Delhi District Court
S/ vs Rohit @ Nanhe Etc. on 17 January, 2013
::1::
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: 01
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS; NEW DELHI
In re:
SC No. 10/11
FIR No. 115/11
under Sections 302/307/148/149/34 IPC
Police Station Connaught Place
State
Versus
1. Rohit @ Nanhe
S/o Shri Gogi
2. Dhanjeet @ Dhanne
S/o Shri Dil Bahadur
3. Vijay @ Biju
S/o Shri Sukha Singh
4. Bobby @ Robin
S/o Johnson David
5. Vinod Kumar @ Ganja
S/o Munna Lal
Date of Institution : 05.10.2011
Arguments concluded on : 14.01.2013
Date of Decision : 17.01.2013
JUDGMENT
1.0 The facts in brief are that on 15.6.2011 at S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 1 of 59 ::2::
about 10.30 pm, eye witness Raju Gulati along with his wife Shanno, son Rohit and other sons was sleeping on the pavement near Tiwari Flower Shop on Baba Kharag Singh Marg, towards the State Emporia, opposite Revoli Cinema. His brother-in-law Tatia along with his wife Lachi and an infant daughter were also sleeping nearby. All the accused persons who were already known to the complainant / injured side came there; accused Rohit @ Nanhe, Vijay @ Biju and Dhanjit @ Dhanne were having knives in their hands and accused Bobby @ Robin & accused Vinod Kumar @ Ganja were having stones in their hands; accused asked them as to who had given soil instead of smack to accused Vijay @ Biju and had also hit him on his head when he complained about the same; on which, deceased Tatia told them that they were not aware about this fact and asked them to go away. On this, the accused persons became furious and accused Rohit @ Nanhe stabbed Tatia in the stomach; when S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 2 of 59 ::3::
Tatia's wife Lachhi intervened to save Tatia, she was attacked with the knife on her back/waist by accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne. When accused Vijay @ Biju charged towards Raju Gulati, his son Rohit tried to intervene and he was assaulted by the accused Vijay @ Biju with knife on his head. During this attack, other accused persons namely Vinod Kumar @ Ganja and Bobby @ Robin, who were having stones in their hands did not allow any public person to come to the rescue of victims and threatened them with the stones. Meanwhile, someone called police and the injured were removed to RML hospital. Injured Tatia was declared brought dead in the hospital. Other two injured i.e., Lachhi and Rohit had also received sharp injuries and were treated for the same.
2.0 Charge under Sections 148 IPC, 302 read with Sec. 149 IPC and Section 307 read with Sec. 149 IPC was framed against the accused persons by the Ld. S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 3 of 59 ::4::
Predecessor Court vide order dated 05.10.2011.
3.0 The prosecution examined 23 witnesses who can be classified into three categories, public witnesses, including eye witness / injured witnesses; doctors \ scientific officers and police officials. 3.1 Public / Injured Witnesses PW-3, PW-4, PW-12 and PW-22 are the eye witnesses. PW-4 and PW-12 were also injured in this incident. PW-10 Bajrang Manik Kale is the father of deceased Tatia and PW-20 Ravi Arjun Kale cousin brother of the deceased Tatia, who identified the dead body and were handed over the same.
3.2 Doctors / Scientific Officer PW-14 is Dr. Gaurav Aggarwal, RML Hospital who attended to the deceased Tatia and injured Lachi on being brought to the hospital. PW15 Dr. Deepa Sharma S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 4 of 59 ::5::
of RML Hospital, examined injured Rohit and PW-16 Dr. Trilok Chand, Senior Resident, RML Hospital had given his opinion about nature of injureis on MLCs of injured Lachi and Rohit. PW-5 is Dr Manoj Kumar Handsa, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Tatia. PW-17 Ms. Anita Chari, is the Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini, Delhi who examined clothes of injured / deceased / accused and other articles sent for forensic examination.
3.3 Police Officials PW-7 HC Ashok Kumar is the Duty Officer who recorded DD No. 37A, on receipt of information about this incident from wireless operator. PW-8 HC Satish Kumar, produced the record pertaining to PCR call dated 15.6.2011. PW-13 S.I. Ram Babu, is the official to whom DD No. 37A was marked for action and PW-21 Ct.
Raghunandan had accompanied SI Ram Babu. PW-1 S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 5 of 59 ::6::
A.S.I. Ramesh Tirkey had registered the FIR. PW-6 Ct. Ram Niwas of Mobile Crime Team had taken photographs of the scene of crime and that of the deceased in mortuary and of injured PW-12 Rohit. PW-23 is the investigating officer. Other witnesses, PW-2 SI Mukesh Kumar Jain,PW-9 Ct. Rajkumar, PW-11 HC Inderpal, PW-18 Ct. Sandeep Kumar, PW-19 HC Beer Singh are the other police officials.
4.0 The statement of the accused persons were recorded under Sec 313 Cr. PC. All the accused denied incriminating material on record. They stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated and the witnesses were forced by the Investigating Officer to depose against them. Accused persons also denied recovery of knives/stones at their instance. They have also denied the manner of their arrest as described by the prosecution witnesses and have given their own S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 6 of 59 ::7::
version.
4.1 Accused Rohit @ Nanhe and Dhanjit @ Dhanne further stated that it was a blind case and police could not trace the real assailants. They alongwith other accused persons were falsely implicated to solve this case, in order to save their face, as murder had taken place in front of police station. These accused persons further detailed the reason of their false implication. 5.0 Accused Rohit @ Nanhe and Dhanjit @ Dhanne led defence evidence; they examined Smt. Padma, DW-1 and Smt. Bulbul, DW-2, respectively.
Although, accused Vinod Kumar @ Ganja also stated that he would lead defence evidence but, subsequently chose not to lead any evidence.
6.0 I have heard Shri R.K. Pandey and Shri R.K. S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 7 of 59 ::8::
Gurjar, ld Addl Public Prosecutors for State and Shri R.D. Rana, Advocate for accused Rohit @ Nanhe and accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne and Advocate Shri Rahul Thukral, ld Amicus curie for other accused persons. I have also perused the record carefully.
7.0 Public witness PW-22 Raju Gulati deposed that 15.06.2011 at about 10:30 pm, he alongwith his wife and children was going to sleep. Deceased Tatia and his wife Lachhi and their daughter were also going to sleep at the pavement near Hanuman Mandir. All the five accused came and asked who had given Sand instead of "SAMAN" (i.e. smack) to Biju and also asked who had injured Biju. When they told accused persons that they were not involved in this business, all the accused persons started fighting with them. Accused Rohit @ Nanhe, Dhanjit @ Dhanne and Vijay @ Biju were armed with knives and other two accused were holding stone S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 8 of 59 ::9::
pieces. Accused Nanhe stabbed Tatia in his abdomen. Thereafter, when accused persons moved towards him (PW-22), his son Rohit came in between and Dhanne hit his son with a knife on his head; Biju stabbed Lachhi on her back with the knife. While this was going on, the other two accused persons were scaring the public persons and were not letting anybody to come near them to save them. Somebody called the police on number 100; all the five accused persons fled from the spot; thereafter, he (PW-22)and his wife accompanied his son, deceased Tatia and his wife Lachhi to RML Hospital where Tatia was declared brought dead. 7.1 PW-22 duly identified all the accused persons in the court, who were known to him. PW-22 stood by his testimony in his cross-examination. He categorically denied that on the day of the incident, some people had come in the car and dispute had arisen on account of S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 9 of 59 ::10::
purchase of smack; and that those persons had assaulted them and then all the assailants had escaped and that he has falsely implicated the accused persons on account of enmity. Nothing worthwhile was put to PW-22 in his cross-examination to discredit his version. 7.2 PW-22's testimony is further corroborated by Ex. PW 22/A, his statement recorded soon after the incident. It has come in the testimony of IO/PW-23 that he recorded the testimony of eye-witness PW22 in the hospital.
7.3 Other eye witness PW-3 (wife of PW-22) and injured eye witnesses (PW-4 and PW-12) also corroborated the testimony of PW-22. They gave consistent account of the happenings. Injured witnesses have also detailed the manner in which they were assaulted and by whom.
S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 10 of 59 ::11::
7.4 Injured PW-4 Lachhi (wife of deceased Tatia) deposed that when she tried to intervene to rescue her husband Tatia, who was being stabbed by accused Rohit @ Nanhe, she was also given knife blow on her back by accused Dhanne. She has also specifically stated that accused Vijay @ Biju pounced towards Raju Gulati (PW-22), on which his son Rohit (PW-12) came in between and he was given knife blow on the head by accused Biju.
7.5 PW-12 who was aged about 13 years at the time of recording of his testimony was examined by the Ld. Predecessor Court only after being satisfied that the witness (PW-12) understood the questions and could answer rationally and also understood the sanctity of oath. PW-12 has also consistently narrated the incident.
He has also described as to which of the accused assaulted whom and in what manner. He has also stated S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 11 of 59 ::12::
that he was given knife blow on his head by accused Biju when he came in between his father and Biju. Thus, PW-12 also described the role of each accused and the body part on which the injuries were received by him, Lachhi and deceased Tatia.
7.6 PW-3, PW-4 and PW-12 also deposed that all the accused persons were known to them prior to the incident as they resided in the same area. PW-3 and PW-4 also specified that some of the accused persons deal in mehendi work. PW-12 also stated that Rohit @ Nanhe used to apply mehendi near Hanuman Mandir.
He also stated that other accused persons are snatchers. He gave further description of the work in which other accused persons were engaged. He has even explained as to how he was familiar with the names of the accused persons; he stated that when he used to go to Mohan Singh Place for picking up tea glasses, he used to see S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 12 of 59 ::13::
the accused persons there, where they were addressed by their nick names by the people around. These 3 witnesses also duly identified the accused persons in the court.
7.6.1 The fact that accused Rohit @ Nanhe and Dhanjit @ Dhanne used to to deal in mehendi work is admitted by them in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. 7.6.2 It was argued by Ld. defence counsel that PW-12 is not an eye witness to the assault on deceased Tatia, as he has stated in his deposition that he was sleeping and that he woke up when he heard shouts of Lachhi. Ld. Additional PP on the other hand argued that it has come in the testimony of all the eye witnesses that the accused persons after arriving at the place of incident had started questioning the injured party; they S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 13 of 59 ::14::
became furious after they were asked to go away by Tatia; they had then started assaulting them; moreover, PW-12 in his cross-examination has categorically stated that he had seen accused Nanhe (Rohit) giving knife blow to Tatia in his abdomen by his right hand. Not going any further into rival contentions, even if for a while, argument of the Ld. defence counsel is accepted, same is hardly of any assistance, in view of the consistent testimonies of other witnesses and that of PW-12 with respect to happening of the incident and assault on him.
7.7 Thus, all the eye witnesses / injured witnesses have been consistent in their account of the incident and the manner in which they were assaulted and have consistently described the role of each accused. They have stood by their version in their cross-examination.
Accused persons have failed to bring out anything in S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 14 of 59 ::15::
their cross-examination to assail their credibility. 7.8 It is significant to note that the fact that the incident of stabbing / assault / stoning took place at the time, date and place of occurrence and that the accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne was present at that time at the spot, is not disputed by accused in view of the suggestion put by them to the witnesses. It was put to PW-22 as well as PW23 Inspector Ravikant, Investigating Officer, in their cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel that actually some persons had come in a car for purchase of smack;
and a dispute had arisen between those persons and the injured party; on which, the said persons had assaulted the injured party; accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne rather, had intervened to save the complainant / injured party and he even threw stones on the said persons to make them run away; even he (accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne) had received injuries while doing so. Not only this, the S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 15 of 59 ::16::
accused persons went on to suggest to PW-22 that the accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne had even accompanied injured persons to the hospital. These suggestions were denied by PW-22 & PW23. PW-22 explained that in fact, accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne had received injuries when he was beaten up by pubic while he was trying to escape.
7.8.1 Even to PW13 SI Ram Babu, it was suggested in his cross-examination that accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne was present on the spot, when police officials reached the spot; he had even informed the police that assailants had come in the car.
7.8.2 In his statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C., also the accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne has stated that some unknown persons had come in a car and were assaulting the injured persons with sharp weapon. He tried to S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 16 of 59 ::17::
pacify the matter but, he was also attacked with the sharp object. Even accused Rohit @ Nanhe in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C. stated that accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne had suffered injuries at the time of incident of stabbing by unknown persons. Nothing has been stated by accused Rohit as to how did he know about the happenings at the scene of crime? Same points towards his own presence on the spot. 7.9 It may also be mentioned that although, accused Dhanjit's case is that he had intervened to help the injured party which included Lachi. Whereas, to Lachhi (PW4), (the injured / eye witness), it was suggested in her cross-examination that she was not present on the scene of crime at the time of incident. 7.9.1 It is also noteworthy that on one hand, it was suggested to PW-3 Shanno in her cross-examination that S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 17 of 59 ::18::
none of the accused was present at the spot and that they have been falsely implicated. On the other hand, as noted above, the accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne's presence on the spot is admitted by him vide his statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC and the suggestions put on his behalf to PW-13, PW-22 and PW-23, in their cross-examination. 7.10 Accused persons' plea of their false implication by the complainant / injured party due to enmity, also lacks any merit, in view of the findings recorded in following paras.
7.10.1 None of the accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr.PC have stated that they have been implicated by the complainant party on account of enmity between them.
7.10.2 Further, on one hand, it was argued that S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 18 of 59 ::19::
accused were falsely implicated by injured party because of an old enmity, which is clear from PW-12's statement in his cross-examination, that the accused persons had quarreled with his community people several times. On the other hand, accused Dhanne himself stated that he went to the spot to rescue the injured party. If, there was an old enmity between both the sides, where was the occasion for the accused persons to extend help to the injured party. Further, if, accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne had gone to rescue the complainant party, why would the injured implicate their saviour.
7.10.3 Further, no reason of enmity between both the sides has been assigned by the accused persons.
However, it was put to PW-22 in his cross-examination that he harbored ill will against accused persons as accused persons used to dissuade him from selling S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 19 of 59 ::20::
smack and because of that reason, he has falsely implicated them in this case. Same was categorically denied by PW-22. No reason as to why other witnesses were inimical towards the accused persons is disclosed. 7.10.4 The lame defence of enmity taken by the accused persons is further exposed by the fact that accused Rohit @ Nanhe's own witness DW-1 in her cross-
examination stated that - "we have no enmity with them (complainant side). Neither me nor my son Rohit ever had any quarrel with these persons i.e. PWs Lachhi, Raju Gulati, Shanno and her son Rohit .... I had no enmity with Tatia also".
7.10.5 It is also interesting to note that accused Rohit @ Nanhe in his statement u/Sec. 313 Cr. P.C., on one hand stated that he did not know the complainant party. But, on the other hand, while denying that the S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 20 of 59 ::21::
complainant party were rag pickers, stated that they were selling smack. If he did not know the accused persons, how did he know that they were selling smack. Same is also contrary to his own witness DW1/his mother's response that the deceased / injured persons were known to them. Contradictory stands taken by him has exposed further the falsehood of the accused. 7.11 Accused Rohit @ Nanhe put forth yet another reason of his false implication i.e., the police officials (of PS Connaught Place) nursed a grudge against him. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused Rohit @ Nanhe stated that he and his mother used to do menhadi work at Hanuman Mandir. HC Jagdish Prashad had been demanding money from them. When they refused to oblige him, he (accused) was beaten up severely by HC Jagdish Prasad and his fellow Constable in April, 2011.
Accused's mother then made a complaint to various S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 21 of 59 ::22::
authorities; pursuant to which, HC Jagdish Prasad was suspended. To avenge the same, he has been falsely implicated by the police officials.
7.11.1 The accused Rohit @ Nanhe even produced his step mother Padma as DW-1. DW-1 Padma deposed on the same lines. She stated that on 21.04.2011, HC Jagdish alongwith his companions came to their Thaiya and asked for "hafta". When she refused to pay the same, they started abusing them, which was objected to by her son / accused Rohit. On which, Rohit (accused) was badly beaten up by them. She was compelled to make written complaint to various authorities. She placed on record copies of her complaints sent to different authorities alongwith original postal receipts, which are Ex. DW 1/A (collectively). She has further stated that subsequently, HC Jagdish was suspended on that complaint. HC Jagdish thereafter, threatened her S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 22 of 59 ::23::
that he will get her son involved in false cases. Two months later on 16.06.2011 at about 4:00 am, 4 - 5 police officials visited their house and took Rohit, telling them that he was being taken for making some inquiries. On her visit to PS Connaught place at 9:00 am she was told that her son Rohit has been involved in some case. 7.11.2 DW1 in her cross-examination admitted that the accused is also involved in other case of year 2009, much prior to alleged suspension of HC Jagdish and alleged threats extended by police officials in 2011. No further submission was made in that regard. DW1 has not uttered a word as to why public witnesses have deposed against her son / accused Rohit @ Nanhe.
Accused's culpability is established from the unshakable testimony of eye witnesses/ injured witnesses and other evidence, which has come on record against accused persons.
S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 23 of 59 ::24::
7.11.3 Accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne also produced his wife Bulbul DW2 as his witness, in support of his plea of false implication. DW2 deposed that on 15.06.2011, when she was at her parent's house, she received a phone call at about 11:00 pm informing that 4 - 5 boys who came in a car had stabbed her husband Dhanjit.
She immediately reached Manipur Emporium by auto rikshaw, but, there was no one. She came to know that Dhanjit had been taken to PS Connaught Place. In her cross-examination, DW-2 admitted that she herself had not seen anything and has deposed on the basis of whatever she heard over telephone. She could not even give the mobile phone number, on which she had received the phone call. Thus, her testimony is of no assistance to the accused.
7.11.4 DW2's testimony rather, corroborates prosecution version. PW23/IO Inspector Ravikant in his S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 24 of 59 ::25::
testimony deposed that on spot enquiry he came to know that accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne may be found at Manipur Emporium, where his father was working; accused was noticed on the back side of the emporium; on seeing police officials, the accused started running, but, was overpowered by public and was assaulted. 7.11.5 DW2's testimony even exposes the falsehood of accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne. She testified that although accused Dhanjit was bleeding but was made to sit in the police station and was taken to hospital, much later. Whereas, accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne himself suggested to PW22 that he had accompanied the injured party to hospital. In that case, the question of his being made to sit in police station did not arise. Further, the accused has not explained as to why after reaching the hospital, did he not take treatment there and then.
S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 25 of 59 ::26::
7.12 Yet another reason of their implication is assigned by accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. He has stated that the complainant party has implicated them because they suspected that the car borne assailants were known to him. But no such suggestion was put to any of the eye witnesses / injured witnesses in their cross-examination. 7.12.1 It is noteworthy that to PW-13, SI Ram Babu yet another reason of implication was suggested in his cross-examination. It was suggested to him that the complainant Raju Gulati sensed that the accused Dhanne was assailant, although he had come to the spot to help; under that wrong impression he named Dhanne as accused. Same was categorically denied by him. But, this fact was not put to PW22, in his cross-examination. 7.13 In view of the above, the accused persons' S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 26 of 59 ::27::
plea of their false implication stands exposed.
8.0 Testimonies of public / injured witnesses PW-3, PW-4, PW-12 and PW-22 are further corroborated by the PCR Record / DD No. 37-A and Medical Record and testimony of other witnesses.
9.0 Form-I of Delhi Police Control Room, which recorded the happening of incident on real time basis, is Ex.PW8/A. DD No. 37-A, which was recorded on the basis of the PCR Call, is Ex.PW7/A. PW-8 HC Satish Kumar testified about the authenticity of PCR call record maintained in their office and that the same is attested by ACP L.N. Mishra.
9.1 Ex.PW8/A, PCR Form mentions that a call was received at 22:45:47 on 15.06.2011 from one Noor Jahan S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 27 of 59 ::28::
about the quarrel and it mentions that "SHIVAJI STADIUM KE PASS RIVOLI CINEMA KE OPPT. CHAKU CHAL RAHE H BAHUT JHAGRA HO RAHA H". Relevant portion of further Recordings in Ex.PW8/A is reproduced hereunder:-
"DCR No. Received 65
Report received from VAN BAGGERS KA QUARREL HAI HAMARI GADI PAR BHI PATHAR MAR RAHE HAI 15.06.2011 22:59:28 EK LADY INJ HAI HOSPITAL LAI JA RAHE HAI EK KO CHAKU LAGA HAI JO PAHALA HI RMAL HOSP JA CHUKA HAI 15/06/2011 23:32:29 LADY KO HOSH MAI D/CT RML HOSPITAL KAI H/O KIYA 15/06/2011 23:39:22 SAME CALL SL NO 66 OF V-26 15/06/201 23:59:05 TATIA S/O BAJRANG KALE AGE 24/25 YRS R/O PATRI HANUMAN MANDIR C.P. KO NANHAI S/O GOGI & USKAI 3/4 NAI STOMACH MAI RIGHT SIDE MAI CHAKU MARA HAI JISKO TATIA KA JIJA RAJU GULATI TSR MAI RML HOSP LAYA THA DOCTOR NAI B/DEAD DECLARE KAR DIYA HAI C/ROOM INF 15/06/2011 23:59:56 DED KAI HALAT FROM T-41."
S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 28 of 59 ::29::
9.2 Ld. counsel for accused Rohit @ Nanhe and Dhanjit @ Dhanne argued that Ex.PW8/A is fabricated.
He argued that although, the witnesses deposed that the incident took place at about 10:30 pm; and even MLC of deceased Tatia mentions that Tatia was brought dead in the Hospital at 11:00 pm. But, Ex.PW8/A mentions the time of stabbing of the deceased Tatia and he being taken to hospital as 23:59:05.
9.2.1 This argument is stated only to be rejected. It may be mentioned that the accused have not disputed that PCR reported about the quarrel and stabbing incident at the spot in view of the suggestion put by the accused persons themselves to PW13 and PW23/ Investigating Officer Inspector Ravi Kant in their cross- examination. PW-23 replied to the suggestion as "I have received DD No. 37A regarding quarrel and incident of knife..... It is correct that PCR call was with respect to S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 29 of 59 ::30::
stabbing". PW-13 replied that - it is correct that information was about quarrel.
9.2.2 The fact that someone in that quarrel / stabbing incident had even died also stands admitted in view of suggestion put to PW-13 SI Ram Babu, on behalf of accused Rohit and Dhanjit that the police had reached the spot only after receiving information of death of a person in quarrel. In view of the same, it does not lie in the mouth of accused persons to allege fabrication of PCR Form.
9.3 Further, from the plain reading of PCR Form, it is evident that the time of 23:59:05 is not of stabbing and taking of the deceased Tatia to the Hospital. But, it is with respect to further information received as to who stabbed Tatia and that Tatia has been declared brought dead. At that point of time i.e. 23:59:05, it is mentioned S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 30 of 59 ::31::
that "TATIA ........ KO NANHAI S/O GOGI & ....... NAI STOMACH MAI RIGHT SIDE MAI CHAKU MARA HAI JISKO....... RAJU GULATI ....... RML HOSP LAYA THA DOCTOR NAI B/DEAD DECLARE KAR DIYA HAI". From the same, it is clear that deceased had already been taken to the Hospital.
9.4 Thus, Ex.PW8/A, further corroborates the eye witnesses / injured witnesses' version that accused Rohit @ Nanhe along with three - four accused persons came to them at about 10:30 pm and they were carrying knives and stabbed the injured/deceased. The factum of stoning also finds mentioned in the Ex.PW8/A. 10.0 About DD No. 37/A, PW-7 HC Ashok Kumar who was the Duty Officer at PS Connaught Place on that day has deposed that on 15.06.2011 at 10:50 PM, wireless operator of the police station informed him S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 31 of 59 ::32::
about an incident of quarrel in which knife was used opposite Revoli Cinema. He recorded the information in DD Register at Sr. No. 37 and copy of said information was marked to SI Ram Babu for action in the matter. He has also deposed that Beat HC Raj Pal and Ct. Raghunandan were also telephonically informed about the incident. Inspector Ravi Kant was also informed regarding the incident. He produced the DD Register. Copy of which is Ex.PW7/A. In his cross-examination, PW-7 even stated that DD No. 37-A was in his handwriting and also stood by his version that he handed over DD No. 37-A to SI Rambabu.
10.1 Ex.PW7/A, DD No. 37A reads as under:-
"At about 10:50 PM, Operator D-55 produced QST on the information of L/Ct. Anju, No. 8000/PCR that a stabbing incident/quarrel had occurred opposite Rivoli Cinema. The same was noted in the Roznamcha register; was copied and was given to SI Ram Babu for S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 32 of 59 ::33::
the purpose of investigation. Beat HC Raj Pal, No. 153/ND and Inspector Raghunandan, No. 436/ND were also informed through telephone that SI Ram Babu will report at Rivoli Cinema. Inspector Ravi Kant was also informed about the call who proceeded for the spot."
10.2 From the above, it is evident that PCR recorded the information of quarrel at 22:45:47 i.e. at about 10:45 pm and the operator informed PW-7 about the same at 10:50 pm which was then recorded as DD No. 37-A. 10.3 Further, PW-1 ASI Ramesh Tirki who recorded the FIR has deposed that "on 16.06.2011 at 12:45 am, Ct. Raghunandan brought the Rukka, recorded by Inspector Ravi Kant, bearing the endorsement of IO. On the basis of which, he recorded the FIR bearing no. 115/2011 dated 16.06.2011 U/s 148/149/302/307/34 IPC. The copy of FIR and Rukka, after registration was S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 33 of 59 ::34::
handed over to the Ct. Raghunandan for handing over the same to the IO.
10.4 PW-9 Ct. Raj Kumar, who was the duty officer in PS Connaught Place has also deposed that about 2:00 AM, copy of the FIR was handed over to him for sending it to Area Magistrate and accordingly, he had delivered the copy of FIR.
10.5 The above evidence on record and even the timings of deceased and injured being brought in the hospital as mentioned in their MLCs Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW15/A, confirms that the entire record was created contemporaneously, leaving no scope for fabrication. The accused persons have failed to place on record anything to demonstrate fabrication of record.
S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 34 of 59 ::35::
11.0 Medical record / MLCs of the deceased Ex.PW14/A and that of injured Lachhi Ex.PW14/B and injured Rohit Ex.PW15/A further corroborate the version of public/injured witnesses.
11.1 Ex.PW14/A MLC of deceased Tatia mentions that he was brought in the hospital at 11:00 pm on 15.06.2011 with stab wound. MLC of Lachhi Ex.PW14/B also mentions that she was brought at 11:05 PM on 15.06.2011 "with incised wound extending from right side of neck to back (left).
11.2 PW-14 Dr. Gaurav Aggarwal proved MLCs Ex. PW 14/A and Ex. PW 14/B. PW-14 deposed that injured Tatia was brought in the hospital by HC Inderpal; and that he had attended to the injured and found that his blood pressure, pulse rate and respiration were not recordable, his pupils were dilated and fixed bilaterally; S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 35 of 59 ::36::
he was having stab wound of the size approximately 8 x 6 cm (i.e. penetrating into abdominal cavity) in right hypochondrial and right lumbar area of abdomen with exposure of omentum and intestine.
11.2.1 With respect to injured Lachhi, PW-14 deposed that she was brought in RML hospital at about 11:05 PM by ASI Gajender of PCR with alleged history of assault. He examined the injured and found clean incised wound extending from right side of neck to back (left) obliquely of size 12x5x2 cm with active bleeding.
First Aid was given to the injured and she was advised for X-Ray Chest (AP). She was shifted to RR and referred to Surgical Emergency, Room No. 12. PW-14 also proved the endorsement about handing over of injured's clothes. He has deposed that one blood stained green color blouse, torn into 2 pieces, one multi colored skirt (Lehnga), torn from one upper part sealed with CMO, S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 36 of 59 ::37::
RML was handed over to IO, SI Ram Babu, PS Connaught Place.
11.2.2 It may also be mentioned that PW-4 Lachi identified the above clothes as her lehnga (Ex.PW4/P-1), blouse (Ex.PW4/P-2) and her chunni (Ex.PW4/P-6), which she was wearing at the time of the incident. PW4 also identified the shirt (Ex.PW4/P-3) of deceased Tatia and chadar (Sheet) Ex.PW4/P-5, on which they were lying at the time of incident. No suggestion to the contrary was put to her in her cross-examination.
11.3 PW-15 Dr. Deepa Sharma, who had examined injured Rohit (PW-12) proved his MLC as Ex.PW15/A. She deposed that Rohit was brought to the hospital at 11:05 pm on 15.06.2011 by HC Inderpal. On examination, he was found to have one incised wound on head, right side of mid line of 2 x 0.5 cm and was bleeding actively. The S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 37 of 59 ::38::
nature of the injury was sharp and provisional diagnosis was on account of assault.
11.4 PW16 Dr. Trilok Chand has deposed that at the request of IO, on 29.06.2011 he had considered the result of the MLCs of injured Rohit and Lachi. He had recorded his opinion vide endorsement Ex.PW16/A on MLC of Lachi and encircled portion Y on the MLC of injured Rohit Ex.PW14/B (incorrectly referred to as Ex.PW14/E in his testimony) the nature of injuries of both the injured persons were opined to be simple. PW16 was not cross-examined in this regard. 11.5 Nothing worthwhile was put to PW-14 and PW-15 in their cross-examination to cast any doubt on their testimony / genuineness of medical record. 11.6 PW5 Dr. Manoj Kumar Handsa, who conducted S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 38 of 59 ::39::
the postmortem on the dead body of Tatia vide his report Ex.PW5/A has mentioned the cause of death as ..............
"1. External Injuries.
Surgically bandaged wound present on right lumbar and right hypochondrial region. ..... obliquely place wedge shape stabbed wound of size 8cm x 4cm x cavity deep with sharp upper outer angle present 6.5 cm above the highest point of right iliac crest and 23.5 cm below the roof of the right axilla and the lower inner blunt angle present 3.5 cm above right anterior superior iliac spine and 29.5 cm below anterior border of right axilla. The wound shows herniation of 9cm long small intestinal loop alongwith dribbling of blood. ...... The stabbed wound cuts through the sub cutaneous tissue through the right eleven inter coastal space making a cut of 6cm size on the right antero inferior border of liver and then puncturing the stomach interior of size 2.5cm x 1cm just above pyloric end. The directions of the wound was found to be upward inwards and backwardly directed and the depth was found to be approximately 14cm."
.........
.........
S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 39 of 59 ::40::
"3. Cause of death:
Death is due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of ante mortem stabbed injury to the abdomen by a sharp pointed single edged weapon. The injury sustained is fatal in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Approximate time since death is 62 - 65 hours."
11.6.1 PW5 also testified that after examination of the entire material put before him, he had opined vide his report Ex.PW5/B that the injuries found on the dead body of Tatia were possible by the weapon/knife under examination. PW5 had even identified the knife Ex.P1 (which was recovered at the instance of accused Rohit @ Nanhe), as the same, which was placed before him for opinion. In his cross- examination, PW5 stated that the postmortem report is in his handwriting. He stood by his deposition and denied that the knife Ex.P1 is not the weapon by which injury was caused and that is why, he was unable to tell S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 40 of 59 ::41::
as to how much portion of the weapon pierced in the body. PW5 also stated that the injury found on the body of the deceased was fatal in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He also stated in his cross-examination that there was only one stab, which further corroborates the public witnesses' version.
12.0 Recovery of Weapon of offence at the instance of accused persons pursuant to their disclosure statements further substantiates the above evidence. 12.1 Accused Rohit @ Nanhe, Dhanjit @ Dhanne, Vijay @ Biju in their disclosure statements Ex.PW13/K, Ex.PW13/E & Ex.PW13/V, respectively stated that they can get recovered meat cutting knives used by them in stabbing deceased Tatia and injured persons. Accused Rohit @ Nanhe in his disclosure statement stated that after the incident, he went towards Raja Bazar and S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 41 of 59 ::42::
concealed the knife under stones near the wall of Bapu Dham quarters. It has come in the testimony of PW13 that pursuant to his disclosure statement, the accused Rohit @ Nanhe got recovered knife Ex.P-1, from under stone near Palika Quarters' wall adjacent to jhuggies and that the said knife was having blood stains; said knife was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/X and its sketch is Ex.PW13/W. PW23 has also deposed on the same lines. 12.1.1 PW13 further deposed that other two accused persons i.e. Dhanjit @ Dhanne and Vijay @ Biju also got recovered knives Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, pursuant to their disclosure statements; accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne got recovered the knife used by him, from the bushes of a park falling behind Union Academy School, on which the blood was observed; accused Vijay @ Biju got recovered knife Ex.P3 from under the stone at some distance from the place, from where, accused Rohit @ Nanhe had S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 42 of 59 ::43::
hidden his knife by him i.e. Palika Quarters' wall adjacent to jhuggies and that the same were seized by him vide seizure memos Ex.PW13/G and Ex.PW13/Z respectively. He also stated that these recoveries were made in the presence of eye witness PW22 Raju Gulati. PW23 Inspector Ravikant has deposed on the same lines. 12.1.2 Eye witnesses / injured witnesses PW3, PW4, PW12, PW22 as well as SI Ram Babu PW-13, identified all the above three knives, which were recovered at the instance of accused Rohit @ Nanhe, Chanjit @ Dhanne, Vijay @ Biju. The eye witnesses were forthright in stating that they cannot tell as to which knife was used by which of the accused.
12.1.3 It may also be mentioned that blood (stains) was found on the knife recovered at the instance of accused Rohit @ Nanhe. Same was reported to be of S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 43 of 59 ::44::
group 'B' as per FSL Report Ex.PW17/B. It is noteworthy that deceased's blood was also found to of group 'B' as per FSL's Report.
12.1.4 PW13 further deposed that the accused Bobby @ Robin and Vinod @ Ganja pursuant to their disclosure statements, got recovered two stones each respectively, from service road footpath; the same were seized by him vide seizure memos Ex.PW13/Z1 and Ex.PW13/Z2, respectively. In his cross-examination, PW13 explained that he had recovered nine pieces of stones. Two stone pieces each i.e. total four stones were got recovered by Vinod @ Ganja and accused Robin @ Bobby from the right side of the Coffee Home. PW22 and PW23/I.O. also deposed on the same lines. 12.2 Ld. defence counsel argued that no knife / stone was recovered at the instance of the accused S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 44 of 59 ::45::
persons; same were planted.
12.2.1 Ld. counsel for the accused persons Rohit @ Nanhe, Dhanjit @ Dhanne and Vijay @ Biju argued that the fact that the knives were not recovered at the instance of the accused persons and were planted on them, is clear from Ex.PW23/D1. That is, IO's application dated 16.06.2011 for police custody remand to Ld. MM, where it is mentioned that the weapon of offence was yet to be recovered.
12.2.2 IO/PW23, in his cross-examination has stated that application was filed for tracing the source of knife.
It is seen that the said application also mentions about recovery of knife.
12.2.3 Ld. defence counsel for accused Vinod Kumar S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 45 of 59 ::46::
@ Ganja and Robin @ Bobby disputed recovery of stones at their instance. It was argued that if the accused persons had come equipped with the stones, they could have held in both the hands not more than two stones each. Whereas, total nine stones are shown to have been recovered from the scene of crime and the place of hiding. Further, the recovery of stones was planted on the accused persons, is also clear from the contradictions in the testimony of PW13 and PW22; PW13 has stated that the stones were got recovered from side of Coffee Home. Whereas, PW22 in his deposition has stated that stones were recovered from the scene of crime.
12.2.4 It is noted that PW22 has deposed that stones were found on the scene of crime, which is contrary to the deposition of PW13. It is highly improbable that while running away, the accused S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 46 of 59 ::47::
persons would pick up and carry with them, the stones used by them. Same creates doubt about the recovery of stones at the instance of accused Vinod @ Ganja and accused Robin @ Bobby.
12.2.5 However, the Ld. defence counsel's argument that the same exposes the falsehood of the prosecution story cannot be accepted. The fact that the accused Vinod @ Ganja and Robin @ Bobby were holding stones in their hands to scare away the public persons from rescuing the injured party has already been established vide oral testimony of the eye witnesses / injured witnesses. Same has further been corroborated by the PCR record which mentions about stoning. However, even if Ld. defence counsel's argument is accepted and the recovery of weapons of offence - knife / stone is ignored, still there is sufficient incriminating evidence on record against the accused persons.
S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 47 of 59 ::48::
13.0 Involvement of the accused Rohit @ Nanhe is further corroborated by the fact that blood was found on the shirt, he was wearing at the time of his arrest, which was seized vide Memo Ex.PW13/Z-3. PW-13 SI Ram Babu has deposed that the same was sealed with the seal of RK. PW-13 has stood by the same in his cross- examination and further explained that the blood stains were visible on the back side also of accused's shirt. No suggestion to the contrary was put to PW-13. Although, the shirt was sent to FSL for examination. But, no conclusive result could be found. 14.0 In view of the above facts and circumstances and evidence on record, it is established that all the five accused persons arrived at the scene of crime armed with knives and stones with the common object to deal with the complainant party and make use of the weapon, if required, thus, constituting an unlawful assembly. S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 48 of 59 ::49::
14.1 It also stands established that accused Rohit @ Nanhe, stabbed Tatia in his stomach with an intention to cause such bodily injury, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and which resulted in the death of Tatia. Thus, accused Rohit @ Nanhe is guilty of murder, punishable under Sec. 302 IPC. But, from the evidence on record, it cannot be concluded that all the accused persons had arrived at the scene of crime with an intention to kill. Thus, the other members of unlawful assembly cannot be convicted under Sec. 302 IPC.
14.2 However, in view of the fact that three of the accused persons / members of unlawful assembly were armed with knives, knowledge can be imputed to all the accused persons / members of unlawful assembly that in prosecution of their common object, such bodily injury might be caused by use of knife / stabbing which may S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 49 of 59 ::50::
lead to death of the injured party. Thus, accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne, Vijay @ Biju, Vinod @ Ganja and Bobby @ Robin are guilty of offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part II IPC read with Sec. 149 IPC.
14.3 It is also established that the accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne and Vijay @ Biju caused injuries with knives on the back of injured Lachi and on the head of injured Rohit, respectively. It has also been proved beyond reasonable doubt that other accused persons namely Vinod @ Ganja and Robin @ Bobby used stones to prevent public persons from coming to the rescue of the victims, while they were being attacked. The knife injuries suffered by both the injured persons have been opined to be sharp and simple. Thus, all the accused persons / members of unlawful assembly are guilty of an offence punishable under Sec. 324 IPC read with Sec. 149 IPC.
S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 50 of 59 ::51::
14.4 The accused persons, who constituted an unlawful assembly, were armed with knives and stones;
the said weapons were used in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. Therefore, all the accused persons are also guilty of offence of rioting punishable under Sec. 148 IPC.
15.0 The accused are accordingly convicted as under in case FIR No. 115/11, PS Connaught Place :
i. Accused Rohit @ Nanhe is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC.
ii. Accused Dhanjit @ Dhanne, Vijay @ Biju, Vinod @ Ganja and Bobby @ Robin are convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part II IPC read with Sec. 149 IPC.
iii. All the accused persons are convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 324 IPC read with S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 51 of 59 ::52::
Sec. 149 IPC.
iv. All the accused are also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 148 IPC.
Announced in open Court (Poonam A. Bamba) Date : 17th January, 2013 ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 52 of 59 ::53::
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: 01 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS; NEW DELHI In re:SC No. 10/11
FIR No. 115/11 under Sections 302/307/148/149/34 IPC Police Station Connaught Place State Versus
1. Rohit @ Nanhe S/o Shri Gogi
2. Dhanjeet @ Dhanne S/o Shri Dil Bahadur
3. Vijay @ Biju S/o Shri Sukha Singh
4. Bobby @ Robin S/o Johnson David
5. Vinod Kumar @ Ganja S/o Munna Lal ORDER ON SENTENCE 1.0 Sh. R. D. Rana, Ld. counsel for the convict persons Rohit @ Nanhe and Dhanjit @ Dhanne submitted S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 53 of 59 ::54::
that they are young boys; convict Rohit @ Nanhe's mother is disabled and there is no-one to lookafter her. Convict Dhanjit @ Dhanne is married and has young wife and a two years' old child to take care of. Ld. counsel further submitted that there was no pre-meditation on the part of the convict persons to kill anyone. The deceased got killed pursuant to the quarrel. Ld. counsel prayed for minimum punishment. Regarding conviction of convicts Dhanjit @ Dhanne, Vijay @ Biju, Vinod @ Ganja and Robin @ Bobby, under Section 304 Part II IPC. It was pleaded that convicts be sentenced for the period already undergone by them, as they have already been in judicial custody for about 1½ years. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble High Court in Chhota Singh & Anr. v. The State of Punjab, 1998 (1) C.C. Cases 329 (HC), Dev Narain Pandey Vs. State (Delhi Adm.), Crl. Appeal No. 109 of 1987, decided on 30.11.1987 and Roshan Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 54 of 59 ::55::
2004 (1) C.C. Cases (HC) 29.
2.0 Sh. Rahul Thukral, amicus curiae on behalf of the other convict persons namely Vijay @ Biju, Vinod @ Ganja and Robin @ Bobby submitted that these convict persons have no past criminal record; they are the sole bread earners of their families; they have already been in judicial custody for about 18 months. Prayer was made for release of these convicts on probation submitting that any condition as deemed fit by this court, may be imposed upon them; convicts shall strictly comply with the same.
3.0 On the other hand, Ld. Additional PP prayed for maximum punishment pleading that all the convict persons had arrived at the spot to teach the injured party a lesson. In prosecution of their common intention, they killed Tatia and injured other two persons with S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 55 of 59 ::56::
dangerous weapons. Therefore, they deserve no mercy. 4.0 I have duly considered the submissions made by both the sides and have considered the record carefully.
5.0 Convict Bobby @ Robin is aged about 35 years and all other convict persons are about 22 years of age. Convict Dhanjit @ Dhanne is married and has a young wife and small child. Nothing has come on record to show any previous criminal involvement of convicts Dhanjit @ Dhanne, Vijay @ Biju, Vinod @ Ganja and Robin @ Bobby. It has also come on record that the convict persons had arrived with knives / stones with an intention to deal with the complainant party; convict Rohit @ Nanhe killed Taita; but, there was no pre-
meditation on the part of members of unlawful assembly/convicts to kill. Taking into account these facts S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 56 of 59 ::57::
and circumstances, age, background etc. of the convicts, I am of the considered opinion that following sentence shall meet the ends of justice and the convicts are sentenced accordingly :-
v. Convict Rohit @ Nanhe is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- under Sec. 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months;
and vi. Convicts Dhanjit @ Dhanne, Vijay @ Biju, Vinod @ Ganja and Bobby @ Robin are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 07 years under Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 149 IPC and fine of Rs.3000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months; and S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 57 of 59 ::58::
vii. All the convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 03 years under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and fine of Rs.2000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months; and viii.All the convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 03 years under Section 148 IPC.
5.1 The judgments relied upon by Ld. defence counsel for convicts Dhanjit @ Dhanne, Vijay @ Biju, Vinod @ Ganja and Bobby @ Robin, praying for sentence for the period already undergone with respect to conviction under Section 304 II IPC, are of no assistance to the convicts, as the facts of those cases were very distinct.
S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 58 of 59 ::59::
6.0 All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C be given to convicts. 7.0 Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to convicts free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (Poonam A. Bamba) Date : 22nd January, 2013 ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi S/vs.Rohit @ Nanhe etc. FIRNo. 115/11 : P.S.Connaught Place Page No. 59 of 59