RAVI KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS CHEIF SECRETARY

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 611 OF 2022 RAHUL .... APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. .... RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 612 - 613 OF 2022 RAVI KUMAR .... APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .... RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 614 - 615 OF 2022 VINOD @ CHHOTU .... APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI HOME AFFAIRS .... RESPONDENT ( S ) J U D G M E N T BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. All the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in the D eath

2 S entence R eference N o. 01/2014 with Criminal Appeal N os. 563/2014, 726/2014 and 1036/2014, whereby the High Court while affirming the sentence of death and other sentences imposed on the A ppellants - accused by the Additional Sessions Judge , S peci al F ast T rack C ourt, Dwarka Courts , New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 91/2013 had dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the Appellants - accused . The Trial Court vide the Order dated 19.02.2014 had convicted all the three Appellants - accused i.e., A1 Ravi Kumar, A2 Vinod @ Chhotu and A 3 Rahul for the offences punishable under Section s 365/34, 367/34, 376(2)(g), 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, however had acquitted all the three from the charge under Section 377/34 IPC. The order of sentences imposed on the accused read as under: - “ 1. To imprisonment for a period of five years alongwith a fine of Rs.25,000/ - each for the offence punishable under Section 365/34 IPC. The convicts shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months each in case of default in payment of fine; and 2. To imprisonment for a period of five years alongwith a fine of Rs.25,000/ - each for the offence punishable u/s. 367/34 IPC. The convicts shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months each in case of default in payment of fine; and 3. To imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000/ - each for the offence punishable u/s 376(2) (g) IPC. The convicts shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year each in cases of non - payment of fine; and 4. To death for the offence punishable u/s 302/ 34 IPC with a fine of Rs.50,000/ - each; and 5. To imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs.10,000/ - each for the offence punishable

3 u/s201/34 IPC. The convicts shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months each in case of n on - payment of fine. ” 2. The case of prosecution as emerging from the record and proceedings of the Trial Court is that an information was received in the Police Station Chhawla on 09.02.2012 at 09:18 PM from the police control room that a girl was kidnapped in the red - coloured Tata Indica Car near Hanuman Chowk, Qutub Vihar, Chhawla and the car had proceeded towards Shyam Vihar. The information was recorded as DD No. 27 A, and the investigation was entrusted to SI Prakash Chand. According ly, SI Prakash Chand along with the constable Rakesh reached at the spot near Hanuman Chowk, Qutub Vihar, where they met a girl named Saraswati. On her statement being recorded to the effect that on 09.02.2012 at about 08:45 PM, when she was returning from he r job at DLF Gurgaon along with her friends Pooja, Sang ee ta and the victim Anamika (name is changed), and when they were walking near the Hanuman Chowk, a red coloured Indica Car came from behind ; the driver suddenly applied breaks on reaching near to them ; that a boy opened the door of the car and pulled Anamika forcibly inside the car; that there were other three or four boys sitting in the Indica Car. On the basis of the said statement of the complainant Saraswati, a n FIR was registered under Section 363 of IPC. The investigation was commenced by the SI Prakash Chand.

4 3. On 12.02.2012, the investigation of the case was transferred to the special staff south - west New Delhi and was entrusted to SI Ashok Kumar. On 13.02.2012, further investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Sandeep Gupta. On the s ame day ASI Rajender Singh produced the accused Rahul and a red coloured Indica Car bearing registration no. DL - 3 CAF - 4348 before the Inspector Sandeep Gupta, stating that accused Rahul who was found perplexed and roaming in the said car near M etro station, sector - 9 Dwarka, New Delhi. 4. During the course of interrogation of the accused Rahul by the Inspector Sandeep Gupta, Rahul confessed that he along with his brother Ravi and one Vinod @ Chhotu had kidnapped a girl from Qutub Vihar; had committed rape on her, had killed her and had thrown her dead body in the fields ahead of Jhajjar. T he said accused Rahul therefore was ar rested , and subsequently the accused Ravi and accused Vinod were also arrested . T he disclosure statement s of the other two accused were also recorded wherein they had admitted to have kidnapped, gang raped and killed the victim. 5. As per the further case of the prosecution, when the aforesaid Tata Indica car was seized, mobile phones were recovered from the personal search of the accused Rahul and the accused Ravi, and they were also seized. Thereafter, inspector Sandeep Gupta along with his staff and the two accused Ravi and Vinod left for the search of the dead body of the victim, and found the same lying in the mustard fields, near Karawara Morel,

5 village Rodai, at the instance of the two accused. Information about the same was con veyed to P.S. Rodai. Thereafter ASI Balwan alongwith his Crime Team from P.S. Rodai also reached at the spot. The Crime Team lifted some hair strands from the body of the deceased as well as two plastic glasses, one empty pouch of snacks, piece of earthenw are pot, a broken piece of a red - coloured plastic bumper and one wallet near the dead body. Thereafter ASI Balwan Singh sent the dead body to Civil Hospital, Rewari for postmortem examination. The two accused were brought to Delhi and were got medically ex amined. During the course of further interrogation, the accused Rahul got recovered the mobile phone of the deceased. The accused also got recovered the panty of the deceased which she was wearing at the time of incident and the steel Parat, in which they had burnt the articles belonging to the deceased. 6. On 15.02.2012 further investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Ranjeet Singh. He got the aforesaid Tata Indica Car inspected by CFSL team. Hair strands found inside the car as well as in its sea t covers were seized. He obtained the opinion from the autopsy doctor regarding the Jack and Pana, which were found in the Tata Indica Car and it was opined by the doctor that the external injuries found on the body of the deceased were possible by the sai d Jack and Pana. The hair strands of the deceased which had been preserved by the autopsy doctor were sent to Safdarjung Hospital for examination. All the articles lifted from and near the dead body were

6 sent to CFSL for examination. The Tata Indica Car wa s also sent to CFSL for examination. The IO also obtained the call details record of mobile no. 9540594640 of the deceased, mobile no. 9968988533 of the accused Rahul and mobile no. 8802090923 of the accused Ravi. The DNA reports were also obtained on the articles seized and sent to the CFSL, New Delhi. 7 . After completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was laid before the concerned court. Upon the committal of the case to the court of Sessions, Charges u/s 365/34 IPC, u/s 367/34, u/s 376(2)(g) IPC, u/s 377/34 IPC, u/s 302 IPC and u/s 201/34 IPC were framed against all the three accused on 26.05.2012. Since the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges, trial was held. 8 . The prosecution had examined 49 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the ac cused. The accused were examined u/s. 313 Cr.PC on 27.11.2013 wherein all of them denied the incriminating facts and circumstances put to them and claimed false implication. One witness was examined on behalf of the accused Rahul and Ravi in their defence. He was the Legal Assistant of ‘Nav Bharat Times’ and had brought the issue dated 15.02.2012 of daily newspaper ‘Nav Bharat Times’ Ex.DW1/A. 9. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution and by the accused, convict ed and sentenced them as stated

7 hereinabove, which has been confirmed by the High Court vide the impugned order. 10. The present appeals were filed by the accused through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Considering the facts on record, the Cou rt vide order dated 05.12.2019 had requested learned Senior Counsel Ms. Sonia Mathur to appear as an Amicus Curiae . Accordingly learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Mathur and learned Senior Advocate Mr. A. Sirajudeen, appearing for the Appellants - accused and learned ASG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati appearing for the R espondent - state were heard at length. 11. The learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Sonia Mathur and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sirajudeen for the a ppellants broadly made the following submissions: (i) The id entity of any of the A ppellants - accused in the alleged abduction of the victim was not established. (ii) The circumstances under which the possession of red coloured Tata Indica Car was recovered from the appellant Rahul, and the circumstances under which all the three accused were arrested, were not proved. (iii) T he recoveries made from the scene of offence allegedly at the instance of the appellants on 13.02.202 1, were also not proved.

8 (iv) The recoveries of articles like broken piece of bumper, wallet and hair strands allegedly recovered from the place where the body of the deceased victim was found, were highly doubtful, as the same were not mentioned by the key witnesses during the course of their respe ctive depositions. (v) There were discrepancies with regard to the photography and the videography done by the Delhi Police and Haryana Police and with regard to the position of the arm, visibility of the jeans lining and mud on the jeans of the deceased and t he presence of a wallet seen in the photographs, which created a dent in the credibility of the investigation carried by the prosecution. (vi) Recoveries of articles made on 14.02.2012 from the open places which were easily accessible to the public was not supp orted by any independent witnesses. (vii) The post - mortem report did not prove the time of the death of the victim, in view of the state in which the body was discovered. (viii) The forensic evidence collected against the accused during the course of investigation was not scientifically and legally proved and therefore could not be used as a circumstance against the appellants.

9 (ix) The call details record of the accused Rahul and Ravi were not proved to be incriminatory. (x) There was violation of fair trial r ights of the accused, as ten material witnesses were not cross - examined , and many other crucial witnesses were not adequately examined by the defence counsel during the course of the trial. 12. The learned ASG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati has made the following sub missions: (i) There being concurrent findings of the facts and convictions recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court after fully appreciating the evidence on record , this Court may not disturb the same considering the gravity of the offences for which the appellants were charged. (ii) The case against Rahul was proved by the prosecution b y examining all material witnesses including the ASI Rajender Singh who had apprehended him, while he was driving red colo ur ed Tata Indica Car in questio n. A jack and spanner and a strand of hair were found in the said Tata Indica Car and the jack was found to be stained with blood.

10 (iii) DNA profile generated from jack and hair found in the car and female fraction DNA obtained fro m the vaginal swab of Anamika were consistent with each other. (iv) The injuries found on the victim Anamika were possible to have been caused by the jack and spanner found in the car (v) A broken piece of bumper found near the dead body of Anamika was opined to be the piece of bumper of red coloured Indica Car being driven by Rahul. (vi) From the testimony of PW - 10 Hari O m , it was established that the car was with Rahul from 07:45 AM on January 9, 2012 till around 10:00 AM of February 10, 2012, during the period when the crime was allegedly committed. (vii) The semen of Rahul was detected on the seat cover of the Indica Car. (viii) A wallet containing two ATM cards, a driving licen c e, photocopies of school leaving certificates and PAN card , was found near place where Anamika’s dead body was recovered and it was proved that it was the wallet of the accused Rahul. (ix) The hair strand recovered from the dead body of Anamika matched with the DNA extracted from the blood sample of the accused Ravi .

11 (x) The accused Ravi was carrying a mobile phone having telephone no. 8802090923 when he was arrested , and the call details record s showed that during the period Anamika was removed from Delhi and her body dumped in village Rodai, the said phone was found a round the area of village Rodai . (xi) So far as the accused Vinod was concerned, the DNA profile of the semen extracted from the vagin al swab of Anamika matched with his DNA profile, and his semen was also detected from the seat cover of Tata India Car driven by Rahul. 13. After the arguments on the issue of conviction were concluded, certain directions were given by this Court to the Respondent - State to place the report of the Probation Officer relating to the appellants, the report of the Jail Administration about the nature of the work done by the appellants in jail . D irections were also issued to the Director V IMHANS to constitute a suitable team for the psychiatric evaluation of the appellants and to place the report on record. Accordingly, all the reports have been placed on record by the concerned authorities. The father of the victim Kunwar Singh Negi had f iled an application being Crl.M.P. No. 5559 of 2015 seeking his impleadment as a party respondent to enable him to participate in the proceedings. Another application was also filed by o ne Yogita Bhayana to

12 implead her as a party respondent on the ground that she was a suppor t person of the family of the deceased - victim and activist working in the field of providing counselling and succour to sexually abused children in Delhi as well as other states. 14. Having heard the lea rned counsel for the parties, in the light of the evidence on record, it cannot be denied that the entire case of prosecution rested on the circumstantial evidence , and that the victim was raped and brutally murdered. The Trial Court relying upon the follo wing circumstances as “ proved ” convicted and sentenced the A ppellants - accused for the charge d offences : “(1) The deceased has been kidnapped in a red colour Tata Indica car. (2) The red colour Tata Indica car bearing registration No. DL 3C AF 4348 belonging to PW - 10 was in the custody of accused Rahul from 07.45 am on 9.2.2012 till 9 a.m. on 10.2.2012 and from 11.2.2012 to 13.2.2012. (3) The female hair strand was found on the rear seat of the aforesaid Tata Indica car and DNA generated from it was found similar to the DNA of the deceased implying that it was the hair of the deceased. (4) The DNA generated from the semen spots found on the seat covers of the aforesaid Tata Indica car was similar to that of accused Rahul. (5) The dead body of the d eceased was recovered from the fields of village Rodai at the instance of accused Ravi and Vinod on 13.2.2012. (6) A red colour purse containing some cash, ATM cards as well as PAN card and driving license in the name of Rahul were found near the dead body of the deceased.

13 (7) The three accused had pointed out the spot, on which they had smashed the head of the deceased with a ‘Matka’ in order to kill her. (8) A Jack and pana were recovered from the boot of the aforesaid Tata Indica car bearing regist ration No. DL 3C AF 4348, which was having blood spots and DNA generated from the blood spots was found similar to that of the deceased implying that deceased was hit by said Jack and Pana. (9) The autopsy doctor (PW26) opined that the injuries found on t he dead body of ‘Anamica’ could be possible by aforesaid Jack and Pana. (10) A broken piece of bumper of the aforesaid Tata Indica car bearing registration No. DL 3C AF 4348 was also recovered from near the dead body of the deceased in the fields of vill age Rodai. (11) The panty of the deceased was got recovered by accused Vinod from a vacant plot adjacent to house No. RZ - 54, Palam Vihar, Sector - 6, Dwarka, belonging to PW - 11 where the three accused were residing as a tenant. (12) Accused Rahul had got r ecovered the broken mobile phone of the deceased from amongst the bushes on the central verge in front of the road near Karnal Cinema Hall, near Rajinder Dhaba, Delhi. (13) The vaginal swab of the deceased was found to have mixed male DNA profile, which w as similar to that of accused Vinod as well as accused Ravi. (14) The location of mobile phones of the accused Rahul, accused Ravi and the deceased was around Jhajhar, Haryana in the night intervening between 09.2.2012 and 10.2.2012 when the deceased was kidnapped, raped and murdered.” 15. The High Court also believing the same set of circumstances as “ proved ” further noted that the two incriminating circumstances of the DNA of a strand of hair recovered from Anamica’s dead body matching DNA of Ravi and DNA generated from semen spots found on seat cover of the

14 Indica car matching DNA profile of Vinod were overl ooked by the Trial Court. 16. The law pertaining to the appreciation of circumstantial evidence is quite well settled by this Court in catena of decisions . I n Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra 1 , this Court after taking note of earlier decisions had carved out five principles: - “ 152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] . This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up - to - date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656] . It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case [AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] : “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclus ion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendenc y and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accuse d and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116

15 153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: ( 1 ) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” ( 2 ) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, ( 3 ) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, ( 4 ) they shoul d exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and ( 5 ) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human pr obability the act must have been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.”

16 17. In Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors 2 , it was observed as under: “ 10………. (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantia l evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent w ith his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra .” 18. T he said principles have also been followed in Navaneethakrishnan vs. State by Inspector of Police (2018) 16 SCC 161. Keeping in view the afore - stated principles, let us examine whether the circumstances relied upon by the Trial Court and the High Court cogently and firmly established the guilt of the A ppellants - accused. 19. The first and foremost circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was with regard to the victim having been kidnapped in a red coloured Tata Indica Car on 09.02.2012 at about 8 : 45 p.m. In this regard the prosecution 2 (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 706

17 has relied upon evidence of PW - 1 Pooja Rawat, PW - 2 Vikas Singh Rawat, PW - 4 Vikas, PW - 29 Saraswati and PW - 42 Sangeeta. As per the case of the prosecution, the victim along with PW - 1 Pooja Rawat, PW - 29 Saraswati and PW - 42 Sangeeta w as returning home and when she and her friends were walking throu gh Hanuman Chow k , a red - coloured T ata I ndica car came from behind and suddenly stopped near them. One boy thereafter came out of the car and pulled the victim into the car. There were other three - four persons sitting in the said car. At that time PW - 4 Vikas tried to intervene, but the said boy s in the car started quarre l ling with him and thereafter dr ove out the car along with victim . Though the said story put forth by the prosecution to an extent , is supported by the concerned witnesses viz. PW - 1 Pooja Rawat, PW - 4 Vikas, PW - 29 Saraswati , and PW - 42 Sangeeta, none of the said witnesses had identified the accused sitting in the Court during the course of their respective depositions. Even the PW - 4 Vikas, who had some altercation s with the boy s attempting to kidnap the victim also could not identify any of the accused sitting in the Court during the course of his deposition and say that the accuse d were the boys with whom he ha d the altercation s as they were kidnapping the victim. Further , the PW - 1 Pooja Rawat stated that the A ppellants - accused had covered their faces, whereas PW - 29 Saraswati and PW - 4 Vikas stated that the faces of the accused could not be recognized because of darkness. PW - 2 Vikas Singh Rawat who happened to be the brother of PW - 1 Pooja Rawat

18 and whose house was situated near Hanuman Chowk had immediately come out of the house and had stated to have seen the red coloured Indica car going towards Tajpur. The said witness also therefore could not identif y the persons who had kidnapped the victim. The PW - 8 Kunwar Singh Negi, father of the deceased ha d stated that his daughter was kidnapped on 09.02.2012 by some unknown persons when she was returning from Gurgaon along with her friends, however , h e having not witnessed the incident , also could not identi fy the accu sed. There was no T . I . parade conducted by any of the Investigating Officers during the course of their respective investigations. 20. From the said evidence of the concerned witnesses, it clearly transpires that neither any T . I . Parade was conducted by the investigating officer during the course of investigation for the identification of the accused, no r any of the witnesses had identified the accused during their respective depositions before the Court. Therefore, the very ident ity of the A ppellants - accused having not been duly established, the entire case of the prosecution falls flat on the very first circumstance having not been duly proved by any evidence much less clinching evidence , against the Appellants - accused. 21. The next important circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was the arrest of the accused Rahul with red coloured Indica car on 13.02.2012. Again, turning to the case of prosecution, it appears that after the alleged

19 incident of kidnapping, an information was received by the Poli c e Station Chhawla, New Delhi through call at 21:18 hours on 09.02.2012 to the effect that a girl was kidnapped in a red - c oloured Tata Indica Car near Hanuman Chowk, Qutub V i har, Chhawla. The said information was recorded as DD No.27A at the said police station. On receving the said information S.I. Prakash Chand (PW - 45) who was posted at P.S. Chhawla, along with constable Ra kesh had gone to the spot at Hanuman Chowk , where they met the complainant - Saraswati. She gave her statement with regard to the alleged incident and on the basis of her statement, the FIR was got registered under Section 363 IPC by SI Prakash Chand . There after on 13.02.2012 when the investigation was entrusted to the SHO, P.S. Chhawla, Inspector Sandeep Gupta (PW - 48) , the ASI Rajinder Singh from P.S. Sector - 23, Dwarka (PW - 12) produced the accused - Rahul and one red coloured Indica C ar bearing Registration No. DL 3C AF 4348 stating that the accused Rahul was found roaming in the said car near M etro station, S ector 9, Dwarka, New Delhi . 22. As regards the arrest of the accused - Rahul, PW - 12 ASI Rajinder Singh had stated before the Court that the accused - Rahul was seen driving the red I ndica C ar, and he looked perplexed ; when he asked for the documents of the said vehicle, the accused - Rahul could not produce them and therefore he ( PW - 12 ) apprehended Rahul and handed over his custody to the SHO

20 at P . S . Chhawla . The PW - 12 ASI Rajinder had tried to explain that there was a message from the Control Room that a girl was abducted in a red coloured I ndica C a r and the police had to apprehend the said vehicle and to report to the concerned SHO , and therefore he apprehended Rahul. Thus, the accused Rahul was apprehended because he was driving one red Indica Car. Pertinently, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution had identified the Indica Car which was a llegedly being driven by Rahul on 13.02.2012. P.W - 29, the complainant Saraswati had admitted in her cross - examination that she could not say with certain t y that it was the same car in which the victim was kidnapped. None of the witnesses had seen even the registration number of the car in which the victim was kidnapped. 23. Now, a s per the further case of the prosecution , the accused - Rahul gave a disclosure statement (Ex . PW - 39/B) before Inspector Sandeep Gupta on the basis of which the other accused V inod and Ravi were brought to the police station by the beat constables , and they were also arrested at 14 : 45 and 15 :00 hours respectively. They also gave their disclosure statements (Ex. P.W - 39/A and Ex. PW - 39/C) before P - 1 Sandeep Gupta . The said beat constables were not examined by the prosecution before the Trial Court. The non - examination of the said b eat constables has cr e ated a cloud of doubt in the story of the arrest s of the accused, as in the further statements, recorded under Section 313 o f Cr.P.C., the accused - Rahul had stated that

21 Ravi was lifted from his house , and when he ( i.e., Rahul) reached to the police station in the evening to enquire about Ravi, he was arrested and the car was seized. The accused - Vinod and Ravi have also stated t hat they were picked up from their home. Thus, the circumstances under which the accused were arrested and the car was seized have also raised serious doubts in the story put - forth by the prosecution. 24. Curiously , the evidence with regard to the time as who reached to the place of incident first where the body of the victim was lying , i s also not clear. PW - 46 ASI Balwan Singh P.S. Rodai, Haryana, stated that on 13.02.2012 on the receipt of DD No. 24, he along with head constable Vi nod and head constable Aman Kumar had reached to the fields near Karawara Railway Phatak, Rewari , where he found that SHO P.S. Chhawla, Sandeep Gupta (PW - 48) and other staff members were already there. In his cross - examination PW - 46 stated that he received the DD No. 24 at about 11.30 a.m or 12.00 noon, and he had reached to the spot at around 4.30 p.m. P.W. 48 P1 Sandeep Gupta stated that on 13.02.2012, after arrest of all the three accused and visiting the spot from where the allege d kidnapping had taken place, he along with his team and the two accused Ravi and Vinod, leaving Rahul at the police station, had gone to P.S. Rodai, Distt. Rewari, Haryana he further stated that thereafter, on the accused Ravi and Vinod having indicated, they all re a ched to the spot i.e., the field where the dead body of

22 the victim was lying. Since a PCR va n of P.S. Rodai was parked there, an information was sent to P . S Rodai through PCR officials and thereafter ASI Balwan t Singh along with his staff reach ed the spot. Thus, there are contradictions in the respective depositions of P.W. - 46 and P.W. - 48 as to how and when they reached to the spot where the dead body of the victim was found lying. Though the said DD No. 24 was an extremely crucial piece of evi dence , the said document was not got exhibited as an evidence by the prosecution. 25. At this juncture, it may be noted that the trial court had allowed the entire disclosure statements of the thr ee accused to be admitted in evidence by exhibiting the same as Ex. PW - 39/B, PW - 41/B and PW - 41/C. The said statements were recorded by the PW - 48, Sandeep Gupta, when they were in polic e custody. The said statements being in nature of the confessions before the police were hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The law in this regard is very clear that the confession before the police officer by the accused when he is in police custody, cannot be called an extra - judicial confession. If a confession is made by the accused before the police, and a portion of such confession leads to the recovery of any incriminating material, such portion alone would be admissible under Section 27 of the Ev idence Act, and not the entire confessional statements. In the instant case, therefore the trial court had committed gross error in exhibiting the

23 entire disclosure statements of the accused recorded by the PW - 48 P1 Sandeep Kumar Gupta, for being read in e vidence. Though, the information furnished to the I nvestigating O fficer leading to the discovery of the plac e of the offence would be admissible to the extent indicated in Section 27 read with Section 8 of the Evidence Act, but not the entire disclosure st atement in the nature of confession recorded by the police officer. 26. This takes us to the next circumstance with regard to the alleged discovery of incriminating articles on 13.02.2021 namely, the broken piece of bumper, wallet containing the documents connecting the accused - Rahul etc. In this regard, the evidence of the Delhi Police and the Haryana Police Officers would be relevant. Though PW - 32 Head Constable Omkar Singh of P.S. Chhawla and PW - 36 ASI Atar Singh, in charge of Crime Team South - West District, New Delhi, stated ab out the recovery of the said incriminating articles, PW - 37, PW - 38, PW - 39 and PW - 41 who were also there at the spot did not make any mention about th e said articles. Again PW - 31 photographer called at the instance of P.S. Rodai also d id not state about the said articles. The other non - official witnesses i.e. PW - 3, PW - 7, PW - 8 and PW - 14 also d id not state anything about such discoveries or recoveries. The prosecution had also not proved by cogent evidence that the broken piece of bumper lying near the dead body of the victim was of

24 the red coloured indica car seized from the accused - Rahul. Furthe r, the seizure memo of the wallet (Exhibit 34 / A) mentioned only that one red coloured wallet containing Rs.365 and a list of things was seized . There was no mention about any document in the seizure memo which could connect the accused Rahul. If the ATM ca rds, driving li c ence, photocopies of school leaving certificates and PAN card connecting the accused Rahul, were found from the said wallet, no I nvestigating O fficer would commit such a blunder of not mentioning them in the seizure memo. The accused - Rahul in his further statement under Section 313 ha d stated that the said articles were taken away from him at the police station. 27. The recovery of a strand of ha ir found from the body of the deceased by ASI Balwan Singh as per the Seizure Memo (Exhibit 34/A) is also highly doubtful, inasmuch as the same was allegedly found from the body of the deceased which was lying in the open field for about three days and thr ee nights. The PW - 8 father of the deceased and PW - 3 and PW - 7 neighbours of the deceased who had identified the dead bo d y of the victim ha d not stated anything about the articles lying near the dead body. The learned advocates for the appellants had also drawn the attention of the Court with regard to number of inconsistencies and contradictions appearing in the evidence of the Haryana Police, Delhi Police and also in the testimonies of the formal witnesses , which render the entire evidence with regard to the

25 discovery and recovery as also seizure of the incriminating articles, very unreliable . The seizure of the articles like burnt ash, underwear of the deceased etc. on 14.02.2012 at the instance of the acc used were also not duly proved by the prosecution. The said articles were sent to the CFSL for examination however, no conclusive opinion was given by the CFSL to establish t he i r link with the accused. 28. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was the alleged recovery of the phone of the deceased at the instance of the accused Rahul from the bushes on the road divider opposite to Rajinder Dhaba near Kamal Cinema. Though PW - 8 Kunwar Singh Negi, father of the deceased had stated that mobile phone no.9540594640 was in his name and was used by his daughter, he was not shown the phone instrument for the purpose of identity. The call details record of the said phone being electronic record, was also not proved in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Hence, this part of the evidence also does not take the case of the prosecution any further. 29. In the instant case, the alleged incident of kidnapping had taken place on 09.02.2012 and the dead body of the victim was found on 13.02.2012. Hence, the time of death was also very much significant, however in view of the state in which the dead body was found, the Post - M ortem Report Ex.26/A is also not clear about the timing as to when the death had

26 occurred. The Post - Mortem report state d the time of death to be 72 to 96 hours i.e. between 10.02.2012 to 11.02.2012, as the post - mortem had taken on 14.02.2012. However, as p er the case of the prosecution, death would have taken place on the intervening night of 09.02.2012 to 10.02.2012. T he body of the deceased also did not show any signs of putrefaction. It is highly unlikely that the dead body would have remained in the fie ld for three days without being noticed by anybody. 3 0 . The learned Senior Advocates appearing for the appellants ha ve also rightly drawn the attention of the Court to the timings and the manner in which the samples were collected during the course of p ost - m ortem of the deceased, to submit that the PW - 48 P1 Sandeep Kumar was present at the hospital when the post - mortem was con ducted on 14.02.2012, and therefore there was no reason to collect the sample s from the body of the deceased on 16.02.2012. The collection and sealing of the samples during the MLC of the accused which had taken place on 14.02.2012 at the RTMR Hospital, J affarpur also does not inspire confidence . The story of blood stains and semens found on the seat covers of the Indica Car seized on 13.02.2012 and sent to the CFSL for examination also appears to be highly improbable and unreliable. There is no clear evid ence as to who was in custody of the said car after its seizure till it was sent to CFSL for examination and as to whether the car was sealed during the said period.

27 3 1 . The learned Amicus Curiae has also assailed the forensic evidence i.e., the report reg arding the DNA Profiling dated 18.04.2012 (Exhibit P - 23/1) giving incriminating findings . She vehemently submitted that apart from the fact that the collection of the samples sent for examination itself was very doubtful , the said forensic evidence was nei ther scientifically nor legally proved and could not have been used as a circumstance against the A ppellants - accused. The Court finds substance in the said submissions made by the Amicus Curiae . The DNA evidence is in the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged under Section 45 and like any other opinion evidence, its probative value varies from case to case. In this regard a very pertinent observations made by this Court in case of Manoj and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 3 deserve to be made . This Court has in detail dealt with the issue of DNA profiling methodology and statistical analysis, as also the collec tion and preservation of DNA evidence. The relevant paragraphs read as under: - “ 138. During the hearing, an article published by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata was relied upon. The relevant extracts of the article are reproduced below: “Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is genetic material present in the nuclei of cells of living organisms. An average human body is composed of about 100 trillion of cells. DNA is present in the nucleus of cell as double helix, supercoiled to form chromos omes along with Intercalated proteins. Twenty - three pairs of chromosomes present In each nucleated cells and an individual Inherits 23 chromosomes from mother and 23 from father transmitted through the ova and sperm respectively. At the time of each cell d ivision, 3 (2022) SCC Online SC 677

28 chromosomes replicate and one set goes to each daughter cell. All Information about Internal organisation, physical characteristics, and physiological functions of the body is encoded in DNA molecules in a language (sequence) of alphabets of four nucleotides or bases: Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Thymine (T) and Cytosine (C) along with sugar - phosphate backbone. A human haploid cell contains 3 billion bases approx. All cells of the body have exactly same DNA but it varies from individual to Individual in the sequence of nucleotides. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) found in large number of copies in the mitochondria is circular, double stranded, 16,569 base pair in length and shows maternal inheritance. It is particularly useful in the study of people related through the maternal line. Also being in large number of copies than nuclear DNA, it can be used in the analysis of degraded samples. Similarly, the Y chromosome shows paternal inheritance and is employed to trace the male lineage and resolve DNA from male s in sexual assault mixtures. Only 0.1 % of DNA (about 3 million bases) differs from one person to another. Forensic DNA Scientists analyse only few variable regions to generate a DNA profile of an individual to compare with biological clue materials or co ntrol samples. ………………………………………… DNA Profiling Methodology DNA profile is generated from the body fluids, stains, and other biological specimen recovered from evidence and the results are compared with the results obtained from reference samples. Thus, a link among victim(s) and/or suspect(s) with one another or with crime scene can be established. DNA Profiling Is a complex process of analyses of some highly variable regions of DNA. The variable areas of DNA are termed Genetic Markers. The current genetic markers of choice for forensic purposes are Short Tandem Repeats (STRs). Analysis of a set of 15 STRs employing Automated DNA Sequencer gives a DNA Profile unique to an Individual (except monozygotic twin). Similarly, STRs present on Y chromosome (Y - STR) can also be used in sexual assault cases or determining paternal lineage. In cases of sexual assaults, Y - STRs are helpful in detection of male profile even in the presence of high level of female portion or in case of azoo11permic or vasectomized” male. Ca ses In which DNA had undergone environmental stress and biochemical degradation, min lSTRs can be used for over routine STR because of shorter amplicon size. DNA Profiling is a complicated process and each sequential step involved in generating a profile c an vary depending on

29 the facilities available In the laboratory. The analysis principles, however, remain similar, which include: 1. isolation, purification & quantitation of DNA 2. amplification of selected genetic markers 3. visualising the fragments and genotyping 4. statistical analysis & interpretation. In mtDNA analysis, variations in Hypervariable Region I & II (HVR I & II) are detected by sequencing and comparing results with control samples:…. Statistical Analysis Atypical DNA case involves compari son of evidence samples, such as semen from a rape, and known or reference samples, such as a blood sample from a suspect. Generally, there are three possible outcomes of profile comparison: 1) Match: If the DNA profiles obtained from the two samples are i ndistinguishable, they are said to have matched. 2) Exclusion: If the comparison of profiles shows differences, it can only be explained by the two samples originating from different sources. 3) Inconclusive: The data does not support a conclusion Of the t hree possible outcomes, only the “match” between samples needs to be supported by statistical calculation. Statistics attempt to provide meaning to the match. The match statistics are usually provided as an estimate of the Random Match Probability (RMP) or in other words, the frequency of the particular DNA profile in a population. In case of paternity/maternity testing, exclusion at more than two loci is considered exclusion. An allowance of 1 or 2 loci possible mutations should be taken Into consideration while reporting a match. Paternity of Maternity Indices and Likelihood Ratios are calculated further to support the match. Collection and Preservation of Evidence If DNA evidence is not properly documented, collected, packaged, and preserved, It will not meet the legal and scientific requirements for admissibility in. a court of law. Because extremely small samples of DNA can be used as evidence, greater attention to contamination issues is necessary while locating, collecting, and preserving DNA evidence can be contaminated when DNA from another source gets mixed with DNA relevant to the case. This can happen when someone sneezes or coughs over the evidence or touches his/her mouth, nose, or other part of the face and

30 then touches area that may contain the DNA to be tested. The exhibits having biological specimen, which can establish link among victim(s), suspect(s), scene of crime for solving the case should be Identified, preserved, packed and sent for DNA Profiling.” 139. In an earlier judgment, R v. Doh oney & Adams the UK Court of Appeal laid down the following guidelines concerning the procedure for introducing DNA evidence in trials: (1) the scientist should adduce the evidence of the DNA comparisons together with his calculations of the random occurre nce ratio; (2) whenever such evidence is to be adduced, the Crown (prosecution) should serve upon the defence details as to how the calculations have been carried out, which are sufficient for the defence to scrutinise the basis of the calculations; (3) th e Forensic Science Service should make available to a defence expert, if requested, the databases upon which the calculations have been based. 140. The Law Commission of India in its report, observed as follows: “DNA evidence involves comparison between ge netic material thought to come from the person whose identity is in issue and a sample of genetic material from a known person. If the samples do not ‘match’, then this will prove a lack of identity between the known person and the person from whom the unk nown sample originated. If the samples match, that does not mean the identity is conclusively proved. Rather, an expert will be able to derive from a database of DNA samples, an approximate number reflecting how often a similar DNA “profile” or “fingerprin t” is found. It may be, for example, that the relevant profile is found in 1 person in every 100,000: This is described as the ‘random occurrence ratio’ (Phipson 1999). Thus, DNA may be more useful for purposes of investigation but not for raising any pres umption of identity in a court of law.” 141. In Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of UP this court discussed the reliability of DNA evidence in a criminal trial, and held as follows: “The DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the biological blueprint of every life. DNA is made - up of a double standard structure consisting of a deoxyribose sugar and phosphate backbone, cross - linked with two types of nucleic acids referred to as adenine and guanine, purines and thymine and cytosine pyrimidines…..DNA usually can be obtained from any biological material such as blood, semen, saliva, hair, skin, bones, etc. The question as to whether

31 DNA tests are virtually infallible may be a moot q uestion, but the fact remains that such test has come to stay and is being used extensively in the investigation of crimes and the Court often accepts the views of the experts, especially when cases rest on circumstantial evidence. More than half a century , samples of human DNA began to be used in the criminal justice system. Of course, debate lingers over the safeguards that should be required in testing samples and in presenting the evidence in Court. DNA profile, however, is consistently held to be valid and reliable, but of course, it depends on the quality control and quality assurance procedures in the laboratory.” 142. The US Supreme Court, in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, dealt with a post - conviction claim to access evidence, at the behest of the convict, who wished to prove his innocence, through new DNA techniques. It was observed, in the context of the facts, that “Modern DNA testing can provide powerful new evidence unlike anything known before. Since its f irst use in criminal investigations in the mid - 1980s, there have been several major advances in DNA technology, culminating in STR technology. It is now often possible to determine whether a biological tissue matches a suspect with near certainty. While of course many criminal trials proceed without any forensic and scientific testing at all, there is no technology comparable to DNA testing for matching tissues when such evidence is at issue. DNA testing has exonerated wrongly convicted people, and has conf irmed the convictions of many others.” 143. Several decisions of this court - Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Through CBI, Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David, Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana , Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Sandeep v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Rajkumar v. State of Madh ya Pradesh and Mukesh v. State for NCT of Delhi have dealt with the increasing importance of DNA evidence. This court has also emphasized the need for assuring quality control, about the samples, as well as the technique for testing - in Anil v. State of Mah arashtra “7. Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. DNA genotype can be obtained from any biological material such as bone, blood, semen, saliva, hair, skin, etc. Now, for several years, D NA profile has also shown a tremendous impact on forensic investigation. Generally, when DNA profile of a sample found at the scene of crime matches with

32 DNA profile of the suspect, it can generally be concluded that both samples have the same biological o rigin. DNA profile is valid and reliable, but variance in a particular result depends on the quality control and quality procedure in the laboratory.” 3 2 . It is true that PW - 23 Dr. B.K. Mohapatra, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) of CFSL, New Delhi had stepped into the witness box and his report regarding DNA profiling was exhibited as Ex. PW - 23/A, however mere exhibiting a document, would not prove its contents. The record shows that all the samples relating to the accused and relating to the deceased were seized by the I nvestigating O fficer on 14.02.2012 and 16.02.2012; and they were sent to CFSL for examination on 27.02.2012. During this period, they remained in the Malkhana of the Police Station. Under the circumstances, the possibility of t ampering with the samples collected also could not be ruled out. Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court has examined the underlying basis of the findings in the DNA reports nor have they examined the fact whether the techniques were reliably applied by the expert. In absence of such evidence on record, all the reports with regard to the DNA profiling bec o m e highly vulnerable , more particularly when the collection and sealing of the samples sent for examination were also not free from suspicion. 3 3 . Thus , having regard to the totality of circumstances and the evidence on record, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the

33 accused by add ucing cogent and clinching evidence . A s per the settled legal position , in order to sust ain conviction, the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability , the crime was committed by the accused only and none else. The circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. As demonstrated earlier, the evidence with regard to the arrest of the A ppellants - accused, their identification, discoveries and recoveries of the incriminating articles, identity of the Indica Car, the seizures and sealing of the articles and collection of samples , the medical and scientific evidence, the report of DNA profiling, the evidence with regard to the CDRs etc. were not proved by the prosecution by leading , cogent, clinching and clear evide nce much less unerringly point ing the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case, resultantly, the Court is left with no alte rnative but to acquit the accused, though involved in a very heinous crime. It may be true that if the accused involved in the heinous crime go unpunished or are acquitted, a kind of agony and frustration may b e caused to the society in general and to the famil y of the victim in particular, however the law does

34 not permit the Courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. No conviction sh ould be based merely on the apprehension of indictment or condemnation over the decision rendered. Every case has to be decided by the Courts strictly on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any kind of outside moral pressures or otherwise . 3 4 . The C ourt is constrained to make these observations as the Court has noticed many glaring lapses having occurred during the course of the trial. It has been noticed from the record th at out of the 49 witnesses examined by the prosecution, 10 material witnesses were not cross - examined and many other important witne sses were not adequately cross - examined by the defence coun sel . It may be reminded that Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act confers un bridled power s upon the trial courts to put any question at any stage to the witnesses to elicit the truth. As observed in several decisions, t he Judge is not expected to be a passive u mpire but is supposed to actively participate in the trial , and to question the witnesses to reach to a correct conclusion. This Court while not accepting the submission that it was improper for the Court to have inter ject ed during the course of cross - examination of the witness , had observed in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Ani a lias Hanif and Others 4 thus: - 4 (1997) 6 SCC 162

35 “ 11. We are unable to appreciate the above criticism. Section 165 of the Evidence Act confers vast and unrestricted powers on the trial court to put “ any question he pleases , in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant ” in order to discover relevant facts. The said section was framed by lavishly studding it with the word “any” which could only have been inspired by the legislative intent to confer unbridled power on the trial court to use the power whenever he deems it necessary to elicit truth . Even if any such question crosses into irrelevancy the same would not transgress beyond the contours of powers of the court. This is clear from the words “relevant or irrelevant” in Section 165. Neither of the parties h as any right to raise objection to any such question. 12. Reticence may be good in many circumstances, but a Judge remaining mute during trial is not an ideal situation. A taciturn Judge may be the model caricatured in public mind. But there is nothing wr ong in his becoming active or dynamic during trial so that criminal justice being the end could be achieved. Criminal trial should not turn out to be a bout or combat between two rival sides with the Judge performing the role only of a spectator or even an umpire to pronounce finally who won the race. A Judge is expected to actively participate in the trial, elicit necessary materials from witnesses in the appropriate context which he feels necessary for reaching the correct conclusion. There is nothing whi ch inhibits his power to put questions to the witnesses, either during chief examination or cross - examination or even during re - examination to elicit truth . The corollary of it is that if a Judge felt that a witness has committed an error or a slip it is t he duty of the Judge to ascertain whether it was so, for, to err is human and the chances of erring may accelerate under stress of nervousness during cross - examination. Criminal justice is not to be founded on erroneous answers spelled out by witnesses dur ing evidence - collecting process. It is a useful exercise for trial Judge to remain active and alert so that errors can be minimised. 13. In this context it is apposite to quote the observations of Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Ram Chander v. State of Haryana [(1 981) 3 SCC 191 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 683 : AIR 1981 SC 1036] : (SCC p. 193, para 2) “The adversary system of trial being what it is, there is an unfortunate tendency for a Judge presiding over a trial to assume the role of a referee or an umpire and to allow th e trial to develop into a contest between the prosecution and

36 the defence with the inevitable distortions flowing from combative and competitive elements entering the trial procedure. If a criminal court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justi ce, the presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine. He must become a participant in the trial by evincing intelligent active interest by putting questions to witnesses in order to ascertain the truth.” 3 5 . In the instant case, material witnesses examined by the prosecution having not been either cross - examined or adequately examined, and the trial court also having acted as a passive u mpire, we find that the A ppellants - accused were deprived of their rights to have a fair trial, apart from the fact that the truth also could not be elicited by the trial c ourt . We leave it to the wisdom and discretion of the trial courts to exercise their powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act for eliciting the truth in the cases before them, howsoever heinous or otherwise they may be. 36 . Having said that and for the reasons stated above, the judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and the High Court are set aside. The A ppellants - accused are acquitted from the charges levelled against them by giving them a benefit of doubt, and they are directed to be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeals deserve to be allowed accordingly. 37 . It is needless to say that in view of Section 357(A) Cr.PC, the family members of the deceased - victim w ould be entitled to the compensation even though the accused have been acquitted. Hence, while allowing these appeals and acquitting the A ppellant s - accused, we direct that the parents

37 of the victim would be entitled to the compensation, if not awarded so far by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority , as may be permissible in accordance with law. 38 . In view of the above, t he appeals stand allowed. A ll pending applications also stand disposed of. 39 . Before parting , we place on record the valuable assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae Ms. Sonia Mathur and the learned Senior Advocates and their associates appearing for the parties. ……………………….CJI [ UDAY UMESH LALIT] ………………………..J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI; ………………………J. 07 .1 1 .2022 [BELA M. TRIVEDI]

38 ITEM NO.1504 COURT NO.1 SECTION II - C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 611/2022 RAHUL Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 612 - 613/2022 (II - C) Crl.A. No. 614 - 615/2022 (II - C) Date : 07 - 11 - 2022 These matters were called on for pronouncemen t of judgment today. For Appellant(s) Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. (AC) Ms. Shivani Misra, Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Chandra Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Simranjeet S. Saluja, Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Adv. Ms. Ronika Tater, Adv . Mr. Divik Mathur, Adv. Ms. Rupakshi Soni, Adv. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nidhi, AOR (SCLSC) Mr. Mohit Girdhar, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arora, Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Shabana, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Celeste Agarwal, Adv. Ms. BLN Shivani, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Aman Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manvendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Charu Wali Khanna, Adv. Dr. ( Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR

39 Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Her Ladyship. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment and the operative part of the judgment read as under: “36. Having said that and for the reasons stated above, the judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and the High Court are set aside. The Appellants - accused are acquitted from the charges levelled against them by giving them a benefit of doubt, and they are directed to b e set free forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeals deserve to be allowed accordingly. 37. It is needless to say that in view of Section 357(A) Cr.PC, the family members of the deceased - victim would be entitled to the compensation even th ough the accused have been acquitted. Hence, while allowing these appeals and acquitting the Appellants - accused, we direct that the parents of the victim would be entitled to the compensation, if not awarded so far by the Delhi State Legal Services Author ity, as may be permissible in accordance with law. the judgments and orders of conviction and the sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court are set aside. Both the appellants - accused, and the other three accused who have not filed

40 any appeal, are directed to be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeals stand allowed.” Pending applications also stand disposed of. (NEETU KHAJURIA) ASTT. REGISTRAR - cum - PS (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file.)

1 ITEM NO.802 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 611/2022 RAHUL Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) ([ TO GO BEFORE THREE HON'BLE JUDGES ] [ DEATH CASE ] ) Date : 13-04-2022 This appeal was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. (AC) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Shivani Misra, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Simarjeet Singh Saluja, Adv. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nidhi , AOR (SCLSC) Ms. Suvarna S. Ganu, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Kiran Suri, Ld. Senior Adv. Ms. Ruchi kohli, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh , Adv. Mr. SS Ray, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv. Dr. Charu wali khanna Adv. Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Dharmendra Baghel, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Pal advocate Mr Krishna kumar advocate. Ms. Nandani gupta advocate. UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R

2 Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the accused as amicus curiae invites our attention to the following sentence appearing in the order dated 07.04.2022: “I.A.No.118893 of 2020 (for intervention) is allowed.” The afore-stated I.A. has been filed on behalf of Yogita Dhayana, who is stated to be the support person for the family of the deceased. Since the original complainant(father of the deceased) is already party to the proceedings, we recall the aforementioned part of the order. (INDU MARWAH) (MATHEW ABRAHAM) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

1 ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No.1/2014, 26-08-2014 in CRLA No.563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No.4735/2015 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF IMPUGNED ORDER; AND, I.A. No.4736/2015 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.; I.A. No.118893/2020 – FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT) WITH SLP(Crl) Nos.597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017 - FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39) SLP(Crl) Nos.3171-3172/2015 (II-C) Date : 07-04-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI Counsel for the Parties: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv./Amicus Curiae Ms. Shivani Misra, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Simarjeet Singh Saluja, Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Parnam Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. Karthik Vasan, Adv. Ms. Nidhi, AOR

2 Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Dr. (Ms.) Charuwali Khanna, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Pal, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Dr. (Ms.) Vipin Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in SLP (Crl.) Nos.597-598 of 2016 is condoned. I.A. No.118893 of 2020 (for intervention) is allowed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Submissions on sentence are concluded. Written submissions filed on behalf of the accused are taken on record. Leave granted. Judgment reserved. (MUKESH NASA) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No. 4735/2015 - Appln. fr exempt from filing c/c of impugned order & IA No. 4736/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017-I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II - LEGAL AID MATTER) SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (II-C) Date : 29-03-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. (AC) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Shivani Misra, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Simarjeet Singh Saluja, Advs. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nidhi , AOR (SCLSC) Ms. Suvarna S. Ganu, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Kiran Suri, Ld. Senior Adv. Ms. Ruchi kohli, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh , Adv. Mr. SS Ray, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv. Dr. Charu wali khanna Adv.

2 Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Dharmendra Baghel, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Pal advocate Mr krishna kumar advocate. Ms. Nandani gupta advocate. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R These matters were heard by a Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi. After conclusion of hearing on the issue of conviction, certain directions were issued by this Court in its orders dated 25.11.2021 and 08.12.2021, pursuant to which, the concerned reports have been received in the Registry. Let copies of the reports be shared with the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants as well as the respondent-State. We have been apprised by Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocate that written submissions on the issue of sentence have already been filed. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned Senior Advocate submits that written submissions shall also be filed on behalf of Accused No.3. Let the needful be done within one week. List these matters before the appropriate Bench for hearing on the issue issue of sentence on 07.04.2022 at 3.00PM after taking requisite directions from the Hon’ble CJI. (INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) ( IA No. 4735/2015 - Appln. for exempt from filing c/c of impugned order & IA No. 4736/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017-I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II - LEGAL AID MATTER) SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (II-C) Date : 08-12-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. (AC) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Mr. Sushil K. Dubey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Misra, Adv. Mr. Puneet Pathak, Adv. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nidhi , AOR (SCLSC) Ms. Suvarna S. Ganu, Adv. Mr. Jagdip Pati, Adv. Mr. Parnam Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. Manoj Selvaraj, Adv. Mr. C. Salomon, Adv. Md. Javed Malik, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Kiran Suri, Ld. Senior Adv.

2 Ms. Ruchi kohli, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh , Adv. Mr. SS Ray, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv. Mr. B.L.N. Shivani, Adv. Ms. Celeste Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shivika B, Adv. Mr. Rustom Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Manvendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Dr. Charu wali khanna Adv. Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Dharmendra Baghel, Adv. Mr. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I Heard Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocate who appeared as amicus curiae and Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Nidhi, learned Advocate who appeared on behalf of SCLSC for the accused-appellants. The submissions on behalf of the State were advanced by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG. The arguments on the issue of conviction are concluded. The learned counsel are at liberty to file their revised submissions within a week. By order dated 25.11.2021, we had passed following directions: “ 1. the respondent – State to place before us the report of the Probation Officer relating to the petitioner (s) as early as possible and preferably by 03.12.2021. 2. We direct that the report of the Jail Administration about the nature of the work done by petitioner(s) while in jail be placed before us by 03.12.2021.

3 3. We also feel that the interest of justice dictates that we obtain a psychological evaluation of the petitioners. We direct the Director, VIMHANS to constitute a suitable team for the psychiatric evaluation of the petitioners in all the three cases. The said report also be placed before us by 03.12.2021. The Jail Authorities shall co-operate with the team of experts for facilitating access and due evaluation of the petitioners in all respects. A copy of this order be communicated to the Director VIMHANS.” A communication has been received from VIMHANS that because of various issues including under-staffing, it would not be possible for them to comply with the directions issued by this Court. Consequently direction No. 3 issued above be substituted by following direction: “ We direct the Director, Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Science, New Delhi to constitute a suitable team for the Psychiatric evaluation of the accused appellants in all the three cases.” The Registry shall send due intimation to Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences. Let the report be placed before this Court as early as possible and preferably by 04.01.2022 . List this matter at 2.00 p.m. on 11.01.2022. II After the earlier part of the order was dictated, Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate of this Court invited our attention to the judgment dated 23.08.2016 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.169, 488 of 2015 and 386 of 2016. Since the judgment had dealt with an issue concerning

4 IMEI number of a Cell Phone, we take the judgment on record, subject to its copies being furnished to all the learned counsel who had appeared in these matters. The Registry is directed to furnish copies of the aforestated judgment to all the learned counsel who may, in their written submissions, deal with said judgment. (INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) ( IA No. 4735/2015 - Appln. fr exempt from filing c/c of impugned order & IA No. 4736/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017-I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II - LEGAL AID MATTER) SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (II-C) Date : 02-12-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. (AC) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Mr. Sushil K. Dubey, Advocate Ms. Shivani Misra, Adv. Mr. Puneet Pathak, Adv. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Advocate Ms. Nidhi , AOR (SCLSC) Ms. Suvarna S. Ganu, Adv. Mr. Jagdip Pati, Adv. Mr. Parnam Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. Manoj Selvaraj, Adv. Mr. Salomon, Adv. Md. Javed Malik, Adv.

2 For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld ASG Ms. Kiran Suri, Ld. Senior Advocate Mr. Prashant Singh , Advocate Mr. SS Ray, Advocate Ms. Ruchi kohli, Advocate Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv. Ms. Celeste Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shivika B, Adv. Mr. Rustom Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Aman, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Dr. Charu wali khanna Advocate. Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 07.12.2021 as part-heard. (INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No.1/2014, 26-08-2014 in CRLA No.563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI & ANR. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(Crl) Nos.597-598/2016 (II-C) SLP(Crl) Nos.3171-3172/2015 (II-C) Date : 01-12-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI Counsel for the Parties: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sushil K. Dubey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Misra, Adv. Mr. Puneet Pathak, Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Mr. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nidhi, AOR Ms. Suvarna S. Ganu, Adv. Mr. Jaidip Pati, Adv. Mr. Manoj Selvaraj, Adv. Mr. C. Solomon, Adv. Mohd. Javed Malik, Adv. Dr. Charuwali Khanna, Adv. Dr. (Ms.) Vipin Gupta, AOR

2 Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard in part. For further hearing, list these matters on 02.12.2021. (MUKESH NASA) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) ( IA No. 4735/2015 - Appln. fr exempt from filing c/c of impugned order & IA No. 4736/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017-I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II - LEGAL AID MATTER) SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (II-C) Date : 30-11-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. (AC) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Shabana, Adv. Mr. Sushil K. Dubey, Advocate Ms. Shivani Misra, Adv. Mr. Puneet Pathak, Adv. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Advocate Ms. Nidhi , AOR (SCLSC) Ms. Suvarna Ganu, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld ASG Ms. Kiran Suri, Ld. Senior Advocate Mr. Prashant Singh , Advocate Mr. SS Ray, Advocate

2 Ms. Ruchi kohli, Advocate Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Dr. Charu wali khanna Advocate. Mr. Krishna Kumar Advocate. Ms. Nandani Gupta Advocate. Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr.A.Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr.C.M.Sundaram Iyer, Advocate UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 01.12.2021 as part-heard. (INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) ( IA No. 4735/2015 - Appln. for exempt from filing c/c of impugned order ; IA No. 4736/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017-I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II - LEGAL AID MATTER) SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (II-C) Date : 25-11-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. (AC) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Shabana, Adv. Mr. Sushil K. Dubey, Advocate Ms. Shivani Misra, Adv. Mr. Puneet Pathak, Adv. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Advocate Ms. Nidhi , AOR (SCLSC) For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld ASG Ms. Kiran Suri, Ld. Senior Advocate Mr. Prashant Singh , Advocate Mr. SS Ray, Advocate Ms. Ruchi kohli, Advocate Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv.

2 Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Dr. Charu wali khanna àdvocate. Mr. Krishna Kumar àdvocate. Ms. Nandani Gupta advocate. Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr.A.Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr.C.M.Sundaram Iyer, Advocate UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. A. Sirajudeein and Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocates appearing for the petitioners pray for and are granted time till 30.11.2021 so that a note can be filed on behalf of the accused giving cross-reference to various factual aspects in the matter. Since the petitioners have been awarded death sentence by the Trial Court, which has been confirmed by the High Court, in our view, certain facets of the matter touching upon the character and behavior of the petitioners, would be essential in order to have complete assessment in the matter. We have passed certain directions in (i) Manoj vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [Crl. Appeal No.248-250 of 2015] and (ii) Mohd. Firoz vs State of Madhya Pradesh [Crl. Appeal No.612 of 2019] which directions were passed after conclusion of the arguments on the issue of conviction. However, the assessment if made in advance, before the learned counsel advance their submissions, will be helpful in every respect. We therefore, direct 1 : 1. the respondent – State to place before us the report of the Probation Officer relating to the petitioner(s) as early as possible and preferably by 03.12.2021. 1 (Directions given in SLP(Crl.) Dy. No.5964/2019 –[Vikas Chaudhary vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) by the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat on 05.08.2021)

3 2. We direct that the report of the Jail Administration about the nature of the work done by petitioner(s) while in jail be placed before us by 03.12.2021. 3. We also feel that the interest of justice dictates that we obtain a psychological evaluation of the petitioners. We direct the Director, VIMHANS to constitute a suitable team for the psychiatric evaluation of the petitioners in all the three cases. The said report also be placed before us by 03.12.2021. The Jail Authorities shall co-operate with the team of experts for facilitating access and due evaluation of the petitioners in all respects. A copy of this order be communicated to the Director VIMHANS. Ms. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate submits that the relatives of the petitioneers-accused have also had various interactions with the accused and they be given liberty to place their affidavits on record. Liberty is granted. Let Lower Court Record (in physical) be summoned. In the meantime, the Registry is directed to have the print out of the record received in digitized form. List the matter on 30.11.2021. (INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) ([ TO GO BEFORE THREE HON'BLE JUDGES ] [ DEATH CASE ] IA No. 4735/2015 - Appln. fr exempt from filing c/c of impugned order IA No. 4736/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017-I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II - LEGAL AID MATTER) SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (II-C) Date : 21-10-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Nidhi, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR

2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, list the matters on 16.11.2021 before the appropriate Court. (ASHWANI KUMAR) (SUNIL KUMAR RAJVANSHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.3 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) ([ DEATH CASE ] ( IA No. 4735/2015 - Appln. fr exempt from filing c/c of impugned order IA No. 4736/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017-I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II - LEGAL AID MATTER) SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (II-C) Date : 13-04-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. (AC) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Shabana, Adv. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Advocate Ms. Nidhi , AOR (SCLSC) Ms. Kasturika Kaumudi, Advocate Mr. Jaydip Pati, Advocate For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld ASG

2 Ms. Kiran Suri, Ld. Senior Advocate Mr. Prashant Singh , Advocate Mr. SS Ray, Advocate Ms. Ruchi kohli, Advocate Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Dr. Charu wali khanna àdvocate. Mr. Krishna Kumar àdvocate. Ms. Nandani Gupta advocate. Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr.Gopal Sankar Narayanan, Sr.Advocate Mr.A.Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr.C.M.Sundaram Iyer, Advocate UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of SCLSC prays for and is granted two weeks time to file an affidavit in response on behalf of the petitioner. List on 27.04.2021. (INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.2 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 and 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS Respondent(s) ([ DEATH CASE ][Released from part-heard ] [ TO BE TAKEN UP AS FIRST ITEM. ] (With IA No. 4735/2015 - Appln. for exemption from filing c/c of impugned order and IA No. 4736/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017-I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II - LEGAL AID MATTER) SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (II-C) Date : 08-04-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Shabana, Adv. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nidhi, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG. Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. S. S. Ray, Adv. Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv. 1

SLP (Crl.) No. 2264/2015 etc. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Dr. Charu Wali Khanna, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Pursuant to the directions issued on the last occasion, an appropriate affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State along with the note of the concerned Doctor. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for and is granted time till Monday, 12 th April, 2021, to respond to the affidavit. List the matters as first item on Board on Tuesday, the 13 th April of 2021. (NIDHI AHUJA) (R.S. NARAYANAN) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 2

1 Corrected* ITEM NO.15 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) ([ DEATH CASE ] IA No. 4735/2015 - Appln. for exempt from filing c/c of impugned order IA No. 4736/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017-I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II - LEGAL AID MATTER) SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (II-C) Date : 25-03-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. (AC) Ms. Shivani Misra, Adv. Mr. Puneet Pathak, Adv Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Advocate Ms. Nidhi , AOR (SCLSC) Ms. Kasturika Kaumudi, Advocate Mr. Jaydip Pati, Advocate For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld ASG Ms. Kiran Suri, Ld. Senior Advocate

2 Mr. Prashant Singh , Advocate Mr. SS Ray, Advocate Ms. Ruchi kohli, Advocate Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Dr. Charu wali khanna àdvocate. Mr. Krishna Kumar àdvocate. Ms. Nandani Gupta advocate. Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr.Gopal Sankar Narayanan, Sr.Advocate Mr.A.Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr.C.M.Sundaram Iyer, Advocate UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Copies of the report received from Shri Satish Kumar, Visiting Judge, Jail No.4/ASJ/SFTC-2 (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, have been given to the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have heard Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Amicus Curiae & Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned Senior Advocate for the accused, Dr. Charu Wali khanna, learned àdvocate, appearing for the father of the deceased and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG for the respondent- State. Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned amicus curiae submits:- (a) The Punishment Ticket issued to Amar, S/o Balbir Singh, Rakesh, S/o Ramesh Pandey, Rahul, S/o Kanwar Pal Singh and Sachin, S/o Naresh shows that they were taken to jail OPD for medical treatment. However, the relevant certificates or reports of the concerned date are not placed on record. (b) The prescription appended to the affidavit filed by the State shows that accused Rahul was receiving medical treatment from Dr. Vivek Dave, Senior Resident Psychiatry, Central Jail Hospital,

3 Tihar, New Delhi who had prescribed certain medicines. Whether the tablets in question, were the same that were prescribed or not, is not clear from the record. (c) In keeping with the directions issued by various courts from time to time and particularly in the light of the directions issued in the latest judgment of this Court reported in (2021) 1 SCC 184*, the Jail Authorities are obliged to install CCTV cameras at various places in the jail. No CCTV footage are stated to be available. (d) The hand-written portion below the Punishment ticket shows that punishment of withdrawing mulakat alongwith phone and canteen facility was inflicted upon the concerned inmates. Such imposition of punishment was not in keeping with the relevant provisions. (e) The learned Judge had observed that accused Rahul was unable to walk properly. The Jail Superintendent was, therefore, asked to get accused Rahul medically examined and to furnish Certificate. No such documents pertaining to his medical examination are placed on record. (f) The medical report dated 20.03.2021 under the signature of Medical Officer In-charge shows that the patient was planned for x-ray, but the relevant x-ray in that behalf is also not placed on record. According to Mr. Raj Kumar, Superintendent of Jail, Tihar Jail, who was connected through video conferencing, CCTV camera has been installed at the medical dispensary. However, according to him, the life of CCTV footage is only four days and as of now, no

4 footage is available. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Advocate submits that even if CCTV footages are not stated to be available, the data can still be retrieved from the hard-disk and for that purposes, the hard-disk in question, be taken in custody. In order to have all the relevant facts on record, we direct as under: (A) Mr. Raj Kumar, Jail Superintendent shall file an affidavit by 05.04.2021 disclosing all the steps undertaken by him in connection with the incident that occurred on 14.03.2021. The affidavit shall disclose where exactly the CCTV cameras have been installed and whether the Control Room and the boundary wall of the jail are covered by CCTV cameras or not. It shall also disclose under what circumstances, materials, such as, tobacco pouches or any other contraband/such things find their way inside the jail premises and what kind of preventive and other measures are being taken by the jail authorities. The affidavit shall also disclose the make of CCTV camera which have been installed which according to Mr. Raj Kumar does not have life greater than four days for CCTV footage; so also about the time lines adhered to and required for installing CCTV cameras and the budgetary allocation made for such installations. (B) With regard to the budgetary allocation and the kind of cameras installed in the jail premises, an affidavit shall also be filed by the concerned official from the Home Ministry of the respondent-State with explanation as to why the life of CCTV

5 footages is confined only to four days. (C) We also ask Dr. Vineet, Medical Officer, Jail Hospital, Tihar Jail as well as Dr. Vivek Dave, Senior Resident (Psychiatry) to file their statements touching upon the issues pertaining to the present controversy. Copies of the orders passed by this Court shall be transmitted to Dr. Vineet, Medical Officer, Jail Hospital, Tihar Jail as well as Dr. Vivek Dave, Senior Resident (Psychiatry) by the Registry of this Court. Let the affidavits and the statements be filed in the Registry of this Court on or before 05.04.2021. We must record the submission advanced by Ms. Charu Wali Khanna, learned advocate appearing for the father of the deceased. It was submitted by her that no compensation has been made over to the father of the victim and despite various requests, the concerned authorities have not made any responses. We need not go into the question as Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG has assured this Court that she will personally look into the matter and see to it that the needful is done in the matter. List for further consideration on 08.04.2021 as first item on the Board. (INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.17 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No. 4735/2015 - Appln. fr exempt from filing c/c of impugned order IA No. 4736/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017-I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II - LEGAL AID MATTER) SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (II-C) Date : 23-03-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. (AC) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Advocate Ms. Nidhi , AOR (SCLSC) Ms. Kasturika Kaumudi, Advocate Mr. Jaydip Pati, Advocate For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld ASG Ms. Kiran Suri, Ld. Senior Advocate Mr. Prashant Singh , Advocate Mr. SS Ray, Advocate Ms. Ruchi kohli, Advocate Ms. Snidha Mehra, Advocate Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR

2 Dr. Charu wali khanna àdvocate. Mr. Krishna Kumar àdvocate. Ms. Nandani Gupta advocate. Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Pursuant to the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by this Court, a report has been submitted by Shri Satish Kumar, Visiting Judge, Jail No.4, through the office of the Principal District and Sessions Judge (Headquarters), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Let copies of this report be given to all the learned counsel appearing in the matter. List for further consideration as first item on the Board on 25.03.2021. The order dated 19.03.2021 passed by this Court calls for a typographical correction. The date of the incident as mentioned in the order was “14.03.2021” and not “15.03.2021”. (INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.39 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) ([ DEATH CASE ] IA No. 4735/2015 - Appln. for exempt from filing c/c of impugned order IA No. 4736/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017-I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II - LEGAL AID MATTER) SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (II-C) Date : 19-03-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. (AC) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Advocate Ms. Nidhi , AOR (SCLSC) Ms. Kasturika Kaumudi, Advocate Mr. Jaydip Pati, Advocate For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld ASG Ms. Kiran Suri, Ld. Senior Advocate Mr. Prashant Singh , Advocate Mr. SS Ray, Advocate Ms. Ruchi kohli, Advocate Ms. Snidha Mehra, Advocate Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate

2 Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Dr. Charu wali khanna àdvocate. Mr. Krishna Kumar àdvocate. Ms. Nandani Gupta advocate. Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(Crl) No. 2264/2015 Pursuant to the directions issued in the earlier part of the day, Ms. Aishwaya Bhati, learned ASG has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and has submitted: (a) There was an incident on 15.03.2021 where in a search conducted of the concerned cell/enclosure, three inmates including the petitioner were found to be in intoxicating condition. (b) Upon being confronted, force was used and the officials had to use force to contain them. (c) Appropriate reports were made to; (i) the Additional District Judge, Tihar Jail who happens to be the visiting Judge in the jail; (ii) to the Trial Court; and (iii) to the District Court. In the premises, we direct Shri Satish Kumar, Addl. District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to whom the report as aforesaid, has already been forwarded, to visit the concerned cell/enclosure in Tihar Jail, Delhi and to make an appropriate report. The learned Judge may interview the petitioner and such other persons

3 as he deems appropriate. He is also at liberty to watch CCTV footage of the area in question, if available. The report be sent to this Court on or before 22.03.2021. In the meantime, the respondent-State shall independently file all the concerned reports/documents in the Registry of this Court on 20.03.2021. List for further consideration on 23.03.2021 as the first item on board. (INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

4 ITEM NO.801 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) ([ DEATH CASE ] Released from P/H on 11.07.2020.Released from part- heard vide note dated 11.12.2020 ) Date : 19-03-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sonia Mathur, Senior Advocate(AC) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(Crl) 2264/2015 was mentioned by Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocate appearing as Amicus curiae. It was stated by the learned counsel that the father of the petitioner received information that the petitioner was badly beaten inside the prison where he is presently lodged. In the Mulakat arranged at the instance of the father, the

5 petitioner had to be brought in, supported by two persons. In the circumstances, learned counsel prays that appropriate report be called for from the jail authorities and/or jail hospital. List this matter at 2.00 PM today. The Registry is directed to send due intimation to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State. (INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-C (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No.1/2014, 26-08-2014 in CRLA No.563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No.4735/2015 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF IMPUGNED ORDER; and, IA No. 4736/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) Nos.3171-3172/2015 (II-C) SLP(Crl) Nos.597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017 - FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II) Date : 11-02-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH Counsel for the Parties: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv./Amicus Curiae Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey, Adv. Ms. Noor Rampal, Adv. Mr. Puneet Pathak, Adv. Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karri Venkata Reddy, Adv.

2 Dr. Charu Wali Khanna, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Dr. (Ms.) Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In this case, three accused persons have been awarded death sentence. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned Senior Advocate, instructed by Ms. S. Usha Reddy, Advocate-on-Record, was engaged to appear on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocate was also appointed by this Court to assist as Amicus Curiae. It is reported that Ms. Reddy is no more and the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee has not yet made any alternative arrangements. The Registry to intimate the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to do the needful at the earliest so that Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned Senior Advocate is instructed in the matter. List these matters for final hearing on 02.03.2021. (MUKESH NASA) (PRADEEP KUMAR) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) IA No. 4735/2015 - Appln. fr exemp(t from filing c/c of impugned order IA No. 4736/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (II-C) SLP(Crl) No. 597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017-I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II - LEGAL AID MATTER) Date : 23-01-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For parties: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. - Amicus Curiae Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey, Adv. Ms. Divya Nair, Adv. Mr. Puneet Pathak, Adv. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Shivani Misra, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Amartya Kanjilal, Adv. Mr. K.K. Patra, AOR Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv.

2 Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Adv. Mr. Lalit Sankhla, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Shabana, Adv. Mr. Ajay Gupta, Adv. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, AOR Mr. Karri Venkata Reddy, Adv. Dr. Charu Walikhanna, Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The submissions on behalf of the accused appellants were advanced by Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. A.Sirajudeen, learned Senior Advocate. After conclusion of their submissions, Ms. Kiran Suri, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondent-State started her submissions. The matter is part- heard. List for further hearing on 4.2.2020 at the top of the Board. In the meantime, learned counsel/persons authorized for the appellant accused are at liberty to have access to and meet the accused where they are presently lodged, to enable them to file appropriate details about the present status of the accused. (INDU MARWAH) (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No. 4735/2015 - Appln. for exempt from filing c/c of impugned order IA No. 4736/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (II-C) SLP(Crl) No. 597-598/2016 (II-C) (IA No.109664/2017-I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II - LEGAL AID MATTER) Date : 22-01-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For parties: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. - Amicus Curiae Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey, Adv. Ms. Divya Nair, Adv. Mr. Puneet Pathak, Adv. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Shivani Misra, Adv. Mr. K.K. Patra, AOR Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv. Mr. Vijay Prakash, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv.

2 Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Shabana, Adv. Mr. Ajay Gupta, Adv. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, AOR Mr. Karri Venkata Reddy, Adv. Dr. Charu Wali Khanna, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Singh Pal, Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 23.1.2020 at Part-heard on the top of the Board. (INDU MARWAH) (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No.1/2014, 26-08-2014 in CRLA No.563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI & ANR. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(Crl) Nos.3171-3172/2015 (II-C) SLP(Crl) Nos.597-598/2016 (II-C) Date : 21-01-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI Counsel for the Parties: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. - Amicus Curiae Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey, Adv. Ms. Divya Nair, Adv. Noor Rampal, Adv. Mr. Puneet Pathak, Adv. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. K.K. Patra, AOR Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Shabana, Adv. Mr. Ajay Gupta, Adv. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, AOR Mr. Karri Venkata Reddy, Adv.

2 Dr. Charu Wali Khanna, Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard in part. For further hearing, list on 22.01.2020 as Part-Heard, on top of the Board. (MUKESH NASA) (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No.1/2014, 26-08-2014 in CRLA No.563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI & ANR. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(Crl) Nos.3171-3172/2015 (II-C) SLP(Crl) Nos.597-598/2016 (II-C) Date : 11-12-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI Counsel for the Parties: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. - Amicus Curiae Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Puneet Pathak, Adv. Mr. K.K. Patra, AOR Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv. Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, AOR Mr. Karri Venkata Reddy, Adv. Mr. Y. William Vinoth Kumar, Adv. Mr. S. Xzvier Felix, Adv. Charu Wali Khanna, Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR

2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 14.01.2020. (MUKESH NASA) (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No.1/2014, 26-08-2014 in CRLA No.563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI & ANR. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(Crl) Nos.3171-3172/2015 (II-C) SLP(Crl) Nos.597-598/2016 (II-C) Date : 05-12-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA Counsel for the Parties: Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv. Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. For Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR (Not Present) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR (Not Present) Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, AOR (Not Present) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In this case, the accused have been convicted under Sections 302 and 376 IPC and sentenced to death along with other sentences.

2 These matters were filed through Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) and Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh and Ms. S Usha Reddy, Advocate-on-Records, are in-charge of the matters. Considering the facts on record, in our view, services of a Senior Counsel must be afforded to the appellants-accused. We have, therefore, requested Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Counsel to appear as Amicus Curiae, which request Ms. Mathur has graciously accepted. Ms. Mathur is at liberty to take assistance of any Advocate-on-Record of her choice. Name of Ms. Mathur may be shown in the cause-list. Let copies of the petitions be handed over to Ms. Mathur today itself. List the matters on 11.12.2019. (MUKESH NASA) (SUNIL KUMAR RAJVANSHI) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) ([ DEATH CASE ][ TO GO BEFORE THREE HON'BLE JUDGES ] [ Matter released from part-heard ] Death matters for three judges Bench FOR ON IA 4735/2015 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 4736/2015) With SLP(Crl.)Nos.3171-3172/2015(IIC) SLP(Crl.)Nos.597-598/2016(IIC) Date : 20-08-2019 These petitions were mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI For Petitioner(s) Mr.Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr.A.Sirajudeen, Sr.Adv.(Mentioned by) Ms.Usha Reddy, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Dr.(Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R Mr.A.Sirajudeen, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in SLP(Crl.)Nos.597-598/2016 submits that the depositions of the witnesses are not available. We accordingly direct the Registry to furnish copies of the depositions of the witnesses to the learned senior counsel. (SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RAJ RANI NEGI) AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

1 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26-08-2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. Respondent(s) (With applications for exemption from filing O.T., exemption from filing c/c of the impugned order) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (II-C) SLP(Crl) No. 597-598/2016 (II-C) (With application for permission to file annexures A-1 to A-39 in the form of Volume II) Date : 20-11-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH For Petitioner(s) SLP(Crl.)2264/2015 Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR(SCLSC) & SLP(Crl.3171-3172 Ms. Shabana, Adv. Of 2015 Mr. Ajay Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rishi Chawla, Adv. SLP(Crl.)597-598 Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr.Adv. Of 2016 Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, AOR Ms. Spandana Reddy, Adv. Mr. Karri Venkata Reddy, Adv. Mr. S. Gokula Krishnan, Adv. For Respondent(s) SLP(Crl.)2264/2015 Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr.Adv. & SLP(Crl.)3171-3172Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Of 2015 Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv. Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv. Contd. Mr. Tanvir Nayar, Adv.

2 Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR SLP(Crl.)597-598 Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr.Adkv. Of 2016 Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Prerna Priyadarshi, Adv. For Impleaded party Dr. Charu Walikhanna, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Singh Pal, Adv. Dr. (Ms.) Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Raghvendra Singh Parihar, Adv. Ms. Smirti Kumari, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in SLP(Crl.) No. 2264 of 2015 and SLP(Crl.) Nos. 3171-3172 of 2015 started his arguments at 2.15 p.m. and was on his legs when the Court rose for the day. The matters remained as part heard. List these matters on Tuesday, the 27 th November, 2018 as part heard. The Registry is directed to call for the original record immediately. (SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) (RAJ RANI NEGI) AR CUM PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).597-598/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2014 in CRLAP No. 1036/2014 26-08-2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) VINOD @ CHHOTU Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI HOME AFFAIRS Respondent(s) ([ TO GO BEFORE THREE HON'BLE JUDGES ] Death case and IA No.109664/2017-I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES A-1 TO A-39 IN THE FORM OF VOLUME II - LEGAL AID MATTER) Date : 14-11-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH For Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, AOR Spandana Reddy, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Prerna Priyadarshini, Adv. Somay Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is represented by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent that another two connected matters are also pending before this Court being Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2264 of 2015 and Special Leave Petition(Criminal) Nos.3171-3172 of 2015. We are informed that the said two cases are listed for hearing tomorrow. In view of the above, list the instant Special Leave Petitions along with Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2264 of 2015 and Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) Nos.3171-3172 of 2015 tomorrow

-2- i.e. 15 th November, 2018. The Registry is directed to inform the learned Senior counsel/learned counsel appearing for the parties to appear in the Court on 15 th November, 2018. (VISHAL ANAND) (RAJ RANI NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

CHAMBER MATTER COURT NO.5 SECTION II-C No. 1 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS Respondent(s) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 Date : 31-07-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA [IN CHAMBERS] For Petitioner(s) Mr. H.M. Singh, Adv. Ms. Shabana, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel submits that the standing counsel of the respondent-State has been changed. In view of the submission made, “No Objection Certificate” is not required. (SONALI SAUND) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER

CHAMBER MATTER COURT NO.4 SECTION II-C NO. 1 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF DELHI Respondent(s) (SLP (crl.) 3171-3172 of 2015 to be listed before Hon'ble Judge in Chamber) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 Date : 14-07-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA [IN CHAMBERS] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mr. Sameer Kumar, Adv. Mr. Animesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR Ms. Shabana, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. D. S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP (Crl.) 3171-3172 of 2015 As prayed, two weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to comply with the order dated 10.01.2017. (SONALI SAUND) (SUMAN JAIN) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIC S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.3171-3172/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/08/2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 26/08/2014 in CRLA No. 726/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s) (Office report for directions) Date : 10/01/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO [IN CHAMBER] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. Ms. Shabana, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed for, two weeks' further time is granted to the respondent to comply with the office report dated 3.11.2016. (Sanjay Kumar-II) (Indu Pokhriyal) Court Master Court Master

üITEM NO.37 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIC S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.3171-3172/2015(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/08/2014in DSR No. 1/2014 26/08/2014 in CRLA No. 726/2014 passed by theHigh Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s)(Office report for directions)Date : 10/01/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO [IN CHAMBER]For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. Ms. Shabana, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RAs prayed for, two weeks' further time is granted to therespondent to comply with the office report dated 3.11.2016. (Sanjay Kumar-II) (Indu Pokhriyal) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.46 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3171-3172/2015 RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 05/10/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms.Shabana,Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr.Chirag M.Shroff, Ld.counsel has filed vakalatnama on 8.01.2016 for the sole respondent. Thereafter Mr.D.S.Mahra, Ld.counsel has also filed vakalatnama and counter affidavit for the same respondent, but he has failed to file 'NOC' from the earlier counsel despite opportunities given. Therefore, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions. Await orders and list thereafter. (M V RAMESH) Registrar SB

¾ITEM NO.46 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3171-3172/2015RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s)(with office report)Date : 05/10/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms.Shabana,Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RMr.Chirag M.Shroff, Ld.counsel has filed vakalatnama on8.01.2016 for the sole respondent. Thereafter Mr.D.S.Mahra,Ld.counsel has also filed vakalatnama and counter affidavit for thesame respondent, but he has failed to file 'NOC' from the earliercounsel despite opportunities given. Therefore, the matter shall beprocessed for listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers forfurther directions. Await orders and list thereafter. (M V RAMESH) RegistrarSB

ITEM NO.57 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3171-3172/2015 RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 26/08/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms.Shabana,Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks time as last chance is given to the Ld.counsel Mr.D.S.Mahra to comply with the terms of the order dated 21.04.2016 of this Court. List the matter again on 05.10.2016. (M V RAMESH) Registrar SB

SECTION-II IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) Nos.3171-3172 of 2015 RAVI ... Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI ... Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT The matters above mentioned were listed before the Registrar's Court on 21.4.2016 when the following order was passed: “ Mr.D.S.Mahra, Ld.counsel shall file the 'NOC' from the erstwhile advocate Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate who has already file vakalatnama on behalf of sole respondent. List the matter again on 15.07.2016.” It is submitted that Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate has not filed 'NOC' from the erstwhile Advocate Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, so far. The matters above-mentioned are listed before the Registrar's Court with this office report. DATED this the 24 th day of August, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: 1. Mr. H.M. Singh, Advocate 2. Mr. Chiraf M. Shroff, Advocate 92, Lawyers Chambers, S.C.I, N.D 3. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate Central Agency, Supreme Court of India ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c2/sv

HITEM NO.57 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3171-3172/2015RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s)(with office report)Date : 26/08/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms.Shabana,Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RFour weeks time as last chance is given to the Ld.counselMr.D.S.Mahra to comply with the terms of the order dated 21.04.2016of this Court.List the matter again on 05.10.2016. (M V RAMESH) RegistrarSB

ITEM NO.75 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 597-598/2016 VINOD @ CHHOTU Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and office report) Date : 08/08/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mrs.s. Usha Reddy,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. Mr. Paritosh Anil, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to the sole respondent for filing counter affidavit. Registry to process the matter for listing immediately thereafter before the Hon'ble Court, irrespective of the fact whether counter affidavit is filed or not. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

²ITEM NO.75 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWALPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 597-598/2016VINOD @ CHHOTU Petitioner(s) VERSUSTHE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and office report)Date : 08/08/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mrs.s. Usha Reddy,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. Mr. Paritosh Anil, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RFour weeks' time, as last opportunity, is granted to thesole respondent for filing counter affidavit.Registry to process the matter for listing immediatelythereafter before the Hon'ble Court, irrespective of the factwhether counter affidavit is filed or not. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

ITEM NO.43 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3171-3172/2015 RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 15/07/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Neha,Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R File not received. List again on 26.8.2016. (M V RAMESH) Registrar MG

\226 ITEM NO.43 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3171-3172/2015 RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 15/07/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Neha,Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R File not received. List again on 26.8.2016. (M V RAMESH) Registrar MGSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byPOOJA SHARMADate: 2016.07.1516:23:53 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.102 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 597-598/2016 VINOD @ CHHOTU Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and office report) Date : 25/04/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mrs.S. Usha Reddy,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Debashish Rout, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Sole respondent to file counter affidavit within four weeks time. List again on 8.8.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

¶ ITEM NO.102 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 597-598/2016 VINOD @ CHHOTU Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and office report) Date : 25/04/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mrs.S. Usha Reddy,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Debashish Rout, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Sole respondent to file counter affidavit within four weeks time. List again on 8.8.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2016.04.2517:10:25 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.48 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3171-3172/2015 RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 21/04/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms.Shabana,Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Debashis Rout,Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. Mr.Rabindra Ku.Mohanty,Adv. Mr.D.S.Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr.D.S.Mahra, Ld.counsel shall file the 'NOC' from the erstwhile advocate Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate who has already file vakalatnama on behalf of sole respondent. List the matter again on 15.07.2016. (M V RAMESH) Registrar SB

SECTION-II IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) Nos.3171-3172 of 2015 RAVI ... Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI ... Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT The matters above mentioned were listed before the Registrar's Court on 29.2.2016 when the following order was passed: “ The sole respondent shall be at liberty to file the counter affidavit within a period of four weeks.' List the matter again on 21.04.2016.” It is submitted that Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate has on 08.01.2016 filed Vakalatnama/Appearance on behalf of sole Respondent but he has not filed counter affidavit, so far. It is further submitted that Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate has also on 23.2.2016 and 12.4.2016 filed Vakalatnama/Appearance and counter affidavit on behalf of sole Respondent herein but he has not obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from erstwhile Advocate Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate. The matters above-mentioned are listed before the Registrar's Court with this office report. DATED this the 19 th day of April, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: 1. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Advocate 321, Lawyers Chambers, S.C.I, N.D 2. Mr. Chiraf M. Shroff, Advocate 92, Lawyers Chambers, S.C.I, N.D 3. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate Central Agency, Supreme Court of India ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c2/sv

\232 ITEM NO.48 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3171-3172/2015 RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 21/04/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms.Shabana,Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Debashis Rout,Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. Mr.Rabindra Ku.Mohanty,Adv. Mr.D.S.Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr.D.S.Mahra, Ld.counsel shall file the 'NOC' from the erstwhile advocate Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate who has already file vakalatnama on behalf of sole respondent. List the matter again on 15.07.2016. (M V RAMESH) Registrar SBSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySushma Kumari BajajDate: 2016.04.2116:26:43 TLTReason:

ITEM NO.63 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3171-3172/2015 RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 29/02/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Rohit Kumar,Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The sole respondent shall be at liberty to file the counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. List the matter again on 21.04.2016. (M V RAMESH) Registrar SB

SECTION-II IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) Nos.3171-3172 of 2015 RAVI ... Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI ... Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT The matters above mentioned were listed before the Registrar's Court on 07.01.2016 when the following order was passed: “ SLP(Crl.)No.3171-3172/2015 Await the return of the service of notice already issued to the sole respondent. List again on 29.2.2016.” It is submitted that Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate has on 08.01.2016 filed Vakalatnama/Appearance on behalf of sole Respondent but he has not filed counter affidavit, so far. The matters above-mentioned are listed before the Registrar's Court with this office report. DATED this the 27 th day of February, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: 1. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Advocate 321, Lawyers Chambers, S.C.I, N.D 2. Mr. Chiraf M. Shroff, Advocate 92, Lawyers Chambers, S.C.I, N.D ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c2/sv

ITEM NO.63 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3171-3172/2015 RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 29/02/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Rohit Kumar,Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The sole respondent shall be at liberty to file the counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. List the matter again on 21.04.2016. (M V RAMESH)Signature Not Verified Registrar SBDigitally signed bySushma Kumari BajajDate: 2016.02.2916:46:46 TLTReason:

ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.1 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)...... CRLMP No(s). 17761-17762/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/08/2014 in CRLAP No. 1036/2014,26/08/2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) VINOD @ CHHOTU Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI Respondent(s) Date : 18/01/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr.P.C. Agrawal, Adv. Mrs.S. Usha Reddy, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. In the meantime, there shall be stay of the execution of death sentence until further orders in these special leave petitions. (Ashok Raj Singh) (Saroj Saini) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.1 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)...... CRLMP No(s). 17761-17762/2015(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/08/2014 in CRLAP No. 1036/2014,26/08/2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)VINOD @ CHHOTU Petitioner(s) VERSUSTHE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI Respondent(s)Date : 18/01/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHIFor Petitioner(s) Mr.P.C. Agrawal, Adv. Mrs.S. Usha Reddy, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RIssue notice.In the meantime, there shall be stay of the execution of deathsentence until further orders in these special leave petitions. (Ashok Raj Singh) (Saroj Saini) Court Master Court Master

Item No.63 1 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3171-3172/2015 RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with office report) With SLP(Crl.) No. 2264/2015 (With Appln.(s) for exemption from filing C/C of the impugned order and exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report) Date : 07/01/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Shabana,Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Jha,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Dr. (Mrs. Vipin Gupta) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(Crl.) Nos. 3171-3172/2015 Await the return of the service of notice already issued to the sole respondent. List again on 29.2.2016.

Item No.63 2 SLP(Crl.) No. 2264/2015 The Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1 has failed to file the counter affidavit within the period stipulated under the rules. Respondent No.2 has been impleaded by the Hon'ble Judge in Chamber on 9.12.2015. Viewed, in that context, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court, under the rules. (M V RAMESH) Registrar MG

\214 Item No.63 1 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3171-3172/2015 RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with office report) With SLP(Crl.) No. 2264/2015 (With Appln.(s) for exemption from filing C/C of the impugned order and exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report) Date : 07/01/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Shabana,Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Jha,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Dr. (Mrs. Vipin Gupta) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(Crl.) Nos. 3171-3172/2015 Await the return of the service of notice already issued toSignature Not Verified the sole respondent.Digitally signed byMadhu GroverDate: 2016.01.07 List again on 29.2.2016.16:26:24 SCTReason:Item No.63 2SLP(Crl.) No. 2264/2015 The Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1 has failed to file thecounter affidavit within the period stipulated under the rules.Respondent No.2 has been impleaded by the Hon'ble Judge in Chamberon 9.12.2015. Viewed, in that context, the matter shall beprocessed for listing before the Hon'ble Court, under the rules.

(M V RAMESH) RegistrarMG

ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.15 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRLMP. 5559/2015 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/08/2014 in DSR No. 1/2014,26/08/2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI Respondent(s) (for impleadment) Date : 09/12/2015 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN [IN CHAMBER] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Charuwali Khanna, Adv. Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta,Adv. Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for impleadment is allowed. (Ashwani Thakur) (Rajinder Kaur ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ÖITEM NO.12 COURT NO.15 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCRLMP. 5559/2015 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/08/2014in DSR No. 1/2014,26/08/2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by theHigh Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF DELHI Respondent(s)(for impleadment)Date : 09/12/2015 This application was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN [IN CHAMBER]For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Charuwali Khanna, Adv. Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta,Adv. Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RApplication for impleadment is allowed. (Ashwani Thakur) (Rajinder Kaur ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Item No.61 1 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned order and exemption from filing O.T. and impleadment and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 09/10/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. Ms. Shabana,Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Dr. (Ms.) Charu Walikhanna,Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta,Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash,Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(Crl) No. 2264/2015 Four weeks time is given to the learned counsel for the sole respondent to file the counter affidavit.

Item No.61 2 Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Ld. Counsel has filed an application for impleadment. The said application shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions. SLP(Crl) Nos. 3171-3172/2015 Fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode to the sole respondent shall be taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners within a period of four weeks. List again on 7.1.2016. (M V RAMESH) Registrar MG

SECTION-II IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) Nos.2264 & 3171-3172 of 2015 RAHUL & ANR. ETC. ... Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI ... Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT The matters above mentioned were listed before the Registrar's Court on 31.8.2015 when the following order was passed: “ SLP(Crl.)No.2264/2015 Ld.counsel for the sole respondent seeks and is given four weeks time to file the counter affidavit. Dr.(Mrs.)Vipin Gupta, Ld.counsel has stated that she has already filed an application for impleadment in the matter. Office shall verify the position and report accordingly. SLP(Crl.)No.3171-3172/2015 Mr. D.S. Mahra, Ld.counsel seeks and is given four weeks time to file the Vakalatnama and the counter affidavit. List the matter again on 09.10.2015.” SLP(Crl.)No. 2264 of 2015 It is submitted that Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate has not filed counter affidavit on behalf of sole Respondent. It is further submitted that Dr.(Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Advocate has filed an application for impleadment and yet to be listed before the Hon'ble Judge-in-Chambers. Service of show cause notice is complete. SLP(Crl.)Nos. 3171-3172 of 2015 It is submitted that Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate has not filed Vakalatnama/Appearance and counter affidavit on behalf of sole Respondent, so far.

The matters above-mentioned are listed before the Registrar's Court with this office report. DATED this the 07 th day of October, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: 1. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Advocate 321, Lawyers Chambers, S.C.I, N.D 2. Mr. D.S. Mahra , Advocate Central Agency, Supreme Court of India 3. Dr.(Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Advocate H-19A, Ground Floor, Opposite Sanjay Park Shakarpur, New Delhi 4. Mr. H.M. Singh ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c2/sv

ò Item No.61 1 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M V RAMESH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned order and exemption from filing O.T. and impleadment and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 09/10/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. Ms. Shabana,Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Dr. (Ms.) Charu Walikhanna,Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta,Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash,Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SLP(Crl) No. 2264/2015Madhu GroverDate: 2015.10.0916:00:21 SCTReason: Four weeks time is given to the learned counsel for the sole respondent to file the counter affidavit.Item No.61 2 Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Ld. Counsel has filed an applicationfor impleadment. The said application shall be processed forlisting before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for furtherdirections.SLP(Crl) Nos. 3171-3172/2015

Fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode to thesole respondent shall be taken by the learned counsel for thepetitioners within a period of four weeks. List again on 7.1.2016. (M V RAMESH) RegistrarMG

ITEM NO.71 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M K HANJURA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned order and exemption from filing O.T. and impleadment and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 31/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr.Ashutosh Thakur,adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. Ms.Shabana,Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Dr.Charu Wali Khanna,Adv. Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta,Adv. Mr.B.K.Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(Crl.) No.2264/2015 Ld.counsel for the sole respondent seeks and is given four weeks time to file the counter affidavit. … .2

ITEM NO.71 -2- Dr.(Mrs.)Vipin Gupta, Ld.counsel has stated that she has already filed an application for impleadment in the matter. Office shall verify the position and report accordingly. SLP(Crl.) No.3171-3172/2015 Mr.D.S.Mahra, Ld.counsel seeks and is given four weeks time to file the vakalatnama and the counter affidavit. List the matter again on 09.10.2015. (M K HANJURA) Registrar SB

SECTION-II IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.)NOS.2264 & 3171-3172 OF 2015 RAHUL & ANR. ETC. ... Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI ... Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT The matters above mentioned were listed before the Court of Registrar on 12 th May, 2015 when the following order was passed : “Await the return of the service of notice already issued to the sole respondent in each of the matters numbered above. List again on 31.08.2015.” SLP(Crl.)No. 2264 of 2015 It is submitted that Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama/Appearance on behalf of sole Respondent but Counsel has not filed Counter Affidavit, so far. Service of Show Cause Notice is complete. SLP(Crl.)Nos. 3171-3172 of 2015 Neither A.D. card nor unserved cover containing the notice has been received back from the sole Respondent/State. Service of Show Cause Notice is not complete. The matters above-mentioned are listed before the Ld. Registrar Court's with this office report. DATED this the 28th day of August, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: 1. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Advocate 321, Lawyers Chambers 2. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate Central Agency

3. Dr (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta , Advocate H-19-A, Ground Floor, Opposite Sanjay Park, Shakarpur, Delhi 4. Mr. H.M. Singh, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c4/dk

î ITEM NO.71 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M K HANJURA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned order and exemption from filing O.T. and impleadment and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 31/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr.Ashutosh Thakur,adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. Ms.Shabana,Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Dr.Charu Wali Khanna,Adv. Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta,Adv. Mr.B.K.Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(Crl.) No.2264/2015Signature Not Verified Ld.counsel for the sole respondent seeks and is given fourDigitally signed bySushma Kumari BajajDate: 2015.09.0116:36:52 TLTReason: weeks time to file the counter affidavit. ....2ITEM NO.71 -2- Dr.(Mrs.)Vipin Gupta, Ld.counsel has stated that she hasalready filed an application for impleadment in the matter. Officeshall verify the position and report accordingly.

SLP(Crl.) No.3171-3172/2015 Mr.D.S.Mahra, Ld.counsel seeks and is given four weeks time tofile the vakalatnama and the counter affidavit. List the matter again on 09.10.2015. (M K HANJURA) RegistrarSBî ITEM NO.71 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. M K HANJURA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned order and exemption from filing O.T. and impleadment and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 31/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr.Ashutosh Thakur,adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. Ms.Shabana,Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Dr.Charu Wali Khanna,Adv. Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta,Adv. Mr.B.K.Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(Crl.) No.2264/2015Signature Not Verified Ld.counsel for the sole respondent seeks and is given fourDigitally signed bySushma Kumari BajajDate: 2015.09.0116:36:52 TLTReason: weeks time to file the counter affidavit. ....2

ITEM NO.71 -2- Dr.(Mrs.)Vipin Gupta, Ld.counsel has stated that she hasalready filed an application for impleadment in the matter. Officeshall verify the position and report accordingly. SLP(Crl.) No.3171-3172/2015 Mr.D.S.Mahra, Ld.counsel seeks and is given four weeks time tofile the vakalatnama and the counter affidavit. List the matter again on 09.10.2015. (M K HANJURA) RegistrarSB

ITEM NO.87 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned order and exemption from filing O.T. and impleadment and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 12/05/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. Ms.Shabana,adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Dr.(Ms.)Charuwali,adv. Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Await the return of the service of notice already issued to the sole respondent in each of the matters numbered above. List again on 31.08.2015. (M K HANJURA) Registrar SB

SECTION-II IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NOS. 2264 AND 3171-3172 OF 2015 RAHUL & ANR. ... Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI ... Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT SLP(Crl.)No. 2264 of 2015 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 20.03.2015 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Delay condoned. Notice. There shall be stay of execution of death penalty.” Accordingly Show Cause Notice was issued to the sole Respondent/State on 30.03.2015 through Registered Post A.D. Neither A.D. Card nor unserved cover has been received back. Service of Show Cause Notice is not complete. SLP(Crl.)Nos. 3171-3172 of 2015 The matters above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 16.04.2015 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Delay condoned. Notice. In the meantime, there shall be stay of execution of death sentence, until further orders.” Accordingly Show Cause Notice was issued to the sole Respondent/State on 27.04.2015 through Registered Post A.D. Service of Show Cause Notice is not complete.

It is submitted that both the matters were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 05.05.2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Post for hearing only after service of notice is complete.” The matters above-mentioned being tagged up as per directions are listed before the Ld. Registrar Court's with this office report. DATED this the 7 th day of May 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: 1. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Advocate 321, Lawyers Chambers 2. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate Central Agency 3. Dr (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta , Advocate H-19-A, Ground Floor, Opposite Sanjay Park, Shakarpur, Delhi 4. Mr. H.M. Singh, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ravin/c1

ITEM NO.87 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2264/2015 RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned order and exemption from filing O.T. and impleadment and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 12/05/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. Ms.Shabana,adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) Dr.(Ms.)Charuwali,adv. Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Await the return of the service of notice already issued to the sole respondent in each of the matters numbered above. List again on 31.08.2015. (M K HANJURA)Signature Not Verified Registrar SBDigitally signed bySushma Kumari BajajDate: 2015.05.1416:08:43 ISTReason:

SECTION-II IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NOS. 2264 AND 3171-3172 OF 2015 RAHUL & ANR. ... Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI ... Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT SLP(Crl.)No. 2264 of 2015 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 20.03.2015 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Delay condoned. Notice. There shall be stay of execution of death penalty.” Accordingly Show Cause Notice was issued to the sole Respondent/State on 30.03.2015 through Registered Post A.D. Neither A.D. Card nor unserved cover has been received back. Service of Show Cause Notice is not complete. SLP(Crl.)Nos. 3171-3172 of 2015 The matters above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 16.04.2015 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Delay condoned. Notice. In the meantime, there shall be stay of execution of death sentence, until further orders.” Accordingly Show Cause Notice was issued to the sole Respondent/State on 27.04.2015 through Registered Post A.D. Service of Show Cause Notice is awaited.

The matters above-mentioned being tagged up as per directions are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED this the 30 th day of April, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: 1. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Advocate 321, Lawyers Chambers 2. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate Central Agency 3. Dr (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta , Advocate H-19-A, Ground Floor, Opposite Sanjay Park, Shakarpur, Delhi ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ravin/c1

\220 ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.1 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2264/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/08/2014 in DSR No. 1/2014,26/08/2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned order and exemption from filing O.T. and impleadment and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3171-3172/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 05/05/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. Mr. Sameer Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. Ms. Shabana, Adv. For Respondent(s) Dr. Charu Wali Khanna, Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSignature Not Verified Post for hearing only after service of noticeDigitally signed by is complete.Charanjeet KaurDate: 2015.05.0517:19:01 ISTReason: [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Asstt. Registrar

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.1 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)......of 2015 CRLMP No(s). 5049-5050/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/08/2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 and CRLA No. 726/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 16/04/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Notice. In the meantime, there shall be stay of execution of death sentence, until further orders. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Asstt. Registrar

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.1 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)......of 2015 CRLMP No(s). 5049-5050/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/08/2014 in DSR No. 1/2014 and CRLA No. 726/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) RAVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 16/04/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Notice. In the meantime, there shall be stay of execution of death sentence, until further orders. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ]Signature Not Verified A.R.-cum-P.S. Asstt. RegistrarDigitally signed byCharanjeet KaurDate: 2015.04.1812:47:17 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.1 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)...... CRLMP No(s). 4104/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/08/2014 in DSR No. 1/2014,26/08/2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi at New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) Date : 20/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr.Sameer Kumar, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Notice. There shall be stay of execution of death penalty. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) Court Master Asstt.Registrar

ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.1 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)...... CRLMP No(s). 4104/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/08/2014 in DSR No. 1/2014,26/08/2014 in CRLA No. 563/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi at New Delhi) RAHUL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF DELHI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) Date : 20/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr.Sameer Kumar, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Notice. There shall be stay of execution of death penalty.Signature Not Verified (G.V.Ramana)Digitally signed by (Vinod Kulvi) Court MasterRamana Venkata GantiDate: 2015.03.2016:02:21 IST Asstt.RegistrarReason: