due to his links with high profile

politicians as well higher officials of

Police Department, neither proper

investigations were conducted by police

nor Police had arrested P.W-5 Sarv Sheel

Mago, Aman Mago and Mrs Komal Mago

in this case.It is admitted fact by Police

that Sanjay Bhardwaj was in injured

condition when he was taken by Police

person from Baddi to CHC Nalagarh on

29.10.2000 and from where he was

reffered to PGI Chandigarh for further

treatment of injury where Sanjay

Bhardwaj was operated & treated for the

injury suffered by him.

31.12.2000 However instead of filling challan, Police

choose to cancel this F.I.R and a

cancellation report was prepared by the

SHO on 31.12.2000 and was filed in the

Court of Learned Sub Divisional

Magistrate Nalagarh on 03.10.2001. A

complaint was also filed by accused no 3

Sanjay Bhardwaj as complainant on

6.6.2001 regarding the same occurance.

After disagreeing with the cancellation

report, Learned S.D.J.M Nalagarh took

 cognizance vide order dated 2.9.2002

and directed Sarv Sheel Mago , Aman

Mago and Kamal Mago to put up

appearance before the Court on

11.10.2002.

11.10.2003 Accordingly accused person in that case

Aman Mago and S.S.Mago put in

appearance on 11.10.2002 while Komal

Mago appeared on 30.11.2002 and the

same day copies of challan were

supplied to them. Copy of the order of

Learned S.D.J.M Nalagarh is exhibited as

Exhibit –DH.That the Learned S.D.J.M,

Nalagarh committed the case to the Ld.

Sessions Judge ,Solan and the accused

persons were directed to appear before

the said Hon’ble Court on 6.2.2003.

06.02.2003 Therefore on 6.2.2003 all the accused

persons were appeared before the Court

and then the case was assigned by the

then Learned Sessions Judge Solan to

the Learned Additional Sesssions Jude

Solan .That investigation in this case

was not done by the police properly and

lot of lacunas have been deliberately left

by the police during investgation as the

police were hell bent upon to help the

 accused. No efforts were made by

prosecution to bring material facts and

evidence on record during trial.

08.06.2004 P.W-5 Statement of Doctor Mukesh

Malohtra MD Malohtra Hospital Baddin

oath 8.6.2004 I have been working as

Medical officer since 1991 in Malohtra

Hospital Baddi. On 29.10.2000 Sanjay

Bhardwaj present in the court ,who was

accompanied by two other person was

standing outside Malohtra hospital

building.I had gone somewhere.I

returned to the hospital late in the

evening.When I got down from my car

Sanjay Bhardwaj was present there.He

told me that he had been stabbed by his

father-in-law and brother-in-law .

(Sala).To show his wound to me he

raised his shirt.I saw that there was a cut

measuring about 1-1/2 Inch. I told him

that him that I could not do anything in

the matter and that he should go to

some other hospital.I do not throughly

examined him. He asked me to

telephonically informed his parents

about the occurance.He then sat on a

banch.I went inside and made a call

which was received by some

lady,probably his mother and informed

her about the incident.Those who were

accompanying Sanjay Bhardwaj are

known to me.They have there Paan

shops near our hospital approximately at

a distance of 100 mets from the

hospital.Thease two person can even

now be seen sometimes in Baddi , but

generally they are not sitting in their

shops now.When I inormed Sanjay

Bhardwaj that I had made a telephonic

call to his parents , he and two others

accompanying him left the hospital

premises.But after 5 minutes a worker of

of our hospital came to me and told me

thata person lying there on the road.I

then went to the road with my worker

and found that Sanjay Bhardwaj was

lying there.With the help of my worker I

made him to stand and brought him

back to bench which was just outside the

hospital building.Then I informed the

police on telephone.Before the police

arrived I applied a pad on the wound of

Sanjay Bhardwaj.Than police came and

took him to some other hospital.

08.06.2004 Statement of Kiran Pal.

15.06.2004 P.W-7. Statement of H.C. Sewa Singh

P.S. Parwanoo.

On oath 15.06.2004 I have been working

in P.P. Baddi as Head Constable I.O from

March 2000 to July 2002.I partly

investigated the case.On 29.10.2000 on

receiving telephonic message I went to

Malohtra Clinic Baddi alongwith

C .Madan Lal and Sajid Khan.I reached

Malohtra Clinic at about 11.50 P.M.There

I found Sanjay Bhardwaj lying in injured

condition on the banch.I arranged a

private vehicle and took him to Civil

Hospital Nalagarh.At Nalagarh after

obtaining permision of the doctor I

recorded the statement of Sanjay

Bhardwaj u/s 154 Cr.P.C which is

Ex.P.W1/A.The statement was sent by

me through constable Madan Lal to

police station Barootiwala or registration

of the case.I moved application Ex.P.W-

7A for medical examination of Sanjay

Bhardwaj for issuance of his MLC.I

obtained the MLC from the doctor.Sanjay

Bhardwaj was referred by the doctor to

P.G.I Chandigarh.The shirt and the pants

 borne by Sanjay Bhardwaj was taken

into possession by me in Nalagarh

Hospital vide memo Ex.P.W-1/C.The

memo was signed by Sanjeev Katoch

and Dev Vert Sharma who had also

arrived there at the hospital.The shirt

Ex.P-1 and pants Ex.P-2 shown to me are

the same which were taken into

possession by meI recorded the

statement of the witnesses of the

recovery.Thereafter the file was handed

over by me to ASI Sukh Darshan Singh..

12.10.2004 Judge (Presiding Officer Fast track

Court ) District Solan ,Solan vide

Judgment dated 12.10.2004.Copy of the

Judgment is exhibited as Exhibit-P.W-

2/E Resultantly all accused were

acquitted on benefit of Doubt by the

Learned Court of Sh. Bhim Chand

Additional and Sessions Solan.

19.01.2006 That therefore on 19.1.2006 P.W-5 Sarv

Sheel Mago filed an application under

section 340 of the code of criminal

procedure in the Hon’ble Court of Sh.

Bhim Chand ,Additional Sessions Judge ,

Presiding Officer , Fast Track Court Solan

 against the accused Late Dr.Ajay Kumar

Sethi, Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan , Sanjay

Bhardwaj and Dev Vert Sharma.The

application filed by P.W-5 S.S.Mago is

exhibited as Exhibit P.W-2/F .

03.11.2006 That therefore Ld. Additional Sessions

Judge ,Fast Track Court Solan had

summoned accused no1 , accused no 2 ,

accused no 3 and accused no 4 for

3.11.2006 to appear before the Court

and to furnish sufficient security for their

appearance before the Ld. CJM ,Solan.

Copy of the complaint under section 340

Cr.P.C for conducting inqiry in which all

the accused were summoned is

exhibited as Exhibit P.W-2/A .Copy of

the order is exhibited as Exhibit P.W-

2/G . 30.10.2000 .

17.03.2009 In present case statement of Sh.Jeewan

Kumar Medical Record Technician,

Department of Central Medical Record

P.G.I Chandigarh was recorded on

17.3.2009 during the trial of the present

case who brought case file of patient

Sanjay Bhardwaj which was

subsequently Exhibited by prosecution

 as Exhibit P.W-8/B which is attached as

Annexure P-3

28.07.2012 P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh proved the case

file of P.G.I. Relevant portion of his

examination–in-chief is reproduced here

below:-“ I have seen the patient case file

of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj noted in Red

circle Ext.P.W-8/A are in my hand and

bears my signatures which dated

19.1.2009. As per the case file of patient

Sanjay Bhardwaj admissions 90826 the

patient had been admitted under

Professor S.M.Bose and other treating

team members were Sr. Residents

Dr.Kuldeep and Dr.Sibu, Dr.Murti and

Dr.Devinder. The case file of patient is

Ext.P.W-8/B. Emergency OPD card in the

case file is Ext.P.W-8/C which is a part of

file. I do not recognoze the writing on

ExP.W-8/C again said admit card is

Ext.P.W-8/B and not Ext.P.W-8/C.

Generally Ext.P.W-8/D is filled in first and

subsequently consultation form Ext.P.W-

8/C is filled in . As per Ext. P.W-8/C and

Ext.P.W-8/D , the patient was admitted

at 3.10A.M on 30.10.2000.” That

perusal of above said case file of P.G.I i.e

Exhibit P.W-8/B as well as statement of

P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh clearly proves

that patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was

admitted at 3.10.a.m on 30.10.2000 in

PGI Chandigarh on 07.11.2000 was

discharged from PGI Chandigarh. P.W-8

Dr.Rajinder Singh proved the case file of

P.G.I. During trial of the present case

following medical record has come on

record which proves the authenticity and

genuineness of Medical record of Patient

Sanjay Bhardwaj from PGI Chandigarh.

Bare perusal of Exhibit P.W-8/B reveal

that it is a complete case file of patient

Sanjay Bhardwaj prepared at P.G.I by not

one person but by various doctors and

medical /para medical professional from

various departments of PGI Chandigarh

during stay of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj

for his treatment of stab injury suffered

by him on 29th oct 2000 and was

admitted ,opearted ,treated in P.G.I on

30.10.2000. Medical record Exhibit P.W-

8/B file of PGI Chadigarh of patient

Sanjay Bhardwaj clearly proves the

follwing things.
(r) That a letter from the Medical

Superintendent Nehru Hospital P.G.IMER

Chandigarh was written to

Prof.S.M.Bose ,Head of the Department for

completion of MLC duly sighned by Deputy

Central Registrar.

(s) That a letter was written by S.I Vijay Kumar

to the Medical Superintendent P.G.I

Chandigarh on 03.12.2000 to know

regarding the opinion of nature of Injury

wherin some remarks and signatures were

given by P.G.I doctors / staff.

(t) Medical Legal Case summary preapred and

duly signed by Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan.Income

declaration form duly filed and on it recipt

no. 160026181 is written.

(u) Report of Opeartion prepared and duly

signed by Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan.

(v) Progress sheet and shifting notes prepared

and signed by some doctors along with

Dr.Ashish.

(w) Progress Sheet and plan sighned by

Dr.Parvin.

(x) Reprot of Department of Haematalogy.

(y) Report from Department of Medical

Microbiology duly signed and date of

dispatch is stamped on 02-Nov-2000.

(z) Report from Department of Bio Chemistry

duly signed by Officer Incharge Clinical

Biochemistry Lab.

(aa) A letter written and duly signed by some

doctor of G.S-2 on 07.11.2000 to the Police

Officer Incharge ,Police Post PGI Chandigarh

to inform that Patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was

dischrged on 07.11.2000.

(bb) Page of Drugs and vetments as well as diet

and external treatment.

(cc) B.P Chart of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj shows

that it was firstly recorded at 4.35 A.M on

30.10.2000.

(dd) Details of Intake and out put record of food

of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj.

(ee) Out patient ticket prepared by

Dr.Ranganathan E.W-5 /G-S-11 ,Junior

resident ESOPD on 30.10.2000 at 3.10 a.m

which is exhibited as exhibit D.W-8/D

(ff) Exhibit D.W-4/A i.e New Out patient Register

of Nehru hospital PGI clearly proves that

patient Sanjay Bhardwaj reached at P.G.I at

3.10.a.m on 30.10.2000 as his enrty is there

on regsiter.

(gg) Exhibit D.W-4/B i.e New Out patient Register

of Nehru hospital PGI clearly proves that

 patient Sanjay Bhardwaj reached at P.G.I on

30.10.2000 as his enrty is there on regsiter.

(hh) Exhibit D.W-6/D i.e Advance receipt of

money deposited at P.G.I clearly revels that

at 05:08:26 on 30.10.2000 Rs 350/- was

deposited on the name of Sanjay Bhardwaj .

P.G.I file exhibited as Exibit P/W-8/B is

attached as Annexure P-3 .

That the above mentioned facts regarding case

file of P.G.I Ex P.W-8/B clearly proves that

medical case record file of Sanjay Bhardwaj

was not prepared by one person, but by many

of Doctors a well as staff members of from

various departments of PGI Chandigarh.

Further perusal of medical record file clearly

revaels that more then 30 staff personnel of

P.G.I Chandigarh including doctors, nurses para

medical staff as well as officials from Accounts

branch attended Sanjay Bhardwaj during his

stay in PGI Chandigarh .

20.10.2012 DW-7 Statement of Rahul Parashar son of

Sh.M.L.Sharma resident of G-1 ,Ashiana

Complkex ,MDC Seector -4 Panchkula

(Haryana) Aged 43 Years .My nick name is

Bobby.In the year 2000 I was residing at House

No. 679 Sector -4 Panchkula .On 29.10.2000 at

about 11.10 -11.15 p.m I received phone call of

aaccused Sanjay Bhardwaj father , both

accused Sanjay and his father are present in

the Court today .Sanjay Bhardwajs father told

me on phone that Sanjays father –in Law had

caused stab injuries to Sanjay some where in

Baddi. The name of Sanjays father is S.S.Mago.

I was also told on phone that Sanjay was at

Baddi . On receiving this telephonic information

I immedieatley rushed to Sanjays house Sector

-2 House No 707 Panchkula.. Neighbours had

also gathered in house of Sanjay at Panchkula.

From there I along with 3-4 neighbours of

Sanjay left for Baddi in the Indica car owned by

Sanjays Father .But on the way , one of the

occupancy of the Indica car received phone call

on his moblie and he was told that Sanjay

Bhardwaj had been shifted from Baddi to

Nalagarh Hospital. So, we all went to Nalagarh

Government Hospital and reached there at

about 1.20-130 a.m on 30.10.2000. Sanjays

father along with his neighbours, was already

present there . Sanjay was in critical

conditionand his intestine was coming out from

his stomach. Blood was oozing and bed sheet

was having blood stains. I also noticed blood on

the clothes of Sanjay .Police had also arrived

there . They recorded statement of Sanjay

 Bhardwaj . I also had talked with Sanjay .He

told me that S.S.Mago lifted him from Sector 5

Panchkula and brought to Baddi where caused

injuries to him by means of knife .Police carried

out the proccedings , Doctor on duty issue MLR

and referred Sanjay Bhardwaj to P.G.I

Chandigarh at about 1.45 a.m.We reached at

P.G.I Chandigarh at about 3.00 a.m on

30.10.2000 along with Sanjay .Sanjay was

taken to emergency on strtcher by me and by

his father .Doctor issued a slip to me with the

direction to get obtain Out Patient Ticket. I

obtained Out Patient Ticket which is Ex-P-W-8-

D. I had paid Rs.10/- at the time of obtaining

Out Patient Card Ex.P.W-8/D .I handed over the

card to the doctor on emergency duty.I

disclosed my name and address to the doctor

on duty in emergency and the doctor

mentioned my name and address in the opd

card.vide receipt Ex-P.W-6 /D.Sanjays father

had deposited amount in the P.G.I Counter as I

accompanying him at that time .

16.11.2012 Defence evidence on behalf of accused

Kuldeep Dhawan. DW-8 Statement of Dr.

Kuldeep Dhawan, House No.1 Sector-7,

Panchkula, (Haryana) Without Oath

16.11.2012 :-In the year 2000 I was posted in

the department of Surgery PGI Chandigarh as

Senior Resident. As per record of the PGI file

patient Sanjay Bhardwaj aged 29 years came in

PGI Emergency at 3.10 a.m. On 30.10.2000 as

depicted in Ex. PW8/D. As per the record of the

file he was brought by Rahul (friend) resident

of 679, Sector-4 Panchkula (Haryana). He was

first seen in the Emergency Surgical OPD by Dr.

P. Ranganathan who as Jr. Resident Emergency

Surgical OPD at that time. the patient was

attended by Dr. P. Ranganathan as far as

treatment and history is concerned the made

the diagnosis and planned the treatment. The

treatment is duly depicted in Ex. PW8/D. It is

duly signed by Dr. P. Ranganathan as I worked

with him and know his signatures. Thereafter,

Dr. P Ranganathan sent the call to the General

Surgery 2nd Unit on call on that day. I attended

the call as I was the Senior Resident General

Surgery 2nd Unit on call on that day. Admit Card

is prepared by the Clerk posted in the

Emergency Reception. After making the Card

patient was seen by the Jr. Resident posted in

Emergency Surgical OPD and he was Dr. P.

Ranganathan on that day. I gave the

consultation after the emergency call was

received by me. I advised the same things as

was advised by the Emergency doctor i.e. Dr.

P. Ranganathan and advised to collect all the

investigations and arranged the Samaan

(articles) and blood. As per the record Ex.

PW8/D Dr. P. Ranganathan made the diagnosis

stab injuries abdomen with omental herniation

with the diagram made by him on the

Emergency OPD ticket Ex.PW8/D. Patient.

Sanjay Bhardwaj was admitted on that day in

Emergency Ward No.5 under General Surgery

Unit-II by Dr. P. Ranganathan as endorsed in

red circle on Ex. PW8/D. Patient was advised

number of investigations like blood tests X-rays

of the chest and abdomen and blood was

arranged in the Emergency OPD itself by Dr. P.

Ranganathan. All these investigations were

done by different departments i.e. department

of Bio-Chemistry, department of Radiology,

department of Blood Transfusion Medicine etc.

Patient was shifted to Emergency Ward No. 5

under General Surgery 2nd Unit after admission

and again was seen by Dr. Sarabjeet Singh who

was Final Year Jr. Resident posted in

Emergency Recovery Ward No. 5. I got the

certified and attested photocopy of the original

file Ex. PW8/B from PGI Chandigarh and the

same in Mark-X. He saw this patient at 5.32

a.m. On 30.10.2000. He examined the patient

thoroughly and wrote the complete history on

the file with the diagram of the abdomen. He

collected all the investigations. He got the

patient prepared for surgery. He got the pre-

anaesthesia check up (PAC) of Sanjay Bhardwaj

done by Dr. Sushil who was Jr. Resident in the

Department of Anaesthesia. This PAC record is

marked as Dx-1 which bears the signature of

Dr. Sushil who conducted PAC. As per the

record on PGI then patient was operated by me

i.e. Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan along with Dr.

Amarpreet Singh, Dr. Moorti and other team

members as Ex. Dy which bears my signatures

and Dr. Amarpreet Singh. Post operatively

patient again was shifted to Emergency

Recovery Ward No.5 as per record. After that

patient was seen by Jr. Posted in Emergency

Recovery. After that patient was shifted to

Ward under General Surgery Unit-II. As per

shifting note Ex.DW8/A on 31 st October, 2000.

(Objected to). After reaching the ward patient

Sanjay Bhardwaj was again examined by Dr.

Ashish who was Jr. Resident in General Surgery

Unit-II whose notes are there in the file

Ex.PW8/D. Again on 1.112000 on the second

post operative day patient Sanjay Bhardwaj

 was again seen by Dr. Ashish and other Jr.

Residents. Likewise patient Sanjay Bhardwaj

was repeatedly examined and seen by Dr.

Pravin and Dr. Ashish who were posted in

General Surgery Unit-II as per file Ex.PW8/D.

Whenever patient got admitted in the PGI he

has to deposit certain money which is there as

Ex.DW6/D. Patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was

admitted under Profesor S.M. Bose who was

Head of General Surgery Unit-II. Ex. Dy is in my

hand and its back side is in the hand of Dr.

Amarpreet Singh. Ex.PW2/R is copy of Ex. Dy.

This Medical Legal Case Summary was

prepared by me on the written directions of

Medical Superintendent and Professor S.M.

Bose. I have seen original Medical Legal Case

Summary in the file Ex.PW8/B the copy of

which is Ex.PW2/U which bears my signatures.

xxxxx by Sh. R.C. Bakshi Ld. P.P. for the

State xxxxxx.

Cross examination is deferred at the request of

Ld. P.P. and at the request of complainant.

Sd/-
R.O. & A.C. Addl. Session
Judge, Solan,
District Solan (H.P.)
That it is pertinent to mention here that

in this Judgment dated 12.10.2004

(Annexure P-4) while acquitting all the

accused Hon’ble Court observed

following specific discrepancies in the

medical evidence assume significance in

view of following facts: That it was

specifically observed by the Hon’ble

Court in the complaint under section 340

Cr.P.C i.e Exhibit P.W-2/A at Para No 3

( n ) (11) in Annexure P-7 at page no

that :- Complainant’s father Dev Varat

was employed in medical department It

was not difficult for him to procure false

medical certificate. That it is a matter of

fact that the complainant’s father

Sh.Dev Vert Sharma was employed in

General Hospital Sector 16 Chandigarh

as a male staff nurse which was

admitted by Dev Vart Sharma in his

examination in Chief during trial of F.I.R

No. 170 that he was working as male

staff nurse at Civil Hospital Manimajra

Chandigarh. “That from the year 1991

till 2003 I had been working as Male

Staff Nurse in Civil Hospital Manimajra”.

however it is admiited fact that the

petitioner was treated and operated in

P.G.I Chandigarh and there staff are

separate and independent .It is admitted

by P.W-8 Dr. Rajinder Singh durinng his

examination that Hospital of General

Hospital sector 16 are different and

there staff are seperate and

independent.It is relevant to mention

here that Dev Vert Sharma was

employed as Male Staff Nurse in General

Hospital Sector 16 Chandigarh and he

was in any way , not in a position to

influence Head of Department of General

Surgery-2 PGI Chandigarh,Team of

Doctors including Junior residents as well

as Senior residents present or posted in

General Surgery-2 or Emergency ward,

Para medical staff,Account Staff and

other members of PGI Chandigarh who

admitted,operated and treated Sanjay

Bhadwaj in P.G.I As a matter of fact PGI

Chandigarh is an autonomus institution

of high repute where influencing so

many people along with so many

different dapartment and to procure

false medical record is not possible.

Further it is a known fact that General

Hospital Sector 16 Chandigarh as well as

PGI Chandigarh are two different

hospital and there staff are separate and

independent, not linked to each other in

anyway which is a fact . That it was

specifically observed by the Hon’ble

Court in the complaint under section 340

Cr.P.C i.e Exhibit P.W-2/A at Para No 3

(n)(11) that at Annexure P-7 page no

“It was astonishing that injury on

complainant’s person was caused on

29.10.2000 on the abdomen exactly on

the same site at which it was caused on

21.12.99(regarding which case was

stated pending in Chandigarh Court).

Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan, during his

examination–in chief i.e exhibit P.W-2 /K

recorded during the trial of F.I.R No. 170,

clearly stated that :- “ When I say that

the Injury is on the same site it means

the injury was inflicted on the internal

organ that is which we have repaired at

the time of earlier operation. The

external stab wound of the second stab

may or may not be the same at same

place or previous stab but what

happened in this case is that this time

tip of the weapon hit the organ in the

abdominal cavity at the same site which

we have repaired at the time of the

previous surgery.” DW-8 Dr.Kuldeep

Dhawan clearly stated regarding injury

to be on same previous site in his

examination during trial of F.I.R No. 170.

That it was observed by Hon’ble Court in

the complaint under section 340 Cr.P.C

i.e Exhibit P.W-2/A at Annexure P-7 Para

No 3 ( n ) (111) at page no that :- That

“Another astonishing factor was on both

the occassions complainant was

examined by the same doctor at P.GI

though the second occurance happened

more then one year after the first”.P.W-8

Dr. Rajinder Singh, Professor and Head

of Department of General Surgery, PGI,

Chandigarh clearly stated during his

Examination–in-Chief regarding

examination of patient by same doctor

after one year of occurrence. Relevant

portion of his Examination –in-Chief is

reproduced here below:“ If it is a new

case it will be attended by the unit on

call and will be discharged finally under

units head name.If it happens to be old

 patient (already treated in P.G.I) then it

will be treated by the unit which has

treated earlier and those doctors will be

informed and called for” . Copy of chief

and cross examination of P.W-8

Dr.Rajinder Singh is attached as

Annexure P-10

17.11.2014 That in this case during the trial of the

case Dr.Ajay Kumar Sethi had passed

away and Sanjay Bhardwaj his father

Sh.D.V.Sharma ,Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan

were clearly acquitted on merits by the

Hon’ble Court of Sh.P.P. Ranta Additional

Sessions Judge Solan vide order and

Judgement dated 17.11.2014.Certified

copy of Judgment dated 17.11.2014 is

attached as Annexure A-9.

25.07.2024 That Criminal Appeal no 220/2015 filed

before Hon’ble High Court of Himachal

Pardesh at Shimla against judgment

dated 17.11.2014 passed by Hon’ble

Court of Sh.P.P. Ranta, Additional

Sessions Judge Solan was dismissed by

the Hon’ble Bench of Hon’ble Mr.Justice

Tarlok Singh Chauhan Judge and Hon’ble

Mr.Justice Sushil Kukreja Judge vide

order dated 25.07.2024 . Copy of

Judgment dated 25.07.2024 is attached

as Annexure A-10. That a perusal of

this Judgment clearly nullifies the

Judgment dated 31.05.2011 pertaining

of connivance of Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan

rather clearlry proves that appellant was

admiited and operated in P.G.I on

account of Stab Injury caused at the

abodomen of appellant . It is specifically

held in above mentioned judgment

dated 25.07.2024. Relevant portion of

Judgment at Para No 26 is reproduced

for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. “A

Court directing prosecution for perjury is

not vindicating the grievance of any

party.The action is mainly to safeguard

the prestig and dignity of the court and

to maintain the confidance of the people

in the effciency of the Judicail

process.What the court is mainly

interested is in seeing that admistration

of justice and dignity of the court is not

flouted.In the instant case these

principles were not at all considered or

followed by the court of Additional

Sessions Judge (FTC) before deciding to

launch the prosecution.The perusal of

 the order dated 29.09.2006 shows that

the learned Additional Sessions Judge

(Fast Track Court) ,Solan , has not

compiled with the mandatory provisions

o Section 340 of the Code and filed the

complaint while passing the order dated

29.09.2006 without the requisite

satisfaction.In fact the material on

record makes it clear that this was not fit

case where it was expedient in the

interest of Justice to have an enquiry

under Section 340 of the Code much less

a prosecution ”.

15.10.2024 That in this case on 15.10.2024 appellant

filed an application U/s 528 Bhartiya

Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 read with

section 427 (b) (i) of Bhartiya Nagrik

Suraksha Sanhita 2023 before Hon’ble

Himachal Pardesh High Court with a

prayer for Re-Trial of F.I.R No. 170 F.I.R

No. 170 dated 30.10.2000 u/s 307, 364,

34 IPC at Police Station Barotiwala,

Solan, H.P. after relying upon few

Judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India and also keeping in view

the above mentioned judgment dated

25.07.2024. This case was dismissed by

 the Hon’ble Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice

Vivek Singh Thakur and by Hon’ble

Mr.Justice Rakesh Kainthla vide order

dated 13.11.2024 wherein it is held that

as per section 403 of Bhartiya Nagrik

Suraksha Sanhita that no Court when it

has signed its judgment or final order

disposing of a case shall review the

same. It is further held that in any case

for redresssal of his grievance the

applicant/complainant is free to avail

appropriate remedy including

approaching the Supreme Court as

permissible under law.

27. That P.W-7 H.C Sewa Singh was the first Police official

who saw Sanjay Bhardwaj in injured condition at

Malhotra Clinic at Baddi after receiving telephonic

message. It is admitted fact that it was H.C Sewa

Singh who took injured Sanjay Bhardwaj to Civil

Hospital Nalagarh. Statement of H.C Sewa Singh

recorded during trial of FI.R No. 170 wherein he

clearly stated that he found Sanjay Bhardwaj in a

injured condition Relevant portion of his

Statement/Examination –in-chief is reporoduced here

below:-“There I saw Sanjay Bhardwaj lying in injured

condition on the bench”. “I recorded the statement of

Sanjay Bhardwaj at 1.30 A.M at Nalagarh Hospital” “I

moved application Ex P.W-7/A for medical

examination of Sanjay Bhardwaj and issuance of his

MLC. I obtained the MLC from the doctor”.Copy of

examination in chief as well as cross examination of

H.C Sewa Singh is attached as Annexure P-11 .

That a perusal of Exhibit D.W-5/A i.e F.I.R.No. 170

dated 30.10.2000 under section 364,307,506,34 of

IPC registered at Police Station Barootiwala will reveal

that this F.I.R was registered at 2.40 A.M on

30.10.2000. A perusal of F.I.R No 170 last paragraph

also proved that at 1.30 A.M on 30.10.2000 H.C Sewa

Singh had already completed all the formalities of

recording statement etc.

H.C Sewa Singh is the person who remianed with

injured accused from Malhotra Hospital Baddi

onwards as well during recording of statements as

well registration of F.I.R and obtaining MLR after

writing of application to Duty Doctor ot Civil Hospital

Nalagarh .This fact is already proved and stated by

H.C.Sewa Singh dring his Chief examination.

That Sh. Kiran Pal on 08.06.2004 appeared during the

trail of F.I.R No 170 as P.W-5 .Statement of P.W-5

Sh.Kiran Pal clearly proves the Stab injury and he

clearly stated that he along with Govind took

petitioner to Malohtra Hospital.Copy of chief

 examination as well as cross examination of P.W-5

Sh.Kiran Pal is attached as Annexure P-12.

That on 08.06.2004 Doctor Mukesh Malohtra of

Malhotra Hospital appeared as P.W-4 during the trial

of F.I.R No 170 who clearly proved the injury as well

as well as making call to the mother and informed her

about the incident and proved regarding informing

the police on telephone . Copy of chief examination as

well as cross examination of P.W-4 Dr.Mukesh

Malohtra is attached as Annexure P-13 .

That during investigation of F.I.R No. 170 it was

clearly stated by P.W-7 H.C Sewa Singh that he took

blood stained clothes of petitioner vide fard Exhibit

P.W-1/C which was duly signed by petitioner and also

by witneses Sh.Sanjeev Katoch and Sh.Dev Vert

Sharma vide dated 30.10.2000. This fard clearly

proves that there is a cut mentioned at the shirt and

Jeans and blood was present on them.Statement of

Sh.Gobind Singh and Statement of Sh.Kiran Pal

recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C recorded by Sub

Insepctor Sh.Vijay Kumar on 10.11.2000 clearly

proves that incident was of night at around 10 or

10.30 p.m and blood was oozing out from his

stomach.

28. That Sh.Rahul Parashar appeared in this case as D.W-

7 who had clearly proved that the date of incident

was 29.10.2000 when accused no 3 Sanjay Bhardwaj

was stabbed by his father –in-Law . Relevant portion

of his Examination –in-Chief is reproduced here

under :-

“On 29.10.2000 at about 11.10-11.15 p.m I received

phone call of accused Sanjay Bhardwaj father, both

accused Sanjay and his father are present in the

Court today .Sanjay Bhardwajs father told me on

phone that Sanjays father –in Law had caused stab

injuries to Sanjay some where in Baddi. The name of

Sanjays father (wrongly typed instead of father-in-

law) is S.S.Mago. I was also told on phone that Sanjay

was at Baddi .” “On receiving this telephonic

information immedieatley rushed to Sanjay’s house

Sector -2 House No 707 Panchkula. Neighbours had

also gathered in house of Sanjay at Panchkula. From

there I along with 3-4 neighbours of Sanjay left for

Baddi in the Indica car owned by Sanjay’s father .But

on the way , one of the occupant of the Indica car

received phone call on his moblie and he was told

that Sanjay Bhardwaj had been shifted from Baddi to

Nalagarh Hospital. So, we all went to Nalagarh

Government Hospital and reached there at about

1.20-130 a.m on 30.10.2000. Sanjay’s father along

with his neighbours, was already present there”

“Sanjay was in critical condition and his intestine were

coming out from his stomach. Blood was oozing and

bed sheet was having blood stains. I also noticed

 blood on the clothes of Sanjay ”. “Sanjay was in

critical condition and his intestine was coming out

from his stomach. Blood was oozing and bed sheet

was having blood stains. I also noticed blood on the

clothes of Sanjay” Rahul Parashar clearly proves that

his nick name is “Bobby”. “Police had also arrived

there . They recorded statement of Sanjay Bhardwaj .

I also had talked with Sanjay .He told me that

S.S.Mago lifted him from Sector 5 Panchkula and

brought to Baddi where caused injuries to him by

means of knife .Police carried out the proccedings .

“Doctor on duty issue MLR and referred Sanjay

Bhardwaj to P.G.I Chandigarh at about 1.45 a.m.Copy

of chief and cross examination of Sh.Rahul Parashar is

attached as Annexure P-14.

29. That chief examination of P.W-2 Dev Vert Sharma

clearly proves that he along with other reached at

Nalagarh Hospital on 30.10.2000 at about 1

A.M .Relevant portion as staed by him is :- “Then we

went to Nalgarh Hospital.We reached there at about 1

A.M on 30.10.2000.When we reached there , we saw

that my son was lying on a bed Examination table ”.

“We reached at P.G.I at about 3 A.M on 30.10.2000” .

“ Sanjay Bhardwaj was wearing a shirt which was

having a cut of knife. There was blood on the shirt

and also on pants ”. “I inquired from my son as to

what had happened . He told me that he was

 kidnapped from Panchkula by the accused person

present in the Court and one more whom I do not

know and that he was stabbed by them somehwere

near Baddi in a jungle .Sanjay Bhardwaj was wearing

a shirt which was having a cut of knife.”

“Then I inquired from my son as to what had

happened.He told me that he was kidnapped from

Panchkula by the accused person present in the Court

and one more whom I do not know and that he was

stabbed by them somewhere near Baddi in a jungle.”

“The doctor at Nalagarh told me that the matter was

serious and the patient was being referred to PGI. We

then took Sanjay Bhardwaj to P.G.I ”.Copy of chief and

cross examination of P.W-2 Dev Vert Sharma is

attached as Annexure P-15 .

30. That in order to prove allegations levelled in complaint

by P.W-5 S.S.Mago, Dr.Rajinder Singh, Professor &

Head of Department of Surgery , P.G.I Chandigarh

was summoned in present case by prosecution as P

W-8. During examination –in-chief as well as during

cross examination Copy of chief and cross

examination of P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh is attached as

Annexure P-10 . PW-8 Dr Rajinder Singh completely

demolished case of prosecution by proving facts

regarding admission of accused Sanjay Bhardwaj at

P.G.I at 3.10.am on 30.10.2000 as well as about

tretament and operation performed by Dr.Kuldeep

Dhawan & other doctors at P.G.I Chandigarh thereby

supported defence of accuseds. Perusal of testimony

of P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh clearly proves that all

allegations levelled in complaint of P.W-5 S.S.Mago

regarding admission, treatment and operation of

accused Sanjay Bhardwaj at PGI Chandigarh are

totally false. Details regarding the same are explained

in the subsequent paragraphs. Perusal of examiantion

of Dr.Rajinder Singh would reveal that no suggestion

was made to P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh that patient

Sanjay Bhardwaj was not opearted, treated and

remained admitted in P.G.I Chandigarh from

30.10.2000 to 07.11.2000. No suggestion was given

to P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh that Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan

had not operated upon Sanjay Bhardwaj.As stated

above P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh proved the case file of

P.G.I. which is exhibited as Ext.P.W-8/B. Perusal of

above said case file of P.G.I i.e Exhibit P.W-8/B as well

as statement of P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh clearly

proves that patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was admitted at

3.10.a.m on 30.10.2000 in PGI Chandigarh on

07.11.2000 was discharged from PGI Chandigarh.

Relevant portion of his Examination – in- Chief is

reproduced here below:-“As per Ext. P.W-8/C and

Ext.P.W-8 /D ,the patient was admitted at 3.10 A.M on

30.10.2000 ” “As per Ext.P.W-8/D the patient was first

examined by Dr.P.Ranganathan, Jr.Residents on

 30.10.2000 at 3.10.AM. Self Stated I am not

acquainted with his signatures but his name is clearly

written over”. “As per the case file of patient Sanjay

Bhardwaj admissions 90826 the patient had been

admitted under Professor S.M.Bose and other treating

team members were Sr. Residence Dr.Kuldeep and

Dr.Sibu ,Dr.Murti and Dr.Devinder” “It is correct that

patient has been admitted under professor S.N.Bose

consultant incharge”. “ It is also correct right from the

admission till discharge of the patient is looked after

by number hospitals personnel including

sisters,wardboys besides the doctors as has been said

earlier” . “It is correct that patient stayed in the

hospital for seven days , so besides Dr. Kuldeep

Dhawan , he would have been looked after by other

doctors and nurses” .

31. That it is pertitinet to mention here that most

important star witness in this case is D.W-8

Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan who clearly demolished

prosecution story . A perusal of his chief as well as

cross examination would clearly reveal that he had

explained complete details regarding Admission,

Injury, Operation, treatment and discharge of injured

Sanjay Bhardwaj in P.G.I Chandigarh. Copy of his chief

eamination and cross examination is reproduced

herebelow for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court :-

 Defence evidence on behalf of accused Kuldeep

Dhawan.

DW-8 Statement of Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan, House No.1

Sector-7, Panchkula, (Haryana) Without Oath

16.11.2012

In the year 2000 I was posted in the department of

Surgery PGI Chandigarh as Senior Resident. As per

record of the PGI file patient Sanjay Bhardwaj aged 29

years came in PGI Emergency at 3.10 a.m. On

30.10.2000 as depicted in Ex. PW8/D. As per the

record of the file he was brought by Rahul (friend)

resident of 679, Sector-4 Panchkula (Haryana). He

was first seen in the Emergency Surgical OPD by Dr.

P. Ranganathan who as Jr. Resident Emergency

Surgical OPD at that time. the patient was attended

by Dr. P. Ranganathan as far as treatment and history

is concerned the made the diagnosis and planned the

treatment. The treatment is duly depicted in Ex.

PW8/D. It is duly signed by Dr. P. Ranganathan as I

worked with him and know his signatures. Thereafter,

Dr. P Ranganathan sent the call to the General

Surgery 2nd Unit on call on that day. I attended the

call as I was the Senior Resident General Surgery 2 nd

Unit on call on that day. Admit Card is prepared by

the Clerk posted in the Emergency Reception. After

making the Card patient was seen by the Jr. Resident

posted in Emergency Surgical OPD and he was Dr. P.

Ranganathan on that day. I gave the consultation

after the emergency call was received by me. I

advised the same things as was advised by the

Emergency doctor i.e. Dr. P. Ranganathan and

advised to collect all the investigations and arranged

the Samaan (articles) and blood. As per the record Ex.

PW8/D Dr. P. Ranganathan made the diagnosis stab

injuries abdomen with omental herniation with the

diagram made by him on the Emergency OPD ticket

Ex.PW8/D. Patient. Sanjay Bhardwaj was admitted on

that day in Emergency Ward No.5 under General

Surgery Unit-II by Dr. P. Ranganathan as endorsed in

red circle on Ex. PW8/D. Patient was advised number

of investigations like blood tests X-rays of the chest

and abdomen and blood was arranged in the

Emergency OPD itself by Dr. P. Ranganathan. All

these investigations were done by different

departments i.e. department of Bio-Chemistry,

department of Radiology, department of Blood

Transfusion Medicine etc. Patient was shifted to

Emergency Ward No. 5 under General Surgery 2nd Unit

after admission and again was seen by Dr. Sarabjeet

Singh who was Final Year Jr. Resident posted in

Emergency Recovery Ward No. 5. I got the certified

and attested photocopy of the original file Ex. PW8/B

from PGI Chandigarh and the same in Mark-X. He saw

this patient at 5.32 a.m. On 30.10.2000. He examined

the patient thoroughly and wrote the complete history

on the file with the diagram of the abdomen. He

collected all the investigations. He got the patient

prepared for surgery. He got the pre-anaesthesia

check up (PAC) of Sanjay Bhardwaj done by Dr. Sushil

who was Jr. Resident in the Department of

Anaesthesia. This PAC record is marked as Dx-1 which

bears the signature of Dr. Sushil who conducted PAC.

As per the record on PGI then patient was operated by

me i.e. Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan along with Dr. Amarpreet

Singh, Dr. Moorti and other team members as Ex. Dy

which bears my signatures and Dr. Amarpreet Singh.

Post operatively patient again was shifted to

Emergency Recovery Ward No.5 as per record. After

that patient was seen by Jr. Posted in Emergency

Recovery. After that patient was shifted to Ward

under General Surgery Unit-II. As per shifting note

Ex.DW8/A on 31st October, 2000.(Objected to). After

reaching the ward patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was again

examined by Dr. Ashish who was Jr. Resident in

General Surgery Unit-II whose notes are there in the

file Ex.PW8/D. Again on 1.112000 on the second post

operative day patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was again

seen by Dr. Ashish and other Jr. Residents. Likewise

patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was repeatedly examined

and seen by Dr. Pravin and Dr. Ashish who were

posted in General Surgery Unit-II as per file Ex.PW8/D.

Whenever patient got admitted in the PGI he has to

deposit certain money which is there as Ex.DW6/D.

Patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was admitted under Profesor

S.M. Bose who was Head of General Surgery Unit-II.

Ex. Dy is in my hand and its back side is in the hand

of Dr. Amarpreet Singh. Ex.PW2/R is copy of Ex. Dy.

This Medical Legal Case Summary was prepared by

me on the written directions of Medical

Superintendent and Professor S.M. Bose. I have seen

original Medical Legal Case Summary in the file

Ex.PW8/B the copy of which is Ex.PW2/U which bears

my signatures.

xxxxx by Sh. R.C. Bakshi Ld. P.P. for the State xxxxxx.

Cross examination is deferred at the request of Ld.

P.P. and at the request of complainant.------

RO & AC Sd/-

Sd/- Kuldeep Dhawan Addl.Sessions Judge,Solan

District Solan (H.P)

Defence Evidence on behalf of accused Kuldeep

Dhawan

D.W-8 Statement of Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan ,House

No1 ,Sector -7 Panchkula (Haryana)

Called for Cross Examination as the cross

examination was deferred On 16.11.2012 without

Oath 21.12.2012

xxxxxx on behalf of accused Sanjay Bhardwaj and

Dev Varth Sharma opportunity given. Nil

 xxxxxx by Sh. M.K. Sharma, Ld. P.P. for the State

xxxxxx

Xxxxx on behalf of Accused Sanjay Bhardwaj & Dev

Varth Sharma Oppurtunity given Nil XXX by Sh M K

Sharma Ld PP for the state I don not remember

exactly as to how many senior residents were there in

the unit on 30.10.2000 but I can tell after seen the

file.I donot know as to who was on emergency OPD on

30.10.2000. Self stated, I can tell after seeing the

record.It is correct that as per PGI Record Ex CW2/C

on 29.10.2000 Dr Raman Dhanda was on emergency

duty during the intervening night of 29/30.10.2000. It

is correct that as per record Ex CW 2/C I was not

posted on emergency duty during the intervening

night of 29/30.10.2000. Self stated that I was on

emergency call. As per record of PGI Ex PW 8/D

pati9ent Sanjay Bhardwaj was precented in

Emergency PGI at 3.10 AM on 30.10.2000. As per the

record , once I was called in emergency by

emergency doctors I came to give my consultantion

under Prof S M Bose.I don’t remember time of arrival

as it is not mentioned in the record. EX PW-8/D is not

in my hand.Accordingly to the record of PGI Ex PW

8/D there is alleged history of sustaining staff injury of

abdomen on 29/10/2000 at 9.PM near Baddi during a

fight by some persons. No history LOC /ENT bleed

unconsciousness. History of one episode of vomiitting

present which were undigested food particles. Past

History of Stab injury abdomen in decemeber 1999 for

which he was hospitalised for 39 days. Intraoperatiev

finding- Multiple illeal perforations with

heamoperitoneum. Patient devekloped DIC and sepsis

in the post OP perido with shock improoved.Patient is

non alcholic and non smoker. As per record it is

correct that patient pulse was 80 Blood pressure was

130/80 mmg which is with in normal limits. It is

correct that as per record as per diagram made on

that one 1 cm stab wound at the level of umblicus

through which omentum is herneatintg.As per the out

patient record Ex PW-8/d Patient was broght by Rahul

( Friend) as per the record I do not know whether or

not police was informed as nothing was mentioned

was mentioned in the record. I was not knowing at

that time that patient was earlier treated at CHC

Nalagarh as the same is nopt metioned in EX PW-8/D.

At that time I knew nothing that the case was

registered at PS Barotiwala and one constable had

accompanied the patient. Question : The referring

doctor from CHC Nalagarh musy have given docket in

which injured was reffered to PGI which should in the

present file of PGI Answer. I do not know about this

thing. Ex PW-8/C is in my hand this also bears time

3.10 AM . It is correct that I started writing GS II

Consultation under Dr G Singh than I cut it and again

wrote GS II under Prof S M Bose. I have not mentioned

the arriavl time in EX PW-8/C it is incorrect that it is

not mentioned in EX PW-8/C that who had sent call to

me. Self stated the call was send by JR Emergency

duty as per exhibit PW-8/D.It is correct that I have not

mentioned the name of doctor who had sent call to

me. Self stated call is sent through the pager in

normal practise in those days. Time of examining the

patient by me is not written in the record and same is

not remebered to me . I have not mentioned the

dimension of injuries as the omentum wa sprolapsing

from wound. Though I have depicted position on

diagram. I do not remembered who narrated history

to me but in normal practice the doctor who examines

the patient in emergency narrates. It is correct t hat

in my writing ex PW-8/C I have written alleged history

of stab by Father in law, where as in ex PW8/D with

alleged history from some known person. It is correct

that I worte previous history of injured qua dated

21/12/99. Then I made the plan to collect the work up

the meaning of that is to collect the all investigations,

NPO-IVF-RTA-PUC-CVP,I/O Charting injection

cephron,inj Metrogyl,Arrange saman,arrange blood,

shift to emergency recovery ,fix.Chest xray report was

showing no gas under diapharagm ,asr.It is incorrect

that only Dr Raman Dhanda Sr Resident could have

admitted and shifted to emergency recovery Self

state din normal practise the unit on call seniro

resident is called for consultation in emergency when

ever team of emergency thinks that patient needs

admission/intervention in dire emergency when the

emergency team does not have time to follow this

protocol Sr Resident posted has the power to admit.

In this case I ordered to admit this patient on behalf of

Prof S M Bose .Question : There are panel of Doctors

on call for each surgical units in PGI and you were not

in the panel on alleged date i.e during the intervening

night of 29/30 .10.2000.Ans: There are nothing like

panel of doctors in PGI for attending emergency

patients. Infact there are 3 surgical units; GS1,GS2 &

GS3. Each unit has its call days rotation wiseliek GS1

on Monday, GS 2 on Tuesday,GS III On Wednesday

abd so on. If a ptient who is already been admitted to

any unit previously and he comes again in emergency

,the concerned unit will be called in emergency for

that patient irrespective of the unit on call. It is

incorrect that I was not in capacity to give

consultation to Mr Sanjay Bhardwaj patient as already

examined by Prof & head doctor Rajinder Singh in his

statement. It is correct that every unit of surgery is

headed by on professsor and GS II was headed by Prof

S M Bose. I do not know that Dr G Singh was on call or

not on that day but I gave this consultation under Dr

SM Bose.It is correct that X Ray film & report is not

present in file procured from PGI. It is correct that

name opf patient is written as Rakesh Kumar and age

is 50 years which was conducted on 31/10/2000 on

ultrasound report in file EX PW-8/B.Selfstated that

may be mistakenly of some other patient .Question:

Can you tell the during and exact time during which

he was operated.Answer: I cannot tell the exact time

at which the patient was taken in for surgery as lot

many page sare missing in the original file shown to

me but total time of operation is 2 hrs & 10 minutes

Part of Ex DY on page 17 is written with my hand

according to the record the blood loss in the surgery

is 50 ml and in this record , 2 hand full of clots along

with 500 ml of blood was present in peritoneal cavity.

This paper was prepared by me immediately after

surgery in the emergency operation theatre only as in

normal parctise. My Assistants during operation is Dr

Amanpreet Dr Murthy Dr Chauhan, Dr Pooja. Dr

Chauhan and Dr Pooja were the anestheist and nurse

was Manchander.Record of Anesthetist is missing in

PGI file ex PW-8/B .However I have obtained certified

copy of that and produced in the court as Mark DX/1.

Question : During examination in chief Dr Sushil has

got pre aneasthesia check up ( PAC) of Sanjay

Bhardwaj whereas in your docket prepared during

operation Ex DY reflects of Dr chauhan & Dr Pooja .

Ans: It is correct that PAC was done by Dr Sushil as it

is mentioned in Mark DX/1 but Anesthesia was given

by Dr Chauhan & Dr Pooja . There is no record

showing Dr Chuahan & Dr Pooja was present and

prepare dany record regarding anesthesia of Sanjay

Bhardwaj ?Ans; As per record, it is incorrect to say

that Dr Chauhan and Dr Pooja did not give

anesthesia.As per record , Dept of Blood transfusion

issued 1 unit of blood on the name of mr Sanjay

Bhardwaj Patient was numbered as 581369/O+ve on

30/10/2000. According to the record it is no where

mentioned when the blood was given to patient .It is

correct that the performa issued by department of

blood transfusion is blank.It is incorrect that cutting

on Ex DY With regard to unit professor ,blank

performa of blood transfusion, report of Dr Sunil are

going to show that I have tampered the case file in

PGI being senior resident in PGI. As per the record

patient Sanjay Bhardwaj previously stabbed in the

year 1999.It is correct that my eveidence was

recorded in that case Ido not know whether or not

that case has been decided.I do not know that court

has given finding in that case that I remained

associated with Sanjay Bhardwaj from the beginning.I

saw Sanjay Bhardwaj in PGI when he was earlier

admitted in GS II which was our unit in the year 1999.

I do not know at that time that sanjay bhardwaj had

been reffered from General hospital in sec 16

chandigarh. I do not know that court has given finding

that the application written for treatment of Sanjay

Bhardwaj on behalf of police was in my hand.I do not

know that sanjay bhardwaj remained with police at

Nalgarh on 30.10.200 till 7.00 AM. It is incorrect that I

have fabricated the record Ex PW8/C and Ex

PW-8/D.Time written on EX PW-8/C is not in my hand.

Patient may or may not become unconscious in such

type of injuries.Self Stated as per record patient was

conscious in this case.I can tell as to at what time

patient was operated upon as lot of pages are missing

from PGIrecord.it is correct that in such type of injury

patient is operated up on within hours of admission.I

do not know that doctor who has examined Sanjay

Bhardwaj at Nalagarh as mentioned that he has 2

inch stab injury. I do not know that there is another

mark of previous stab mark mentioned by doctor. It is

correct that I have not mentioned the previous stab

mark.again said I have mentioned medico legal case

summary has been prepared me in this case as per

written orders of Prof S M Bose our head of

Department on 13.12.2000 .The date of discharge in

medical legal case summary is 10.12.2000.It is

correct that as per discharge record the patient was

discharged on 7/11/2000

Self stated the date of discharge on medical case

legal case summary was written after seeing the file

 where by mistake it was written 10.11.2000 but the

fact is patient was discharged on 7.11.2000 as so

many times explained. It is incorrect that I have

intentionally mentioned wrong date of discharge on

medical legal case summary in connivance with

Sanjay Bhardwaj and other accused. It is incorrect

that I have operated on sanjay bhardwaj at 5.pm on

30.10.2000.It is incorrect that Prof S M Bose had

never authorised/ ordered me to issue medical legal

case summary which was marked by PA of Prof S M

Bose.Mark DX is partly in my hand and date of

discharge is also in myt hand. I do not remember that

mark DX was prepared on 10/11/2000. It is incorrect

that Sanjay Bhardwaj has not sustained grevious

injury and I prepared the record incorrectly in

connivance with the co accused

Sd/-

R.O. & A.C. Addl. Session Judge, Solan,

Sd/-Kuldeep Dhawan District Solan

(H.P.)

Copy of chief and cross examination of Dr.Kuldeep

Dhawan is attached as Annexure P-16.

32. That judgment passed by Sh.Bhim Chand Presiding

Officer, Additional Sessions Judge, Solan dated

12.10.2004 is merged into the Judgment of the

Hon’ble High Court of Shimla (H.P). A perusal of

Judgement of Hon’ble Himachal pardesh High Court

 will reveal that Hon’ble High Court had not in any

way found the medical record of P.G.I to be

manipulated or fabricated.

7.2.2001 That the respondent no 2 had told one

Col Sada Nand Arora who is the father of

Sh Parshant Arora - the second husband

of Ms Nidhi that the respondent no 2

knows the way how to remove the

petitioner from the scene. Col Sada Nand

Arora had stated the same in the court

of Sh S.C Goel, ADJ, Karnal in a case

titled “ Parshant Arora Vs Nidhi and

others on 7.2.2001.

Hence, this Special Leave Petition.

P.W-5 Statement of Doctor Mukesh Malohtra MD Malohtra

Hospital Baddi

On oath

8.6.2004
I have been working as Medical officer since 1991 in
Malohtra Hospital Baddi. On 29.10.2000 Sanjay Bhardwaj
present in the court ,who was accompanied by two other
person was standing outside Malohtra hospital building.I
had gone somewhere.I returned to the hospital late in the
evening.When I got down from my car Sanjay Bhardwaj was
present there.He told me that he had been stabbed by his
father-in-law and brother-in-law .(Sala).To show his wound
to me he raised his shirt.I saw that there was a cut
measuring about 1-1/2 Inch. I told him that him that I could
not do anything in the matter and that he should go to
some other hospital.I do not throughly examined him. He
asked me to telephonically informed his parents about the
occurance.He then sat on a banch.I went inside and made a
call which was received by some lady,probably his mother
and informed her about the incident.Those who were
accompanying Sanjay Bhardwaj are known to me.They have
there Paan shops near our hospital approximately at a
distance of 100 mets from the hospital.Thease two person
can even now be seen sometimes in Baddi , but generally
they are not sitting in their shops now.When I inormed
Sanjay Bhardwaj that I had made a telephonic call to his
parents , he and two others accompanying him left the
hospital premises.But after 5 minutes a worker of of our
hospital came to me and told me thata person lying there
on the road.I then went to the road with my worker and
found that Sanjay Bhardwaj was lying there.With the help of
my worker I made him to stand and brought him back to
bench which was just outside the hospital building.Then I
informed the police on telephone.Before the police arrived I
applied a pad on the wound of Sanjay Bhardwaj.Than police
came and took him to some other hospital.

XXXX By Ld.defence.
When I saw the wound of Sanjay Bhardwaj , no bleeding
was there.I do not remember the time when Sanjay
Bhardwaj was seen by me at the hospital.As said above it
was late in the evening.Therewa some dust on the
shirt.Police arrived within 15 minutes of making call by me
to them.I think within 20 or 25 minutes of my meeting with
Sanjay Bhardwaj I made this call to the police .It is correct
to say that if local anasthesia with adrenaline is given the
bleeding may be veryless.Police recorded statements of
Kiran Pal and Govind on the next day.The statements were
recorded in my hospital.It is one of my worker who had
brought themfrom their shops.My statement was also
recorded by police alongwith the statemnts of Kiran Pal and
Govind. In fact police came they asked me to call those who
were with Sanjay Bhardwaj on the previous day.I was not
knowing their names though I knew them by face. I sent my
worker to bring them to hospital.I had stated the names of
these two persons to police because when they brought to
the hospital I came to know their names.I do not remember
whether I had stated to the police that Sanjay Bhardwaj
had shown me his wound after rasing his shirt.At present
Malohtra hospital is a 12 bedded hospital.During the year
2000 there was only one bed outside the clinic.I did not
maintain any record of arrival of Sanjay Bhardwaj and
applying the Pad etc.It is incorrect that I gave anestehsia to
Sanjay Bhardawaj and gave an incision and told him that I
had doe his job and that he should not disclose it to any
body.It is incorrect to say that Sanjay Bhardwaj had reached
the hospital alone and that Kiran Pal and Govind were not
with him and they were intorduced by the police as witness
at my instance.

RO & AC Sd/- Sd/-

Sd/- Presding Officer

Dr.Mukesh Malohtra Fast Track Court

 Addl.Sessions Judge

Solan at Chambaghat

P.W-7. Statement of H.C. Sewa Singh P.S. Parwanoo.

On oath

15.06.2004

I have been working in P.P. Baddi as Head Constable I.O

from March 2000 to July 2002.I partly investigated the
case.On 29.10.2000 on receiving telephonic message I went
to Malohtra Clinic Baddi alongwith C .Madan Lal and Sajid
Khan.I reached Malohtra Clinic at about 11.50 P.M.There I
found Sanjay Bhardwaj lying in injured condition on the
banch.I arranged a private vehicle and took him to Civil
Hospital Nalagarh.At Nalagarh after obtaining permision of
the doctor I recorded the statement of Sanjay Bhardwaj u/s
154 Cr.P.C which is Ex.P.W1/A.The statement was sent by
me through constable Madan Lal to police station
Barootiwala or registration of the case.I moved application
Ex.P.W-7A for medical examination of Sanjay Bhardwaj for
issuance of his MLC.I obtained the MLC from the
doctor.Sanjay Bhardwaj was referred by the doctor to P.G.I
Chandigarh.The shirt and the pants borne by Sanjay
Bhardwaj was taken into possession by me in Nalagarh
Hospital vide memo Ex.P.W-1/C.The memo was signed by
Sanjeev Katoch and Dev Vert Sharma who had also arrived
there at the hospital.The shirt Ex.P-1 and pants Ex.P-2
shown to me are the same which were taken into
possession by meI recorded the statement of the witnesses
of the recovery.Thereafter the file was handed over by me
to ASI Sukh Darshan Singh..
XXXXXX y Ld. Defence counsel.

On receipt of intimation at PP Baddi ,I Sajid Khan and Madan

Lal went on foot to Malohtra Clinic.It is a distance of less
then 1 Kilometer from the police post.After reaching
Malohtra hospital Baddi it took about 40 to 45 minutes to
arrange a vahicle for Nalagarh .I did not record any
statemnet of Sanjay Bhardwaj at Baddi.I recorded the
statement of Sanjay Bhardwaj at 1.30 A.M at Nalagarh
Hospital. I do not know by which mode Madna Lal went to
the police station with ruqa.Nalagarh hospital is at a
distance of 13-14 Kilometers from Malohtra hospital
Baddi .It took us about 20-25 minutes to travel this
distance.Mdan Lal after delivering the ruqa at the police
station had not returnd to Nalagarh Hospitlal .After the
patient was referred by thedoctor to P.G.I I returned to PP
Baddi. Madan Lal was their in PP Baddi and the file was also
there.At Nalagarh hospital besides recording the statements
of Dev Vert and Sanjeev Katoch I also recorded
supplementry statement of Sanjay Bhardwaj which is
regarding the production of clothes by him to the police.I
think it took about 3 hours in recording the statement of
Sanjay Bhardwaj under section 154 , in recording the
statement U/s 161and preparing the seizure memo.While
going from Baddi to Nalagarh we stopped at Bhrdwaaj clinic
, which is at a distance of about 600 to 700 mets from
Malohtra Clinic.I already knew that Dr.Bhardwaj was not
available there on that day but still I mae inquiries at the
Bhardwaj clinic whethet the doctor was there on not. As the
doctor was not there we proceeded further to Nalagarh .At
the gate of the Bhardwaj clinic we stopped just for 3-4
minutes. I received the F.I.R number on telephone.After
recording statements , preparing seizure memo etc. I was
free by 7 or 8 A.M .I reached P.P Baddi only in the evening
after taking rest during the day.Sanjay Bhardwaj was taken
from Nalagarh to P.G.I by his father and 3-4 others .The
vehicle which we had taken from Baddi to Nalagarh had
returned soon after dropping us at Nalagarh.I do not
remember whethersome police official was also sent with
Sanjay Bhardwaj from Nalagarh to PGI .Sanjay Bhardwaj
was taken from Nalagarh to Chandigarh after all the
proceedings done by me were over.It is incorrect that I am
deposing falsely and that no ruqa was sent by me from CHC
Nalagarh.It is incorrect that all proceedings were done by
me while sitting at PP Baddi.

RO & AC Sd/-

H.C Sewa Singh 10.06.2004

Presding Officer

Fast Track Court

Addl.Sessions Judge

Solan at Chambaghat

DW-7 Statement of Rahul Parashar son of Sh.M.L.Sharma

resident of G-1 ,Ashiana Complkex ,MDC Seector -4
Panchkula (Haryana) Aged 43 Years.

On
Oath

20.10.2
012

My nick name is Bobby.In the year 2000 I was residing at

House No. 679 Sector -4 Panchkula .On 29.10.2000 at about
11.10 -11.15 p.m I received phone call of aaccused Sanjay
Bhardwaj father , both accused Sanjay and his father are
present in the Court today .Sanjay Bhardwajs father told me
on phone that Sanjays father –in Law had caused stab
injuries to Sanjay some where in Baddi. The name of
Sanjays father is S.S.Mago. I was also told on phone that
Sanjay was at Baddi . On receiving this telephonic
information I immedieatley rushed to Sanjays house Sector
-2 House No 707 Panchkula.. Neighbours had also gathered
in house of Sanjay at Panchkula. From there I along with 3-4
neighbours of Sanjay left for Baddi in the Indica car owned
by Sanjays Father .But on the way , one of the occupancy of
the Indica car received phone call on his moblie and he was
told that Sanjay Bhardwaj had been shifted from Baddi to
Nalagarh Hospital. So, we all went to Nalagarh Government
Hospital and reached there at about 1.20-130 a.m on
30.10.2000. Sanjays father along with his neighbours, was
already present there . Sanjay was in critical conditionand
his intestine was coming out from his stomach. Blood was
oozing and bed sheet was having blood stains. I also
noticed blood on the clothes of Sanjay .Police had also
arrived there . They recorded statement of Sanjay Bhardwaj
. I also had talked with Sanjay .He told me that S.S.Mago
lifted him from Sector 5 Panchkula and brought to Baddi
where caused injuries to him by means of knife .Police
carried out the proccedings , Doctor on duty issue MLR and
referred Sanjay Bhardwaj to P.G.I Chandigarh at about 1.45
a.m.We reached at P.G.I Chandigarh at about 3.00 a.m on
30.10.2000 along with Sanjay .Sanjay was taken to
emergency on strtcher by me and by his father .Doctor
issued a slip to me with the direction to get obtain Out
Patient Ticket. I obtained Out Patient Ticket which is Ex-P-
W-8-D. I had paid Rs.10/- at the time of obtaining Out
Patient Card Ex.P.W-8/D .I handed over the card to the
doctor on emergency duty.I disclosed my name and address
to the doctor on duty in emergency and the doctor
mentioned my name and address in the opd card.vide
receipt Ex-P.W-6 /D.Sanjays father had deposited amount in
the P.G.I Counter as I accompanying him at that time .

XXXXXX by Sh.R.C.Bakshi Ld.P.P for the State xxxxxxx

I do not know the name of the doctor on duty in emergency
at P.G.I Chandigarh on that day , but he was some siouth
Indian . My name and address was written on the card by
the official sitting on the counter who had issued the OPD
Card .He was computer man and not the doctor. I do not
know that generally name of the attendant is not written on
the OPD card .Self Stated he asked my name and I told him.
It is incorrect that my name was written on the OPD card
later on by making collsion with the accused .We left
Nalagarh at about 1.50 – 1.55 a.m.On 30.10.2000 in an
Indica car but I do not remember the registration number of
indica Car .Injured Sanjay was not in my vehicle.We were
total four persons in the vehicle. Sanjays father was also not
in my vehicle . I do not know the names of those three
persons who were alleagedly with me in my vehicle .About
1 hour 20 minutes were consumed to cover the distance
from Nalagarh to Chandigarh .Sanjays vehicle , Police
vehicle and my vehicle all had reached togethr at
Chandigarhj P.GI . It is in correct to suggest that Sanjay left
Nalagarh at about 7.00a.m on 30.10.2000.It is incorrect to
suggest that I went to P.G.I in advance and got preapred
OPD card by making collusion with Doctoe Dhawan. My nick
name is nowhere recorded in the record. Police had not
make enquiries from at Nalagarh or at P.G.I. I myself had
not told any thing to the police .It is incorrect to suggest
that I had not gone from Panchkula to Nalgarh on that day.It
is also incorrect that I did not notice any thing at Nalagarh
on that day .I do not know about the seniopr doctors and
Junior Doctors so I cannot say that the doctors present in
Emergency either Senior or Junior.I do not know as to who
had written the past history on the OPD Card or who had
told the past history.Self stated I had left P.G.I at about 5.30
A.M on 30.10.2000 .I cannot say that past history written on
the OPD Card Ex P.W-8/B has been fabricated by planning.
I do not know whether or know ultra sound ofinjured Sanjay
was got done . It is incorrect that alleged fresh injury on the
person of Sanjay was at the same point where there was
previous injury . Self Stated that Blood was there on the
person of Sanjay .I cannot tell as to what time Sanjay had
been taken for operation.I again visited P.G.I about one day
after to see Sanjay by that time Sanjay had been opeared
upon.I cannot produce any documentry evidence in the toll
tax collection receipt to prove that I had gone from
Panchkula to Nalagarh during the intervening night of
28,30,-10.2000 .Sef Staed It may be in possesion of driver
of the vehicle. I had received alleged phone call from Sanjay
Father on my Landline number. I do not remember my
Landline number because the matter is about 12 yaers
old.It is incorrect that no land line telephone was installed in
my house in the yaer 2000 .It is incorrect that I had not
received any call from Sanjays father on the night of
29.10.2000.When I reached at Nalgarh then there was drip
of Gulucose to the injured Sanjay .I simply noticed drip and
no traetment was provided in my presence.I do not know
whether or not Police had taken into posseeion the blood
stained clthes of Sanjay but Sanjay was waering those
clothes when he reahed at P.G.I. I had no knowledge about
the case on Shri S.S.Mago under section 307 IPC. Sanjay
and his father never told me about the said case.It is
incorrect that nether I received any phone call nor I ever
went to Nalagarh and P.G.I Chandigarh nor I noticed any
thing and I am deposing falsely today in the Court at the
instace of Sanjay and his father . I have no knowledge that
Sanjay ahd filed a private complaint in the said case.

RO &AC Addl.Sessions Judge

Solan

District Solan (H.P)

P.W-3 Statement of DR. Kuldeep Dhawan ,House
No.1 ,Sector-7 ,Panchkula

On Oath

9.6.2004

I have been working as a registrar Department of Surgery

P.G.I Chanidgarh.I am Master of Surgery and was posted
there for three years from September 1999 to September
2002.On 30.10.2000 Sanjay Bhardwaj came ina state of
Shock accomanied by his friend Rahul.At that time on
presentation after resuscitation he was stablilised and
admitted in emergency recovery ward.Emergency opeartion
was done on 30.10.2000 by me .Exploratory Laprotomy with
Adhesiolysis with resection of Devitalised part of the gut
with anastomosis done.(Cutting of dead part of the gut was
done,followed by anastomosist ) approximately 1100 ml 2
hjandful of clots + 500ml of blood was present in the
abdominal cavity with prolapse of the abdominal contents
from the recurrent stab sign .Immedietae post operataive
period was uneventful. Patient was discharged on the 7 th
post operative day with a satisfactory condition i.e on
07.11.2000. The injury found on his person can be possible
only by the stab injury.Sanjay Bhardwaj arrived at the
hospital at 3.10.a.m on 30.10.2000 with the alleaged
history of stab.He was initially rosuciatated and stablised in
the department of emergency recovery and on the same
day he was opearted that is on 30.10.2000.This opeartion
was done by me .It took 2.10.hours to operate upon him.I
do not rem,eber the exact time when I opearted upon the
patient.Such time is also not mentioned in the file.The injury
was recent.The probable duration was in hours not in
days .This injury was sufficient to cause death. The injury
was on the vital part of the body.

The same patient was even earlier opearted by me in

December 1999 for a stab injury in the abdomen, for which
opeartion on the abdomen was carried out.

Q. If the man is stabbed twice , i.e satb on second time after

a gap of some time from the first stab , would there be two
scar on the body ?

Ans. There may or may not be presence of previous scar of

stab because of the scar may have been taken in the
incision line. In this case the site of second stab was on the
scar on the previous injury ,that is in the midline. This
oipeartionwas done by the same incision line that is by the
mid line approach ,so this scar that is the scar of the sacond
stab wound was included in the opeartion----.

Whwn I say that the injury is on the same site it means the
injury was inflicted to the internal organ that is which we
have repaired at the time of earlier opeartion .The external
stab siteof the second stab may or may not be the same at
samed place of previous stab, but what happened in this
case is that time tip of the weapon hit the organ in the
abdominal cavity at the same site which we have repaired
at the time of the previpus surgery .The injury found on the
person of Sanjay Bhardwaj was grevious in nature. The
medicolegal case summary Ex.P.W-3/A was preapred by me
. In this case summary the date of discharge as mentioned
as 10.11.2000 , which infact is a mistake.The patient was
discharge actuaaly on 07.11.2000. ( At this stage P.W-1
produced discharge summary ) the original discharge
summary is given to the patient. I have seen the discharge
summary produced by Sanjay Bhardwaj.Ex. P.W-3/B is its
true copy.I have seen in the record produced toiday the
detail of the opeartion ,It is true copy is Ex.P.W-3/C it bears
my signature.I have seen in the record the complete history
of the patient. This history was written by Dr.Sarabjeet
Singh who is presently serving in department of
Neurosurgery .I am conversant with his handwriting and
hgis signatures . He was Jr. resident in the Em. Rec. at that
time.Ex. P.W-3/D is true copy of the same .

XXXXXXX by Counsel for accused

It is correct that as per the discharge summary produced by

P.W-1 the admission number mentioned is 90828. It is
correct that the admission number alloted to the pateint in
PGI remains the same through iout his stay in the hospital.It
is true that the admission number is mentionjed in every
record of the patient (Volunteered)even the Cr ,Number
remains the same during the stay and is mentioned in every
record of the patient.It is correct that in medical legal case
summsry Ex.P.W-3/A the admisssion no. mentioned is
90826. (Self stated) 90826 is the correct number.The
number on the discharge summary was writen by the
Jr.resident but the Cr.Number in the document is the same
which is even more important.

When I started the teratment of this patient no policemen

was there. I do not remember whether I examined the
clotes of patient or not .Normally whwn a patient come to
hospital with a soiled clothes the nursing staff removes the
clothes. By the time the patient comes to us i.e senior
resident on call he is in the hospital dress.or in the clean
dress of his own.When the patient comes to the hospital the
Jr. residents who is the first contact of the patient in the
emrgency. The Jr. resident may or may not have seen the
soiled clothes.The Jr. resident on duty start rax the
treatment there and then and after .That he calls the
concerned senior resident.There is no rule that soiled
clothes will be changed only under the order of some
doctor.W3osever finmd that his clothes are soiled , he may
be a doctor or a nurse or some attendent,he can get the
clotehs removed.Therecan be possibility that the clothes
which the patient was wearing are taken away by his family
members or his attaendants.I have gone through the record
produced from P.G.I toiday.There is no mentioned in that
record as to from whom the police took the clothesinto
poseesion or whwther any doctor had examied or not
examied those clothes.In fact there is no practice of
mentioning of such thing in our medical file .I swa Sanjay
Bhardwaj for the first time when he was admitted in the
hospital in the year 1999. It is incorrect thjat Sanjay
Bhardwaj is known to me since 1999 .In Panchkula I
purchased house in the year 1999 but so long I was serving
with PGI .I was residing in the PGI hostel. Bieng Sr.resident
doctor we are supposed to live in the hostel premises . It is
only since 2002 that I am permanently residing in
Panchkula,though on and off I had been visiting this
house.It is correct to say that all MLC cases commimg to
P.GI ,if reffered by some hospital will be accompanied by a
refernece from such hospital.I do not know that the MLR
issued by such referred hospital is also accomanied by the
refernec slip.I have seen the record brough from P.G.I .No
reference slip is there in the record.E.L means exploratory
Laparotomy.In case of stab wound we explored the
abdominal cavity for looking the site of the injury to the
internal organ and to corrct it there and then.It is correct to
say that I arrived at the final diagnosis after the EL. The
preoperative diagnosis and post operative diognosis may or
may not be coincide. It is true that preopearative diaognosis
may not always be correct.It is correct that just below the
skin there is layer of fatty tissue called as sub Cutaneaous
tissue.It is correct that below the sub Cutaneaous tissue
there is layer of fiborous tissue called as Linealbo (scale).It
is correct that sub Cutaneaous tissue are pale yellow in
colour.
Q. Below the facia abdominal wall muscles are there ?

Ans. Yes, the abdominal muscles are present below the

facia except in the interior mid line.where liver alta is
there .It si correct that abdominal wall is covered by a layer
of tissue which is called pariotal paritominioum. Pariotal
paritominioum is the innermost layer of the abdominal
wall.It is correct that in the paritominioum cavity there are
several visceral organs like intestine . stomach . liver
etc.The portion of the liver ,the portion of stomach,the
portion of cloonare not covered by the viscerol peritoneum ,
rest all are covered by it.

It is correct that omentum is a layer of fatty tissue which is

hanging upon the small intestine.It is correct that it is a
protective layer for the peritonium visceral organs. It is
correct to say that unless parietal peritonium is rupured
omentum cannot come out from the stab wound. It is
correct that it is not mentioned in the record prepared by by
me that parietal peritonium was ruptured.(Volunteered) In
fact we most of the time do not mentioned this things as
laparotomy itself includes the site of syab in the parietal
peritoneum. It is correct that there is no mention in the
opeartion note prepared by me that bthere was a cut or a
stab in parietal peritoneum.(Volunteered) Since the
omentum prolapse from the satb wound is self explainatory
that the rent was filled with the omentum.In lay-mans
language cut was there and it was filled with the omentum.
It is correct that I did not feel it important to mention that
there was a cut in parietal peritoneum. It ios correct that
most pf the time I do not mention the breach in the parietal
peritoneum. (Then stated ) I never mention of such breach
once the omentum or any other contents are prolapsed
from the stab wound. In other words any Viscera can not
prolapsed out of the abdomen without the cut in the
parietal peritoneum

I cannot say from which direction the blow was given. There
was a cut on the illeum , which is a vital part. (Then stated)
There was no cut on the ileum but the blood supply of the
ileum was cut due to tear in the mesentryof the ileum for
that ileum became necrosed and devtalised. Mesentry
attaches the ileum to the posterior abdominal wall besides
supplying bloood to the ileum.It is correct that unless or
untill a vital organ is cut the injury can not be said to be
sufficient in ordinary course to cause death.
C.Q. Whether a person with his omentum prolapsed and
with one hand on the wound can climb up a distance of
about 25-30 feet and thentravel by a scooter. Would sucha
patient not became unconscious ?

Ans. Some time young patient are able to walk that much
distance mentioned earlier with one hand on the prolapsed
viscera and also can remain conscious and can also travel
up to some distance.

XXXXX by Defenec Counsel.

In the kind of the injury found on the person of Sanjay

Bhardwaj there would be profuse bleeding. As stated two
handful of clots that is 600ml of blood alogh with 500 blood
that meand approximately one litre of blood was found in
the peritonium cavity. When we opearted the patient his B.P
was within normal limits.

It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely . It is

incorrect that I have created a false medical record in
connivance with Sanjay Bhardwaj.

Defence evidence on behalf of accused Kuldeep Dhawan.

DW-8 Statement of Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan, House No.1 Sector-7,

Panchkula, (Haryana)

Without Oath
16.11.2012

In the year 2000 I was posted in the department of

Surgery PGI Chandigarh as Senior Resident. As per record of the
PGI file patient Sanjay Bhardwaj aged 29 years came in PGI
Emergency at 3.10 a.m. On 30.10.2000 as depicted in Ex.
PW8/D. As per the record of the file he was brought by Rahul
(friend) resident of 679, Sector-4 Panchkula (Haryana). He was
first seen in the Emergency Surgical OPD by Dr. P. Ranganathan
who as Jr. Resident Emergency Surgical OPD at that time. the
patient was attended by Dr. P. Ranganathan as far as treatment
and history is concerned the made the diagnosis and planned
the treatment. The treatment is duly depicted in Ex. PW8/D. It is
duly signed by Dr. P. Ranganathan as I worked with him and
know his signatures. Thereafter, Dr. P Ranganathan sent the call
to the General Surgery 2nd Unit on call on that day. I attended
the call as I was the Senior Resident General Surgery 2 nd Unit on
call on that day. Admit Card is prepared by the Clerk posted in
the Emergency Reception. After making the Card patient was
seen by the Jr. Resident posted in Emergency Surgical OPD and
he was Dr. P. Ranganathan on that day. I gave the consultation
after the emergency call was received by me. I advised the same
things as was advised by the Emergency doctor i.e. Dr. P.
Ranganathan and advised to collect all the investigations and
arranged the Samaan (articles) and blood. As per the record Ex.
PW8/D Dr. P. Ranganathan made the diagnosis stab injuries
abdomen with omental herniation with the diagram made by him
on the Emergency OPD ticket Ex.PW8/D. Patient. Sanjay
Bhardwaj was admitted on that day in Emergency Ward No.5
under General Surgery Unit-II by Dr. P. Ranganathan as endorsed
in red circle on Ex. PW8/D. Patient was advised number of
investigations like blood tests X-rays of the chest and abdomen
and blood was arranged in the Emergency OPD itself by Dr. P.
Ranganathan. All these investigations were done by different
departments i.e. department of Bio-Chemistry, department of
Radiology, department of Blood Transfusion Medicine etc.
Patient was shifted to Emergency Ward No. 5 under General
Surgery 2nd Unit after admission and again was seen by Dr.
Sarabjeet Singh who was Final Year Jr. Resident posted in
Emergency Recovery Ward No. 5. I got the certified and attested
photocopy of the original file Ex. PW8/B from PGI Chandigarh and
the same in Mark-X. He saw this patient at 5.32 a.m. On
30.10.2000. He examined the patient thoroughly and wrote the
complete history on the file with the diagram of the abdomen.
He collected all the investigations. He got the patient prepared
for surgery. He got the pre-anaesthesia check up (PAC) of Sanjay
Bhardwaj done by Dr. Sushil who was Jr. Resident in the
Department of Anaesthesia. This PAC record is marked as Dx-1
which bears the signature of Dr. Sushil who conducted PAC. As
per the record on PGI then patient was operated by me i.e. Dr.
Kuldeep Dhawan along with Dr. Amarpreet Singh, Dr. Moorti and
other team members as Ex. Dy which bears my signatures and
Dr. Amarpreet Singh. Post operatively patient again was shifted
to Emergency Recovery Ward No.5 as per record. After that
patient was seen by Jr. Posted in Emergency Recovery. After that
patient was shifted to Ward under General Surgery Unit-II. As per
shifting note Ex.DW8/A on 31st October, 2000.(Objected to).
After reaching the ward patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was again
examined by Dr. Ashish who was Jr. Resident in General Surgery
Unit-II whose notes are there in the file Ex.PW8/D. Again on
1.112000 on the second post operative day patient Sanjay
Bhardwaj was again seen by Dr. Ashish and other Jr. Residents.
Likewise patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was repeatedly examined and
seen by Dr. Pravin and Dr. Ashish who were posted in General
Surgery Unit-II as per file Ex.PW8/D. Whenever patient got
admitted in the PGI he has to deposit certain money which is
there as Ex.DW6/D. Patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was admitted under
Profesor S.M. Bose who was Head of General Surgery Unit-II. Ex.
Dy is in my hand and its back side is in the hand of Dr.
Amarpreet Singh. Ex.PW2/R is copy of Ex. Dy. This Medical Legal
Case Summary was prepared by me on the written directions of
Medical Superintendent and Professor S.M. Bose. I have seen
original Medical Legal Case Summary in the file Ex.PW8/B the
copy of which is Ex.PW2/U which bears my signatures.
xxxxx by Sh. R.C. Bakshi Ld. P.P. for the State xxxxxx.

Cross examination is deferred at the request of Ld.

P.P. and at the request of complainant.

R.O. & A.C. Addl. Session Judge, Solan,

District Solan (H.P.)
Defence evidence on behalf of accused Kuldeep Dhawan.

DW-8 Statement of Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan, House No. 1 Sector-7,

Panchkula (Haryana)
Called for cross examination as the cross-
examination was deferred on 16.11.2012

Without Oath
21.12.2012

xxxxxx on behalf of accused Sanjay Bhardwaj and Dev Varth

Sharma

opportunity given.
Nil
xxxxxx by Sh. M.K. Sharma, Ld. P.P. for the State xxxxxx

I do not remember exactly as to how many senior residents

were there in the unit on 30.10.2000, but I can tell after seen the
file. I do not know as to who was on emergency duty in
emergency OPD on 30.10.2000. Self stated, I can tell after seen
the record. It is correct that as per PGI record Ex. CW2/C on
29.10.2000 Dr. Raman Dhanda was on emergency duty during
the intervening night of 29/30-10-2000. It is correct that as per
record Ex. CW2/|C I was not posted on emergency duty during
the intervening night of 29/30-10-2000. Self stated that I was on
emergency call. As per record of the PGI Ex. PW8/D patient
Sanjay Bhardwaj presented in emergency PGI at 3:10 am on
30.10.2000. As per the record, once I was called in emergency
by the emergency doctors I came to give my consultation under
professor S.M. Bose, I do not remember the time of arrival as it is
not mentioned also in the record. Ex. PW8/D is not my hand.
Accordingly to the record of PGI Ex. PW8/D there is alleged
history of sustaining stab injury of abdomen on 29.10.2000 at
9:00 pm near Baddi during a fight by some persons. No history
LOC/ENT bleed/unconsciousness. History of one episode of
vomiting present which were undigested food partials. Past
History of stab injury abdomen in December, 1999 for which he
was hospitalized for 39 days. Intra operative finding –multiple
ileal perforations with heamoperitoneum. Patient developed DIC
and sepsis in the post op period with shock-improved. Patient in
non-alcoholic and non smoker. As per record, it is correct that
patient pulse was 80 blood pressure was 130/80 mmg which is
within normal limit. It is correct that as per record as per
diagram made on that one 1cm stab wound at the level of
umbilicus through which the omentum is herniating. As per the
outpatient record Ex. PW8/D patient was brought by Rahul
(friend). As per the record, I do not know whether or not police
was informed as nothing is mentioned in the record. I was not
knowing at that time that patient was earlier treated at CHC
Nalagarh as the same is not mentioned in Ex.PW8/D. At that
time I knew nothing that the case was registered at P.S.
Brotiwala and one constable had accompanied the patient.
Question :- The referring doctor from CHC Nalagarh must
have given docket in which injured was referred
to PGI which should in the present file of
PGI?

Answer:- I do not know about this thing.

Ex. PW8/C is in my hand. This also bears time 3:10 am. It is

correct that I started writing as G.S. II consultation under doctor
G. Singh then I cut it was again wrote G.S. II under professor S.M.
Bose. I have not mentioned the arrival time in Ex. PW8/C. It is
incorrect that it is not mentioned in Ex. PW8/C that who has sent
call to me. Self stated, the call was sent by J.R. Emergency duty
as per Ex. PW8/D. It is correct that I have not mentioned the
name of doctor who has sent call t me. Self stated, call is sent
through the paper in normal practice on those days. Time of
examining the patient by me is not written in the record and the
same is not remembered to me. I have not mentioned the
dimension of the injuries as the omentum was prolapsing from
the wound thought I have depicted position on diagram. I do not
remember who narrated history to me but in normal practice the
doctor who examines the patient in emergency narrates. It is
correc that in my writing Ex. PW8/C I have written alleged history
of stab by father-in-law, whereas in Ex. PW8/D with alleged
history of some known person. It is correct that I wrote the
previous history of the injured qua dated 21.12.1999. Then I
made the plan to collect the all work up the meaning of that is to
collect the all investigation, NPO/IVF/RTA/PUC/CVP, I/O charting,
injection cifran/ injection Metrogyl, arrange Saman, arrange
blood, shift to emergency recovery, fix. Chest X-ray report was
showing no gas under diaphragm, axr. It is incorrect that only
doctor Raman Dhanda Sr. Resident could have admitted and
shifted to emergency recovery. Self stated, in normal practice
the unit on call senior resident is called for consultation in the
emergency whenever the team of emergency thinks that patient
need admission/intervention. In dire emergency when the
emergency team does not have time to follow this protocol
senior resident posted in emergency has the power to admit. In
this case, I ordered to admit this patient on behalf of professor
S.M. Bose.
Question:- There are panel of doctor on call for each surgical
unit in PGI and you were not in the panel on the
alleged dated i.e. during the intervening night of
29/30-10-2000.
Ans:- There are nothing like panel of doctor in PGI for
attending emergency patient. In fact, there are three
surgical units GS-I, GS-II and GS-III. Each unit has its
call days rotation wise like GS-I on Monday, GS-II on
Tuesday, GS-III on Wednesday and so on. If a patient
who is already been admitted to any unit previously
and he comes again in the emergency, the
concerned unit will be called in emergency for the
patient irrespective of the unit on call. It is incorrect
that I was not in the capacity to give consultation of
Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj patient as already explained by
professor and Head doctor Rajinder Singh of PGI in
his statement.

It is correct that every unit of surgery is headed by

one professor and GS-II was headed by professor S.M. Bose. I do
not know the doctor G. Singh was on call or not on that day but I
gave this consultation under doctor S.M. Bose. It is correct that
X-ray film and report is not present in the file procured from PGI.
It is correct that the name of the patient in written as Rakesh
Kumar and age is 50 years which was conducted on 31.10.2000
on ultrasound report in file Ex. PW8/B. Self stated that may be
mistakenly of some other patient.
Question:- Can you tell the during and exact time during which
he was operated.
Ans:- I cannot tell the exact time at which the patient was
taken in for the surgery as lot many pages are
missing in the original file shown to me but the total
of operation is 2 hours 10 minutes.
 Part of Ex. Dy. On page 17 is written with my hand.
According to the record, the blood loss in this surgery is 50ml
and in this record, two handful of clots alongwith 500ml of blood
was present in peritoneal cavity. This paper was prepared by me
immediately after surgery in the emergency operation theater
only as is normal practice. My assistance in during operation is
doctor Amarpreet, doctor Murti, Doctor Chauhan, Doctor Poja,
Doctor Chauhan and Doctor Pooja were the anesthetist and
nurse was Manchander. Record of anesthetist is missing in PGI
file Ex. PW8/B. However, I have obtained certified copy of that
and produced in the Court of Mark DX-1.
Question:- During examination-in-chief doctor Sushil ha got pre-
anesthesia check up (PAC) of Sanjay Bhardwaj
whereas in your docket prepared during operation
Ex. Dy. reflects of doctors Chauhan and doctor Pooja.
Ans. It is correct that PAC was done by doctor Sushil as is
mentioned in Mark Dx-1 but anesthesia was given by
doctor Chauhan and doctor Pooja.
Question:- There is no record showing the doctor Chauhan and
doctor Pooja was present and prepared any record
regarding anesthesia of Sanjay Bhardwaj.
Ans. As per record, it is incorrect to say that doctor
Chauhan and doctor Pooja did not given anesthesia.
As per record, department of blood transfusion PGI
issued 1 unit of blood on the same of Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj
patient which was numbered as 583169/0+ on 30.10.2000.
According to the record, it is no where mentioned when the
blood was given to the patient. It is correct that the proforma
issued by department of blood transfusion is blank. It is incorrect
that the cutting on Ex. Dy with regard to the unit professor ,
blank proforma of blood transfusion, report of doctor Sunil are
going to show that I have tempered the case file in PGI being
senior resident in PGI. As per the record, the patient Sanjay
Bhardwaj was previously stabbed in the year 1999. It is correct
that my evidence was recorded in that case. I do not know
whether or not that case has been decided in the case. I do not
know whether or not that case has been decided. I do not that
the court has given finding in that case that I remained
associated with Sanjay Bhardwaj from the beginning. I saw
Sanjay Bhardwaj in PGI when he was earlier admitted in GS-II
which was our unit in the year 1999. I do not know that at that
time Sanjay Bhardwaj had been referred from the General
Hospital in Sector-16, Chandigarh. I do not know that the court
has given finding that the application written for treatment of
Sanjay Bhardwaj on behalf of the police was in my hand. I do not
know that Sanjay Bhardwaj remained with police in the hospital
Nalagarh on 30.10.2000 till 7:00 am. It is incorrect that I have
fabricated the record Ex. PW8/C and Ex. PW8/D. Time written on
Ex. PW8/C is not in my hand. Patient may or may not become
unconscious in such type of injury. Self stated, as per the record,
the patient was conscious in this case. I cannot tell as to what
time the patient would have been operated upon as lot of pages
are missing from PGI record. It is correct that in such type of
injury, patient is operated upon within hours of admission. I do
not know that doctor who has examined Sanjay Bhardwaj at
Nalagarh as mentioned that he has two inch stab injury. I do not
know that there is another mark of previous stab mark
mentioned by the doctor. It is correct that I have not mentioned
the previous stab mark. Again said I have mentioned. Medical
legal case summary has been prepared me in this case as per
written order of professor S.M. Bose our head of the department
on 13.12.2000. The date of discharge in the Medical legal case
summary is 10.11.2000. It is correct that as per discharge record
the patient was discharged on 07.11.2000. Self stated, the date
of discharged on medical case legal summary was written after
seeing the file where by mistake it was written 10.11.2000 but
the fact is the patient was discharged on 07.11.2000 as so many
times explained. It is incorrect that I have intentionally
mentioned wrong date of discharged in medical legal case
summary in connivance with Sanjay Bhardwaj and other
accused. It is incorrect that I had operated upon Sanjay
Bhardwaj at 5:00 pm on 30.10.2000. It is incorrect that professor
S.M. Bose had never authorized/ordered me to issue the medical
legal case summary which was marked by P.A. of professor S.M.
Bose. Mark Dx is partly in my hand and date of discharged is
also in my hand. I do not remember that Mark Dx was prepared
on 10.11.2000. It is incorrect that Sanjay Bhardwaj had not
sustained grievous injury and I prepared the record incorrectly in
connivance with the co-accused.

R.O. & A.C. Add. Sesssion Judge, Solan

District Solan (H.P)

P.W-8 Statement of Dr. Rajinder Singh ,Professor and

Head of Department of General
Surgery ,PGI ,Chandigarh.

On
Oath

28.7.
2012

I have brought the summoned record i.e copies of the

duty roasters Ext. P.W-6/B is true and correct as per the
original record. It has been issued from Former Head of
the Department of Surgery.

Q.No. 1 As per roster Ext. P.W-6/B who was Senior

Residence in emergency duty in intervening night of 21 st
22nd December 1999.

Ans. In December ,1999 we have posted nine doctors i.e

Dr. N. Raghwan ,Dr.Dibya Dhaiya ,Dr.P.B.Sabhapati ,
again said these doctors managed instead of nine three
places i.e Emergency Recovery ,Emergency
OPD ,Intensive care unit in addition to this we have put
doctors U.M.Rao Chikkam for the night duty on 21 st
December , 1999 . There is a set of another full unit
which is on call and they will be responsible for
performing any surgery or majur undertaking if required
. This unit backing is by the whole team led by the unit
consultant ,Sr. residents and Junior recidence.

Q. No. 2 How many patient were attended on that day ?

Ans. That record might be with the registration
department .

We do not keep any record regarding which doctor is to

be called ,if it is a new case it will be attended by the
unit on call and will be discharged finally under units
head name . If it happens to be old patient (already
treated in P.G.I) then it will be treated by the unit which
has treated earlier and those doctors will be informed
and called for Initial management of the patient is done
by the doctors on emergency duty. I have also brought
the record i.e duty roster pertaining to month of
October 2000 Ext. P.W-6/C is the true copy of the record
brought by me . As per duty roaster Ext.P.W-6/C doctors
on duty on 29.10.2000 i.e during the intervening night
of 29/30-10-2000 were Dr. Vikas Gupta , Dr.Som
Shekhar Redy ,Dr.Ganesh Dass and Dr.Raman Danda . I
have seen the patient case file of patient Sanjay
Bhardwaj noted in Red circle Ext.P.W-8/A are in my hand
and bears my signatures which dated 19.1.2009. As per
the case file of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj admissions
90826 the patient had been admitted under Professor
S.M.Bose and other treating team members were Sr.
Residence Dr.Kuldeep and Dr.Sibu ,Dr.Murti and
Dr.Devinder. The case file of patient is Ext.P.W-8/B.
Emergency OPD card in the case file is Ext.P.W-8/C
which is a part of file . I do not recognoze the writing on
ExP.W-8/C again said admit card is Ext.P.W-8/B and not
Ext.P.W-8/C. Generally Ext.P.W-8/D is filled in first and
subsequently consultation form Ext.P.W-8/C is filled in .
As per Ext. P.W-8/C and Ext.P.W-8/D , the patient was
admitted at 3.10A.M on 30.10.2000.

XXXX by Sh. Rajeev Garg ,Advocate for accused

Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan xxxx
Q. No. 1 The doctors on Emergency Duty remain in
Emergecy Duty and they do not operate the patient ,
they call unit G.S 1 ,2 and 3..

Ans. Generally it is true that the unit on call will perform

surgery . However , in life saving situations the
Sr.residents emergency can also start the procedure.

It is correct that whosoever is admitted in emergency

his card is prepared by registration clerk which is
Ext.P.W-8/D in this case . It is correct to suggest that
thereafter the doctors on emrgency duty they note
down the history of the patient initiate the treatment
and call / inform the unit on call or the unit to which
patient belongs . Mark DX is the attested copy but its
original is not available in the case file Ext.P.W-8 /B. I
cannot comment upon that as per case file Ext P.W-8/B
pages from 12 to 16 are missing. I cannot comment
Mark DX as to whether or not this is in continution of
treatment of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj. It is correct that
before surgery the patient has to undergo several test
depending upon the disease . Mostly the surgery is
performed by the Sr.Residents and consultants as
assisted by other doctors . Anesthesia Chart of the
patient is not available in the file Ext. P.W-8 /B. I cannot
comment upon Aneshesia Chart Mark DX-1 . It is correct
that as per case file Ext.P.W-8 /B the patient Sanjay
Bhardwaj was operated upon by Dr. Kuldeep and team
of doctors i.e Dr.Amanpreet , Dr./Murti and anesthesia
by Dr.Chauhan and Dr.Puja and nurse is Manshinder. It
is correct that patient has been admitted under
professor S.N.Bose consultant incharge . Operation note
is Ex DY in the file Ext. P.W-8/B. It is correct that post
operative care of patient is done by Sr. Residents and
Jr.Residents of the unit or the one posted in the wards.
However , the final responsibility is of the consultant
incharge. It is also correct right from the admission till
discharge of the patient is looked after by number
hospitals personnel including sisters , wardboys besides
the doctors as has been said earlier . As per Ex.P.W-8/D
the patient was admitted on 30.10.2000 and discharged
on 10.11.2000. However as per bill and report of auditor
bill was deposited on 7.11.2000. As per record police
information was sent on 7.11.2000 recorded in pageNo
41/26 of file Ext.P.W-8/B.

XXXXX by Sh.S.S.Narwal ,Advocate for accused Sanjay

Bhardwaj and DevVart Sharma . xxxxxx

As per Ext. P.W-8/D the patient was first examined by

Dr. P.Ranganathan ,Jr. residents on 30.10.2000 at
3.10.A.M. Self stated I am not acquainted with his
signatures but his name is clearly written over Ext.P.W-
8/D. As per duty roaster brought by me Ext.DX-2 ,Dr.
Kuldeep Dhawan was posted in General Surgery unit -11
on 1.10.2001. Self stated as Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan is the
Sr. Residents of the unit -11 so after emergency posting
again he will go back to the parent unit as is done for all
the senior residents postings . It is correct that since Dr.
Kuldeep Dhawan was posted in G.S-2 so he has
opearted patient Sanjay Bhardwaj .

It is also correct that call was also given to G.S-2 . It is

correct that junior residents , doctors are also part of
the operating team . It is true that junior residents ,
doctors remain on duty in emergency round the clock
and they along with senior residents manage the initial
treatment in the emrgency treatment . It is correct that
there are three units of General Surgery since 1999 and
still we are following thw same system . It is correct that
Ext. P.W-2 /T patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was discharged
on 7.11.2000 . It is correct that in a file Ext.. P.W-8 /B
there is an application for the police requesting for
issuance of treatment summary and opinion regarding
nature of injury and authorities have disputed
Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan , Sr. Resident to do the needful .
Medical Legal case summary is available in this file
Ext.P.W-8/B preapred by Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan , Sr.
resident . Copy of madical legal case summary is Ext.
P.W-2 /U. It is corerect that short history and finding of
the case are written in discahrge card along with the
opearting procedures and future instructions Ext. P.W-
2 /T is the discharge card. It is true that all the patients
coming to emargency are registered in the emergency
register and then the card is made simultaneously.I
cannot comment on Mark DY (three leaves) . Original of
mark DY-1 is not availablre in the case file Ext.P.W-8 /B .
However , copy of final bill is available in case file Ext.
P.W-8 /B which is dated 7.11.2000. It is correct that
patient stayed in the hospital for seven days , so
besides Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan , he would have been
looked after by other doctors and nurses .It is correct
that P.GI is a reputed institute and we tried to keep the
record. I cannot say about the possibility of
manipulatuion of the record maintained in the P.G.I. It is
correct tha hospital in Sector 16 in Chandigarh is a
defferent then P.G.I and their staff are separate and
independent .

RO & AC Sd/-

Sd/- Addl. Sessions Judge,

Solan

Dr. Rajinder Singh Distt. Soaln (H.P)

 28.7.2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,

SHIMLA.

Cr. Appeal No. 181/2005

Reserved on: 26.6.2012
Decided on:18.7. 2012

State of Himachal Pradesh.

…..…Appellant.
Versus

1. Sarvsheel Mago son of Sh. Sunder Lal Mago

2. Aman Mago son of Sh. Sarvsheel Mago
3. Smt. Komal Mago wife of Sh. Sarvsheel Magi
All residents of House No. 244, Sector 10, Panchkula
(Haryana).
…..…Respondents.
Criminal Appeal under section 378 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.

Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the appellant : Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G.
M/s Amarjit Singh Virk and Abhinay
Sharma, Advocates for the
complainant.
For the Respondent: Mr. Naresh Thakur, Sr. Advocate
With Mr. Ramesh Sharma,Advocate.

Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? Yes
2
State has come in appeal against the judgment of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court), Solan rendered in Case No. 30/FT/7
of 2004/2003 decided on 12.10.2004 whereby
respondents, who were charged with and tried for
offences punishable under sections 307, 364, 506 read
with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been
acquitted.
2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that
complainant married Nidhi Mago daughter of
respondents S.S. Mago and Komal Mago. Marriage was
solemnized in Delhi. Couple left for Orissa for
honeymoon. S.S. Mago came to Orissa and brought
them back on the pretext to host reception party.
However, respondents lodged false F.I.R. against him.
Nidhi Mago was separated from the complainant. She
was married to some other person. S.S. Mago had
always been advancing threats to the complainant to
withdraw the cases and not to appear in a case at
Karnal. He did not accede to the request of S.S. Mago.
3. On 29.10.2000 at 6.15 P.M., while Sanjay
Bhardwaj (complainant), was strolling in a lonely place in
Sector-5, Panchkula, a Maruti car bearing No. HR-49-
1250 came there. Respondents were sitting in the car.
The car was driven by a person, who was not known to
3
the complainant. All of them came out of the car and
knocked the complainant down. Thereafter, Komal Mago
applied tape on the complainant’s mouth. Respondents
tied his hands and forcibly put him on the rear seat of
the car. On one side, Aman Mago sat and on the other
side of the complainant, S.S. Mago sat. A Chunni was
thrown on the complainant face. Respondent Komal
Mago took out a knife from her purse and handed it over
to Aman Mago, who put the knife on the stomach of the
complainant and threatened to thrust the knife into his
body if he tried to move. Car was taken towards Baddi.
Car was stopped on the road and respondents kept
sitting in that lonely place for about 30 minutes.
Thereafter, car was taken further. It was stopped at
some distance. Complainant was taken out of the car.
Respondents stood around him. Respondent Komal
Mago incited other respondents to kill the complainant.
Respondent S.S. Mago took the knife from Aman Mago
saying that last time he had failed to kill the complainant
and this time, he will do the job. Thereafter, S.S. Magoi
stabbed the complainant on his stomach. He tried to
give another blow, but the complainant moved aside and
fell down into a gorge. Complainant after 45 minutes got
up and was able to untie his hands. He removed the
tape from his mouth and climbed up to the road. A
4
scooterist who was not known to the complainant,
happened to come there. He brought him on his scooter
and dropped near a clinic at Baddi. Some telephonic
information was received by the police at Police Post
Baddi whereupon H.C. Sewa Singh, Constable Sazid
Khan and Constable Madan Lal proceeded towards
Malhotra Clinic. They found the complainant in injured
condition. He was taken to C.H.C. Nalagarh. Opinion of
the Medical Officer was taken at Nalagarh. Statement of
the complainant was recorded under section 154 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. It was sent to Police
Station, Barotiwala through Constable Madan Lal where
F.I.R. No. 170 under sections 364, 307, 506 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged.
Investigation was carried out and the cancellation report
was prepared by the Station House Officer on
31.12.2000. It was filed in the Court of Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh on 3.10.2001.
Complainant had also filed private complaint in the same
Court on 6.6.2001 regarding the same occurrence.
Learned Magistrate did not accept the cancellation report
and took the cognizance of the matter vide order dated
2.9.2002. He directed summons to be issued to the
respondents. Learned Magistrate committed the case to
the learned Sessions Judge, Solan. Respondents were
5
directed to appear in the Court on 6.2.2003. They
appeared before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan.
Thereafter, the case was assigned to the Additional
Sessions Judge by the Sessions Judge. Respondents
were charged with offences punishable under sections
364, 307, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. They pleaded not guilty.
4. Prosecution examined as many as ten
witnesses. Statements of respondents were also recorded
under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
They pleaded not guilty. Respondents have also
examined three witnesses in defence. Learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court)
acquitted the respondents on 12.10.2004. Hence, this
appeal by the State.
5. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Addl.
Advocate General, Mr. Amarjit Singh and Mr. Abhinay
Sharma have vehemently argued that the prosecution
has proved its case against the respondents. According
to him, the trial court has not correctly appreciated the
oral as well as documentary evidence.
6. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate has
supported the judgment of acquittal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the records carefully.
6
8. Complainant has appeared as PW-1.
According to him, he had love affair with Ms. Nidhi Mago.
They contracted marriage on 16.5.1999. Marriage was
solemnized in Lajpat Nagar, Arya Samaj Mandi, New
Delhi. Thereafter, they went to Orissa for honeymoon.
Nidhi telephonically gave Orissa address to S.S. Mago.
He came to Orissa and on the pretext of hosting a
reception party asked them to come back. They came
with him on 26.5.1999. While they were coming back, at
Karnal, he was asked to get down from the car. They
took Nidhi Mago with them. He was told that they would
come next day to his parents’ house to talk about the
reception party. In fact, nobody visited his house and no
reception party was hosted. Nidhi Mago was married to
one Prashant Arora of Karnal. Respondents had been
advancing threats to kill him, if he did not withdraw the
cases and the petitions filed by him. They asked him not
to appear as witness on behalf of Lt. Col. S.N. Arora,
father of Prashant Arora. On 29.10.2000 while he was
walking in Sector-5, Panchkula at about 6.15 P.M., a
blue Maruti car bearing registration No. HR-49-1250
came from behind. Car was stopped in front of him.
Respondents and one more person, whom he did not
know, came out of the car and knocked him down.
Komal Mago applied plaster on his face. His hands were
7
tied by S.S. Mago, Aman Mago and the fourth man. He
was forcibly put into the car in the rear seat. He was
made to sit in between Aman Mago and S.S. Mago.
Komal Mago was sitting in the front seat and the fourth
man was driving the car. A Chunni was put on his face.
Komal Mago took a knife from her purse and handed it
over to Aman Mago. Aman Mago placed the knife on his
stomach and threatened to kill if he tried to move. He
was taken in the car towards Baddi via Pinjore. At Baddi
barrier, Komal Mago came out of the car and paid the toll
tax. She again sat in the car and the car was taken on a
road which is on the right side of Baddi. The car was
stopped. He did not know the name of place. They
stayed there for about 25 minutes. It was dark at that
time. They proceeded in the car further. The car was
stopped. He was taken out from the car. There was a
gorge on the right side of the road. He was standing on
right side of the road surrounded by the respondents.
Komal Mago instigated Aman Mago to kill him. S.S.
Mago took the knife from Aman Mago saying that last
time he had failed to kill him and this time he would
certainly kill him. Then S.S. Mago stabbed him on his
stomach and while he was attempting a second blow, he
moved a bit and fell into gorge about 25-30 feet below.
He was feeling severe pain. With great difficulty, he was
8
able to untie his hands. He removed the tape. He
sustained some bruises on his back due to fall into the
gorge. He was sitting on the road under severe pain as
his intestines were coming out. Just then a man on a
scooter came there. He narrated the incident to him. He
brought him on his scooter and dropped him about 100-
150 feet away from Malhotra Clinic at Baddi. The man
did not want to be involved in a police case. There were
shops at the place where he was dropped. He went to the
shop and narrated the incident to the shopkeeper. Two
persons were present there. They took him to Malhotra
Clinic. He later on came to know that their names were
Kiran Pal and Govind. Doctor gave him injection but he
was told not to disclose this fact to any one. He narrated
the incident to the doctor. He obtained telephone
number of his house from him and informed his parents
as well as the police. After a while police came. Police
took him to some clinic but the clinic owner did not open
the door. Thereafter, police took him to Nalagarh
Government hospital. His statement Ex.PW-1/A was
recorded. Police had bought him in some private vehicle.
He was medically examined. He had put his signature on
M.L.C., which is Ex.PW-1/B. After sometime, his father
accompanied by some of his friends came at the Hospital.
Doctor at Nalagarh hospital referred him to P.G.I. He
9
was taken to P.G.I., Chandigarh. Police accompanied him
to P.G.I. He was operated upon at P.G.I. He was
discharged on 7.11.2000. Thereafter, he remained
admitted in Manimajra dispensary for 3-4 days. He has
identified his shirt Ex.P-1 and pants Ex.P-2, which were
taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo
Ex.PW-1/C. He has categorically admitted in his
crossexamination
that in the complaint, date of occurrence is
30.10.2000, however, according to him; it was a typing
mistake, which came to his notice only at the time of
recording of the statement in the court. He has admitted
that while appearing as his own witness before the
Magistrate at Nalagarh, the date of occurrence had been
stated as 30.10.2000 at 6.15 P.M. This was also a
mistake as according to him, occurrence took place on
29.10.2000. He has also admitted that no application
was moved before the Magistrate for correcting the date
of occurrence. He came to know about the error only at
the time of recording of his statement in the Court. He
has also admitted that when he was medically examined
by the doctor at Nalagarh, there was one scar mark on
his abdomen and the doctor had made a mention of such
mark on the M.L.C. He volunteered that the doctor had
asked him to give any identification mark and he stated
to him that he had a mark in the abdomen. According to
10
him, his residence is in Sector-2 Panchkula, which is 5
KMs from where he was abducted. He has also admitted
that Sector-5 is in the heart of Panchkula. He has also
admitted that area-wise Sector-5 is a big sector. He has
also admitted that bus stand exists in this sector. Self
stated that it was in the corner of the sector. He has also
admitted that the Police Station is in sector 5, which is
just behind the bus stand. He has admitted that Vatika
Park is in sector-5. He has further admitted that the
gate of Vatika Park is about 100 metres from the point
from where he was kidnapped. According to him, he
resisted kidnapping but things happened so quickly that
before he could raise alarm, accused Komal Mago applied
tape on his mouth. When he was lying on the ground,
they tied his hands. They pushed him into the car. He
did not receive any injury at that time. They took him
through Red Bishop Tank Chowk. Red Bishop is a hotel
of Haryana Tourism. In front of this hotel, there is traffic
red light. He has also admitted that there is a traffic
check post at the red light. He has also admitted that at
a distance of about 300-400 metres from this red light
point, there is another red light on old Panchkula road.
He has also admitted that there is a check post at this
red light point also. He has also admitted that at a
distance of 4-5 KMs from this red light point, there is
11
Police Station at Chandi Mandir on Shimla road. He has
also admitted that Mughal garden is frequented by large
number of people daily. Beyond this, towards Shimla
there is Pinjore Bazaar. There is large number of shops
on both sides of the road. He has admitted that before
reaching Baddi, there is a toll tax barrier. He has
admitted that 7-8 persons are present at the toll tax
barrier. He has further stated that the accused stopped
the car at some distance from the barrier, Komal Mago
came out of the car and paid the tax. He could see all
this through Chunni put on his face. His hands were
tied on the back side. The knife was pointed towards his
abdomen. Lot of bleeding took place. He fell down in the
gorge by way of rolling. He untied his hands and
removed the tape and started climbing. The climbing up
took 20-25 minutes. Signs of rope were visible on the
date of recording of his statement in the court. He threw
the rope and the tape on the spot. He came up to the
road. He sat there for about 45 minutes. The scooterist
came there. According to him, he stayed for 1½ -2 hours
at Nalagarh hospital. Police for the first time met him in
the clinic. Two persons had taken him to the clinic. He
was made to lie on a bench inside the clinic. Doctor gave
him injection. He got up from the bench and came out of
the clinic. He did not remember whether police met him
12
at the time when he was outside the clinic or they met
him when he was inside the clinic. He stayed at
Malhotra Clinic for about one hour. He disclosed to the
doctor that S.S. Mago and Komal Mago stabbed him. He
has stated that apart from the injection, no other first aid
was given to him by the doctor despite the fact that his
intestines were coming out. A small portion of the
intestine had come out and it was visible. There was a
cut on his shirt. He did not remember whether he had
shown that cut to the doctor at Nalagarh. Police met him
at 10.30 or 10.45 at the clinic. Police took him to
Nalagarh after about one hour or so. He did not
remember the time when they reached Nalagarh hospital.
His father met him at Nalagarh hospital and not at Baddi
clinic. His brother had not come with his father.
According to him, his father was accompanied by Boby,
Gautam, Mr. Mahajan and Mr. Rakesh and some other
persons had also come, but he did not know them. He
has also admitted that he could not locate the site as the
incident had taken place in the dark and he had not
visited the site earlier.
9. According to PW-2 Dev Vert Sharma, Sanjay
Bhardwaj (PW-1) was married to Ms. Nidhi Mago on
16.5.1999. Marriage was solemnized at Arya Samaj
Mandir Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. According to him,
13
neither he nor his family members nor parents of Nidhi
Mago were present at Arya Samaj Mandir at the time of
solemnization of the marriage. Marriage was contracted
without their consent. According to him, accused S.S.
Mago and his nephew went to Bhuvneshwar and brought
Sanjay Bhardwaj and Nidhi Mago on the pretext of
hosting reception party. They came by air to Delhi and
thereafter they proceeded in a car. Sanjay Bhardwaj
(PW-1) got down from the car at Karnal. He had been
working as male staff nurse in Civil Hospital, Mani
Mazra. He received a telephonic message at about 11.00
P.M. on 29.5.2000 then stated on 29.10.2000 from
Malhotra Hospital, Baddi informing him that his son was
lying in a serious condition. Doctor told him that his son
has been stabbed by his father-in-law. He accompanied
by Rakesh Kumar, D.K. Mahajan, Mr. Gautam and Boby,
who are his neighbours, came in a car to Malhotra Clinic
at Baddi. He also informed some of his staff members.
They had also gone to Baddi by some other car. Mr.
Malhotra (PW-4) disclosed him that his son had been
taken by police to Nalagarh hospital. Thereafter, they
went to Nalagarh hospital. They reached there at about
1.00 A.M. on 30.10.2000. His son was lying on the bed.
Police recorded his statement. He saw that stomach was
bleeding. He inquired from his son as to what has
14
happened. His son told him that he was kidnapped from
Panchkula by the accused persons present in the court
and one more whom he did not know. He was stabbed
by them somewhere near Baddi in a Jungle. Sanjay
Bhardwaj was wearing a shirt which was having a cut of
knife. There was blood on the shirt and also on the
pants. Doctor told him that the matter was serious and
the patient was being referred to P.G.I. He then took
Sanjay Bhardwaj to P.G.I. Police official also
accompanied them. Sanjay Bhardwaj remained
hospitalized for 7 days at P.G.I and thereafter he
remained hospitalized in Civil Hospital, Manimajra. He
was discharged from P.G.I. on 7.11.2000. He has
admitted that in F.I.R. No. 87 dated 27.5.1999, he has
been named as accused. According to him, it was a false
case. He has admitted that he has also been named as
accused in F.I.R. No. 318 dated 13.8.2000 under section
364. According to him, it was also a false case.
According to him, they reached P.G.I. at about 3.00 A.M.
on 30.10.2000. One constable was accompanying them
from Nalagarh to P.G.I. He did not know his name.
Treatment was started by the doctor at P.G.I. within 5-10
minutes. He was operated upon after 2-3 hours. His
wife had also come. His statement was recorded at P.G.I.
by some police official, who had come from Baddi and not
15
by the constable who was accompanying them.
According to him, telephonic call from Baddi was
received by him. He denied the suggestion that there
was no cut on the shirt of Sanjay Bhardwaj.
10. Nachhatar Singh had brought the summoned
record of Sanjay Bhardwaj.
11. PW-3 is Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan. He was
working as Registrar, Department of Surgery P.G.I.
Chandigarh and was posted there with effect from
September, 1999 to September, 2002. According to him,
Sanjay Bhardwaj came in a state of shock accompanied
by his friend Rahul on 30.10.2000. He was admitted in
emergency recovery ward. Emergency operation was
conducted on 30.10.2000. Patient was discharged on the
7th day post operative day in a satisfactory condition, i.e.
7.11.2000. The injury on his person was possible only
by way of stab injury. Sanjay Bhardwaj had arrived at
the hospital at 3.10 A.M. on 30.10.2000 with the alleged
history of stab. It took him 2.10 hours to operate upon
him. Injury, according to him, was received probably in
hours not in days. Injury was sufficient to cause death.
It was on the vital part of the body. According to him,
the same patient was even earlier operated by him in
December, 1999 for a stab injury in the abdomen for
which operation on the abdomen was carried out. On
16
court question put to him, he stated that there may or
may not be presence of previous scar of stab because the
scar may have been taken in the incision line. According
to him, the site of second stab was on the scar of the
previous surgery, i.e. in the mid line. Medico Legal case
summary Ex.PW-3/A was also prepared by him. In this
case summary, date of discharge has been mentioned as
10.11.2000, which according to him was a mistake.
Patient was discharged on 7.11.2000. In his
crossexamination,
he has admitted that as per the discharge
summary produced by PW-1, the admission number
mentioned is 90828. He has admitted that admission
number allotted to the patient in P.G.I. remains the same
throughout his stay in the hospital. He has also
admitted that the admission number is mentioned in
every record of the patient. He has also admitted that in
medical legal case summary Ex.PW-3/A, admission
number mentioned is 90826. According to him, number
on the discharge summary was written by the Junior
Resident but C.R. number in both the documents is the
same, which was more important. According to him,
when he started the treatment of patient, no policeman
was there. He did not remember whether he examined
the clothes of the patient or not. He has categorically
admitted that all M.L.C. cases coming to the P.G.I. if
17
referred by some hospital would be accompanied by a
reference from such hospital. He did not know that the
M.L.R. issued by such referral hospital also accompanied
by the reference slip. He had seen the record brought
from P.G.I. There is no reference slip in the record. He
has admitted that unless parietal peritoneum is ruptured
omentum could not come out from the stab wound. He
has admitted that he has not mentioned in the record
that parietal peritoneum was ruptured. He has also
admitted that he has not mentioned in his operation note
that there was a cut or a stab in parietal peritoneum.
According to him, there was a cut on the ileum, which is
a vital part. Then stated that there was no cut on the
ileum but the blood supply of the ileum was cut due to
tear in the mesentery of the ileum for that ileum became
necrosed and devitalized. He has admitted that unless or
until a vital organ is cut the injury cannot be said to be
sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. He has also
admitted that in the kind of injury found on the person of
Sanjay Bhardwaj, there would be profuse bleeding.
According to him, two handful of clots, i.e. 600 ml of
blood alongwith 500 ml blood that means approximately
more than one litre of blood was found in the peritoneum
cavity.
18
12. According to PW-4 Dr. Mukesh Malhotra, he
was working as Medical Officer since 1991 in Malhotra
Hospital, Baddi. Sanjay Bhardwaj, who was
accompanied by two persons, was standing outside
Malhotra hospital building on 29.10.2000. He had gone
somewhere. He returned to the hospital in the evening.
He got down from his car. Sanjay Bhardwaj was present
there. He told that he had been stabbed by his father-inlaw.
He raised his shirt. He saw that there was a cut
measuring about 1½ -2 inches. He told that he could not
do anything in the matter. He did not thoroughly
examine him. He asked to telephonically inform his
parents about the occurrence. He made a telephone call,
which was received by some lady, probably his mother
and informed her about the incident. The persons, who
accompanied Sanjay Bhardwaj were known to him. They
have their Paan shops nears the hospital approximately
at a distance of 100 metres. He informed Sanjay
Bhardwaj that he has made a telephonic call to his
parents. He and two others left the hospital premises.
However, after 5 minutes a worker of the hospital came
to him and told that a person was lying on the road. He
then went to the road with his worker and found that
Sanjay Bhardwaj was lying. He with the help of worker
made him to stand and brought him back to bench,
19
which was just outside the hospital building. In his
cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that
when he saw the wound of Sanjay Bhardwaj, no bleeding
was there. He did not remember when Sanjay Bhardwaj
was seen by him in the hospital. According to him, it
was late in the evening. There was some dust on the
shirt. Police arrived within 15 minutes of making of call.
Police recorded statement of Kiran Pal and Govind on the
next day. His statement was recorded in the hospital.
He did not maintain any record of arrival of Sanjay
Bhardwaj and applying the pad etc.
13. PW-5 Kiran Pal has testified that he is
running a shop of Paan- Beeri- Cigarette etc. According
to him, on 29.11.2002 then stated 2000, Sanjay
Bhardwaj present in the Court was standing on the road
in front of his shop. It was about 8.45 or 8.00 P.M., he
was closing his shop. He came and asked for help and in
the meantime, his neighbour Govind also came. He
asked him what happened. He disclosed that he has
been stabbed and he appeared to be perplexed. He was
holding a side of his shirt by his hand. He and Govind
took him to Malhotra hospital. When he reached the
hospital, Malhotra came there from some where and got
down from the car. He returned to his shop while Govind
remained with Sanjay Bhardwaj. He returned within a
20
minute. Sanjay Bhardwaj did not disclose to him, the
name/names of the persons, who stabbed him.
14. PW-6 ASI Sleem Ahmad has testified that he
was working as Investigating Officer in Police Station,
Barotiwala. At about 2.15 A.M. on 30.10.2000, Madan
Lal came to Police Station with rukka Ex.PW-1/A, on the
basis of which F.I.R. Ex.PW-6/A was lodged.
15. PW-7 HC Sewa Singh has deposed that he
was working in Police Post, Baddi as Head Constable
Investigating Officer from March, 2000 to July, 2002. He
partly investigated the case. On 29.10.2000, on receiving
a telephonic message he went to Malhotra Clinic
alongwith constable Madan Lal and Sajid Khan. He
reached Malhotra Clinic at about 11.50 P.M. He
arranged a private vehicle and took Sanjay Bhardwaj to
Civil Hospital, Nalagarh. At Nalagarh, after obtaining
permission of the doctor, he recorded the statement of
Sanjay Bhardwaj Ex.PW-1/A under section 154 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. This statement was sent by him
through Constable Madan Lal to Police Station
Barotiwala for registration of the case. He moved an
application Ex.PW-7/A for medical examination. He
obtained the M.L.C. from the doctor. He was referred to
P.G.I. Chandigarh. Shirt and pants were taken into
possession by him at Nalagarh hospital vide memo
21
Ex.PW-1/C. According to him, it took about 40-45
minutes to arrange a vehicle for Nalagarh after they
reached Malhotra Clinic, Baddi. He recorded the
statement of Sanjay Bhardwaj at 1.30 A.M. at Nalagarh
hospital. He did not know by which mode Madan Lal
went to the Police Station with Rukka. According to him,
Nalagarh hospital is at a distance of 13-14 kilometres
from Malhotra hospital, Baddi. It took them about 20-25
minutes to travel this distance. Madan Lal after
delivering the Rukka did not return to Nalagarh hospital.
Patient was referred to P.G.I. He returned to Police Post,
Baddi. Madan Lal was in Police Post, Baddi and the file
was also there. He also recorded the supplementary
statement of Sanjay Bhardwaj. According to him, it took
about three hours in recording statement of Sanjay
Bhardwaj under sections 154 and 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and preparing the seizure memo. He
was free by 7-8 A.M. He has categorically admitted in his
cross-examination that Sanjay Bhardwaj was taken from
Nalagarh to Chandigarh after all the proceedings were
over.
16. Case was also partly investigated by PW-8
Sukh Darshan Singh, ASI. He has prepared the site plan
Ex.PW-8/A. He has admitted in his cross-examination
that he did not make any inquiry from the people of
22
Baddi and adjoining area regarding the incident. He has
also admitted that sector-5 is a busy place. Vehicles are
always passing on the roads. Point – ‘A’ on Hot Million
road in Ex.PW-8/A is about 20-30 feet from the point
from where this road start from road-‘C’. According to
him, Nirjhar Vatika is a medium size park.
17. PW-9 Vijay Kumar was working as Station
House Officer, Police Station, Barotiwala since 5.10.1999
to 22.11.2001. He investigated the case and recorded
the statements of Sanjay Bhardwaj, S.K. Aggarwal, Vivek
Gupta, Rohit Chaudhary, Kiran Pal Singh, Govind and
Mukesh Malhotra. According to him, he asked him to
show the spot where he was stabbed. He told that he
would show the spot on 27.11.2000. On 27.11.2000,
they went on Baddi-Sai road but he was not able to show
the place of occurrence.
18. PW-10 Dr. Ajay Kumar Sethi has deposed
that on 30.10.2000 at about 1.45 A.M. he medically
examined Sanjay Bhardwaj. On examination, he found
that patient was conscious, vitals were stable. He found
following injuries on his person:
“A clean incised wound size 2 inch x 1 ½ inch over
abdomen
mid portion. Omentum was coming out from the
wound.”
Patient was referred to P.G.I. for further treatment
and medico legal opinion. According to him, the
23
admission number of the patient in the P.G.I. was 90826,
report No. 1448. He issued M.L.C. Ex.PW-10/A. He was
not in a position to say whether in this case the bleeding
was profuse or was in small quantity. He has admitted
that if a patient comes to them with his injury bleeding
the factum of bleeding is mentioned in the M.L.C. He
has admitted that in MLC Ex.PW-10/A, there is no
mention of any bleeding. He has also admitted that if the
injury mentioned is caused to a person and his hands
are tied and is thrown 40 feet below, he would become
unconscious. He even can die depending upon the kind
of surface upon he falls. According to him, if a man goes
40 feet by rolling, he is likely to receive injuries on his
body, depending, however, upon the clothing. According
to him, if a man is only having a shirt and pants on his
body goes down rolling 40 feet on a rough surface of a
mountain some abrasions would appear on his body.
According to him, on the person of Sanjay Bhardwaj, no
injury other than shown in the M.L.C. was found. There
was old mark of operation on the abdomen, which he has
mentioned as mark of identification. Injury mentioned in
the M.L.C. was fresh and was separate from the mark of
identification. However, he did not measure the distance
between the two. He could not narrate for how much
time the patient was admitted in the hospital. He has
24
admitted that every M.L.C. is entered in emergency
register, but this procedure is only adopted if the patient
is brought in emergency hours, otherwise the entry is
made in the O.P.D. register. According to him, he
examined the patient at 1.45 A.M. Whether entry of this
case has been made in emergency register or not, he
could state only when the emergency register was
brought before him. According to him, as per rule, the
entry should have been there. He has admitted that
whenever patient is brought by the police and the patient
is referred by them to some other hospital; they give a
copy of M.L.R. to the police and the reference slip to the
patient. However, sometime, it happens that the patient
without waiting for the preparation of reference slip
leaves the hospital. He has admitted that if the patient
stays in the hospital for 1-2 hours, after his examination,
within this time, reference slip is also ready and is
always given to the patient. He did not remember
whether in this case reference slip was prepared or not.
No office record of reference slip was maintained. But as
per usual practice, he felt that in this case also reference
slip was prepared. He has admitted that if there is a cut
on the clothes corresponding to the injury/injuries, the
fact is also mentioned in the M.L.C. provided that the
patient is wearing the clothes having such cut. He has
25
admitted that in M.L.C. Ex.PW-10/A, there is no
reference to any cut on the clothes. He has admitted
that if there is an injury having length of 2 inches, the
corresponding cut on the garment shall also be of the
same length. He had seen the cut on the shirt Ex.P-1.
This cut does not correspond to the injury mentioned in
the M.L.C. He has denied the suggestion that in the
M.L.C. Ex.PW-10/A, the date of arrival mentioned in
circle ‘A’ is 3.10.2000. However, in fact it is 31.10.2000
but that too has been written by him inadvertently and it
should have been 30.10.2000. According to him, the
date is generally mentioned by the doctors from the
police docket. The explanation given by him is that
sometime what happens by the time patient is brought,
the date is changed by the police, but by oversight they
mention the same date. He has admitted that in M.L.C.
Ex.PW-10/A in circle ‘B’, date of examination mentioned
is 31.11.2000, volunteered that certainly the month of
examination written is incorrect. He had seen Ex. DB,
which is attested copy of Ex. PW-10/A. He has admitted
that in Ex. DB the date of examination of the patient,
which is written in his hand, is 30.10.1999, self stated
that the figure ‘99’ was inadvertently written by him and
the same has been corrected by him in Ex.PW-10/A by
writing ‘2K’ and in token of such correction, he has also
26
put his initials on Ex.PW-10/A. He has also admitted
that the time of examination mentioned in Ex. DB is 1.45
P.M. However, the same has also been corrected by
making it ‘A.M.’, but there he has not put his initials.
The date of arrival mentioned by him in Ex. DB is
31.10.1999. The figure ‘99’ was later on corrected by
him to make it ‘2K’. He has admitted that in Ex. DB,
there is no entry of the police docket number. According
to him, in fact Ex. DB is the copy of M.L.R. maintained
by the office, while Ex.PW-10/A has been handed over by
him to the police. The corrections were carried out by
him in Ex.PW-10/A only and not in the office copy. He
has admitted that an inquiry against him is being
conducted by Dr. Ajay Sharma, Additional Director
Health Services, Himachal Pradesh and he has been
charge-sheeted. He has also admitted that from the
depth of wound, the doctor cannot ascertain the extent of
damage and the track of the wound.
19. Respondents have also examined three
witnesses. According to DW-1 Rakesh Swami, he was
working as Store Keeper in C.H.C. Nalagarh. He has
brought the admission register. According to him, every
MLC case is entered in the register. He has seen the
register brought by him. There was no entry in the name
of Sanjay Bhardwaj in the admission register. He has
27
also stated in the examination-in-chief that the time of
arrival is also entered in the register. A patient who
remains admitted in the hospital even for 4-5 hours, his
admission chart is prepared, which is called patient
record file.
20. DW-2 Vivek Gupta has testified that he had
gone to Suraj Cinema at Panchkula on 29.10.2000 to
watch film during 9.00 P.M. to 12.00 P.M. show. While
he was purchasing ticket accused Aman Mago and his
sister met him in the theatre. They met him again during
interval of the picture.
21. DW-3 S.K. Aggarwal has also testified that
accused S.S. Mago was known to him since 1965. On
29.10.2000, he had invited S.S. Mago and his wife to
dinner at his house at Chandigarh. They had come to
him at about 7.00 P.M. They stayed with him for about
2-3 hours and left about 10.15 P.M.
22. According to the case of prosecution, PW-1
Sanjay Bhardwaj was abducted from Sector-5,
Panchkula. PW-1 Sanjay Bhardwaj has deposed that he
was abducted in a car on 29.10.2000 at about 6.15 P.M.
He did not know the name of fourth person, who was
driving the car. According to him, he was knocked down
and his hands were tied and plaster was also put on his
mouth by Komal Mago. He was made to sit between
28
Aman Mago and S.S. Mago. His face was covered with
Chunni. Thereafter, Komal Mago handed over knife to
Aman Mago. Aman Mago pointed the knife on his
stomach and threatened to kill him if he tried to move.
Thereafter, he was taken towards Baddi via Pinjore. The
toll tax was paid by Komal Mago. The car was stopped at
some place and they stayed there for about 25 minutes.
It was dark at that time. He was standing on the right
side of the road surrounded by four persons. According
to him, Komal Mago instigated Aman Mago to kill him.
However, S.S. Mago took the knife from Aman Mago and
stabbed him. While he was attempting second blow, he
moved a bit and fell into the gorge about 25-30 feet
below.
23. It has come on record that Sector-5 is a busy
sector. It is in the heart of Panchkula town. Police
station and Hot Million restaurant are situated nearby.
A park by the name of Nirjhar Vatika is also nearby as
per Ex.PW-8/A prepared by PW-8. Lot of vehicles passes
through the road. The house of complainant, i.e. PW-1
Sanjay Bhardwaj is about 2 KMs away from the spot
from where he was kidnapped. PW-1 was about 29 years
old at the time of incident, i.e. 29.10.2000. It is not
believable that he could not put up resistance. It is also
not believable that the respondents could have abducted
29
him from a busy sector. He could put up resist at the
time when his hands were tied and his mouth was
plastered. PW-1 has stated that on way from Panchkula
to Baddi, there is Red Bishop hotel of Haryana Tourism.
There is a red light near Red Bishop Tank Chowk. There
is also a traffic check post. He has admitted that just
opposite to the red light is Chandi Mandir Cantonment
gate and according to him at that time only 3-4 persons
used to be there at the check post. According to him at a
distance of about 300-400 metres from this red light
point, there is another red light on old Panchkula road.
There is a slip road from this red light, which goes to
Shimla. He has also admitted that there is a check post
at this red light point. He has also admitted that there is
a Police Station at Chandi Mandir on Shimla road. The
road passes through Mughal garden and it is frequented
by many visitors and thereafter the road turns to left and
there is also a Bazaar. He has also admitted that at
Chandi Mandir road there is a bifurcation towards
Nalagarh. There is a toll tax barrier at the spot.
According to him, 7-8 persons are present at the toll tax
barrier. He could put up resistance when he was
abducted in Sector-5, Panchkula and try to invite the
attention of the passersby when he passed through the
busy sector and reached at Red Bishop Hotel. There was
30
a police check post. There was a Police Station at Chandi
Mandir on Shimla road. There is a busy Bazaar before
one turns to left side towards Nalagarh. The version of
PW-1 is that he fell down into the gorge about 25-30 feet
below. He has not received any injury. It is not
believable that a person when falls 25-30 feet below will
not receive any injury.
24. PW-10 Dr. Ajay Kumar Sethi has noticed only
one injury on his person while issuing M.L.C. Ex.PW-
10/A. PW-10 has categorically stated that if the injury of
a kind mentioned in Ex.PW-10/A is caused to a person
and his hands are tied and goes down 40 feet rolling, he
is likely to receive injuries on his body, depending upon
the clothing worn by him. According to him, if the man
wearing only shirt and pants goes down 40 feet on a
rough surface of a mountain, some abrasions would
appear on his body.
25. It is also not understandable how PW-1
untied himself. It has come in the statement of PW-1
that the rope was so tightly tied that signs of rope were
visible on his hands even on the date of his examination
in the court, i.e. 7.6.2004.
26. There is also discrepancy who removed the
tape from the mouth of PW-1 Sanjay Bhardwaj. PW-1
while appearing in the Court has stated that he removed
31
the tape himself while he was in the gorge, after he had
removed the rope. However, in his statement under
section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mark “S”,
he has stated that the persons, who abducted him,
removed the tape from his mouth while he was on the
road. Thereafter, the case of the prosecution is that
PW-1 climbed the hill. He was in severe pain. A
scooterist came and he dropped him near the Malhotra
Clinic. PW-1 did not know the name of scooterist and he
has not been examined. Identity of the scooterist has not
been disclosed. The reason assigned is that the
scooterist never wanted to be involved in the matter.
However, it has come on the record that two shops were
open at that time. Thus, the scooterist could easily be
identified by them. He was taken to the Malhotra Clinic
by PW-5 Kiran Pal and Govind. Govind has not been
examined. According to PW-5 Kiran Pal when he was
closing shop at 8.45 P.M., PW-1 came to his shop. PW-1
asked him to help him. Thereafter neighbour Govind
also came. According to him, he and Govind took him to
Malhotra Clinic. In his examination-in-chief, he has
specifically stated that Sanjay Bhardwaj did not disclose
him the names of the persons, who stabbed him. Neither
the name of Kiran Pal (PW-5) nor Govind has been stated
in the statement Ex.PW-1/A recorded under section 154
32
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even names do not
find mention in statement mark ‘S’ recorded under
section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PW-1 has
not stated their names in complaint Ex.D-2 and in the
statement recorded before the Magistrate vide Ex.D-3. It
casts serious doubt on the persecution version that PW-1
was taken to Malhotra Clinic by PW-5 and Govind.
According to PW-4 Dr. Mukesh Malhotra, he informed
the parents of PW-1. According to him, telephone was
picked up by the lady. However, according to the
statement of PW-2 father of PW-1, he picked the phone
and thereafter left for Nalagarh with his friends.
27. According to PW-1, when he was stabbed
there was lot of bleeding. PW-4 Dr. Mukesh Malhotra,
who examined him at the first instance, testified that
when he saw the wound, no bleeding was noticed.
Similarly, PW-10 Dr. Ajay Kumar Sethi, who examined
PW-1 at Nalagarh, did not mention about the bleeding in
Ex.PW-10/A. According to PW-10, if a patient comes to a
doctor with bleeding injury, the factum of bleeding is
mentioned in MLC. According to him, if subcutaneous
tissues are not cut, it is a case of very small injury, for
example a cut during use of razor while shaving. PW-1
has not mentioned in Ex.PW-1/A, complaint Ex.D-2,
statement made before the Magistrate Ex.D-3 and
33
statement made under section 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure that he was given any medical
treatment at Baddi Clinic. According to PW-1, he was
given injection by the doctor since he was in severe pain.
However, PW-4 Dr. Mukesh Malhotra has deposed that
he was away and when he came at his Clinic by car. He
got down from the car and saw PW-1 Sanjay Bhardwaj
and two other persons with him. To show his wound,
PW-1 raised his shirt. He saw that there was a cut
measuring about 1½-2 inches. He told him that he could
not do anything in the matter and he should go to some
other hospital. He did not thoroughly examine him. He
also testified that PW-1 and two other persons left the
hospital premises, but after five minutes, a worker of
hospital came to him and told that a person was lying
there on the road. He then went to the road with the
worker and found that PW-1 was lying there. With the
help of worker, he made him to stand and brought him
back to bench. Then he informed the police
telephonically. He applied pad on the wound of Sanjay
Bhardwaj. Thereafter, police came and took him to some
other hospital. It has not come in the statement of PW-1
that he had fallen on the road and was taken back to the
Clinic. He has not mentioned of applying pad on his
wound by PW-4. According to MLC Ex.PW-10/A, the
34
size of the wound was 2-2½ inches. According to PW-3
Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan, who has prepared Ex.PW-3/A and
Ex.PW-3/B the size of injury given is 1.5 cm. However,
this discrepancy in the size of the wound has not been
explained. According to MLC Ex.PW-10/A, the date of
arrival of PW-1 at the Hospital given is 3.10.2K.
Initially, in place of 2K, the figure was ‘99’, as per MLC
Ex.DB. The date in circle ‘B’ is 30.11.2K. The incident
has taken place in the month of October and not in the
month of November. The time of examination in Ex.PW-
10/A is 1.45 A.M. However, it is clear that initially it was
“P.M.” According to Ex.DB also, initially, the time was
1.45 P.M. In Ex.PW-10/A, number of police docket has
been given. However, the same is missing in Ex.DB.
DW-1 Rakesh Swami has brought the record of
admission register. According to him, every MLC is
entered in the register. There was no entry of Sanjay
Bhardwaj from 29.10.2000 to 31.10.2000 in the register.
According to him, the time of arrival of the patient is also
entered in the register. A patient who remains admitted
in the hospital even for 4-5 hours, his admission chart is
prepared, which is called patient record file. Why the
entry has not been made in the register has not been
explained by the prosecution. According to Ex.PW-3/A
prepared by Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan, the patient was
35
brought by his friend Rahul. However, there is no
mention of Rahul by PW-1. Rahul has not been
examined. According to PW-3, the patient was
discharged on 7.11.2000. However, as per case
summary, the date of discharge is 10.11.2000.
According to PW-2, they reached at PGI at 3.00 A.M.
PW-1 was operated for 2-3 hours. According to PW-3,
the patient was brought to PGI at 3.10 A.M. According to
PW-7 Seva Singh, who has recorded the statement of
PW-1, he reached Malhotra Clinic at 11.15 P.M. It took
40-45 minutes to arrange for the vehicle. He has
recorded the statement of Sanjay Bhardwaj (PW-1) at
1.30 A.M. in Nalagarh Hospital. It took them 20-25
minutes to travel from Baddi to Nalagarh. According to
him, it took 3 hours in recording statement of Sanjay
Bhardwaj under sections 154 and 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and preparing the seizure memo. He
has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that
by the time he completed codal formalities, i.e. recording
of statements, preparing of seizure memo etc., it was 7-8
A.M. Thus, it is not believable that PW-1 was brought to
PGI at 3.10 A.M. and thereafter operated upon. On
record, no referral slip was available. Though as per
normal practice, referral slip was supposed to be on the
record. It is also not believable that PW-1 was stabbed
36
exactly on the spot when he was earlier injured on
21.12.1999.
28. There is another flaw in the case of
prosecution. According to the F.I.R., the date of incident
is 29.10.2000, however, in the complaint; the date of
incident is 30.10.2000. In the statement made by the
complainant, i.e. PW-1 Sanjay Bhardwaj before the
Magistrate, the date of incident has also been mentioned
as 30.10.2000. PW-1 Sanjay Bhardwaj has admitted
that no application has been filed before the Magistrate
to get the date of incident rectified. This variance about
the date of incident in the F.I.R. and complaint has not
been explained by the prosecution. It has great bearing
on the outcome of the case. The alleged weapon of
offence, i.e. knife allegedly used by accused S.S. Mago to
stab the complainant PW-1 has not been recovered by
the police. Though the clothes of PW-1 were recovered
vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C, but the same were not
referred to Forensic Science Laboratory. According to
the doctors, who examined the complainant at Baddi and
Nalagarh, no bleeding was found from the wound of the
complainant. However, surprisingly, the doctor, who has
examined the complainant at P.G.I. has stated that two
handful of clots, i.e. 600 ml of blood alongwith 500 ml
blood that means approximately more than one litre of
37
blood was found in the peritoneum cavity. The
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against
the accused.
29. Accordingly, the learned trial court has rightly
acquitted the accused and this court need not interfere
with the judgment of the trial court.
30. Consequently, in view of the observations and
discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the
appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds are
discharged. No costs.
(Deepak Gupta),
Judge.
(Rajiv Sharma),
Judge.

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA
 No. of 2024

Sanjay Bhardwaj

……….Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Himachal Pardesh & Anr.

…………Respondent’s

INDEX

Sr.No Particulars Dated Pages

Application u/s 386 (b) (i)

1. 15.10.2024
Cr.P.C.

2. Affidavit in support. 15.10.2024

3. Annexure P-1 Reply 07.09.2024

4. Annexure P-2 F.I.R 30.10.2000

5. Annexure P-3 PGI File 30.10.2000

6. Annexure P-4 Judgment 12.10.2004

7. Annexure P-5 Judgment 18.07.2012

8. Annexure P-6 Complaint 19.01.2006

Annexure P-7 Summoning

9 29.09.2006
Order

10. Annexure P-8 Judgment 17.11.2014

11. Annexure P-9 Judgment 25.07.2024

Annexure P-10 Chief &

12. Cross examination of P.W-8 28.07.2012
Dr.Rajinder Singh
 Annexure P-11 Chief &
13. Cross examination of P.W- 10.06.2004
H.C Sewa Singh

Annexure P-12 Chief &

14. Cross examination of 08.06.2004
Sh.Kiran Pal

Annexure P-13 Chief &

14. Cross Examination of 08.06.2004
Dr.Mukesh Malhotra

Annexure P-14 Chief &

13. Cross Examintion of 20.10.2012
P.W.Rahul Parashar

Annexure P-15 Chief &

14. Cross Examination of P.W- 08.06.2004
Dev Vert Sharma

Annexure P-16 Chief &

15. Cross Examination of 16.11.2012
Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan

Aadhar Card
16. ------
Identification proof of
Petitioner

TOTAL COURT FEE Rs.

CHANDIGARH: Sanjay Bhardwaj

Dated:-15.10.2024 Petitioner
In-Person
H.No 707 ,Sector -2
Panchkula (Haryana)
M-89686-33673

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

No. of 2024
 Sanjay Bhardwaj

……….Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Himachal Pardesh & Anr.

…………Respondent’s

INDEX

Court
Sr.No Particulars Dated Pages Fees of
Rs

Application u/s 386 (b)

1. 15.10.2024 1-45
(i) Cr.P.C.

2. Affidavit in support. 15.10.2024 46-47

3. Annexure P-1 Reply 07.09.2024 48

4. Annexure P-2 F.I.R 30.10.2000 49-51

5. Annexure P-3 PGI File 30.10.2000 52-103

6. Annexure P-4 Judgment 12.10.2004 104-137

7. Annexure P-5 Judgment 18.07.2012 138-175

8. Annexure P-6 Complaint 19.01.2006 176-196

Annexure P-7
9 29.09.2006 197-206
Summoning Order

10. Annexure P-8 Judgment 17.11.2014 207-234

11. Annexure P-9 Judgment 25.07.2024 235-260

Annexure P-10 Chief &

12. Cross examination of 28.07.2012 261-264
P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh
 Annexure P-11 Chief &
13. Cross examination of 10.06.2004 265-267
P.W- H.C Sewa Singh

Annexure P-12 Chief &

14. Cross examination of 08.06.2004 268-269
Sh.Kiran Pal

Annexure P-13 Chief &

14. Cross Examination of 08.06.2004 270-272
Dr.Mukesh Malhotra

Annexure P-14 Chief &

13. Cross Examintion of 20.10.2012 273-276
D.W -7.Rahul Parashar

Annexure P-15 Chief &

14. Cross Examination of 08.06.2004 277-283
P.W-2 Dev Vert Sharma

Annexure P-16 Chief &

15. Cross Examination of 16.11.2012 284-292
Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan

Aadhar Card
16. ------ 293
Identification proof of
Petitioner

TOTAL COURT FEE Rs.

Place :- Shimla Sanjay Bhardwaj

Dated:-15.10.2024 Petitioner
In-Person
H.No 707 ,Sector -2
Panchkula (Haryana)
M-89686-33673

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

Cr.MP No. of 2024

IN
 Cr. Appeal No 181/2005

State of Himachal Pardesh

……….Petitioner

VERSUS

1. Sarvsheel Mago son of Shri Sunder Lal Mago.

……………Respodent No 1

2. Aman Mago son of Shri Sarvsheel Mago

……………Respodent No 2

3. Smt. Komal Mago w/o Shri Sarvsheel Mago

……………….Respodent No 3

All residents of H.No. 81 ,W.W.W.R.W Society ,Kansal

Enclave ,Block B ,Village Kansal ,Behind Chandigarh

Club,District Mohali. (Punjab)

…………Respondent / Accused

PETITION UNDER SECTION 528 BHARTIYA NAGRIK

SURAKSHA SANHITA 2023 READ WITH SECTION 427

(b) (i) BHARTIYA NAGRIK SURAKSHA SANHITA 2023

WITH A PRAYER FOR RE-TRIAL OF F.I.R NO 170

DATED 30.10.2000 UNDER SECTION 307, 354, 506 IPC

POLICE STATION BAROOTIWALA KEEPING IN VIEW

FACTS MANTIONED BELOW.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIP :

1. That on the statement of petitioner an F.I.R No. 170 dated

30.10.2000 Under Section 307, 364, 506,34 of IPC was

registered AGAINST Sarv Sheel Mago ,Aman Mago and

Komal Mago whereby all respodents have been acquitted

vide judgment dated 12.10.2004 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge (Presiding Officer ) Solan.

2. That the above mentioned criminal appeal No 181 / 2005

had come in appeal against the Judgment of learned

Additional Sessions Jude (Presiding officer Fast Track

Court ) Solan rendered in case No. 30/FT/7 of 2004/2003

decided vide judgment dated 12.10.2004 whereby

respodents , who were charges with and tried for offence

punishable under sections 307.354.506 read with section

34 of the Indian Penal Code have been acquitted.

3. That criminal appeal No 181 / 2005 titled as “State of

Himachal Pardesh Versus Sarv Sheel Mago and others”

dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2012 by the Hon’ble

Bench of Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon’ble

Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma of this Hon’ble Court.That the

facts pertaining ro retrial have been mentioned in below

mentioned paragraphs.

4. That it is pertinent to bring to the kind notice of this Hon’ble

Court that due to matrimonial dispute arisen between

petitioner and his wife , number of cases was pending or

decided from the past 24 years before different Hon’ble

Courts . Petitioner appeared In-Person before number of

Hon’ble Courts i.e before Hon’ble Supreme Court of

 India , Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court ,before

this Hon’ble Himachal Pardesh High Court as well as

before Hon’ble District and Sessions Court ,

Solan ,Panchkula , Chandigarh , Mohali ,

Kaharar ,Karnal ,Ambala and knowingly well how to

address arguments before Hon’ble Court and is also well

aware that how to maintain decorum of the Court.

5. That petitioner filed one application on 22.08.2024 before

Registrar General of Hon’ble Himachal Pardesh High

Court Shimla with a prayer to file the case for Re-Trial of

F.I.R No. 170 dated 30.10.2000 Under Section

307.364,506 police station Barotiwala.

6. That petitioner recevied a reply dated 7 th September 2024 /

15754 from the Section Officer (Judicial) High Court of

H.P. Shimla. Relevant portion of reply is reproduced

hereunder :- “ This is to inform you that your application

dated 22.08.2024 seeking a direction for the retrial of

F.I.R No 170 dated 30.10.2000, registered at Police

Station Barotiwala, District Solan has been received and

ordered to be filed. Further, I have been directed to

inform you that you may avail appropriate remedy , in

accordance with law, for redressal of your grievances if

any before the appropriate authority.” Copy of reply is

attached as Annexure P-1. In view of above mentioned

reply petitioner filed one application on 22.08.2024

before Advocate General of Hon’ble Himachal Pardesh

High Court Shimla with a prayer to file the case for Re-
 Trial of F.I.R No. 170 dated 30.10.2000 Under Section

307.364,506 police station Barotiwala.That till date

petitioner has not received reply from the office of

Advocate General office hence the present application is

filed.

7. That brief facts relating to the present case are as under :-

That after a long standing love affiar of more than 5

years on 15.05.1999 both petitioner Sanjay Bhardwaj &

Nidhi Mago left their respective homes and went to Delhi

where on 16.5.1999 they got married to each other in

Arya Samaj Mandir Lajpat Nagar New Delhi in presence of

their friends without the consent of their respective

parents.Therefore an F.I.R No 87 dated 27.05.1999 u/s

363, 366, 376, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B was registered

at Police Station Sector 36 Chandigarh against Sanjay

Bhardwaj his father and friend Rahul Mehtani on the

complaint made by father of Nidhi i.e Sarv Sheel Mago. In

this F.I.R No 87 Sanjay Bardwaj ,his father and friend

Rahul Mehtani were clearly acquitted on merits by the

Hon’ble Court of Sh.V.P.Sirohi Additional and Sessions

Judge Chandigarh vide detailed Judgment dated

01.09.2011 wherein it was held marriage between

petitioner and Nidhi to be a valid marriage .

8. That petition filed by Nidhi Mago dated 16.9.1999 under

section 12 of H.M.A at Tis Hazari Courts New Delhi

alleging her marriage with petitioner to be result to force

& coercion filed by petitioner Nidhi Mago was dismissed

 by Sh.Gurdeep Singh Saini, Additional District Judge, Tis

Hazari, Delhi vide Judgment and decree dated 11.1.2008

while holding marriage dated 16.05.1999 between

petitioner and Nidhi to be legal and valid marriage.

9. That appeal filed against Judgment dated 11.1.2008 by

Nidhi Mago was dismissed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court

vide order dated 15.07.2014.

10. That a petition was filed before Panchkula Courts by

petitioner in-person under section 13 of Hindu Marriage

1955 (Act No 25 of 1995) for dissolution of marriage

between petitioner and Nidhi Mago U/s 13(1) (i) (ia) (ib)

on the grounds as mentioned therein. Ex-Parte Divorce to

petitioner was granted by the Hon’ble Court of Sh.Rajesh

Garg, Additional District Judge , Panchkula vide Judgment

and order dated 05.12.2012.

11. That on 28.05.1999 the very next day after registration

of above F.I.R No. 87 Sarv Sheel Mago fixed matrimonial

alliance of Nidhi with one rich NRI Sh. Parshant Arora, son

of Lt.Col. S.N.Arora of Karnal. On 01.6.1999 Sh.Parshant

Arora and Nidhi entered into a matrimonial alliance with

each other.On 02.6.1999 marriage of Nidhi and Sh.

Prashant Arora was registered before Registrar of

Marriages Karnal after sweraing false affidavits and

making false statements to the effect that on 02.6.999

that Nidhi was unmarried. When fact of marriage of Nidhi

with petitioner came to knowledge of Sh Prashant Arora

& his family ,then Sh.Parshant Arora snapped their

 relation with Nidhi Mago and his family. After few days i.e

on 07.6.1999 Sh.Parsant Arora went back to Canada after

snapping all the relationship with Nidhi. Resultantly a

series of litigations started between Sanjay ,Sarv Sheel

Mago ,Nidhi Mago , Sh.Parshant Arora and Lt.Col. Sada

Nand Arora and his family members before various

Hon’ble Courts .

12. That even after the registration of case of rape Nidhi

Mago started meeting Sanjay Bhardwaj therefore Sarv

Sheel Mago had again made a false complaint to police

on 13.8.2000 on which police had registered the F.I.R No.

318 under section 364 of IPC at Police Station Sector 5

Panchkula against the petitioner. This case was

thoroughly investigated by Panchkula police and then by

Special task force Ambala. Basing on thorogh

investigation police found that Nidhi Mago was never

kidnapped by the petitioner rather she herself

accompanied the petitioner.Police cancelled this present

F.I.R and cancellation report has been accepted by the

Hon’ble Court vide order 13.05.2010 and had initiated

the proceedings u/s 182 of IPC for giving false

information to police against Sarv Sheel Mago and Nidhi

which is still pending before the Hon’ble Court of

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Panchkula.

13. That one case pertaining to F.I.R No. 586 dated

21.12.1999 Under Section 307, 34 of IPC was registered

at Police Station Sector 17 Chandigarh on the basis of

 statement made by petitioner Sanjay Bhardwaj dated

21.12.99. Respondent Aman Mago along with respondent

Sarv Sheel Mago by stabbing with a knife in abdomen of

Sanjay Bhardwaj made an attempt on life of complainant

Sanjay Bhardwaj on 21.12.99 in order/with intention to

kill him. Initially Chandigarh police was not ready to

present the challan in the present case. Challan was only

presented only when petitioner moved an application

before Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court with a

prayer to file the challan. That due to stab injury

condition of petitioner became so critical that even dying

declaration was got recorded by Learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate Chandigarh in P.G.I on 28.12.1999.Due to

material lacuna left by police during investigation both

were acquitted by Hon’ble Court of Sh

V.P.Sirohi,Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide

Judgment dated 31.5.2011.

14. That during trial of above titled case Devendra Parsad

handwriting expert appeared as defence witness on

behalf of respondent Sarv Sheel Mago and respondent

Aman Mago has given a false report regarding Ex P-4 and

Ex-PW-16/A which has been proved by the report of Sh

Sumit Kumar Arora handwriting expert which clearly

proves that respondent no 1 Devendra Prasad has given

a false report regarding Ex P-4 and Ex-PW-16/A and

intentionally made false statement on oath in Hon’be

court at behest and conspiracy of respondent Aman

 Mago and respondent Sarv Sheel Mago in order to save

them from conviction for the heinious crime they both

had conducted with common intention.Petitioner will be

filing application under section 391 Cr.P.C before Hon’ble

Punjab and Haryana High Court.

15. That on 29.10.2000 at about 6.15 p.m while petitioner

was walking in Sector 5 Panchkula a blue coloured Maruti

car bearing no. HR-49-1250 coming from behind stopped

in front of petitioner. Respodents and one more , whom

petitioner do not know came out of the car and knocked

petitioner down. Respodent no 3 Komal Mago applied a

plaster type on petitioners mouth. Petitioners hands were

tied by respodent S.S.Mago and by respodent Aman

Mago and by the fourth man. Petitioner was forcibily put

into the car and made to sit between Aman Mago and

S.S.Mago in the rear seat. Respondent Komal Mago was

sitting in the front seat and the fourth man was driving

the car. Some thing like chunni was put on petitioners

face. Respodent Komal Mago took out a knife from her

purse and handed it over to respodent no Aman Mago.

Respodent Aman Mago placed the knife on petitioners

stomack and threated to kill if petitioner tried to move.

The handing over the knife by respdent Komal Mago to

respodent Aman Mago and placing of the knife by

respodent Komal Mago on my stomach took place soon

after the car started. Petitioner was taken in the car

towards Baddi via Pinjore. At Baddi barrier , respodent

Komal Mago came out of the car to pay toll tax.

Respodent sat in the car then the car was taken on a

road which is in the right hand of Baddi . The car was

then stopped. Now petitioner came to know that area is

Sai Road. Respodents stayed there for some time.Then

respodent again took the car further. Near some hills the

car was stopped. Petitioner was taken out of the car.

There was a george on the right side of the road.

Petitioner was standing on the right side of the road

surrounded by respodents. Respodent Komal Mago

instigated respodent Aman Mago to kill petitioner.

Respodent S.S.Mago took the knife from respodent Aman

Mago and then respodent S.S.Mago stabbed on

petitioners stomach while he was attempting a second

blow petitioner moved a bit into and fell into gorge about

25-30 feet.below.Petitioner was feeling severe pain with

great difficulty petitioner was able to untie his hands and

removed the tape with great difficulty petitioner climbed

up the road.Petitioner also sustained some bruses on his

backdue to fall into the gorge. Petitioner was siitting on

the road under a severe pain as his intestine were

coming out.Just then a man on a scootter came there.

Petitioner narrated the incident to him.He brought

petitioner on his scooter and dropped petitioner about

100 to 150 feet away from Malohtra clinic at Baddi. The

man did not disclosed his identity to petitioner.There

were shops at the place where petitioner was

dropped.Two of them were open. Petitioner went to a

shop and narrated the incident to the shop keeper. Two

persons were present there. They took petitioner to

Malohtra clinic. Later on petitioner came to know that

these two persons were Kiran Pal and Govind Singh. At

Malohtra Clinic the doctor gave an injection to the

petitioner and was told not to disclose this fact to

anyone. Petitioner narrated the incident to the

doctor.Doctor obtained telephone number of petitioner

and informed petitioners parents as well as to the

police.After a while police came. Police took petitioner to

some clinic. But the clinic owner did not open the door.

Police then took petitioner to Nalagarh Goverment

Hospital in a private vehicle.There petitioner was

examined by the doctor named Dr.Ajay Sethi.At Nalgarh

hospital Police recorded statement of

petitioner.Therefore an F.I.R No.170 dated 30.10.2000

Under Section 307, 364 , 506 police station Barotiwala

was got registered at 2.40 A.M. Copy of F.I.R No. 170 is

attached as Annexure P-2.After some time father of

petitioner accompanied by some of his friends came

there at the hospital.The doctor at Nalagarh hospital had

reffered petitioner to P.G.I.Then petitioner was taken to

the P.G.I Chandigarh. The police accompanied petitioner

to P.G.I.Then petitioner was opearted upon at P.G.I. by

Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan along with others doctors and thus

petitioner was disharged from P.G.I on 07.11.2000. Copy

of P.G.I file is attached as Annexure P-3. Therefater

petitioner was remained admitted in Manimajra dispensry

fro 3-4 days That it is pertinent to mention here that

respodent Sheel Mago is an inflential person with political

clout and due to his links with high profile politicians as

well higher officials of Police Department, neither proper

investigations were conducted by police nor Police had

arrested respodents Sarv Sheel Mago, Aman Mago and

Mrs Komal Mago in this case. It is admitted fact by Police

that petitioner was in injured condition when he was

taken by Police person from Baddi to CHC Nalagarh on

29.10.2000 and from where he was reffered to PGI

Chandigarh for further treatment of injury where Sanjay

Bhardwaj was operated & treated for the injury suffered

by him. However instead of filling challan, Police choose

to cancel this F.I.R and a cancellation report was

prepared by the SHO on 31.12.2000 and was filed in the

Court of Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate Nalagarh on

03.10.2001. A complaint was also filed by petitioner

Sanjay Bhardwaj as complainant on 6.6.2001 regarding

the same occurance. After disagreeing with the

cancellation report, Learned S.D.J.M Nalagarh took

cognizance vide order dated 2.9.2002 and directed Sarv

Sheel Mago,Aman Mago and Kamal Mago to put up

appearance before the Court on 11.10.2002. Accordingly

accused person in that case Aman Mago and Sarv Sheel

Mago put in appearance on 11.10.2002 while Komal

 Mago appeared on 30.11.2002 and the same day copies

of challan were supplied to them.

16. That the Learned S.D.J.M, Nalagarh committed the case

to the Ld. Sessions Judge ,Solan and the accused persons

were directed to appear before the said Hon’ble Court on

6.2.2003. That investigation in this case was not done by

the police properly and lot of lacunas have been

deliberately left by the police during investgation as the

police were hell bent upon to help the accused. No efforts

were made by prosecution to bring material facts and

evidence on record during trial. Sh. Bhim Chand

Additional and Sessions Judge , Fast track Court, Solan

acquitted all acused on benefit of doubt vide Judgment

dated 12.10.2004.Copy of Judgment dated 12.10.2004 is

attached as Annexure P-4.

17. That In this case State of Himachal Pardesh filed Criminal

Appeal No 181 / 2005 titled as “State of Himachal

Pardesh Versus Sarv Sheel Mago and others” before

Hon’ble High Court which was dismissed by Hon’ble

Bench of Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon’ble

Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma vide Judgment and order dated

18.07.2012. Copy of Judgment dated 18.07.2012 is

attached as Annexure –P-5.

18. That in the above mentioned case on 19.1.2006 P.W-5

Sarv Sheel Mago filed an application under section 340 of

the code of criminal procedure before the Hon’ble Court

 of Sh.Bhim Chand ,Additional Sessions Judge , Presiding

Officer, Fast Track Court Solan against the accused Late

Dr.Ajay Kumar Sethi, Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan,Sanjay

Bhardwaj and Dev Vert Sharma. Copy of complaint under

section 340 dated 19.01.2006 is attached as Annexure

P-6. That Ld. Additional Sessions Judge ,Fast Track Court

Solan had summoned all above mentioned accused.

Copy of the complaint under section 340 Cr.P.C for

conducting inqiry in which all the accused were

summoned .Copy of summoning order is attached as

Annexure P-7 .That accordingly on the directions of the

order passed by the Hon’ble Court , Sh. Shayam Sunder

Gupta , Reader of Fast Track Court Solan presented the

present complaint as a complainant . In this case, after

long trial, petitioner ,his father Sh.D.V.Sharma and

Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan were clearly acquitted on merits by

the Hon’ble Court of Sh.P.P.Ranta ,Additional Sessions

Judge Solan vide order & Judgment dated 17.11.2014.

Copy of Judgment is attached as Annexure P-8.

19. That it is pertinent to mention here that State of

Himachal Pardesh filed a Criminal Appeal No 220 of 2015

before Hon’ble High Court at Shimla titled as “State of

Himachal Pardesh Versus Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan & others”

which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Bench of Hon’ble

Mr.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan Judge and Hon’ble

Mr.Justice Sushil Kukreja Judge vide order dated

 25.07.2024. Copy of Judgment dated 25.07.2024 is

attached as Annexure P-9.

20. That now following points is liable to be bring to the kind

consideration of this Hon’ble Court.

21. That whether respodents kidnapped the petitioner from

Sector -5 Panchkula and was forcibly taken to the hilly

area of Baddi and where petitioner was stabbed and from

where petitioner reached at Malohtra Hospital and from

there police brought petitioner to Nalgarh Hospital where

petitioner was medicolegally examined by Dr.Ajay Sethi

and from where he was refferred to P.G.I whereafter

petitioner had reached at P.G.I at 3.00 a.m. on

30.10.2000 where he was operated and treated in P.G.I

by Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan and other team of doctors and

thereafter on 07.11.2000 petitioner was discharged from

P.G.I.

22. That it is pertinent to mention here that in this Judgment

dated 12.10.2004 (Annexure P-4) while acquitting all the

accused Hon’ble Court observed following specific

discrepancies in the medical evidence assume

significance in view of following facts: That it was

specifically observed by the Hon’ble Court in the

complaint under section 340 Cr.P.C i.e Exhibit P.W-2/A at

Para No 3 ( n ) (11) in Annexure P-7 at page no that :-

Complainant’s father Dev Varat was employed in medical

department It was not difficult for him to procure false

medical certificate. That it is a matter of fact that the

complainant’s father Sh.Dev Vert Sharma was employed

in General Hospital Sector 16 Chandigarh as a male staff

nurse which was admitted by Dev Vart Sharma in his

examination in Chief during trial of F.I.R No. 170 that he

was working as male staff nurse at Civil Hospital

Manimajra Chandigarh. “That from the year 1991 till

2003 I had been working as Male Staff Nurse in Civil

Hospital Manimajra”. however it is admiited fact that the

petitioner was treated and operated in P.G.I Chandigarh

and there staff are separate and independent .It is

admitted by P.W-8 Dr. Rajinder Singh durinng his

examination that Hospital of General Hospital sector 16

are different and there staff are seperate and

independent.It is relevant to mention here that Dev Vert

Sharma was employed as Male Staff Nurse in General

Hospital Sector 16 Chandigarh and he was in any way ,

not in a position to influence Head of Department of

General Surgery-2 PGI Chandigarh,Team of Doctors

including Junior residents as well as Senior residents

present or posted in General Surgery-2 or Emergency

ward, Para medical staff,Account Staff and other

members of PGI Chandigarh who admitted,operated and

treated Sanjay Bhadwaj in P.G.I As a matter of fact PGI

Chandigarh is an autonomus institution of high repute

where influencing so many people along with so many

different dapartment and to procure false medical record

is not possible. Further it is a known fact that General

 Hospital Sector 16 Chandigarh as well as PGI Chandigarh

are two different hospital and there staff are separate

and independent, not linked to each other in anyway

which is a fact .

23. That it was specifically observed by the Hon’ble Court in

the complaint under section 340 Cr.P.C i.e Exhibit P.W-

2/A at Para No 3 (n)(11) that at Annexure P-7 page no

“It was astonishing that injury on complainant’s person

was caused on 29.10.2000 on the abdomen exactly on

the same site at which it was caused on

21.12.99(regarding which case was stated pending in

Chandigarh Court). Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan, during his

examination–in chief i.e exhibit P.W-2 /K recorded during

the trial of F.I.R No. 170, clearly stated that :-

“ When I say that the Injury is on the same site it means

the injury was inflicted on the internal organ that is

which we have repaired at the time of earlier

operation. The external stab wound of the second stab

may or may not be the same at same place or

previous stab but what happened in this case is that

this time tip of the weapon hit the organ in the

abdominal cavity at the same site which we have

repaired at the time of the previous surgery.” DW-8

Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan clearly stated regarding injury to

be on same previous site in his examination during

trial of F.I.R No. 170.

24. That it was observed by Hon’ble Court in the complaint

under section 340 Cr.P.C i.e Exhibit P.W-2/A at

Annexure P-7 Para No 3 ( n ) (111) at page no that :-

That “Another astonishing factor was on both the

occassions complainant was examined by the same

doctor at P.GI though the second occurance happened

more then one year after the first”.P.W-8 Dr. Rajinder

Singh, Professor and Head of Department of General

Surgery, PGI, Chandigarh clearly stated during his

Examination–in-Chief regarding examination of patient

by same doctor after one year of occurrence. Relevant

portion of his Examination –in-Chief is reproduced here

below:“ If it is a new case it will be attended by the

unit on call and will be discharged finally under units

head name.If it happens to be old patient (already

treated in P.G.I) then it will be treated by the unit

which has treated earlier and those doctors will be

informed and called for” . Copy of chief and cross

examination of P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh is attached as

Annexure P-10. In present case statement of

Sh.Jeewan Kumar Medical Record Technician,

Department of Central Medical Record P.G.I

Chandigarh was recorded on 17.3.2009 during the trial

of the present case who brought case file of patient

Sanjay Bhardwaj which was subsequently Exhibited by

prosecution as Exhibit P.W-8/B which is attached as

Annexure P-3
 P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh proved the case file of P.G.I.

Relevant portion of his examination–in-chief is

reproduced here below:-“ I have seen the patient case

file of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj noted in Red circle

Ext.P.W-8/A are in my hand and bears my signatures

which dated 19.1.2009. As per the case file of patient

Sanjay Bhardwaj admissions 90826 the patient had

been admitted under Professor S.M.Bose and other

treating team members were Sr. Residents Dr.Kuldeep

and Dr.Sibu, Dr.Murti and Dr.Devinder. The case file of

patient is Ext.P.W-8/B. Emergency OPD card in the

case file is Ext.P.W-8/C which is a part of file. I do not

recognoze the writing on ExP.W-8/C again said admit

card is Ext.P.W-8/B and not Ext.P.W-8/C. Generally

Ext.P.W-8/D is filled in first and subsequently

consultation form Ext.P.W-8/C is filled in . As per Ext.

P.W-8/C and Ext.P.W-8/D , the patient was admitted at

3.10A.M on 30.10.2000.”

25. That perusal of above said case file of P.G.I i.e Exhibit

P.W-8/B as well as statement of P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder

Singh clearly proves that patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was

admitted at 3.10.a.m on 30.10.2000 in PGI Chandigarh

on 07.11.2000 was discharged from PGI Chandigarh.

P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh proved the case file of P.G.I.

During trial of the present case following medical

record has come on record which proves the

authenticity and genuineness of Medical record of

Patient Sanjay Bhardwaj from PGI Chandigarh. Bare

perusal of Exhibit P.W-8/B reveal that it is a complete

case file of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj prepared at P.G.I

by not one person but by various doctors and

medical /para medical professional from various

departments of PGI Chandigarh during stay of patient

Sanjay Bhardwaj for his treatment of stab injury

suffered by him on 29th oct 2000 and was

admitted ,opearted ,treated in P.G.I on 30.10.2000.

Medical record Exhibit P.W-8/B file of PGI Chadigarh of

patient Sanjay Bhardwaj clearly proves the follwing

things.

(ii) That a letter from the Medical

Superintendent Nehru Hospital P.G.IMER

Chandigarh was written to

Prof.S.M.Bose ,Head of the Department for

completion of MLC duly sighned by Deputy

Central Registrar.

(jj) That a letter was written by S.I Vijay Kumar

to the Medical Superintendent P.G.I

Chandigarh on 03.12.2000 to know

regarding the opinion of nature of Injury

wherin some remarks and signatures were

given by P.G.I doctors / staff.

(kk) Medical Legal Case summary preapred and

duly signed by Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan.Income

 declaration form duly filed and on it recipt

no. 160026181 is written.

(ll) Report of Opeartion prepared and duly

signed by Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan.

(mm) Progress sheet and shifting notes prepared

and signed by some doctors along with

Dr.Ashish.

(nn) Progress Sheet and plan sighned by

Dr.Parvin.

(oo) Reprot of Department of Haematalogy.

(pp) Report from Department of Medical

Microbiology duly signed and date of

dispatch is stamped on 02-Nov-2000.

(qq) Report from Department of Bio Chemistry

duly signed by Officer Incharge Clinical

Biochemistry Lab.

(rr) A letter written and duly signed by some

doctor of G.S-2 on 07.11.2000 to the Police

Officer Incharge ,Police Post PGI Chandigarh

to inform that Patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was

dischrged on 07.11.2000.

(ss) Page of Drugs and vetments as well as diet

and external treatment.

(tt) B.P Chart of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj shows

that it was firstly recorded at 4.35 A.M on

30.10.2000.
 (uu) Details of Intake and out put record of food

of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj.

(vv) Out patient ticket prepared by

Dr.Ranganathan E.W-5 /G-S-11 ,Junior

resident ESOPD on 30.10.2000 at 3.10 a.m

which is exhibited as exhibit D.W-8/D

(ww) Exhibit D.W-4/A i.e New Out patient Register

of Nehru hospital PGI clearly proves that

patient Sanjay Bhardwaj reached at P.G.I at

3.10.a.m on 30.10.2000 as his enrty is there

on regsiter.

(xx) Exhibit D.W-4/B i.e New Out patient Register

of Nehru hospital PGI clearly proves that

patient Sanjay Bhardwaj reached at P.G.I on

30.10.2000 as his enrty is there on regsiter.

(yy) Exhibit D.W-6/D i.e Advance receipt of

money deposited at P.G.I clearly revels that

at 05:08:26 on 30.10.2000 Rs 350/- was

deposited on the name of Sanjay Bhardwaj .

P.G.I file exhibited as Exibit P/W-8/B is attached as

Annexure P-3 .

26. That the above mentioned facts regarding case file of

P.G.I Ex P.W-8/B clearly proves that medical case

record file of Sanjay Bhardwaj was not prepared by

one person, but by many of Doctors a well as staff

members of from various departments of PGI

Chandigarh. Further perusal of medical record file

 clearly revaels that more then 30 staff personnel of

P.G.I Chandigarh including doctors, nurses para

medical staff as well as officials from Accounts branch

attended Sanjay Bhardwaj during his stay in PGI

Chandigarh .

27. That P.W-7 H.C Sewa Singh was the first Police official

who saw Sanjay Bhardwaj in injured condition at

Malhotra Clinic at Baddi after receiving telephonic

message. It is admitted fact that it was H.C Sewa

Singh who took injured Sanjay Bhardwaj to Civil

Hospital Nalagarh. Statement of H.C Sewa Singh

recorded during trial of FI.R No. 170 wherein he

clearly stated that he found Sanjay Bhardwaj in a

injured condition Relevant portion of his

Statement/Examination –in-chief is reporoduced here

below:-“There I saw Sanjay Bhardwaj lying in injured

condition on the bench”. “I recorded the statement of

Sanjay Bhardwaj at 1.30 A.M at Nalagarh Hospital” “I

moved application Ex P.W-7/A for medical

examination of Sanjay Bhardwaj and issuance of his

MLC. I obtained the MLC from the doctor”.Copy of

examination in chief as well as cross examination of

H.C Sewa Singh is attached as Annexure P-11 .

That a perusal of Exhibit D.W-5/A i.e F.I.R.No. 170

dated 30.10.2000 under section 364,307,506,34 of

IPC registered at Police Station Barootiwala will reveal

that this F.I.R was registered at 2.40 A.M on

30.10.2000. A perusal of F.I.R No 170 last paragraph

also proved that at 1.30 A.M on 30.10.2000 H.C Sewa

Singh had already completed all the formalities of

recording statement etc.

H.C Sewa Singh is the person who remianed with

injured accused from Malhotra Hospital Baddi

onwards as well during recording of statements as

well registration of F.I.R and obtaining MLR after

writing of application to Duty Doctor ot Civil Hospital

Nalagarh .This fact is already proved and stated by

H.C.Sewa Singh dring his Chief examination.

That Sh. Kiran Pal on 08.06.2004 appeared during the

trail of F.I.R No 170 as P.W-5 .Statement of P.W-5

Sh.Kiran Pal clearly proves the Stab injury and he

clearly stated that he along with Govind took

petitioner to Malohtra Hospital.Copy of chief

examination as well as cross examination of P.W-5

Sh.Kiran Pal is attached as Annexure P-12.

That on 08.06.2004 Doctor Mukesh Malohtra of

Malhotra Hospital appeared as P.W-4 during the trial

of F.I.R No 170 who clearly proved the injury as well

as well as making call to the mother and informed her

about the incident and proved regarding informing

the police on telephone . Copy of chief examination as

well as cross examination of P.W-4 Dr.Mukesh

Malohtra is attached as Annexure P-13 .

 That during investigation of F.I.R No. 170 it was

clearly stated by P.W-7 H.C Sewa Singh that he took

blood stained clothes of petitioner vide fard Exhibit

P.W-1/C which was duly signed by petitioner and also

by witneses Sh.Sanjeev Katoch and Sh.Dev Vert

Sharma vide dated 30.10.2000. This fard clearly

proves that there is a cut mentioned at the shirt and

Jeans and blood was present on them.Statement of

Sh.Gobind Singh and Statement of Sh.Kiran Pal

recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C recorded by Sub

Insepctor Sh.Vijay Kumar on 10.11.2000 clearly

proves that incident was of night at around 10 or

10.30 p.m and blood was oozing out from his

stomach.

28. That Sh.Rahul Parashar appeared in this case as D.W-

7 who had clearly proved that the date of incident

was 29.10.2000 when accused no 3 Sanjay Bhardwaj

was stabbed by his father –in-Law . Relevant portion

of his Examination –in-Chief is reproduced here

under :-

“On 29.10.2000 at about 11.10-11.15 p.m I received

phone call of accused Sanjay Bhardwaj father, both

accused Sanjay and his father are present in the

Court today .Sanjay Bhardwajs father told me on

phone that Sanjays father –in Law had caused stab

injuries to Sanjay some where in Baddi. The name of

Sanjays father (wrongly typed instead of father-in-

law) is S.S.Mago. I was also told on phone that Sanjay

was at Baddi .” “On receiving this telephonic

information immedieatley rushed to Sanjay’s house

Sector -2 House No 707 Panchkula. Neighbours had

also gathered in house of Sanjay at Panchkula. From

there I along with 3-4 neighbours of Sanjay left for

Baddi in the Indica car owned by Sanjay’s father .But

on the way , one of the occupant of the Indica car

received phone call on his moblie and he was told

that Sanjay Bhardwaj had been shifted from Baddi to

Nalagarh Hospital. So, we all went to Nalagarh

Government Hospital and reached there at about

1.20-130 a.m on 30.10.2000. Sanjay’s father along

with his neighbours, was already present there”

“Sanjay was in critical condition and his intestine were

coming out from his stomach. Blood was oozing and

bed sheet was having blood stains. I also noticed

blood on the clothes of Sanjay ”. “Sanjay was in

critical condition and his intestine was coming out

from his stomach. Blood was oozing and bed sheet

was having blood stains. I also noticed blood on the

clothes of Sanjay” Rahul Parashar clearly proves that

his nick name is “Bobby”. “Police had also arrived

there . They recorded statement of Sanjay Bhardwaj .

I also had talked with Sanjay .He told me that

S.S.Mago lifted him from Sector 5 Panchkula and

brought to Baddi where caused injuries to him by

 means of knife .Police carried out the proccedings .

“Doctor on duty issue MLR and referred Sanjay

Bhardwaj to P.G.I Chandigarh at about 1.45 a.m.Copy

of chief and cross examination of Sh.Rahul Parashar is

attached as Annexure P-14.

29. That chief examination of P.W-2 Dev Vert Sharma

clearly proves that he along with other reached at

Nalagarh Hospital on 30.10.2000 at about 1

A.M .Relevant portion as staed by him is :- “Then we

went to Nalgarh Hospital.We reached there at about 1

A.M on 30.10.2000.When we reached there , we saw

that my son was lying on a bed Examination table ”.

“We reached at P.G.I at about 3 A.M on 30.10.2000” .

“ Sanjay Bhardwaj was wearing a shirt which was

having a cut of knife. There was blood on the shirt

and also on pants ”. “I inquired from my son as to

what had happened . He told me that he was

kidnapped from Panchkula by the accused person

present in the Court and one more whom I do not

know and that he was stabbed by them somehwere

near Baddi in a jungle .Sanjay Bhardwaj was wearing

a shirt which was having a cut of knife.”

“Then I inquired from my son as to what had

happened.He told me that he was kidnapped from

Panchkula by the accused person present in the Court

and one more whom I do not know and that he was

stabbed by them somewhere near Baddi in a jungle.”

 “The doctor at Nalagarh told me that the matter was

serious and the patient was being referred to PGI. We

then took Sanjay Bhardwaj to P.G.I ”.Copy of chief and

cross examination of P.W-2 Dev Vert Sharma is

attached as Annexure P-15 .

30. That in order to prove allegations levelled in complaint

by P.W-5 S.S.Mago, Dr.Rajinder Singh, Professor &

Head of Department of Surgery , P.G.I Chandigarh

was summoned in present case by prosecution as P

W-8. During examination –in-chief as well as during

cross examination Copy of chief and cross

examination of P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh is attached as

Annexure P-10 . PW-8 Dr Rajinder Singh completely

demolished case of prosecution by proving facts

regarding admission of accused Sanjay Bhardwaj at

P.G.I at 3.10.am on 30.10.2000 as well as about

tretament and operation performed by Dr.Kuldeep

Dhawan & other doctors at P.G.I Chandigarh thereby

supported defence of accuseds. Perusal of testimony

of P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh clearly proves that all

allegations levelled in complaint of P.W-5 S.S.Mago

regarding admission, treatment and operation of

accused Sanjay Bhardwaj at PGI Chandigarh are

totally false. Details regarding the same are explained

in the subsequent paragraphs. Perusal of examiantion

of Dr.Rajinder Singh would reveal that no suggestion

was made to P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh that patient

Sanjay Bhardwaj was not opearted, treated and

remained admitted in P.G.I Chandigarh from

30.10.2000 to 07.11.2000. No suggestion was given

to P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh that Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan

had not operated upon Sanjay Bhardwaj.As stated

above P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh proved the case file of

P.G.I. which is exhibited as Ext.P.W-8/B. Perusal of

above said case file of P.G.I i.e Exhibit P.W-8/B as well

as statement of P.W-8 Dr.Rajinder Singh clearly

proves that patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was admitted at

3.10.a.m on 30.10.2000 in PGI Chandigarh on

07.11.2000 was discharged from PGI Chandigarh.

Relevant portion of his Examination – in- Chief is

reproduced here below:-“As per Ext. P.W-8/C and

Ext.P.W-8 /D ,the patient was admitted at 3.10 A.M on

30.10.2000 ” “As per Ext.P.W-8/D the patient was first

examined by Dr.P.Ranganathan, Jr.Residents on

30.10.2000 at 3.10.AM. Self Stated I am not

acquainted with his signatures but his name is clearly

written over”. “As per the case file of patient Sanjay

Bhardwaj admissions 90826 the patient had been

admitted under Professor S.M.Bose and other treating

team members were Sr. Residence Dr.Kuldeep and

Dr.Sibu ,Dr.Murti and Dr.Devinder” “It is correct that

patient has been admitted under professor S.N.Bose

consultant incharge”. “ It is also correct right from the

admission till discharge of the patient is looked after

 by number hospitals personnel including

sisters,wardboys besides the doctors as has been said

earlier” . “It is correct that patient stayed in the

hospital for seven days , so besides Dr. Kuldeep

Dhawan , he would have been looked after by other

doctors and nurses” .

31. That it is pertitinet to mention here that most

important star witness in this case is D.W-8

Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan who clearly demolished

prosecution story . A perusal of his chief as well as

cross examination would clearly reveal that he had

explained complete details regarding Admission,

Injury, Operation, treatment and discharge of injured

Sanjay Bhardwaj in P.G.I Chandigarh. Copy of his chief

eamination and cross examination is reproduced

herebelow for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court :-

Defence evidence on behalf of accused Kuldeep

Dhawan.

DW-8 Statement of Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan, House No.1

Sector-7, Panchkula, (Haryana) Without Oath

16.11.2012

In the year 2000 I was posted in the department of

Surgery PGI Chandigarh as Senior Resident. As per

record of the PGI file patient Sanjay Bhardwaj aged 29

years came in PGI Emergency at 3.10 a.m. On

30.10.2000 as depicted in Ex. PW8/D. As per the

record of the file he was brought by Rahul (friend)

resident of 679, Sector-4 Panchkula (Haryana). He

was first seen in the Emergency Surgical OPD by Dr.

P. Ranganathan who as Jr. Resident Emergency

Surgical OPD at that time. the patient was attended

by Dr. P. Ranganathan as far as treatment and history

is concerned the made the diagnosis and planned the

treatment. The treatment is duly depicted in Ex.

PW8/D. It is duly signed by Dr. P. Ranganathan as I

worked with him and know his signatures. Thereafter,

Dr. P Ranganathan sent the call to the General

Surgery 2nd Unit on call on that day. I attended the

call as I was the Senior Resident General Surgery 2 nd

Unit on call on that day. Admit Card is prepared by

the Clerk posted in the Emergency Reception. After

making the Card patient was seen by the Jr. Resident

posted in Emergency Surgical OPD and he was Dr. P.

Ranganathan on that day. I gave the consultation

after the emergency call was received by me. I

advised the same things as was advised by the

Emergency doctor i.e. Dr. P. Ranganathan and

advised to collect all the investigations and arranged

the Samaan (articles) and blood. As per the record Ex.

PW8/D Dr. P. Ranganathan made the diagnosis stab

injuries abdomen with omental herniation with the

diagram made by him on the Emergency OPD ticket

Ex.PW8/D. Patient. Sanjay Bhardwaj was admitted on

that day in Emergency Ward No.5 under General

Surgery Unit-II by Dr. P. Ranganathan as endorsed in

red circle on Ex. PW8/D. Patient was advised number

of investigations like blood tests X-rays of the chest

and abdomen and blood was arranged in the

Emergency OPD itself by Dr. P. Ranganathan. All

these investigations were done by different

departments i.e. department of Bio-Chemistry,

department of Radiology, department of Blood

Transfusion Medicine etc. Patient was shifted to

Emergency Ward No. 5 under General Surgery 2nd Unit

after admission and again was seen by Dr. Sarabjeet

Singh who was Final Year Jr. Resident posted in

Emergency Recovery Ward No. 5. I got the certified

and attested photocopy of the original file Ex. PW8/B

from PGI Chandigarh and the same in Mark-X. He saw

this patient at 5.32 a.m. On 30.10.2000. He examined

the patient thoroughly and wrote the complete history

on the file with the diagram of the abdomen. He

collected all the investigations. He got the patient

prepared for surgery. He got the pre-anaesthesia

check up (PAC) of Sanjay Bhardwaj done by Dr. Sushil

who was Jr. Resident in the Department of

Anaesthesia. This PAC record is marked as Dx-1 which

bears the signature of Dr. Sushil who conducted PAC.

As per the record on PGI then patient was operated by

me i.e. Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan along with Dr. Amarpreet

Singh, Dr. Moorti and other team members as Ex. Dy

which bears my signatures and Dr. Amarpreet Singh.

Post operatively patient again was shifted to

Emergency Recovery Ward No.5 as per record. After

that patient was seen by Jr. Posted in Emergency

Recovery. After that patient was shifted to Ward

under General Surgery Unit-II. As per shifting note

Ex.DW8/A on 31st October, 2000.(Objected to). After

reaching the ward patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was again

examined by Dr. Ashish who was Jr. Resident in

General Surgery Unit-II whose notes are there in the

file Ex.PW8/D. Again on 1.112000 on the second post

operative day patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was again

seen by Dr. Ashish and other Jr. Residents. Likewise

patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was repeatedly examined

and seen by Dr. Pravin and Dr. Ashish who were

posted in General Surgery Unit-II as per file Ex.PW8/D.

Whenever patient got admitted in the PGI he has to

deposit certain money which is there as Ex.DW6/D.

Patient Sanjay Bhardwaj was admitted under Profesor

S.M. Bose who was Head of General Surgery Unit-II.

Ex. Dy is in my hand and its back side is in the hand

of Dr. Amarpreet Singh. Ex.PW2/R is copy of Ex. Dy.

This Medical Legal Case Summary was prepared by

me on the written directions of Medical

Superintendent and Professor S.M. Bose. I have seen

original Medical Legal Case Summary in the file

Ex.PW8/B the copy of which is Ex.PW2/U which bears

my signatures.

xxxxx by Sh. R.C. Bakshi Ld. P.P. for the State xxxxxx.

Cross examination is deferred at the request of Ld.

P.P. and at the request of complainant.------

RO & AC Sd/-

Sd/- Kuldeep Dhawan Addl.Sessions Judge,Solan

District Solan (H.P)

Defence Evidence on behalf of accused Kuldeep

Dhawan

D.W-8 Statement of Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan ,House

No1 ,Sector -7 Panchkula (Haryana)

Called for Cross Examination as the cross

examination was deferred On 16.11.2012 without

Oath 21.12.2012

xxxxxx on behalf of accused Sanjay Bhardwaj and

Dev Varth Sharma opportunity given. Nil

xxxxxx by Sh. M.K. Sharma, Ld. P.P. for the State

xxxxxx

Xxxxx on behalf of Accused Sanjay Bhardwaj & Dev

Varth Sharma Oppurtunity given Nil XXX by Sh M K

Sharma Ld PP for the state I don not remember

exactly as to how many senior residents were there in

the unit on 30.10.2000 but I can tell after seen the

file.I donot know as to who was on emergency OPD on

30.10.2000. Self stated, I can tell after seeing the

record.It is correct that as per PGI Record Ex CW2/C

on 29.10.2000 Dr Raman Dhanda was on emergency

duty during the intervening night of 29/30.10.2000. It

is correct that as per record Ex CW 2/C I was not

posted on emergency duty during the intervening

night of 29/30.10.2000. Self stated that I was on

emergency call. As per record of PGI Ex PW 8/D

pati9ent Sanjay Bhardwaj was precented in

Emergency PGI at 3.10 AM on 30.10.2000. As per the

record , once I was called in emergency by

emergency doctors I came to give my consultantion

under Prof S M Bose.I don’t remember time of arrival

as it is not mentioned in the record. EX PW-8/D is not

in my hand.Accordingly to the record of PGI Ex PW

8/D there is alleged history of sustaining staff injury of

abdomen on 29/10/2000 at 9.PM near Baddi during a

fight by some persons. No history LOC /ENT bleed

unconsciousness. History of one episode of vomiitting

present which were undigested food particles. Past

History of Stab injury abdomen in decemeber 1999 for

which he was hospitalised for 39 days. Intraoperatiev

finding- Multiple illeal perforations with

heamoperitoneum. Patient devekloped DIC and sepsis

in the post OP perido with shock improoved.Patient is

non alcholic and non smoker. As per record it is

correct that patient pulse was 80 Blood pressure was

130/80 mmg which is with in normal limits. It is

correct that as per record as per diagram made on

that one 1 cm stab wound at the level of umblicus

through which omentum is herneatintg.As per the out

patient record Ex PW-8/d Patient was broght by Rahul

( Friend) as per the record I do not know whether or

not police was informed as nothing was mentioned

was mentioned in the record. I was not knowing at

that time that patient was earlier treated at CHC

Nalagarh as the same is nopt metioned in EX PW-8/D.

At that time I knew nothing that the case was

registered at PS Barotiwala and one constable had

accompanied the patient. Question : The referring

doctor from CHC Nalagarh musy have given docket in

which injured was reffered to PGI which should in the

present file of PGI Answer. I do not know about this

thing. Ex PW-8/C is in my hand this also bears time

3.10 AM . It is correct that I started writing GS II

Consultation under Dr G Singh than I cut it and again

wrote GS II under Prof S M Bose. I have not mentioned

the arriavl time in EX PW-8/C it is incorrect that it is

not mentioned in EX PW-8/C that who had sent call to

me. Self stated the call was send by JR Emergency

duty as per exhibit PW-8/D.It is correct that I have not

mentioned the name of doctor who had sent call to

me. Self stated call is sent through the pager in

normal practise in those days. Time of examining the

patient by me is not written in the record and same is

not remebered to me . I have not mentioned the

dimension of injuries as the omentum wa sprolapsing

from wound. Though I have depicted position on

diagram. I do not remembered who narrated history

to me but in normal practice the doctor who examines

the patient in emergency narrates. It is correct t hat

in my writing ex PW-8/C I have written alleged history

of stab by Father in law, where as in ex PW8/D with

alleged history from some known person. It is correct

that I worte previous history of injured qua dated

21/12/99. Then I made the plan to collect the work up

the meaning of that is to collect the all investigations,

NPO-IVF-RTA-PUC-CVP,I/O Charting injection

cephron,inj Metrogyl,Arrange saman,arrange blood,

shift to emergency recovery ,fix.Chest xray report was

showing no gas under diapharagm ,asr.It is incorrect

that only Dr Raman Dhanda Sr Resident could have

admitted and shifted to emergency recovery Self

state din normal practise the unit on call seniro

resident is called for consultation in emergency when

ever team of emergency thinks that patient needs

admission/intervention in dire emergency when the

emergency team does not have time to follow this

protocol Sr Resident posted has the power to admit.

In this case I ordered to admit this patient on behalf of

Prof S M Bose .Question : There are panel of Doctors

on call for each surgical units in PGI and you were not

in the panel on alleged date i.e during the intervening

night of 29/30 .10.2000.Ans: There are nothing like

panel of doctors in PGI for attending emergency

patients. Infact there are 3 surgical units; GS1,GS2 &

GS3. Each unit has its call days rotation wiseliek GS1

on Monday, GS 2 on Tuesday,GS III On Wednesday

abd so on. If a ptient who is already been admitted to

any unit previously and he comes again in emergency

,the concerned unit will be called in emergency for

that patient irrespective of the unit on call. It is

incorrect that I was not in capacity to give

consultation to Mr Sanjay Bhardwaj patient as already

examined by Prof & head doctor Rajinder Singh in his

statement. It is correct that every unit of surgery is

headed by on professsor and GS II was headed by Prof

S M Bose. I do not know that Dr G Singh was on call or

not on that day but I gave this consultation under Dr

SM Bose.It is correct that X Ray film & report is not

present in file procured from PGI. It is correct that

name opf patient is written as Rakesh Kumar and age

is 50 years which was conducted on 31/10/2000 on

ultrasound report in file EX PW-8/B.Selfstated that

may be mistakenly of some other patient .Question:

Can you tell the during and exact time during which

he was operated.Answer: I cannot tell the exact time

at which the patient was taken in for surgery as lot

many page sare missing in the original file shown to

me but total time of operation is 2 hrs & 10 minutes

Part of Ex DY on page 17 is written with my hand

according to the record the blood loss in the surgery

is 50 ml and in this record , 2 hand full of clots along

with 500 ml of blood was present in peritoneal cavity.

This paper was prepared by me immediately after

surgery in the emergency operation theatre only as in

normal parctise. My Assistants during operation is Dr

Amanpreet Dr Murthy Dr Chauhan, Dr Pooja. Dr

Chauhan and Dr Pooja were the anestheist and nurse

was Manchander.Record of Anesthetist is missing in

PGI file ex PW-8/B .However I have obtained certified

copy of that and produced in the court as Mark DX/1.

Question : During examination in chief Dr Sushil has

got pre aneasthesia check up ( PAC) of Sanjay

Bhardwaj whereas in your docket prepared during

operation Ex DY reflects of Dr chauhan & Dr Pooja .

Ans: It is correct that PAC was done by Dr Sushil as it

is mentioned in Mark DX/1 but Anesthesia was given

by Dr Chauhan & Dr Pooja . There is no record

showing Dr Chuahan & Dr Pooja was present and

prepare dany record regarding anesthesia of Sanjay

Bhardwaj ?Ans; As per record, it is incorrect to say

that Dr Chauhan and Dr Pooja did not give

anesthesia.As per record , Dept of Blood transfusion

issued 1 unit of blood on the name of mr Sanjay

Bhardwaj Patient was numbered as 581369/O+ve on

30/10/2000. According to the record it is no where

mentioned when the blood was given to patient .It is

correct that the performa issued by department of

blood transfusion is blank.It is incorrect that cutting

on Ex DY With regard to unit professor ,blank

performa of blood transfusion, report of Dr Sunil are

going to show that I have tampered the case file in

PGI being senior resident in PGI. As per the record

patient Sanjay Bhardwaj previously stabbed in the

year 1999.It is correct that my eveidence was

recorded in that case Ido not know whether or not

that case has been decided.I do not know that court

has given finding in that case that I remained

associated with Sanjay Bhardwaj from the beginning.I

saw Sanjay Bhardwaj in PGI when he was earlier

admitted in GS II which was our unit in the year 1999.

I do not know at that time that sanjay bhardwaj had

been reffered from General hospital in sec 16

chandigarh. I do not know that court has given finding

that the application written for treatment of Sanjay

Bhardwaj on behalf of police was in my hand.I do not

know that sanjay bhardwaj remained with police at

Nalgarh on 30.10.200 till 7.00 AM. It is incorrect that I

have fabricated the record Ex PW8/C and Ex

PW-8/D.Time written on EX PW-8/C is not in my hand.

Patient may or may not become unconscious in such

type of injuries.Self Stated as per record patient was

conscious in this case.I can tell as to at what time

patient was operated upon as lot of pages are missing

from PGIrecord.it is correct that in such type of injury

patient is operated up on within hours of admission.I

do not know that doctor who has examined Sanjay

Bhardwaj at Nalagarh as mentioned that he has 2

inch stab injury. I do not know that there is another

mark of previous stab mark mentioned by doctor. It is

correct that I have not mentioned the previous stab

mark.again said I have mentioned medico legal case

summary has been prepared me in this case as per

written orders of Prof S M Bose our head of

Department on 13.12.2000 .The date of discharge in

medical legal case summary is 10.12.2000.It is

correct that as per discharge record the patient was

discharged on 7/11/2000

Self stated the date of discharge on medical case

legal case summary was written after seeing the file

where by mistake it was written 10.11.2000 but the

fact is patient was discharged on 7.11.2000 as so

many times explained. It is incorrect that I have

intentionally mentioned wrong date of discharge on

medical legal case summary in connivance with

Sanjay Bhardwaj and other accused. It is incorrect

that I have operated on sanjay bhardwaj at 5.pm on

30.10.2000.It is incorrect that Prof S M Bose had

never authorised/ ordered me to issue medical legal

case summary which was marked by PA of Prof S M

 Bose.Mark DX is partly in my hand and date of

discharge is also in myt hand. I do not remember that

mark DX was prepared on 10/11/2000. It is incorrect

that Sanjay Bhardwaj has not sustained grevious

injury and I prepared the record incorrectly in

connivance with the co accused

Sd/-

R.O. & A.C. Addl. Session Judge, Solan,

Sd/-Kuldeep Dhawan District Solan

(H.P.)

Copy of chief and cross examination of Dr.Kuldeep

Dhawan is attached as Annexure P-16.

32. That judgment passed by Sh.Bhim Chand Presiding

Officer, Additional Sessions Judge, Solan dated

12.10.2004 is merged into the Judgment of the

Hon’ble High Court of Shimla (H.P). A perusal of

Judgement of Hon’ble Himachal pardesh High Court

will reveal that Hon’ble High Court had not in any

way found the medical record of P.G.I to be

manipulated or fabricated.

33. That it is pertinent to mention here that Sarv Sheel

Mago who remained as S.D.O in Haryana

Government has links with politicians and high

ranked police officals like D.G.P and various I.G of

various states.He was a close assosicate of son of

former Chief Minister of Haryana .That a perusal of

F.I.R No. 170 dated 30.10.2000 Under Section 364 ,

307,506 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station

Barootiwala District Solan Himachal Pardesh would

reveal that Police have not even arrested Sarv Sheel

Mago and others. The place of occurance in sector -5

Panchkula exactly behind C.B.S.E office from where

petitioner was kidnapped was an isolated area and

after 24 years still is isolated area .Police make no

efforts to bring this evidence on record .Police

intentionally did not collected toll tax slip of the toll

barrier, which came on the way while accused Sanjay

Bhardwaj was taken from Panchkula to Baddi, inspite

being told by accused Sanjay Bhardwaj in his

statement to police. Police made no efforts either to

recover knife from the accused. During investigation

police had not send blood stained clothes of accused

Sanjay Bhardwaj for C.F.S.L examination.

Investigation done by Investigating Officer was very

unsatisfactory. Petitioner Sanjay Bhardwaj has no

controll over investigating agency and negligence of

Investigating officer could not effect credibility of

statement of Sanjay Bhardwaj. Investigating officer

during investigation was not conscious of his

responsiblities. At many occasions Himachal police

saw accused Sanjay Bhardwaj first at Nalagarh

Hospital and as well as P.G.I in a injured condition,

however rather filing a challan against P.W-5 Sarv

Sheel Mago & others, Police filed a cancellation

 report. That the above mentioned facts clearly

proves that how Barootiwala Police was hell bent to

help Sarv Sheel Mago and others in order to save

them form the crime committed by him.

34. That the medical evidence which is documentry as

well as occular has come on record in the present

case by defence as well as by prosecution pertaining

to Nalagarh Civil Hospital and P.G.I Chandigarh in

respect of time and date, injury,treatment, operation,

admission and discharge of patient Sanjay Bhardwaj

is totally consistent with occular evidence in the

present case and there is no infirmatory in medical

evidence which is duly proved during trial of present

case .

32. That a clear cut evidence regarding time , date

, injury, presence of accused Sanjay Bhardwaj at CHC

Nalagarh on 30.10.2000 at 1.45 a.m and admission

of accused Sanjay Bhardwaj at 3.10.a.m on

30.10.2000 at P.G.I and thereafter regarding the

operation,treatment and discharge of accused Sanjay

Bhardwaj from P.G.I. has come on record in the

present case. It was duty of prosecution to bring all

these evidence on record during the trial of F.I.R No.

170 which was even available at that time. It is

evident that by not bringing above said evidence on

record, police did not conducted investigation and

trial of F.I.R No. 170 in a fair manner in order to help

Sarv Sheel Mago. It is pertinent to mention here that

Sarv Sheel Mago, in order to set his personal score

with petitioner Sanjay Bhadrwaj and with his father,

did not spared Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan and Dr.Ajay

Kumar Sethi, doctors who attended/operated/treated

Sanjay Bhardwaj and implicated them also in this

false case .It is pertinent to mention here that Dr

Kuldeep Dhawan and Dr Ajay Kumar Sethi belong to

nobel profession and who were performing their duty

by attending patient Sanjay Bhardwaj in injured

condition and by stating truth during the trial of F.I.R

No 170.

That it is pertinenet to mention here that the

evidence which was led during the case of 340 Cr.P.C

was already avaialble when trial of F.I.R No 170 was

going on. However police made no effrorts to bring

that evidence on record. That it is pertinent to

mention here that these two cases i.e case titled

“State Versus Sarv Sheel Mago pertaining to F.I.R No.

170 dated 30.10.2000 u/s 307 ,364,506 IPC ” as well

as “ State Versus Dr.Ajay Kumar Sethi & others u/s

340 IPC” are 2 inter connected cases with same

evidence which was presented in both cases. Keeping

in view of above stated facts and specifically as held

in judgment dated 25.07.2024 i.e Annexure A-9,

present case titled “State Vs Dr.Kuldeep Dhawan &

Others arisen out of F.I.R No 170 dated 30.10.2000

 U/s 307,364,506,34 IPC Police Station Barotiwala

registered against Sarvsheel Mago, Aman Mago,

Komal Mago is a fit case for RETRIAL.

A retrial is not the second trial . It is continuation of

the same trial and same prosecution under Section

427 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha ,2023 deals with the

powers of the appellate court. As per Section 427

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha ,2023 , in an appeal from a

conviction, the appellate court may:-

(iii) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or

discharge the accused, or order him to be re-

tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction

subordinate to such Appellate Court or

committed for trial, or

(iv) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or

(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the

nature or the extent, or the nature and extent,

of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the

same.

35. That ‘De novo’ trial means a “new trial” ordered by an

appellate court in exceptional cases when the original

trial failed to make a determination in a manner

dictated by law. The trial is conducted afresh by the

court as if there had not been a trial in first instance.

Undoubtedly, the appellate court has power to direct

the lower court to hold ‘de novo’ trial.

36. That from the above mentioned facts it is very much

clear that the original trial has not been satisfactory

due to the reason for wrong rejection of evidences .

That “a de novo trial should be the last resort and that

too only when such a course becomes so desperately

indispensable; it should be limited to the extreme

exigency to avert ‘a failure of justice’. An order of re-

trial affords the prosecutor an opportunity to rectify

the infirmities disclosed in the earlier trial, and will not

ordinarily be countenanced when it is made merely to

enable the prosecutor to lead evidence which he could

but has not cared to lead either on account of

insufficient appreciation of the nature of the case or

for other reasons."

37. That from the above stated facts it is very much clear

that in the present case the lapses are so grave so as

to prejudice the rights of the petitioner .There was a

‘shoddy’ investigation . That a perusal of Judgment i.e

Annexure P-9 clearly proves that there was serious

irregularities in the prosecution case thereby

necessitating retrial and these irregularities pointed

out resulting in miscarriage of justice thereby

constraining the High Court to set aside the judgment

of the Sessions Court and direct for retrial .Such lapses

actually affect the prosecution case; or such lapses

have actually resulted in failure of justice.

 38 . The judgment in case of Nar Singh vs. State of

Haryana (2015) 1 SCC 496 to remit the matter to the

trial court for proceeding afresh. In Nar Singh’s case,

some of the important questions like Ballistic Report

and certain other incriminating evidence were not put

to the accused and the same was not raised in the trial

court or in the High Court. It was felt that the accused

should have been questioned on those incriminating

evidence and circumstances; or otherwise prejudice

would be caused to the accused. In such peculiar facts

and circumstances, Nar Singh’s case was remitted to

the trial court for proceeding afresh from the stage

of Section 313 Cr.P.C.

39. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. vs. State of

Gujarat and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 158, [Best Bakery case]

being an extraordinary case, the Supreme Court was

convinced that the witnesses were threatened to keep

themselves away from the Court and in such facts and

circumstances of the case, not only the Court directed

a ‘de novo’ trial but made further direction for

appointment of the new prosecutor and retrial was

directed to be held out of the State of Gujarat. The law

laid down in Best Bakery case for retrial was in the

extraordinary circumstances and cannot be applied for

all cases.
40. The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Ghoshal

Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2017(2) M.P.L.C. 28

(S.C.) has held as under :-

''11. Though the word "retrial" is used under Section

386(b)(i) Cr.P.C., the powers conferred by this clause is

to be exercised only in exceptional cases, where the

appellate court is satisfied that the omission or

irregularity has occasioned in failure of justice. The

circumstances that should exist for warranting a retrial

must be such that where the trial was undertaken by

the Court having no jurisdiction, or trial was vitiated by

serious illegality or irregularity on account of the

misconception of nature of proceedings. An order for

retrial may be passed in cases where the original trial

has not been satisfactory for some particular reasons

such as wrong admission or wrong rejection of

evidences or the Court refused to hear certain

witnesses who were supposed to be heard.

'De novo' trial means a "new trial" ordered by an

appellate court in exceptional cases when the original

trial failed to make a determination in a manner

dictated by law. The trial is conducted afresh by the

court as if there had not been a trial in first instance.

Undoubtedly, the appellate court has power to direct

the lower court to hold 'de novo' trial. But the question

is when such power should be exercised.

41. As stated in Pandit Ukha Kolhe vs. State of

Maharashtra (1964) SCR 926, the Court held that:

"An order for retrial of a criminal case is made in

exceptional cases, and not unless the appellate court is

satisfied that the Court trying the proceeding had no

jurisdiction to try it or that the trial was vitiated by

serious illegalities or irregularities or on account of

misconception of the nature of the proceedings and on

that account in substance there had been no real trial

or that the Prosecutor or an accused was, for reasons

over which he had no control, prevented from leading

or tendering evidence material to the charge, and in

the interests of justice the appellate Court deems it

appropriate, having regard to the circumstances of the

case, that the accused should be put on his trial again.

An order of re-trial wipes out from the record the

earlier proceeding, and exposes the person accused to

another trial which affords the prosecutor an

opportunity to rectify the infirmities disclosed in the

earlier trial, and will not ordinarily be countenanced

when it is made merely to enable the prosecutor to

lead evidence which he could but has not cared to lead

either on account of insufficient appreciation of the

nature of the case or for other reasons."

After going through the evidence and the facts

mentioned above this Court is of the view that both the

 alleged offences are connected with each other in such

a way that a serious prejudice has been caused to both

prosecution as well as defence by the separate trials in

the said cases. This Court feels that unless the

evidence of both the FIRs is scanned together by the

Court to arrive at final conclusion, it may lead to failure

of justice.”

42. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Mohd Hussain v.

State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 14 dealt with the

question of retrial under Section 386 CrPC. In that case,

a foreign National was subjected to trial for causing a

bomb blast in a public transport vehicle. The trial Court

convicted the accused and imposed the death

sentence. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the

appeal, confirming the sentence. However, the two

judge Bench of this Court observed that the trial was

vitiated. While one of the learned judges ordered the

accused person’s release, the other ordered for a time-

bound retrial. A larger Bench confirmed the second

view directing a retrial, however, observing that the

power must be exercised by the appellate Court in

exceptional situations. It was observed that keeping in

view the gravity of the offence and the denial of due

process, a retrial was warranted:

It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that in

the interest of Justice and in facts and circumstances of the

case, this Hon’ble Court may graciously pleased to:-

(i) F.I.R No. 170 dated 30.10.2000 Under Section

307,364,506 IPC Police Station Barootowala District

Solan be directed to send for Re - Trial in the interest

of justice.

(ii) pass any other order / orders which this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of

Justice and in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

Place :- Shimla

Petitioner

Dated :- 17.10.2024 Sanjay Bhardwaj

S/o Sh. D.V.Sharma

H.No.707, Sector-2

Panchkula (Haryana)
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

No. of 2024

Sanjay Bhardwaj

……….Petitioner /Appellant

VERSUS

State of Himachal Pardesh & Anr.

…………Respondent’s

AFFIDAVIT of Sanjay Bhardwaj s/o Sh. D.V.Sharma, Aadhaar

No Age 54 years resident of H.No.707, Sector 2, Panchkula

(Haryana).

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm

and declare as under:-

1. That the accompanying application is being filed by the

deponent before this Hon’ble Court which is likely to be

accepted on the various grounds mentioned therein.

2. That the accompanying petition has been drafted by

the deponent and the deponent has gone through the

 contents of para no 1 to para no 40 of the same,

which are true and correct.

3. That no such or similar application has earlier been

filed by the deponent either in this Hon’ble High Court

or in the Supreme Court of India.

Place:- SHIMLA DEPONENT

DATED : 15.10.2024

VERIFICATION:

Verified that the contents of above said affidavit from paras

1 to 3 are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is

false and nothing material has been concealed therein.

Place :-SHIMLA DEPONENT

DATED:15.10.2024
Annexure P-

No :
0133261

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

(U/S 154 Cr.P.C)

1. District Solan, Police Station : Baddi, Year 2000, FIR

NO : 170/2K , Dated : 30.10.2000

2. (i) Act : ……………………….., Sections :

364,307,506,34 IPC.

(ii) Act : ……………………….., Sections :

……………………………

(iii) Act : ……………………….., Sections :

…………………………..

(iv) Other Acts and sections

…………………………………………

3. (a) Occurrence of offence : Day : Monday , Date

from :……………. : Date to 30/10/2000, Time period

…………………., Time from ………………Time to

……………………… .

(b) Information received at PS : Date…………………,

Time …………………...
 ( c ) General Diary Reference : Entry No : 27 , Time

2.40 AM

4. Type of Information : Written

5. Place of occurrence

(a) Direction an distance from the Police Station :

Towards 16 KM North West, Beat No : 3.

(b) Address : Baddi.

(c) In case outside limit of this Police Station , then the

name of P.S……………………………………, District

…………………………

6. Complainant / Informant :

(a) Name : Sanjay Bhardwaj

(b) Fathers Name : Sh Dev Vart Sharma

(c) Date/Year of Birth …………………………(d)

Nationality : Indian

(e) Passport No : ……………….Date of Issue

………….Place of Issue…………..

(f) Occupation : Business

(d) Address : House No : 707, Sector ; 2,

Panchkula, Haryana.

7. Reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant

/Informant

8. Particulars of properties stolen involved( Attach

separate sheet if necessary )

9. Total value of properties stolen

involved………………………………………

10. Inquest Report /U.D Case No , if any:

…………………………………………

11. FIR Contents Attach separate sheet , if required :-

At this time one -------- statement of Sh Sanjay

Bhardwaj --------H.C Sewa Singh No 5 ------------------

Statement Sanjay Bhardwaj s/o Sh Dev Vert Sharma,

caste Brahmin, resident of House No 707, Sector ; 2,

Panchkula, Haryana, age 30 years, u/s 154 Cr .P.C ,

Stated that I am resident of the above said address

and I am doing business. I had married Ms Nidhi Mago

in 1999 in Delhi and thereafter we went to Orissa for

our honeymoon. We did our marriage against the

consent of our parents. In Orissa Mr Sarvsheel Mago

father of Ms Nidhi came and bring us back for the

reception party. On the next day my father-in-law

separated us and an lodged an false case against me.

My wife Ms Nidhi was re-married to another person.

All the parties filed cases against each other . Ms Nidhi

husband left her. Sh Sarv Sheel Mago used to always

threaten me to withdraw my cases and not to attend

the case at Karnal. I did not agreed to his demand and

due to it on 21.12.99 Mr Sarvsheel Mago and Aman

Mago made an attempt on my life and Aman Mago

stabbed me. Chandigarh police had registered a case

regarding it. Thereafter also Mr Sarvshel Mago and

Aman Mago used to always thereaten me to kill

me.Today evening at about 6.15 P.M I was on evening

walk at sector 5 Panchkula at a lonely area when a

car no HR 49 1250 make maruti colour blue came from

behind and from the car Sarvsheel Mago, Komal Mago,

Aman Mago and another person who was driving the

car who I do not know by name but can recognise him

alighted and they threw me on the ground and Komal

Mago put a tape on my mouth and they tied my hands

and they forcibly put me on the back seat of the car.

Mr Sarvsheel Mago and Aman Mago sat on by both

side. They put a chunni on me. Komal Mago took a

knife from her purse and gave it to Aman Mago and

Aman Mago had put that knife on my abdomen. Aman

Mago told me that if I will try to move he would kill me

and they after they took m towards the hills of Baddi.

And thereafter they parked the car in a secluded place

and kept sitting for about 30 minutes. And thereafter

they proceeded further in the car and at some

distance they took me out of the car and encircled

me. Komal Mago said them to kill me. Sarvsheel Mago

said to Aman Mago that he could not kill me on the

first occasion and this time he would kill me.

Sarvsheel Mago took the knife from Aman Mago and

Sarvsheel Mago stabbed me in the abdomen. When

Sarvsheel Mago made another attempt with the knife I

retreated and fell in the khai he also said that after

 this there is turn of my family. I fell quite a distance in

the Khai and after some time they left from the spot

after about 45 minutes after untying the rope and

removing the tape I reached on the road. From there a

person on scooter whom I don’t know on my request

left me near a clinic. The above said person kidnapped

me and made an attempt on my life, legal action be

taken against them sd/- Sanjay Bhardwaj. Attested

H.C Sewa Singh -----------------------.

12. Action Taken : Since the above report reveals

commission of offence(s) u/s as mentioned at Item

No : 2, registered the case and took up the

investigation/ directed Sewa Singh Rank H.C No : 5 to

take up the Investigation/ refused investigation

transferred to PS ………………….. on point of

jurisdiction.

FIR read over to the Complainant / Informant admitted to

be correctly recorded and a copy given to the

Complainant / Informant free of cost.

13. Signature & Thumb impression of the

complainant/Informant

14. Date & Time of Dispatch to the court

 Sd/-

Signature of the Officer –in –charge Police

Station

Name : Salim Ahamad

Rank ASI No …………….

TRUE COPY

In the court of Bhim Chand Addl. Sessions Judge, (Presiding

Officer Fast Track Court) Solan Distt. Solan H.P.

Case No. 30/FT/7 of 2004/2003

Instituted on : 24.02.2003

Decided on : 12.10.2004

State of H.P.

Versus

1. Sarvsheel Mago son of Shri Sundre Lal Mago r/o H.No.

244, Sector 10, Panchkula

2. Aman Mago son of Shri Sarvsheel Mago r/o H.No. 244,

Sector 10, Panchkula (Haryana)

3. Smt. Komal Mago w/o Shri Sarvsheel Mago r/o H.No.

244, Sector 10, Panchkula

………..Accused

Police Challan under sections 307, 364, 506 IPC all read

with section 34 IPC

For the State. Shri Anil Sood, PP

For the accused Shri Virender Rathore, Advocate.

Judgement

1. This is a police challan under sections 364, 307, and

506 IPC read with section 34 IPC. Brief facts of the

case as disclosed by the complainant in his statement

under section 154 Cr. P.C. are as under :

2. In the year 1999the complainant married Nidhi Mago,

the daughter of accused persons S.S. Mago and Komal

Mago. After solemnizing marriage in Delhi they left for

Orissa for honeymoon. This marriage was solemnized

against the wishes of their parents. Accused S.S. Mago

came to them in Orissa and brought them back by

saying that a reception party would be hosted. But

here, the accused persons lodged a false FIR against

the complainant. Nidhi Mago was separated from him

and married away to another person. Title of round of

litigation stated between the parties. S.S. Mago had

 always been advancing threats to the complainant and

asking him to withdraw the cases and not to appear in

a case at Karnal. The complainant did not accede to

his request. Accused person S.S. Mago and Aman

Mago made a murderous assault, on him on 21.12.99,

regarding which a case was registered with

Chandigarh police.

3. On 29.10.2000 at 6.15 PM while the complainant was

strolling in a lonely place in sector 5, Panchkula, A

Maruti Car bearing No. HR-49-1250 came there. The

accused persons were in the car. It was driven by a

person who was not known to the complainant. All of

them came out of the car and knocked the

complainant down. Soon accused Komal Mago applied

tape to the complainant’s mouth. Accused persons

tied his hands and forcibly put him on the rear seat of

the car. On one side Aman Mago sat and on the other

side of the complainant S.S. Mago sat in the car. A

chunni was thrown on the complainant. Accused

Komal Mago took out a knife from her purse and

handed it over to Aman Mago who putting the knife on

the stomach of the complainant threatened to thrust

the knife into his body if the complainant tried to

move. The car was taken to the hills of Baddi. The car

was stopped on the road. There they kept sitting in

that lonely place for about 30 minutes. Then car was

 taken further. At some distance it was stopped.

Complainant was taken out of the car. The accused

persons stood around him. The accused Komal Mago

incited the others to kill the complainant. Accused S.S.

Mago took the knife from Aman Mago saying that last

time he had failed to kill the complainant and that this

time he will do the job S.S. Mago then stabbed the

complainat on his stomach. As he tried to give another

blow, the complainant moved aside and fell down into

a gorge. The accused persons threatened that after

him it was the turn of his family members to be killed.

4. The story further is that after 45 minutes the

complainant, with great difficulty got up and was able

to untie his hands. He then removed the tape from his

mouth and climbed up to the road. A scooterist who

was not known to the complainant, happened to come

there. He brought him on his scooter and dropped

near a clinic at Baddi. In the end of the statement

complainant made a prayer that accused persons

kidnapped him and tried to kill him and that action be

taken against them.

5. Endorsement made on this statement shows that

some telephonic information was received by police at

P.P. Baddi, where upon H.C. sewa Singh, C. Sazid Khan

 and C. Madan Lal proceeded towards Malhotra Clinic.

There they found the complainant in injured condition.

A vehicle was then arranged and was taken to CHM

Nalagarh. At Nalagarh opinion of Medical Officer was

taken. There after this statement under section 154

Cr. P.C. was recorded. The statement was then sent to

Police Station Barotiwala through C. Madan Lal where

FIR No. 170 under sections 364, 307, 506 read with

section 34 IPC was lodged.

6. After conducting investigations a cancellation report

was prepared by the SHO on 31.12.2000. After

obtaining opinion of Public Prosecutor it was filed in

the court of Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Nalagarh on 3.10.2001. In the meanwhile complainant

had filed a complainat in the same court on 6.6.2001

regarding the same occurrence. The ld. Magistrate

disagreed with the cancellation report and took

cognizance vide order dated 2.9.2002. He directed

summons to be issued to the accused. Accused

persons Aman Mago and S.S. Mago put in appearance

on 11.10.2002 while Komal Mago appeared on

30.11.2002. The same day copies of challan were

supplied to them. In view of the provisions of section

210 Cr.P.C. the Ld. Magistrate ordered that the

complaint be tagged with the police challan. After

putting in appearance, the accused persons moved an

 application to Ld. Magistrate for re-calling the

summoning order dated 2.9.2002. This application was

dismissed by Ld. Magistrate on 4.1.2003. The

Magistrate committed the case to the Ld. Sessions

Judge, Solan. The accused persons were directed to

appear before the said court on 6.2.2003. They

appeared. The case was assigned by the Ld. Sessions

Judge to the Additional Sessions Judge and from that

court it was received in this court by transfer.

7. On the basis of material on record the accused

persons were charged with offences punishable under

sections 364, 307, 506 IPC read with section 34 IPC.

They pleaded not guilty. Prosecution then examined

10 witnesses. Thereafter the accused persons were

examined under section 313 Cr. P.C. Their case is that

a false case has been foisted on them. The accused

persons were called upon to enter on their defence.

They examined three witnesses in defence.

8. In this case following points arises for determination :

Point No. 1 Whether prosecution has proved that

the accused persons in furtherance of

their common intention abducted

complainant Sanjay Bhardwaj on

 29.10.2000 from Panchkula in order

that he might be murdered?

Point No. 2 whether prosecution has proved that

accused persons in furtherance of their

common intention attempted to kill

the complainant?

Point No. 3 Whether prosecution has proved that

accused persons criminally intimidated

the complainant with a view to false

alarm?

Point No. 4 Final order.

9. For the reasons recorded hereinafter while discussing

the points for determination, my findings on the

aforesaid points are as under :

Point No. 1 No.

Point No. 2 No.

Point No. 3 No

Point No. 4 All accused acquitted as per

operative portion of the

judgement.
10. I have carefully gone through the entire evidence and

heard the Ld. Public Prosecutor for the state and

counsel for the accused. Reasons for my findings are

as under :

Point No. 1,2,3

11. All these points are inter-connected, hence taken up

together for discussion.

12. Ld. PP took me through the detailed statement of the

complainant. The complainant is the sole witness

about abduction and stabbing. The other witnesses

deposed only about the circumstances under which

and the place etc. where the complainant was given

medical treatment.

13. The complainant stated that he was having love affair

with Nidhi Mago, the daughter of S.S. Mago. They

contracted marriage on 16.5.99 in Lajpat Nagar Arya

Samaj Mandir New Delhi. The marriage was performed

against the wishes of the parents of Nidhi Mago. After

marriage they went to Orissa for honeymoon. From

Orissa Nidhi gave her address to S.S. Mago. Then S.S.

 Mago came to Orissa and brought them back on the

pretext that throwing a reception party.

14. The complainant further stated that no reception party

was held. On the contrary S.S. Mago lodged an FIR

against him in Chandi Mandir Police station on 27.5.99.

Three four days thereafter Nidhi Mago was married

away to one Prashant Arora of Karnal. Then litigation

between him and accused party started. Complaints

against each other were made. The accused persons

had been advancing threat to kill him if he did not

withdraw the cases. The accused persons also wanted

him not to appear as witness on behalf of Col. S.N.

Arora the father of Prashant Arora. On 21.12.1999

while he was in sector 5, Chandgarh S.S. Mago and

Aman Mago stabbed him. The complainant further

stated that a case regarding such stabbing was

pending in Chandigarh court. The statement made

upto this stage shows strained relation between the

parties and the motive for the killing. Further

statement of the complainant, relates to the actual

incident of this case and as such I re-produce below

nearly the entire remaining statement of the

complaiant :

“On 29.10.2000 at about 6.15 PM while I

was walking in sector 5 Panchkula a blue

coloured Maruti Car bearing No HR 49 1250

came from behind. The car was stopped in

front of me. All the three accused persons,

and one more, whom I do not know, came

out of the car and knocked me down. Komal

Mago applied plaster type tape to my

mouth. My hands were tied by S.S. Mago,

Aman Mago and the fourth man. I was

forcibly put into the car in the rear seat. I

was made to sit in between Aman Mago and

S.S. Mago, Komal Mago was sitting in the

front seat and the fourth man was driving

the car. Something like Chunni was put on

my face. Komal Mago took out a knife from

her purse and handed it over to Aman

Mago. Aman Mago placed the knife on my

stomach and threatened to kill if I tried to

move. The handing over of the knife by

Komal Mago to Aman Mago the placing of

the knife by Komal Mago on my stomach

took place soon after the car started. I was

taken in the car towards Baddi via Pinjore.

At Baddi barrier Komal Mago came out of

the car to pay tool tax. Again she sat in the

car. Then the car was taken on a road which

is in the right hand of Baddi. The car was

then stopped I do not know the name of

that place. They stayed there for about 25

minutes. I thought they were waiting for

someone. It was dark at that time. Then

they again took the car further. Near some

hills the car was stopped. I was taken out of

the car. There was a gorge to the right side

of the road. I was standing on right side of

the road surrounded by these four persons.

Komal Mago instigated Aman Mago to kill

me. S.S. Mago took the knife from Aman

Mago saything that last time he (Aman

Mago) had failed to kill me and that this

time he (S.S. Mago) would certainly kill me.

Then S.S. Mago stabbed me on my

stomach. While he was attempting a second

blow I moved a bit and fell into the gorge

about 25-30 feet below. I was feeling severe

pain. With great difficulty I was able to untie

my hands. Then I removed the tape. With

great difficulty I climbed up the road. I also

sustained some bruises on my back due to

fall into the gorge. I was sitting on the road

under a severe pain as my intestines were

coming out. Just then a man on a scooter

came there. I narrated the incident to him.

He brought me on his scooter and dropped

me about 100 to 150 feet away from

Malhotra clinic at Baddi. The man did not

disclose his identity to me as he did not

want to be involved in a police case. There

were shops at the place where I was

dropped, Two of them were open. I went to

a shop and narrated the incident to the

shopkeeper. Two person were present

there. They took me to Malhotra Clinic. Now

I have learnt that these two persons were

Kiran Pal and Govind.

At Malhotra Clinic the doctor gave me an

injection but I was told not to disclosed this

fact to any one. I narrated the incident to

the doctor. “obtained telephone number of

my house from me and informed my

parents as well as to the police. After a

while police came. Police took me to some

clinic, but the clinic owner did not open the

door. Police then took me to Nalagarh

government Hospital. There I was examined

by the doctor. There police recorded my

statement Ex. PW1/A which bears my

signatures in red circle-A. The police had

brought to me in some private vehicle. At

Nalagarh I was medically examined. My

signature is there on MLC which is Ex.

 PW1/B. After some time my father

accompanied by some of my friends came

there at the hospital. The doctor at

Nalagarh hospital had referred me to PGI.

Then I was taken to PGI Chandigarh. The

police accompanied me to PGI. Then I was

operated upon at PGI. I was discharged from

PGI on 7.11.2000. Thereafter I was

remained admitted in Manimajra Dispensary

for 3-4 days. I have the discharge slip

issued by the Dispensary.

On the day of occurrence I was wearing

shirt and pants. The Baddi Police had taken

my pants and shirt in possession at PGI

Chandigarh on 30.10.2000.

15. Ld. PP submitted that all the ingredients of sections

364, 307 and 506 IPC stand proved by this statement

of the complaint. The statement has proved the

involvement of all accused persons and the commons

intention shared by them. Komal Mago was carrying a

knife in her purse. She handed it over to Aman Mago.

Aman Mago placed it on complainant’s while traveling

in the car and also threatened to thrust the knife into

stomach if the complainant tried to move. Ultimately

 the knife was used by S.S. Mago for stabbing. Thus all

participated in the act of abduction and kidnapping. A

threat to kill his family members was also given to the

complainant.

16. Ld. PP further submitted that the fact that the

complainant had sustained an injury finds

corroboration by the statement of PW Kiran Pal, three

doctors, and the police officials. Kiran Pal (PW5) is the

person who took the complainant to Malhotra Clinic at

Baddi. As per his statement he had seen the injury on

his person. Then first aid was given to the complainant

by Doctor Mukesh Malhotra at Malhotra Clinic.

Thereafter police arrived and the complainant was

taken to Civil Hospital Nalagarh. Where complainant

was medically examined by Dr. Ajay Sethi (PW 10, Dr.

Ajay Sethi referred him to PGI. At PGI operation was

conducted by Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan (PW30). Apart from

Kiran Pal these three doctors have supported

prosecution version regarding presence of injury. H.C.

Sewa Singh had who had received a call on telephone

had arrived at the clinic at Baddi, stated that he had

found the complainant lying there on a bench in the

injured condition. Thus it is submitted by Ld. PP that

there ample evidence on record that there was an

injury on the body of the complainant. Then there is

evidence that Doctor Malhotra had telephonically

 informed the family members of the complainant

about the incident, where upon the complainant’s

father accompanies by some others had arrived at

Baddi and then had gone him to Nalagarh and then to

PGI. The complainant’s father also has deposed about

the injury on the person of his son.

17. Ld. PP submitted that the complainant and Nidhi Mago

had solemnized marriage against the wishes of

accused. That was the reason for enmity between the

parties. Undisputedly cases against each other were

pending. An attempt at the complaint’s life had

already been made. So clearly there was a motive with

the accused persons for committing the alleged

offence. The Ld. PP further submitted that there is

evidence on record that stab wound found on the

person of complainant was dangerous to life. The Ld.

PP pleaded that on can hardly believe that the

complainant, in order to see the accused behind the

bars had caused or got caused to himself a wound of

such a nature as could result in his own death.

According to Ld. PP no one would take such a risk and

as such in the circumstances of the case the sole

testimony of the complainant was sufficient to base

conviction.
18. The Ld. Counsel for the accused on the other hand

submitted that though he could demonstrate from the

evidence on record that the complainant actually did

not sustain any injury and that a false medical

evidence was procured and produced, there was in

fact no need to look into the evidence, reason being

that the initiation of the prosecution against the

accused itself was illegal and all the proceedings done

were null and void and in the circumstances the court

had no option but to let them off. He tried to explain

how the launching of the prosecution was illegal. The

Ld. Counsel submitted that if the Ld. Magistrate had

disagreed with the cancellation report submitted to

him by the police, he could take cognizance of the

offence but could not ask to police to file a charge

sheet in place of cancellation report. As such these

proceedings, which are based on the charge sheet so

illegally called for are illegal. In support of this

submission he placed reliance on M.C. Abraham and

Anr. Versus state of Maharashtra and Ors 2003 (1)

RCR (Criminal) 452, R. Sarala versus State of Punjab

and another 2004 (2) RCR (Criminal) 971 Abhinandan

Jha and others V. Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968 Supreme

Court 117 (V. 55 C. 32) and Union of India Versus

Parkash P. Hinduja & Anr 2003(3) RCR (Criminal) 556.

19. This argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused

cannot be accepted, firstly for the reason that it is not

based on facts, as the Magistrate had actually not

asked for the filing of the charge sheet and secondly

or the reason that even if he had asked for such report

to be filed that by itself alone is no reason to let the

accused persons off.

20. As said above, before the police filed the final report in

the court on 3.10.2001, complainant had filed a

private complaint regarding the same incident in the

same court on 6.6.2001. Vide his order dated 2.9.2002

the Ld. Magistrate disagreed with the cancellation

report and took cognizance. The order-sheet of the Ld.

Trial court shows that the Magistrate ordered for the

summoning of the accused persons for 11.10.2002. It

also shows that the Magistrate ordered that the case

diary portion be separated and the same be returned

to the police in sealed cover. In the order there is no

direction to the police to submit charge sheet. Rather

from the order that the diary portion be separated and

returned to the police shows that there was no

deficiency in the challen, rather it contained

something which was to be returned. The order sheet

dated 11.10.2002 shows that the accused persons S.S.

Mago and Aman Mago appeared on that day before

the Magistrate and the order sheet dated 30.11.2002

 shows that Komal Mago appeared for the first time on

that day. Order sheet dated 30.11.2002 further shows

that copies of challan were supplied to the accused

persons on the same day. Thus from the orders it is

clear that the Ld. Magistrate never asked the police to

file charge sheet.

21. But it is true that the police actually filed a charge

sheet dated 27.11.2002. Last two lines of the final

report dated 27.11.2002 read as under :

“In this case cancellation report dated

31.12.2000 was prepared, but as the

Ld. Court took cognizance on the

report, hence a challan under sections

307, 364, 506 read with 34 IPC is

hereby presented. Accused persons

and the witnesses may be summoned

and case tried.”

22. It seems that from these words Ld. Counsel for the

accused has gathered an impression that the Ld.

Magistrate had asked the police to submit a charge

sheet. But it is actually not so. The police on their own

might have thought it proper to file such charge sheet.

It may be noticed that cancellation report earlier

submitted did not contain list of witness, which the

 police submitted with the charge sheet dated

27.11.2002 May be fore this reason they filed it. So it

is not correct to say that the Magistrate had directed

the police to file a charge sheet. As such rulings relied

on do not apply.

23. Assuming that charge sheet was filed by the police

only on the direction of the court, the proceedings

against the accused cannot be quashed on that

ground alone and they cannot be let off. In none of the

rulings relied upon by accused persons proceedings

against the accused persons in those cases were not

quashed. In M.C. Abraham’s case High Court had

ordered that accused be arrested and produced before

the court. By another order it had shown its anxiety

that the ‘State expeditiously conclude the

investigation in the case and file the charge sheet. It

was held that these orders amounted to interference

in the investigation. These orders were quashed. In

para 19 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under

“19. In these circumstances, therefore, we

set aside the direction contained in the

order of High Court dated 10 th January, 2002

directing the arrest of the appellants. We

 also set aside the direction made by the

High Court directing the investigating

agency to submit a charge sheet. However,

the investigation agency must promptly

take all necessary steps, conclude the

investigation and submit its report to the

concerned Magistrate. It is open to the

investigating agency to submit such report

as it considers appropriate, having regard to

the fact and circumstances of the case and

result of the investigation. After such a final

report is submitted by the investigating

agency, the concerend Magistreate will

proceed to deal with matter further in

accordance with law without being

influenced by any observation made by the

High Court I the impugned orders.

24. Thus only the order of the High Court was quashed

and not that the accused person were let off. Similarly

in R. Sarala’s case a bride, who was married in May

1997 had committed suicide in December 1997.

S.D.M. held an Inquiry under section 174(3) Cr. P.C.

but found that it was not a case of harassment for

dowry. But the police continued with the investigation

and ultimately filed a charge-sheet against the

 husband and the mother in law of the deceased. The

bride’s father was not satisfied, in so far as the

husband’s sister and father were not arrayed. So he

moved to the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High

Court made the following orders :

“Hence it is ordered that papers shall be

plaed before the Public Prosecutor,

Cuddalore District as it is without any

further investigation and he shall render an

impartial opinion on the matter and

thereafter an amended charge sheet shall

be filed in the concerned court.”

It was this order which was set aside by the Supreme

Court.

25. In Sarwan Singh’s case FIR under section 302, 307 etc.

was lodged. On completion of investigation a

cancellation report was filed before the Magistrate. A

protest petition to such cancellation report was filed.

The Ld. Magistrate sent the cancellation report as well

as the protest petition to Sessions Judge Ropar. The

Additional Sessions Judge ( to whom case might have

been be made over) directed the police to file charge

sheet. The Hon’ble High Court set aside this order. In

para 19 of Hon’ble High Court observed as under :

 “19. In view of the above, this petition is

allowed and the impugned order dated

12.03.2003 is hereby quashed, and remit

the matter to the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Ropar to again consider the

cancellation report submitted by the police

and take a decision in accordance with law

within a period of three months after receipt

of the copy of this order”.

26. The above observation of the Hon’ble Court shows that

only the order passed by Additonal Sessions Judge was

quashed, but the accused persons were not let off. The

Ld. Additional Sessions Judge was directed to consider

the cancellation report in accordance with law.

27. In Abhinandan Jha’s case the Magistrate ordered the

filing of the charge sheet. The order was set-aside but

accused persons were not let off. It was further held

that a protest petition can be treated as a complaint

and Magistrate could take further proceedings.

28. The Union of India’s case has not relevance as the

facts of the case in hand are entirely different. In

Union of India’s case CBI filed a charge sheet before

Special Judge and he took cognizance. The Hon’ble

 High Court set aside this order, but when the matter

want to Supreme Court the order of the High Court

was set side and Special Judge was directed to

proceed with the case. It was in fact not a case where

the Magistrate / Judge had asked for a charge sheet to

be filed. Thus this case has no similarity to the case

before us.

29. The Ld. Counsel for the accused explained to me the

discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and the

i9mprobabilities and unnaturalness of the prosecution

story. Such discrepancies and improbabilities etc. are

discussed below :

30. As per the statement of the complaint under section

154 Cr. P.C. Ex. PW1/A the occurrence of abduction

and stabbing took place on the evening of 29.10.2000.

To the same effect is the statement of the complaint in

this court. But as already said above the complaint

had filed a private complaint about the same

occurrence. In that complaint the date of occurrence is

mentioned as 30.10.2000. The copy of the complaint is

Ex. D2. The complainant was examined by the

Magistrate. Copy of his statement is Ex. D2. Even in

the statement made by him before the Magistrate the

date of occurrence was mentioned as 30.10.2000.

When he was confronted with this situation in this

court he was not able to give satisfactory explanation.

His reply was as under :

“It is correct that in the complaint the

date of occurrence mentioned is

30.10.2000, but it is incorrect that I

actually mentioned this date in the

complaint. It is a typing mistake which

came to my notice only yesterday

when I went through the copy of the

complaint available with me. It is

correct that while appearing as my

own witness before the Magistrate at

Nalagarh the date of occurrence had

been stated as 30.10.2000 at 6.15

P.M. but this again is a mistake as the

occurrence actually took place on

29.10.2000. I committed this mistake

in stating the date before the

Magistrate. No application was moved

to the Magistrate for correcting the

data in the complaint. As already said

above this error came to my notice

only yesterday”.
 There can be a mistake while typing a complaint and

one may find it difficult to disbelieve if an explanation about

such typing mistake is given, but it is absurd to say that the

complainant made a mistake even while making a

statement before Magistrate and stated a wrong date there.

It is all the mere absurd to say that such mistake came to

his notice later on. The Ld. Counsel for the accused

submitted that this discrepancy appeared as complainant

forgot as to what was the date of occurrence stated by him

to the police. He submitted that if any such occurrence had

actually happened he would not have forgotton.

31. The story of abduction of the complainant is not easily

digestable keeping in view the fact that place from

where he was abducted is not a lonely place. The

complainant himself admitted in cross examination

that in sector 5 Panchkula there is a police station and

also a bus stand. His own house is in Sector 2 which is

about one kilometer away from this place. Again it is

admitted that sector 5 is heart of Panchkula. Near the

place of occurrence there is one Yavanika Theatre and

Vatika Park.

32. Further the root through which the complainant was

allegedly taken to the place where he was stabbed is

also thickly populated. Accordingly to the

 complainant’s own statement from sector 5 the

accused persons took him through the road on which

there is one Red Bishop chowk. From the chowk he

was taken through old Panchkula road. There is a Red

Bishop hotel of Haryana Tourism. In front of hotel

there is traffic red light. Just opposite to the red light is

Chandimandir Contonment and its gate. Earlier, that

is, at the time of occurrence there was a barrier which

was manned by 3-4 persons. At a distance of 300-400

metres from the first traffic red light there is another

red light. There is a check post there. Then comes

Mugal garden which was frequented by many people.

Then there is Pinjore Bazar. There are shops on both

sides of the road. Beyond that there is a bifurcation for

Nalagarh. From Nalagarh road there is a bifurcation for

Baddi. Before Baddi there is a toll tax barrier which

was manned by 7-8 persons. It is a bit hard to believe

that accused persons had taken the complainant in

their car through such thickly populated areas.

33. The site of abduction has been shown in the site plan

Ex. PW8/A by Mark A. This Mark A is on the road. On

one side of this road is Nirjhar Vatika. Following

statement of PW8, who prepared this site plan, is

pertinent

“Sector 5 Panchkula is a busy place.

Vehicles are always passing on the

 roads there. There is no lonely place in

sector 5, Panchkula. Point on Hot

Million road in Ex. PW8/A is about 20-

30 feet from the point from where this

road start from road-C. it is incorrect

to say that Nirjhar Vatika shown in the

plan Ex. PW8/A is a very big park. It is

a medium size park. I do not know that

this park is frequented by a large

number of people. Since it is a park

apparently some people might be

frequenting the same.”

Now as per this witness there is no lonely place in

sector – 5. So story of abduction and being carried in the

car through thickly populated place is difficult to believe.

34. The story further is that car was stopped in the way.

The complainant stated that the accused persons

stayed there on the way for about 25 minutes. It is not

his case that during this period any vehicle came

there. Now if the place where the accused persons had

stayed for 25 minutes was so lonely, it is not

understandable why they did not kill the complainant

there and then and why they waited there for 25

minutes and thereafter proceeded further. The story of

 not stabbing on the way and waiting for nothing looks

unnatural.

35. The story further is that the car was than taken further

and complainant was taken out of it. Then accused

S.S. Mago is said to have given a stab wound to the

complainant and while giving a second blow the

complainant moved aside and fell down into the gorge.

This story also appears to be unnatural. The killers

were four in number, while the complainant was alone

and that too with his hands tied. It was dark and the

place was lonely. Prosecution case is that the accused

persons S.S. Mago and Aman Mago had attempted

even earlier to kill the complainant, but had failed.

Thus apparently this time they were very much

determine to kill him. The story is that S.S. Mago took

the knife from his son saying that last time he (the

son) had failed. Thus intention to kill was there, the

weapon was there, opportunity was there and capacity

to kill was there. Thus all suitable conditions for killing

existed, but still the man is not killed. Would they have

left the complainant unkilled? They could kill him in

the car or just while taking him out of the car and

thrown him down in to the gorge. It is also not

understandable why the blow which was S.S. Mago

gave caused only wound of 2 inches long (though as

per another doctor it is only 1.5 cm) and why S.S.

 Mago could not thrust the entire blade of the knife in

the complainant’s stomach while the complainant was

in helpless position as his hands were tied, even if the

complainant had falled down in to the gorge, the

accused persons who was so determine to take his life

would have certainly chased him and gave more blows

to him in the gorge and would have left the place only

after ensuring that he was no more. In short the

prosecution case that despite all ideal condition for

killing, the man was not killed, does not inspire

confidence.

36. The prosecution case further is that the complainant

somehow managed to untie his hands and then after

removing tape from his mouth climbed up to the road.

The story of untying of the hands is also not easily

believable. Both his hands were tied with rope on the

back side of his body. It is not understandable now

without assistance of some other person he could

untie his hand. It is not his case that the rope was not

tight. Rather while deposing before this court he tried

to prove that the rope was so tightly tied that signs of

rope were visible on his hands even on the day of his

examination. Regarding the tape there is a

discrepancy. On oath he stated that he removed the

tape himself while he was in the gorge, after he had

removed the rope : In his statement under section

 n161 Cr. P.C. (Mark-S) he had stated that the accused

persons had removed the tape from his mouth while

he was on the road, that is, before he fell down into

the gorge.

37. The story further is that after having climbed up to the

road he kept sitting there for sometime. Then a

scooterist came and brought him to Baddi. Identity of

this scooterist has not been disclosed. It has been

tried to be explained that the scooterist did not want

to involve himself in a police came, therefore, he did

not disclose his identity. It was also submitted that it

was for this reason that he dropped the complainant at

a distance of 100 to 150 feet away from the Malhotra

clinic, so that he was not noticed by the hospital

officials. The explanation is not acceptable at all. It is

in the complainant’s own statement that at the place

where he was dropped by the scooterist two shops

were open. It can hardly be believed that the

scooterist wanted that he should not be noticed by the

hospital officials, he did not mind being so noticed by

shopkeepers and the customers there. Hence the story

that there was a scooterist and that he did not want

his identity to be disclosed, all seems a bit incredible.

38. After the complainant was dropped about 100 to 150

feet away from Malhotra clinic, he was allegedly taken

to the clinic by Kiran Pal and Govind Singh. Kiran Pal

has appeared as PW5. Govind Singh is not traceable

and was not examined. The role played by this Kiran

Pal is doubtful for the following reason.

39. As per the statement of the complainant when he was

dropped by the scooterist two shops were found open

by him. He went to one of these shops there two

persons were present. But as per PW5 he alone was

present at the shop when the complainant arrived.

Govind Singh came to his shop later on.

40. As per PW5 after taking the complainant to the Baddi

Clinic, he returned to his shop within a minute and

Govind remained there with the complainant. But as

per PW4, the doctor of Malhotra clinic, this witness did

not return in a minute. The doctor says that the

complainant was accompanied by two persons when

he saw his wound and told him that he was not in a

position to help him and advised him to go to some

other hospital. According to this doctor the

complainant then requested him to make a telephone

call to his parents. The doctor’s statement further is

that thereafter the complainant was made to sit on a

 bench and he then went inside the hospital to make

telephone call. Then he came out and informed the

complainant about having made the call to his

parents. According to the doctor till this time both the

persons, who were accompanying the complainant

were there at the clinic.

41. The names of Kiran Pal and Govind Singh do not find

mention in the statement under section 154 Cr. P.C.

(Ex. PW1/A), nor in the statement under section 161

Cr. P.C. (Mark-S). Again their names were not stated in

the complaint Ex. D2 and nor stated by the

complainant in his statement before the Magistrate

(Ex. D3). The non mention of the names of these

witnesses in the complaint and the statement before

the Magistrate was tried to be explained by the Ld.

Public Prosecutor by saying that it was onbly by

oversight that the names were not mentioned because

otherwise the police had recorded the statement of

these witnesses under section 161 Cr. P.C. on

10.11.2000 that is much prior to the filling of the

complaint by the complainant. So the argument is that

these names were already known to the complainant

and could easily be mentioned by him in his complaint.

The non mention is just by in advertence.

42. The explanation is not acceptable. It is not simply that

the names of Kiran Pal and Govind Singh do not find

mention in the complaint, the statement before the

court, the statement under section 154 Cr. P.C. and

statement under section 161 Cr. P.C. In fact the very

story that the complainant was taken to Malhortra

clinic at Baddi by two persons and that the doctor at

the clinic gave him first aid itself does not find mention

in these documents. Thus this omission not only create

doubts about the role of these two persons but the

statement of doctor Malhotra also is a rendered

doubtful. The story that Dr. Malhotra was given

telephone number by the complainant and he made a

telephone call to the parents is also doubtful. A further

doubt about telephonic call arises from discrepancy in

the statement of doctor and complainant’s father.

While as per doctor phone was received by some lady

probably mother of the complainant but the statement

of PW2, the father of the complainant is that telephone

call was received by him. Thus entire story that there

were to persons who took the complainant to doctor

and the doctor gave medical aid and also made

telephonic call to the complainant’s parents is

doubtful.

43. The complainant was also asked to explain why these

names were not mentioned by him to the police or in

 the complaint. His explanation was that he had

disclosed these names to the police but it is not known

to him why the police did not record. No evidence has

been brought by the prosecution to explain why the

names were not written by the police if the same had

actually been mentioned by the complainant.

44. Regarding the omission of their names in the

complaint and the statement before the court, the

complainant stated that his lawyer had asked from

him only the copy of FIR. He thereby means to say

that lawyer forgot to mention the names by oversight.

About the non mention of eh names in the statement

made by him to the Magistrate he stated that his

lawyer was simply asking him ‘what happened next

and he replied that the man dropped him near the

clinic and with this the statement ended. The

explanation is apparently false. It is not that the

statement ended there. The statement that he was

dropped at the hospital appears nearly at the end of

page-5. But the statement ended at page-6, that is, to

say there is one full page statement after the above

recital about his being dropped at the clinic. A perusal

of the statement (Ex. D3) shows that while he was at

the hospital police arrived there. There is no story that

he was taken to the hospital or that the doctor

informed the police or that it was on such information

 that the police came there. Thus the explanation given

for the non mention of the names is not satisfactory

and gives an impression that no such thing had

actually happened and story was twisted later on and

witnesses introduced on some advice.

45. The role of this witness (PW5) appears to be doubtful

also from the discrepancy which exists between his

statement and the statement of the complainant. As

per the complainant he had disclosed to PW5 that he

had been stabbed by his father in law. Statement of

pW5 on the other hand is that complainant did not

disclose to him at any stage the name / names of the

persons who had stabbed him.

46. The medical evidence brought on record is so

unsatisfactory that the argument that it has been

fabricated appears quite appealing to reasons. The

discrepancies / faults in the medical evidence may be

stated as under :

47. The complainant stated that he fell down 25-30 feet in

the gorge and sustained some bruises on his neck.

PW10 Ajay Sethi, who medically examined the

complainant, stated that there was no wound on the

person of the complainant except the incised wound

 on his abdomen. The MLC Ex. PW10/A also does not

show any other injury. So it becomes doubtful whether

at all the complainant fell down into the gorge.

48. The complainant in his cross examination stated that

the knife was pushed straight in to his abdomen and

that a lot of bleeding had taken place. PW4, the doctor

of Malhotra clinic, was the first doctor to see him. In

cross examination this doctor stated that there was no

bleeding from the wound. Next doctor to see the

complainant was Ajay Sethi (PW10) at CHC Nalagarh.

He made no mention of the bleeding in the MLC. When

cross examined he stated that if a patient comes to

hospital with his injury bleeding, the factum of such

bleeding is always mentioned in the MLC. Thus the non

mention of the bleeding in the MLC would mean that

there was not bleeding at all. This however is noit

understandable. The subcutaneous tissues lie just

below the skin. Certainly bleeding would take place if

the blood vessels of subcutaneous tissues are cut. The

doctor stated that if no tissues are cut, it means that

the injury is as simple as a cut while shaving with

razor. It is in view of this unsatisfactory medical

evidence that it was argued that a false evidence of

stab wound has been tried to be created, but in that

process the doctors just forgot to make a mention of

bleeding.
49. There is a discrepancy with regard to the kind of

treatment which was given to the complainant at

Baddi clinic. We have already noticed above that in

the statement under section 154 (Ex. PW1/A), in the

complaint (Ex. D2), in the statement made before the

court (Ex. D2) and the statement under section 161

(mark S) there is absolutely no mention of nay medical

treatment / first aid given at Baddi clinic. So the

statement now made in the court about the treatment

becomes doubtful. But it is doubtful also because of a

discrepancy with regard to the kind of treatment given

and the circumstances in which it was given. PW1

stated that doctor gave him an injection. The exact

words used by him are re-produced below :

“The two persons had taken me to the

clinic. There I was made to lie on a

bench inside the clinic. The doctor

gave me an injection. As I was feeling

severe pain, I got up from the bench

and came out of the clinic.”

The above statement of the complainant shows that

this injection was given to him inside the clinic. PW4,

the doctor of the clinic, however gave a different

version. While PW1 did not state that the doctor was
away when he was taken to clinic, the doctor says that

he was away and when he came at the clinic by his car

and got down from it he saw the complainant there.

Two persons were also with him. It is also the

statement of the witness that the complainant showed

him his wound and that he then told the complainant

that he should go to some other doctor. The statement

further is that the complainant asked him to inform his

parents. Then the complainant was made to sit on a

bench and he (doctor) made telephonic call to

complainant’s parents. Then the doctor came out and

informed the complainant about having made the

telephonic call. The doctor’s statement further is that

thereafter the complainant and two person

accompanying him left the hospital, but about 5

minutes thereafter a worker of the hospital informed

him that a patient was lying on the road. Then the

doctor came to the road and found that it was the

complainant was lying on the road. He was then

brought back to the bench lying outside the clinic.

Then the doctor gave injection and also informed the

police. The doctor further stated that before the police

arrived he applied pad to the wound of the

complainant. The complainant (PW1) does not say that

the doctor was away or that he met the doctor outside

the clinic. He does not say that the doctor first said

that he could not help him and advised him to go to

 some other hospital or that the doctor did not first give

him injection. The complainant does not say that he

fell on the road or that he was brought back to the

clinic. He also does not say that the doctor applied any

pad to his wound. Thus there are material

discrepancies with regard to the treatment given and

also the circumstances in which it was given. There is

another discrepancy. The complainant stated that the

doctor had told me not to disclose that he had given

him an injection. But the doctor does not say so.

50. There is material discrepancy with regard to the size

of the wound. The MLC (Ex. PW10/A) issued by the

doctor at Nalagarh shows that the wound was 2” x ½”

in size. The patient as then referred to PGI. There he

was treated by PW3 Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan. This doctor

prepared case summary EX. PW3/A/brief summary (Ex.

PW3/B) etc. In the document Ex. PW3/B the size of

injury given is 1.5 cm, that is, a little more, than a ½”.

There is much difference between 2” and ½”.

51. There is discrepancy about the size of the wound and

the size of the cut on the shirt of the complainant. Also

there is no mention of cut in the MLC Ex. PW10/A. The

doctor who issued this MLC made the following

statement in this regard:

 “It is correct that in MLC Ex. PW10/A there is

not reference to any cut on the clothes. It is

correct to say that if there is an injury

having length of 2 inches, the

corresponding cut on the garment shall also

of the same length. I have seen the cut on

the shirt Ex. P1. This cut does not

correspond to the injury mentioned in the

MLC.

52. There is also discrepancy with regard to the time and

date of the examination of the complainant and his

arrival at CHC Nalagarh. A copy of the MLC has also

been produced in evidence by the accused party. The

copy is Ex. DB. In the MLC Ex. PW10/A the date of

arrival of the complainant at the hospital given is

3.10.2k. this ‘2k’ has been made by overwriting.

Initially in place of ‘2k’ the figure was ‘99’ as is clear

from the copy of MLC Ex. DB.

53. At the end of the MLC from there is a column for place

of examination and date. The date in circle ‘B’ is

30.11.2k occurrence is of October not November.

54. Time of examination of the patient as given in Ex.

PW10/A is 1.45 AM, but it is apparent from overwriting

 made that initially it was “PM”. It is not that it is so

apparent from overwriting only but its copy Ex. DB

also shows that time initially put was 1.45 PM.

55. In the MLC Ex. PW10/A number of police docket has

been given. But this number does not find mention in

the copy of MLC Ex. DB.

56. In view of these discrepancies in the MLC it was

argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the MLC is

a fabricated document and so many discrepancies

appeared only as the document is not genuine.

57. The doctor could not tell the exact day on which he

allegedly examined the complainant. The occurrence

is of 29.10.2000. The same day the complainant was

first brought to clinic at Baddi and from there was

allegedly taken by the police to CHC Nalagarh. By the

time the patient was examined at Nalagarh, the date

had changed. The examination was done during the

night intervening 29th and 30th day of October. But the

doctor was not able to tell when he exactly examined

the complainant. The question put to him and answer

given by the doctor in this regard is re-produced below

“Court question,
 Can you tell whether you examined this

patient on the night intervening 29 th and

30th day of October or o the night

intervening 30th and 31st day of October?

Answer

I exactly do not remember. The date is

generally mentioned by us from the police

docket. It sometimes happens that by the

time patient is brought to us by police the

date is changed, but by oversight we

mention the same date. It is just possible

that the patient was examined on the night

intervening 30th and 31st day of October,

and that way the date mentioned in circle A,

which I say is 31.10.2000 is correct.

58. The preparation of MLC Ex. PW10/A is rendered

doubtful in view of the statement of DW1, who had

brought the admission register of the hospital. He

stated that every MLC is entered in the register. But

there is no entry of MLC of Sanjay Bhardwaj son of Dev

Vert Sharma from 29.10.2000 to 31.10.2000. It is

further stated by him that an entry of the admission of

a patient is made in the register even if the patient

remains admitted for 2-3 hours only. The son

existence of the entry of the complainant in this

 register has created a serious dent in the prosecution

case and to the genuineness of the MLC Ex PW10/A. It

has come into existence in doubtful circumstances.

59. There is a discrepancy about the person who admitted

the complainant in PGI. Kuldeep Dhawan, the PGI

doctor, who appeared as PW3, stated, that

complainant came in the hospital accompanied by his

friend Rahul. The case summary Ex. PW3/A was

prepared by this doctor. In the case summary the

complainant is shown to have been brought to the

hospital by Rahul (friend). But neither the complainant

nor his father made any mention of this Rahul. As

already said the prosecution story is that a telephonic

information was received at the complainant’s house

by PW2, the father of the complainant, who stated in

the examination in chief that on receipt of such

telephonic information he proceeded towards the clinic

at Baddi. The exact words used by him are re-

produced below :

“Then I accompanied by Rakesh

Kumar, D.K. Mahajan, Mr. Gautam and

Boby who are my neighbours, came in

a car to Malhotra clinic at Baddi. I also

informed some of my staff members.

They had also come to Baddi by

another car. There Mr. Malhotra, who I

 did not know earlier, disclosed that my

son had been taken by police to

Nalagarh hospital. Then we went to

Nalagarh hospital. We reached there

at about 1 AM on 30.10.2000.

The story is that from Nalagarh the complainant was

referred to PGI. During cross examination PW2 was

asked to tell in which vehicle they went to PGI. He

stated that at Nalagarh three vehicles were available,

one of them was his own car, the other was car of

Rakesh Kumar and third vehicle was the one which

police had arranged for bringing the complainant from

Baddi to Nalagarh. As PW2, in his examination in chief

appeared to be stated that all had come in one car, to

clarify the position, a court question was put. The

court question and the answer given is re-produced

below :

“C.Q.

In which vehicle your proceeded from

your house and who accompanied

you?

Ans :

I came in the car of my neighbour

Rakesh Kumar. The car was driven by

him. Mr. Mahajan and Mr. Gupta came

 with us in that car. My own car brought

by my colleague Bhuvnesh Kumar.

Body, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Mr. Shadi

Ram came in that car to Baddi. The car

in which I came, was first to reach

Baddi. As we were told that my son

had been taken to Nalagarh I

contacted Mr. Bhuvnesh Kumar on

mobile phone and informed him that

we were proceeding towards

Nalagarhd and that he should

straightway drive to Nalagrh. Thus that

car and its occupants never reached

Baddi. They straightway came to

Nalagarh?

Then, from the answer again a discrepancy arose and

counsel for the accused south the explanation to the

discrepancy. The question put by him and answer given by

this witness both are re-produced below :

Q.

Look here, just how in your

examination in Chief you stated that

you were accompanied by Rakesh

Kumar, D.K. Mahajan Mr. Gautam and

Mr. Boby. Now you say that Boby came

in the other car and straightway come

 to Nalgarh. Which of the two

statements regarding Boby is correct?

Ans :

I do not exactly remember in which

vehicle this Boby came and also do not

remember that he was present at

Baddi or not. Therefore, I can not say

whether my first version is true to the

second one.”

Thus we find that the statement of the complainant’s father

with regard to the persons, vehicles and circumstances in

which he and his associates came is very shaky. This

weakness of his statement assumes significance. In view of

the fact that the statement of DW4 that he telephonically

informed the parents has already been doubted. These

discrepancies apart absolutely no mention of Rahul was

made either by the complainant or by his father. It is in

these circumstances that the Ld. Counsel for the accused

that the medical evidence including the case summary Ex.

PW3/A is a false documents and a fictitious name Rahul has

been entered therein.

60. There is also a discrepancy with regard to the date of

discharge. In the case summary date of discharge

mentioned is 10.11.2000. But PW3, who prepared this

case summary, stated on oath that the complainant

 was discharged from hospital on 7.11.2000. In his

examination in chief itself he staed that in the case

summary the date of discharge has been wrongly

stated due to mistake. In the light of other

discrepancies found in medical evidence it becomes

hard to believe that it was a just mistake.

61. There is also discrepancy with regard to the time of

arrival at PGI. PW2 stated that they reached PGI at 3

AM. His further statement is that within 2-3 hours

thereafter the operation was done by the doctor. But

the statement of Sewa Singh – Head Constable would

show that it was not possible to reach PGI by 3 A.M.

Sewa Singh is one of those three police officials, who

on receiving telephonic information had proceeded

towards Baddi clinic. Sewa Singh appeared as PW7. He

stated that he reached Malhotra clinic Baddi at 11.50

PM. About 40 to 45 minutes were consumed in

arranging a vehicle for taking the injured to Nalagarh

hospital. His statement also shows that it took about

20-25 minutes to reach Nalagarh. It means that they

did not reach Nalagarh before 1 A.M. It is his

statement that he recorded the statement of Sanjay

Bhardwaj under section 154 Cr. P.C. at 1.30 AM in the

MLC Ex. PW10/A the time of arrival is mentioned 1.35

AM. In the MLC Ex. PW10/A the time of arrival is

mentioned 1.35 AM. We can just assume by 1.30 the

 party had reached Nalagarh hospital. As per statement

of Sewa Singh, besides recording the statement of

complainant under section 154 Cr. P.C. in Nalagarh

hospital, he also recorded the statement of Dev Vert

under section 161 Cr. P.C. The clothes of the

complainant were taken into possession. Seizure

memo was prepared. Statements of Sanjeev Katoch

and supplementary statement of Sanjay Bhardwaj

regarding such seizure were also recorded. He stated

that it took about 3 hours in completing these

proceedings. He thereby means to say that till 4 or

4.30 AM, the complainant and persons accompanying

him were at Nalagarh, as they could not be there at

PGI at 3 AM. This renders the statement of PW2

doubtful.

62. This Sewa Singh at a latter stage of cross examination

when asked to explain by which time he was free from

hospital after recording statements, preparing seizure

memo etc., stated that he was free by 7 or 8 AM. Now

if we take that till 7 or 8 AM the complainant was at

Nalagarh only, the story that at 3 AM he was present

in PGI and then within 2-3 hours thereafter was

operated upon cannot be believed.

63. It is the statement of PW10 that he gave the MLC as

well as the referral slip to police. The counsel for the

 accused submitted that as per practice whenever a

patient is referred to some other hospital referral slip

is always issued. It is admitted, by PW3 also that such

practice is there. But in the record brought from PGI no

such referral slip was found by him. Question arises

that why the normal practice in this case was not

followed. This again creates a doubt about the

genuineness of medical evidence. The above stated

discrepancies in the medical evidence assume

significance in view of the following facts :

64. The complainant’s father is employed in medical

department. It may not be difficult for him to procure

false certificate.

65. The most astonishing factor in this case is that the

injury which the accused persons allegedly caused to

the complainant on 29.10.2000 was caused exactly on

the same site where they had allegedly caused an

injury on 21.12.99 (regarding which a case is stated to

have been pending in a Chandigarh Court). This really

is a wonder that the injury was caused twice on the

same site. Wonders occur rarely and do not admit of

the easy belief.

66. Another fact which makes it more difficult to believe

this wonder is that the complainant was treated by the

same doctor on both occasions.

67. The Ld. Public prosecutor submitted that minor

discrepancies are bound to occur and the court should

ignore such discrepancies. For this reliance was placed

on Balachandran Vs State of Kerala 2001(1) RCR

(Criminal) 578, Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary Vs

State of Maharashtra 2000 (4) RCR (Criminal) 76. But

the rulings are of no avail to the prosecution. The

discrepancies are not minor nor they are only a few in

number. It was also submitted that it is legally

permissible to base conviction on sold testimony of the

complainant. For this reliance was placed on Tarsem

Singh Vs State of Punjab (P & H) 1997 (4) RCR

(Criminal). 535 and Satya Vir Vs State AIR 1958

Allahabad 746.

68. These rulings are also of no help to the prosecution

because the conviction can be based on sole

testimony only if it is found that the witness is wholly

reliable. But it has been found that there are many

discrepancies, improbabilities in the statement of

complainant (PW1). He even could not point out to the

police the place where he was allegedly stabbed. The

 Ld. Public Prosecutor submitted that the area to which

the complainant had been taken was new to him,

moreover it was dark, therefore, he was not in a

position to point out the place to the police. He also

submitted that his failure to point out the place rather

shows that he is a truthful witness because otherwise

he could show any place to the police. The submission

is not acceptable. As per his own statement he had left

the tape and rope there on the spot. It is also in his

statement that on the spot there was a gorge and

some bushes. So he could point out only that place to

the police which resembled this description. So his

failure to show the spot does not suggest his

truthfulness, rather it suggests the falsity of the case.

69. In view of unsatisfactory evidence (discussed above)

the guilt against the accused for offence under

sections 364, 307 and 506 read with section 34 IPC

cannot be said to have been established. The case has

not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The

accused persons get the benefits of doubt. All the

three points are, therefore, answered in negative.

Final Order

70. In view of findings on points above, the accused

persons deserve acquittal and are hereby acquitted of

the charge under sections 364, 307 and 506 read with
 section 34 IPC. File after completion be consigned to

record room.

Announced in the open court this 12 th day of October, 2004

in the presence of complainant Sanjay Bhardwaj and

accused in person.

Addl. Sessions Judge

Fast Track Court Solan

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

SOLAN DISTT. SOLAN

Fast Track Court Solan through Reader on motion made by

Sarvsheel Mago s/o late Shri Sunder Lal Mago permanent

resident of House No. 244 Sector 10, Panchkula (Haryana).

………..Applicant

Versus

1. Dr. Ajay Kumar Sethi Civil Hospital Chaupal District

Shimla (Himachal Pradesh).

2. Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan r/o House No. 1, Sector-7,

Panchkula
 3. Sanjay Bhardwaj son of Mr. Dev Varan Sharma

resident of House No. 707, Sector 2, Panchkula

(Haryana).

4. Dev Varat Sharma son of late Shri Brahma Nand r/o

House No. 707, Sector 2, Panchkula (Haryana).

…………Deponents

Complaint under section 340 Cr. P.C.

for conducting inquiry as accused

persons appear to have committed

offences punishable under sections

195, 196, 467, 471 and 120-B in

relation to the documents produced

and evidence given in the Fast Track

Court during trial of case titled State of

H.P. Vs Sarvsheel Mago and Ors. No.

30FT/7 of 2004/2003.

Sir,

The complaint is working as Reader in Fast Track Court

Solan. The Hon’ble Court on 09.06.2006 passed the

following order on an application under section 340 Cr. P.C.

moved by Sarvsheel Mago :

29.09.2006

Present Application in person.

1. This application under section 340 Cr. P.C. came to be

filed in the following circumstances as :

2. Sanjay Bhardwaj the respondent No. 3 lodged an FIR

(No. 270) at Police Station Barotiwala on 30.10.2000

under section 307, 364, 506 read with 34 IPC. He also

filed a private complaint in the court in respect of the

same incident. After investigation police prepared

cancellation report by the learned SDJM Nalagarh

disagreeing with the cancellation report took

cognizance and committed the case for trial. The case

was later on assigned to this court. The applicant was

one of the accused persons tried by this court. The

trial ended in acquittal of all the accused.

Unsatisfactory nature of medical evidence was one

major factor which rendered the prosecution case

doubtful, resulting in acquittal of the accused. In para

46 of the judgement this court observed as under : -

“The medical evidence brought on record is

so unsatisfactory that the argument that it

has been fabricated appears quite

appealing to reason”.

3. Then the court proceeded to discuss the discrepancies

/ faults in medical evidence. The discrepancies /

doubts in medical evidence observed by this court

briefly stated are as under :

a) The complaint’s case was that he fell 25-30

feet down in a gorge and sustained some

bruises on his neck, but the doctor (PW 10

Ajay Joshi) stated that except the incised

wound on the abdomen there was no injury.

b) As per complainant’s statement knife was

pushed straight in his abdomen and lot of

bleeding had taken place. A doctor at Malhotra

clinic Baddi was first to see the complainant.

He stated there was no bleeding from the

wound. Next doctor to see him was PW10 Ajay

Joshi. He also made no mention of bleeding in

the MLC.

c) In the statement u/s 154 and 161 Cr. P.C. and

also in the complaint made by the complainant

no case of any medical assistance / first aid at

Baddi was made. But in the court evidence

was led that such first aid was given. Further

the evidence led about such first aid was

found discrepant with regard to the kind of

treatment and the circumstances in which it

was given.
d) There was differences of size of cut of shirt of

complaint and the size of wound. Further there

was no mention of cut on the shirt in the MLC.

e) MLC which police produced with challan is Ex.

PW 10/A. Copy of the same MLC which

accused had obtained from hospital and

produced in the court is Ex. DB. Court noticed

that Ex. PW10/A and Ex. DB were not similar.

Court found that initially the date of arrival of

patient at the hospital entered was 30.10.99

as could be seen in Ex. DB, but by overwriting

the figure ‘99’ was altered to make it ‘2k’ on

Ex. PW 10/A.

f) Time of arrival of patient mentioned in Ex. DB

is 1.45 ‘PM’ but on Ex. PW10/A by overwriting

it was made ‘AM’

g) At the end of MLC there is a column for place

and date of examination. In that column the

date mentioned is 30.11.2k. But the

occurrence is of October not of November.

h) Dr. Ajay Sethi during cross-examination was

unable to clearly stated the exact date on

which he examined the complainant.

i) DW1 sated that even if patient remains

admitted for 2-3 hours only, an entry is made

in the admission register. Further, entry of

every MLC is also made in the register. DW1

stated that there existed no entry of the MLC

and the admission of Sanjay Bhardwaj from

29.10.2000 to 31.10.2000. Non-existence of

entry created doubt about genuineness of Ex.

PW10/A.

j) As per the complainant’s father Dev Varat

(respondent No. 4) they (Dev Varat

complainant and others) reached PGI at about

3 AM and within 2-3 hours operation was done

by the doctor. Statement of Sewa Singh, who

recorded statement u/s 154 Cr. P.C.,

statement of Dev Varat under section 161 and

seized clothes of the complainant and

prepared seizure memo etc. stated that he

was free from Nalagarh hospital by 7 or 8 AM.

Now if the complainant was at Nalagarh till 7

or 8 A.M., the story that the complainant had

reached PGI by 3 AM and was operated upto

within 2-3 hours cannot be accepted.

k) Court also noticed that there was discrepancy

about the persons who admitted the

complainant in PGI. Statement of

complainant’s father Dev Varat with regard to

the person accompanying and about the

vehicles and circumstances in which he and

his associates came was very shaky.

l) In Ex. PW 10/A police docket number was

shown while no such number was there on Ex.

DB.

m) In the case summary prepared by respondent

No. 1 Kuldeep Dhawan (who was examined as

PW3) the date of discharge from hospital was

mentioned as 11.10.2000, but on oath he

stated that he was discharged on 7.11.2000.

He tried to explain that wrong date was

written due to mistake.

n) The court further observed that these

discrepancies in the medical evidence assume

significance in view of following facts :

 i. Complaint’s father Dev Varat was employed

in medical department It was not difficult for

him to procure false medical certificate.

ii. It was astonishing that injury on

complainant’s person was caused on

29.10.2000 on the abdomen exactly on the

same site at which it was caused on

21.12.99 (regarding which case was stated

pending in Chandigarh Court).

iii. Another astonishing factor was on both the

occasions complaint was examined by the

same doctor at PGI though the second

occurrence happened more than one year

after the first.

4. In January 2006 applicant Sarvsheel Mago moved this

application for taking appropriate steps against

respondents as per provisions of section 340 Cr. P.C.

as all of them in conspiracy with each other committed

perjury. Apart from the facts stated above some more

facts, discussed below were brought to light.

5. The applicant and others are being tried at Chandigarh

in the court of Additional Sessions Judge for alleged

 stab injury caused by them to the complainant on

21.12.99. Respondent No. 1 Kuldeep Dhawan was

examined as witness on 8.4.2005 in that case. There

he was cross-examined also with respect to the injury

caused on 29/30 October 2000. During such cross

examination he stated that he did not personally

examine Sanjay Bhardwaj and that he was not a

member of the team which performed surgery on

Sanjay Bhardwaj. It was doctor Prasad, a junior

resident who had attended Sanjay in emergency OPD.

Dr. Dhawan further stated that Dr. Prasad had written

the size of depth of injury as 3 cm which was

subsequently corrected by him (Dr. Dhawan) as 5 cm.

The same Dr. Dhawan when examined in this court

with respect to same injury had stated that on

30.10.2000 at 3.10 PM. Sanjay Bhardwaj came in PGI

in a state of shock accompanied by his friend Rahul

and an emergency operation was done by him and

that it took 2-10 hours to perform the operation.

6. Thus with regard to the treatment of same injury the

respondent No. 1 made two contradictory statements

in two courts. Further how he changed in records the

size of injury from 3 cm to 5 cm when he neither

treated nor operated upon Sanjay Bhardwaj.

7. This court decided to hold preliminary inquiry. The

applicant was called upon to bring evidence in support

of his application. The complainant examined himself

and produced in evidence copy of Judgement of

acquittal passed by this court, copies of statements of

respondent 1 and 2 recorded by this court, copies of

MLCs Ex.PW10/A and Ex. DB copy of statement of

respondent No. 1 made in Chandigarh court. He

further stated that he got the disputed MLC (Ex.

PW10/A and Ex. DB) examined from the document

expert and obtained his report. He stated that under

the Right to Information Act he obtained from C.P.I.O.,

information to the effect that the respondent No. 1

was not on duty, neither on 21/22-12-99 (when first

stab injury was allegedly caused) nor on 29/30-10-

2000 (when second time stab injury was caused).

8. The applicant examined the document expert and also

an official from C.P.I.O. The copies of duty roaster

obtained from the PGI are Ex. CW2/B and Ex. CW2/C

which show that Dr. Kuldeep Dhawan was not on duty,

neither on 21.12.99 nor on 29/30.10.2000. This further

strengthens the doubts already expressed by this

court about the genuineness of the medical evidence.

9. Report of the Forensic Document expert Ex. PW1/A is

very significant. The case titled State of H.P. Vs.

Sarvsheel Mago and others is presently lying in High

Court. The expert went to the High Court and after

obtaining permission took photographs of MLC Ex.

PW10/A and Ex. DB. He also took photographs of the

carbon copy of medico-legal report kept in the office of

BMO Nalagarh after obtaining permission from SDM

Nalagarh. On comparison he found that the photocopy

of MLC obtained from BMO’s office marked by hims as

X-1 is similar to Ex. DB but there are material after

additions alterations and interpolations on Ex. PW10/A.

The expert in his report Ex. CW1/A observed as under :

“Cumulative consideration of the

observations given in para (i) to (iv) (a), (iv)

(b) and (v) to (vii) shows that the contents

of the original MLR Ex. PW10/A have been

written at least in four different pen

operations / sittings and further the portion

of writings reading ‘over abdomen mid

portion’ and medico-legal opinion’, ‘An old

mark of operation over abdomen’, ‘I opinion

will be given after consultation with PGI’,

‘within 6-8 hour’ ‘C.H.C. Nalagarh’ and

’30.11.2k’ in the original MLR Ex. PW10/A as

well as in the carbon copy MLR marked X-1

are after additions, interpolation and

subsequently written after the original MLR

Ex. PW10/A was torn and removed from the

register containing the carbon copy of MLR

Marked X-1 using different carbon paper

than the used for the first time. Thus the

original MLC Ex. PW10/A, carbon copy MLR

marked X-1 (also Ex. DB) bears the

evidence of material alterations and after

additions and interpolations to conclude

that these MLRs are tempered documents.

From the cumulative effect of the

observations and reason, the opinion is as

under :

OPINION

The original MLR Ex. PW10/A, carbon copy

MLR marked X-1 (also Ex. DB) bear the

evidence of material after addition,

alterations and interpolation, hence, these

MLRs Ex. PW10/A marked X-1 (also Ex. DB)

are materially tempered documents in their

present state”.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances this

court is of the opinion that offences punishable under

sections 195, 196, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC appear to

have been committed by the respondents in relation

to the documents produced and evidence given in this

court during trial of case titled state of H.P. Vs

Sarvsheel Mago and others 30FT/7 of 2004/2003 (file

presently lying in Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in appeal).

The court is further of the opinion that it is expedient

in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be

made into these offences.

11. Let a complaint be made in writing and presented

before CJM Solan. In view of the amended provision of

section 340 Cr. P.C. the reader to this court is hereby

authorized to sign the complaint.

12. But before the complaint is filed let the respondents

be summoned for 3.11.2006 to appear before this to

furnish sufficient security for their appearance before

Ld. CJM Solan.

Addl. Sessions Judge

Fast Track Court Solan

2. As the contents of the above order disclose I being a

reader 06 Fast Track Court has been authorized to sign

the complaint. Pursuant to such order I am presenting

this complaint. The facts stated in the order re-

produced above be read as contents of this complaint.

3. It is, therefore, prayed that an inquiry be made into

the offences punishable under sections 195, 196, 467,

471 and 120 B IPC which the above named accused

persons appear to have committed in relation to the

documents produced and the evidence given the Fast

Track Court during trial of the case titled state of HP

Vs Sarvsheel Mago. The complainant being Reader to

a court will not be in a position to attend each and

every hearing personally, therefore, his personal

attendance may kindly be exempted. Sarvsheel Mago

on whose motion the present complaint has been filed

shall however continue to be present in the court.

Even otherwise in view of section 343 Cr. P.C. the

complaint is to be dealt with as if it were a case

instituted on police report, in which case there may

not be any necessity of personal appearance of

complainant.

Complainant

Shyam Sunder Gupta Reader to

Fast Track Court Solan
 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM NO……………….of 2021
In CRM-M 10853 of 2011

Sarv Sheel Mago & Ors.

………………………....Petitioner

Versus
U.T.Chandigarh & Anr.
……………...……..…Respondent

INDEX
Court
Sr.No Particulars Dated Pages Fees
of Rs

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

1. 16.11.2021 1-2 3.00
Application for. Exemption

2. Affidavit in support. 16.11.2021 3-4 -----

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C

3. 16.11.2021 5-38 3.00
for placing on record.

4. Affidavit. 16.11.2021 39-40 ------

5. Annexure R-47 Order 25.07.2016 41-44 4.00

6. Annexure R-48 Summons 05.10.2021 45-46 2.00

7. Annexure R-49 Summons 05.10.2021 47-48 2.00

8. Annexure R-50 Summons 05.10.2021 49-50 2.00

9. Annexure R-51 Summons 05.10.2021 51-52 2.00

10. Annexure R-52 Report 07.10.2021 53 2.00

11. Annexure R-53 Report 07.10.2021 54 2.00

12. Annexure R-54 Report 07.10.2021 55 2.00

 13. Annexure R-55 Report 07.10.2021 56 2.00

14. Annexure R-56 Postal Slip 06.10.2021 57 1.00

Annexure R-57 Postal

15. 18.10.2021 58-59 2.00
Report

VERNACULAR

16. Annexure R-47 Order 25.07.2016 60-63 4.00

17. Annexure R-48 Summons 05.10.2021 64 1.00

18. Annexure R-49 Summons 05.10.2021 65 1.00

19. Annexure R-50 Summons 05.10.2021 66 1.00

20. Annexure R-51 Summons 05.10.2021 67 1.00

21. Annexure R-52 Report 07.10.2021 68 1.00

22. Annexure R-53 Report 07.10.2021 69 1.00

23. Annexure R-54 Report 07.10.2021 70 1.00

24. Annexure R-55 Report 07.10.2021 71 1.00

25. Annexure R-56 Postal Slip 06.10.2021 72 1.00

Annexure R-57 Postal

26. 18.10.2021 73 1.00
Report

Receipt of Speed Post vide

27. which copy of the present 16.11.2021 74 1.00
application has been sent
to counsel for petitioners.
Voters Card
28. Already on
Identification proof of ------ ------
Record
respondent no 2

TOTAL COURT FEE Rs. 44/-

CHANDIGARH: Sanjay Bhardwaj

Dated:-16.11.2021 Respondent No
2
In-Person
H.No 707 ,Sector -2
Panchkula (Haryana)
 M-89686-33673
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM NO………………….of 2021

IN
CRM-M 10853 of 2011

Sarv Sheel Mago & Ors.

……….. ………….....Petitioners

Versus

U.T.Chandigarh & Anr.

…………………….…

Respondents

Total Court Fees affixed :-Rs.50/-

Chandigarh Sanjay Bhardwaj

Dated :- 16.11.2021 Respondent No

2
 In-Person

H.No 707 ,Sector -2

Panchkula (Haryana)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM NO……………….of 2021

In CRM-M 10853 of 2011

Sarv Sheel Mago & Ors.

………………………....Petitioner

Versus

U.T.Chandigarh & Anr.

……………...……..…Respondent

INDEX

Court
Sr.No Particulars Dated Pages Fees
of Rs

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

1. 21.10.2021 1-2 3.00
Application for. Exemption

2. Affidavit in support. 21.10.2021 3-4 -----

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C

3. 21.10.2021 5-9 3.00
for placing on record.

4. Affidavit. 21.10.2021 10-11 ------

3.00
5. Annexure R-41Order 13.08.2021 12-13

6. Annexure R-42 Order 24.09.2021 14 3.00

Annexure R-43 Statement

7. 22.04.2006 15-16 2.00
of Sh.S.C.Mehta

8. Annexure R-44 Statement 10.06.2006 17-22 5.00

 of Sanjay Bhardwaj

9. VERNACULAR

10. Annexure R-41Order 13.08.2021 23 3.00

11. Annexure R-42 Order 24.09.2021 24 3.00

Annexure R-43 Statement

12. 22.04.2006 25-26 2.00
of Sh.S.C.Mehta

Annexure R-44 Statement

13. 10.06.2006 27-33 7.00
of Sanjay Bhardwaj

Receipt of Speed Post vide

which copy of the present
14. 21.10.2021 34 2.00
application has been sent
to counsel for petitioners.

Voters Card
Already on
15. ------
Identification proof of Record
respondent no 2

TOTAL COURT FEE Rs. 36/-

CHANDIGARH: Sanjay Bhardwaj

Dated:-21.10.2021 Respondent No
2
In-Person
H.No 707 ,Sector -2
Panchkula (Haryana)
M-89686-33673

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM NO………………….of 2021

 IN
CRM-M 10853 of 2011

Sarv Sheel Mago & Ors.

……….. ………….....Petitioners

Versus

U.T.Chandigarh & Anr.

…………………….…

Respondents

Total Court Fees affixed :-Rs.40/-

Chandigarh Sanjay Bhardwaj

Dated :- 21.10.2021 Respondent No

In-Person

H.No 707 ,Sector -2

Panchkula (Haryana)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &

 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM NO……………….of 2021

In CRM-M 10853 of 2011

Sarv Sheel Mago & Ors.

……………………… ...Petitioners

Versus

U.T.Chandigarh & Anr.

…………………..… Respondents.

APPLICATION under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for seeking

exemption from filing the certified copies of Annexure R- 41

to Annexure R-44.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the accompanying application is being filed by

respondent no 2 before this Hon’ble Court which is

likely to be accepted on the various grounds

mentioned therein.

2. That the certified copy of Annexure R-41 to Annexure

R-44 are not readily available with respondent no 2,

the same will be filed as and when available. However,

copy of order downloaded from internet is hereby

attached.
3. That the document attached with the petition is very

essential for the just adjudication of the present case.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that necessary

permission may kindly be granted, in the interest of justice.

CHANDIGARH: Sanjay Bhardwaj

DATED :-21.10.2021 Respondent No 2

In-Person

H.No 707, Sector -2

Panchkula (Haryana)

Note: Affidavit in support is attached.

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM NO……………….of 2021

In CRM-M 10853 of 2011

Sarv Sheel Mago & Ors.

………....Petitioners

Versus

U.T.Chandigarh & Anr.

…….…Respondents.

AFFIDAVIT of Sanjay Bhardwaj age 51 Years S/o Sh.

D.V.Sharma, resident of H.No.707, Sector 2, Panchkula

(Haryana).

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm

and declare as under:-

1. That the accompanying application is being filed by

the deponent before this Hon’ble Court which is likely

to be accepted on the various grounds mentioned

therein.

2. That the certified copy of Annexure R-41 to Annexure

R-44 are not readily available with the deponent, the

same will be filed as and when available. However,

 copy of order downlaoded from internet is hereby

attached.

3. That the document attached with the petition is very

essential for the just adjudication of the present case.

CHANDIGARH: DEPONENT

DATED:21.10.2021

VERIFICATION:

Verified that the contents of above said affidavit from paras

1 to 3 are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is

false and nothing material has been concealed therein.

CHANDIGARH: DEPONENT

DATED:21.10.2021
 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM NO……………….of 2021

In
CRM-M 10853 of 2011

Sarv Sheel Mago & Ors.

……….. ...Petitioners

Versus

U.T.Chandigarh & Anr.

… ….…Respondents.

APPLICATION under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for seeking

permission to place on record copy of Annexure R-41 to

Annexure R-44.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the above noted case attached with CRM-M-

40159 of 2015 is pending before this Hon’ble Court

and is fixed for 13.01.2022.

2. That in a deep rooted conspiracy hatched by all

petitioners, Petitioner no 4 Nidhi Mago intentionally

concealed her marital status while applying for

 duplicate passport. All the petitioners were summoned

by the Hon’ble Court of Ms. Anshul Berry, Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh vide order dated

13.1.2011 u/s 420,120-B IPC .This case is pending for

10.11.2021 before the Hon’ble Court of Sh.Puneet

Mohinia ,JMIC,Chandigarh. It is pertinent to mention

here that all petitioners never appeared before

Learned Trial Court and directly came before this

Hon’ble Court where in Hon’ble bench of Hon’ble

Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court had stayed the

proceedings of the present case .

3. That respondent no 2 filed one application dated

15.12.2018 before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate Chandigarh with a prayer to continue the

proceedings of the case by summoning the accused to

face trial keeping in view of the directions issued by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Judgment

dated 28th March 2018 in a case titled as “Asian

Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt.Ltd and Anr. Vs.

Central Burueau of Investigation” bearing Criminal

Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of 2013, wherein it has been

specifically observed that :-“…..if it remains pending

longer, duration of stay should not exceed six months,

unless extension is granted by a specific speking

order, as already indicated.” It has been further

observed that :-“In cases where stay is granted in

future, the same will end on expiry of six months from

 the date of such order unless similar extension is

granted by a speaking order.”.

4. That above mentioned application dated 15.12.2018

was allowed by Hon’ble Court of Sh.Puneet Mohinia

JMIC ,Chandigarh vide order dated 13.08.2021 wherein

notice was issued to all the petitioners.Copy of order

dated 13.08.2021 is attached as Annexure R-41.

5. That perusal of order dated 24.09.2021 would reveal

that notice issued to petitiorers i.e accused no1 to

accused no 4 not received back and fresh notice was

issued again to accused No 1 to accused no 4 for

13.10.2021. The report of process server as well as

verabally told by him who went to the residence of

petitioners i.e accused persons for the service of

suumons would clearly reveal that petitioners i.e

accused persons has refused to accept the summons

and therefore he had pasted the copy of summons at

the gate of his residence. This report of process server

was placed on record of the Court. It is pertinent to

mention here that bailable warrants against accused

no1 to accused no 4 has now been issued by Hon’ble

Court of Sh.Puneet Mohinia ,JMIC,Chandigarh vide

order dated 13.10.2021 and next date in this case is

fixed for 10.11.2021. Copy of order dated 24.09.2021

is attached as Annexure R-42 .

6. That petitioners inspite of having full knowledge

regarding isuance of summons against them by

Hon’ble court however petitioners (accused)

deliberatedly /knowingly refused to accept the

summons which clearly proves that that petitioners i.e

accused person are not obeying the order passed by

the Hon’ble Court and has no respect for law.

7. That ,Sh.S.C.Mehta LDC Office of Regional Passport

Office Sector 34 Chandigarh recalled for further

examination in Chief on 22.4.2006 as C.W-1. Copy of

examination –in-chief dated 22.4.2006 is attached as

Annexure R-43. On 10.6.2006 respondent no 2

Sanjay Bhardwaj appeared before the Court as C.W-2

and his examination-in-chief was recorded wherein the

role played by all the accuseds in the present case are

clearly expalined .Copy of examination –in-chief dated

10.06.2006 is attached as Annexure R-44.

8. That it can be well presumed the fact regarding

Issuance of summons as well as balable warrants by

Hon’ble Court of Sh.Puneet Mohinia JMIC ,Chandigarh

has came to the knowledge of the petitioners/accused

and therefore it is duty of the accused to obey the

order passed by the Court and to appear before the

Court so that proceedings of the case be start.

9. That all the above annexures are very much relevant

and important to be place on record in the present

case.

It is, therefore respectfully prayed that keeping in view of

the averements made in the present application, Annexure

R-41 to Annexure R-44 may kindly be placed on record in

the interest of Justice.

CHANDIGARH: Sanjay Bhardwaj

Dated :-21.10.2021 Respondent No 2
In-Person
H.No 707 ,Sector -2
Panchkula (Haryana)

Note: Affidavit in support is attached.

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM NO……………….of 2020

In CRM-M 10853 of 2011

Sarv Sheel Mago & Ors.

……………. ...Petitioners

Versus

U.T.Chandigarh & Anr.

……………Respondents.

AFFIDAVIT of Sanjay Bhardwaj s/o Sh. D.V.Sharma, resident

of H.No.707, Sector 2, Panchkula (Haryana).

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm

and declare as under:-

1. That the accompanying application is being filed by the

deponent before this Hon’ble Court which is likely to be

accepted on the various grounds mentioned therein.

2. That the accompanying petition has been drafted by

the deponent and the deponent has gone through the

contents of para no 1 to para no 9 of the same, which

are true and correct.

3. That no such or similar application has earlier been

filed by the deponent either in this Hon’ble High Court

or in the Supreme Court of India.

CHANDIGARH: DEPONENT

DATED:21.10.2021

VERIFICATION:

Verified that the contents of above said affidavit from paras

1 to 3 are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is

false and nothing material has been concealed therein.

CHANDIGARH: DEPONENT

DATED:21.10.2021
 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM NO……………….of 2021

In CRM-M 10853 of 2011

Sarv Sheel Mago & Ors.

………………………....Petitioner

Versus

U.T.Chandigarh & Anr.

……………...……..…Respondent

INDEX

Court
Sr.No Particulars Dated Pages Fees
of Rs

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

1. 08.11.2021 1-2 3.00
Application for. Exemption

2. Affidavit in support. 08.11.2021 3-4 -----

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C

3. 08.11.2021 5-9 3.00
for placing on record.

4. Affidavit. 08.11.2021 10-11 ------

2.00
5. Annexure R-47Summon 04.10.2021 12-13

6. Annexure R-48 Summon 04.10.2021 14 2.00

7. Annexure R-49 Summon 04.10.2021 15-16 2.00

8. Annexure R-50 Summon 04.10.2021 17-22 2.00

9. VERNACULAR

10. Annexure R-47Summon 04.10.2021 23 2.00

 11. Annexure R-48 Summon 04.10.2021 24 2.00

12. Annexure R-49 Summon 04.10.2021 25-26 2.00

13. Annexure R-50 Summon 04.10.2021 27-33 2.00

Receipt of Speed Post vide

which copy of the present
14. 08.11.2021 34 2.00
application has been sent
to counsel for petitioners.

Voters Card
Already on
15. ------
Identification proof of Record
respondent no 2

TOTAL COURT FEE Rs. 24/-

CHANDIGARH: Sanjay Bhardwaj

Dated:-08.11.2021 Respondent No
2
In-Person
H.No 707 ,Sector -2
Panchkula (Haryana)
M-89686-33673
 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM NO………………….of 2021

IN
CRM-M 10853 of 2011

Sarv Sheel Mago & Ors.

……….. ………….....Petitioners

Versus

U.T.Chandigarh & Anr.

…………………….…

Respondents

Total Court Fees affixed :-Rs.40/-

Chandigarh Sanjay Bhardwaj

Dated :- 08.11.2021 Respondent No

In-Person
 H.No 707 ,Sector -2

Panchkula (Haryana)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM NO……………….of 2021

In CRM-M 10853 of 2011

Sarv Sheel Mago & Ors.

……………………… ...Petitioners

Versus

U.T.Chandigarh & Anr.

…………………..… Respondents.

APPLICATION under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for seeking

exemption from filing the certified copies of Annexure R- 47

to Annexure R-50.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the accompanying application is being filed by

respondent no 2 before this Hon’ble Court which is

likely to be accepted on the various grounds

mentioned therein.

2. That the certified copy of Annexure R-47 to Annexure

R-50 are not readily available with respondent no 2,

 the same will be filed as and when available. However,

copy of order downloaded from internet is hereby

attached.

3. That the document attached with the petition is very

essential for the just adjudication of the present case.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that necessary

permission may kindly be granted, in the interest of justice.

CHANDIGARH: Sanjay Bhardwaj

DATED :-08.11.2021 Respondent No 2

In-Person

H.No 707, Sector -2

Panchkula (Haryana)

Note: Affidavit in support is attached.

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM NO……………….of 2021

In CRM-M 10853 of 2011

Sarv Sheel Mago & Ors.

………....Petitioners

Versus

U.T.Chandigarh & Anr.

…….…Respondents.

AFFIDAVIT of Sanjay Bhardwaj age 51 Years S/o Sh.

D.V.Sharma, resident of H.No.707, Sector 2, Panchkula

(Haryana).

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm

and declare as under:-

1. That the accompanying application is being filed by

the deponent before this Hon’ble Court which is likely

to be accepted on the various grounds mentioned

therein.

2. That the certified copy of Annexure R-47 to Annexure

R-50 are not readily available with the deponent, the

 same will be filed as and when available. However,

copy of order downlaoded from internet is hereby

attached.

3. That the document attached with the petition is very

essential for the just adjudication of the present case.

CHANDIGARH: DEPONENT

DATED:08.11.2021

VERIFICATION:

Verified that the contents of above said affidavit from paras

1 to 3 are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is

false and nothing material has been concealed therein.

CHANDIGARH: DEPONENT

DATED:08.11.2021
 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM NO……………….of 2021

In
CRM-M 10853 of 2011

Sarv Sheel Mago & Ors.

……….. ...Petitioners

Versus

U.T.Chandigarh & Anr.

… ….…Respondents.

APPLICATION under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for seeking

permission to place on record copy of Annexure R-47 to

Annexure R-50.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the above noted case attached with CRM-M-

40159 of 2015 is pending before this Hon’ble Court

and is fixed for 13.01.2022.

2. That in a deep rooted conspiracy hatched by all

petitioners, Petitioner no 4 Nidhi Mago intentionally

 concealed her marital status while applying for

duplicate passport. All the petitioners were summoned

by the Hon’ble Court of Ms. Anshul Berry, Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh vide order dated

13.1.2011 u/s 420,120-B IPC .This case is pending for

10.11.2021 before the Hon’ble Court of Sh.Puneet

Mohinia ,JMIC,Chandigarh. It is pertinent to mention

here that all petitioners never appeared before

Learned Trial Court and directly came before this

Hon’ble Court where in Hon’ble bench of Hon’ble

Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court had stayed the

proceedings of the present case .

3. That respondent no 2 filed one application dated

15.12.2018 before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate Chandigarh with a prayer to continue the

proceedings of the case by summoning the accused to

face trial keeping in view of the directions issued by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Judgment

dated 28th March 2018 in a case titled as “Asian

Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt.Ltd and Anr. Vs.

Central Burueau of Investigation” bearing Criminal

Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of 2013, wherein it has been

specifically observed that :-“…..if it remains pending

longer, duration of stay should not exceed six months,

unless extension is granted by a specific speking

order, as already indicated.” It has been further

observed that :-“In cases where stay is granted in

 future, the same will end on expiry of six months from

the date of such order unless similar extension is

granted by a speaking order.”.

4. That above mentioned application dated 15.12.2018

was allowed by Hon’ble Court of Sh.Puneet Mohinia

JMIC ,Chandigarh vide order dated 13.08.2021 wherein

notice was issued to all the petitioners.Copy of order

dated 13.08.2021 is attached as Annexure R-41.

5. That perusal of order dated 24.09.2021 would reveal

that notice issued to petitiorers i.e accused no1 to

accused no 4 not received back and fresh notice was

issued again to accused No 1 to accused no 4 for

13.10.2021. The report of process server as well as

verabally told by him who went to the residence of

petitioners i.e accused persons for the service of

suumons would clearly reveal that petitioners i.e

accused persons has refused to accept the summons

and therefore he had pasted the copy of summons at

the gate of his residence. This report of process server

was placed on record of the Court. It is pertinent to

mention here that bailable warrants against accused

no1 to accused no 4 has now been issued by Hon’ble

Court of Sh.Puneet Mohinia ,JMIC,Chandigarh vide

order dated 13.10.2021 and next date in this case is

fixed for 10.11.2021. Copy of order dated 24.09.2021

is attached as Annexure R-42 .

6. That petitioners inspite of having full knowledge

regarding isuance of summons against them by

Hon’ble court however petitioners (accused)

deliberatedly /knowingly refused to accept the

summons which clearly proves that that petitioners i.e

accused person are not obeying the order passed by

the Hon’ble Court and has no respect for law.

7. That ,Sh.S.C.Mehta LDC Office of Regional Passport

Office Sector 34 Chandigarh recalled for further

examination in Chief on 22.4.2006 as C.W-1. Copy of

examination –in-chief dated 22.4.2006 is attached as

Annexure R-43. On 10.6.2006 respondent no 2

Sanjay Bhardwaj appeared before the Court as C.W-2

and his examination-in-chief was recorded wherein the

role played by all the accuseds in the present case are

clearly expalined .Copy of examination –in-chief dated

10.06.2006 is attached as Annexure R-44.

8. That it can be well presumed the fact regarding

Issuance of summons as well as balable warrants by

Hon’ble Court of Sh.Puneet Mohinia JMIC ,Chandigarh

has came to the knowledge of the petitioners/accused

and therefore it is duty of the accused to obey the

order passed by the Court and to appear before the

Court so that proceedings of the case be start.

9. That all the above annexures are very much relevant

and important to be place on record in the present

case.

It is, therefore respectfully prayed that keeping in view of

the averements made in the present application, Annexure

R-47 to Annexure R-50 may kindly be placed on record in

the interest of Justice.

CHANDIGARH: Sanjay Bhardwaj

Dated :-08.11.2021 Respondent No 2
In-Person
H.No 707 ,Sector -2
Panchkula (Haryana)

Note: Affidavit in support is attached.

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM NO……………….of 2020

In CRM-M 10853 of 2011

Sarv Sheel Mago & Ors.

……………. ...Petitioners

Versus

U.T.Chandigarh & Anr.

……………Respondents.

AFFIDAVIT of Sanjay Bhardwaj s/o Sh. D.V.Sharma, resident

of H.No.707, Sector 2, Panchkula (Haryana).

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm

and declare as under:-

1. That the accompanying application is being filed by the

deponent before this Hon’ble Court which is likely to be

accepted on the various grounds mentioned therein.

2. That the accompanying petition has been drafted by

the deponent and the deponent has gone through the

contents of para no 1 to para no of the same, which

are true and correct.

3. That no such or similar application has earlier been

filed by the deponent either in this Hon’ble High Court

or in the Supreme Court of India.

CHANDIGARH: DEPONENT

DATED:08.11.2021

VERIFICATION:

Verified that the contents of above said affidavit from paras

1 to 3 are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is

false and nothing material has been concealed therein.

CHANDIGARH: DEPONENT

DATED:08.11.2021