Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Vinod Paswan on 5 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; FTC : E COURT:
SHAHDARA: KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No.37/2014
Unique Case ID No. 767/2016
FIR No.181/2014
U/S: 302/174A/34 IPC
P.S: Farsh Bazar
State Versus 1. Vinod Paswan
S/o. Sh. Lotan Paswan
R/o. H.No. 500/20, Gali no. 15,
Vishwas Nagar, Delhi.
Permanent address:
Village Basauli, PS. Bochaha,
Distt. Mujaffarpur, Bihar.
Date of Institution : 14.07.2015
Date of Arguments : 06.07.2017
Date of Judgment : 05.08.2017
JUDGMENT: Case of Prosecution FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 1 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan
1. Briefly, the case of prosecution is that on 01.03.2014, DD No.35A regarding a murder was recorded at PS Farsh Bazar, pursuant to which, SI Bharat Singh alongwith Ct. Somveer reached the spot i.e H.No. 500/20, Gali No.15, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara. The information was also passed to SHO, who proceeded to the spot. The body of a male with a wound on his neck was found lying in a room in a pool of blood, at first floor. Blood was also present in the room. CATS Ambulance, PCR and Crime Team was called at the spot. The staff of CATS Ambulance told that the person lying in pool of blood is dead, whereafter spot was inspected and got photographed. Name of deceased was learnt as Ajay Paswan. Caller/complainant Pramod Paswan also met at the spot. SI Bhagat Singh recorded the statement of complainant, prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered. Dead body was sent to Sabzi Mandi mortuary for getting the same preserved. One vegetable cutting knife found lying at the spot was lifted and its sketch was prepared. The knife was then kept in a pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of HCR. The blood sample, blood earth and earth control samples were lifted. Two quarter bottles of liquor and a beer bottle were also lifted from the spot. A chekdar blanket lying under the body was also lifted from the FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 2 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan spot and seized. Site Plan was prepared. Postmortem on the body of deceased Ajay Paswan was got conducted. Accused Raghuveer Paswan (case against whom has already been disposed off by my Ld. Predecessor Sh. Ravinder Dudeja, Ld. ASJ, vide judgment dt. 21.03.2015) was arrested. Accused Vinod Paswan could not be arrested and was declared proclaimed offender. Subsequently, accused Vinod Paswan was arrested as PO and supplementary charge sheet was filed against him, in which case he is facing trial before this court.
2. On appearance, in compliance of section 207 IPC, copies were supplied to accused, and as offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions, present case was committed to Sessions Court.
Charge framed against the accused.
3. Charge against the accused u/s. 302 IPC was framed, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Additional charge u/s. 174A IPC was also framed against accused, to which also, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 3 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan Witnesses examined
4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in all.
5. PW1 Sh. Pramod Paswan is the complainant and eye witness of the incident. He deposed that he is a rickshaw puller and that earlier he was residing at Vishwas Nagar in a rented house. He deposed that his brother inlaw deceased Ajay Paswan, accused Vinod Paswan and Raghuveer were also living with him in the same house and that accused Vinod Paswan and deceased Ajay Paswan belonged to the same village. He further deposed that on 01.03.2014, they all returned at the rented house at about 6.30 pm. While he started taking beer, accused Vinod Paswan, Ajay and Raghuveer started taking liquor. After taking liquor, accused Vinod asked Ajay to cook food, for which he refused saying that he was not his servant and both entered into a scuffle. In the said scuffle, Ajay caught the shirt of accused Vinod Paswan and accused Vinod stabbed Ajay with knife in his neck, due to which Ajay started bleeding. After stabbing Ajay, accused Vinod Paswan fled away from the house. Raghuveer also ran away. He deposed that he tried to apprehend accused Vinod Paswan but he managed to flee away.
FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 4 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan He then informed the police at 100 number. He deposed that by the time police came at the spot, Ajay had already expired. His statement was recorded by the police and dead body was sent to Subzi Mandi Mortuary. He deposed that after postmortem dead body was released to Chandan in his presence. He deposed that he had shown the place of incident to the police and that police had seized the knife from the spot. He deposed that accused Vinod could not be arrested and later police arrested Raghuveer.
In his crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP, he admitted that there were two half bottles of liquor at the spot, seizure memo of which bears his signature. He admitted that police seized one blood stained blanket of Ajay in his presence and that police lifted blood in gauge and sample earth control from the spot and seized the same. Admitting that after lifting the vegetable knife having plastic handle, accused Vinod asked Ajay to either cook food or he would kill him, he volunteered that the handle of knife was of red colour. Case property including knife was shown to him in the court, which he correctly identified.
In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he deposed that no serious quarrel took place between them FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 5 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan prior to this incident.
6. PW2 is Sh. Kishan Pal, who deposed that in the year 2014, four boys namely Vinod, Raghuveer and two others, names of whom he does not remember, were living as tenants in the back portion of his house. He deposed that they all used to go for work in the morning and return in the evening. He deposed that on 28.02.2014, while he was sleeping at his house, police came and informed him about the murder of Raghuveer. He identified accused Vinod Paswan as the person, who was his tenant. He deposed that house was given on rent 1012 days prior to the occurrence.
In response to leading questions put by Ld. Addl. PP, he admitted that name of victim was Ajay and that date of incident might be 01.03.2014 and not 28.02.2014.
7. PW3 SI Bharat Singh deposed that on 01.03.2014 at about 8.45 pm, on receiving of DD No. 35A regarding murder, he alongwith Ct. Somveer went to H.No.500/20, Gali No.15, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, where dead body of a male was lying on first floor. The body was smeared with blood. CATS Ambulance and crime team were called at the spot.
FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 6 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan CAT ambulance came at the spot and after examining the body, declared the person dead. SHO alongwith other staff also reached the spot. Spot was examined by crime team and photographs were taken from different angles. He recorded the statement of complainant Pramod Paswan, prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered. Site plan at the instance of complainant was prepared by IO/Inspector Harish Chander. Dead body was sent to Subzi Mandi Mortuary. Sketch of knife was prepared and same was seized. He deposed that blood in gauge, blood earth and earth sample were lifted, sealed with the seal of HCR and seized. Two half liquor bottles, one beer bottle and one blanket lying near the body were also seized from the spot. Statement of landlord and supplementary statement of complainant was recorded by IO. Statements of CAT officials and Crime Team officials were also recorded. He deposed that on 02.03.2014, postmortem on the body of deceased was got conducted and dead body was handed over to one Chandan, brother of deceased. He deposed that doctor had handed over viscera, clothes of deceased and blood gauge in sealed condition alongwith sample seal, which was seized by IO vide memo Ex.PW3/F. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. He, on 14.03.2014, again joined the investigation and obtained FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 7 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan subsequent opinion from Dr. Arun, Autopsy Subji Mandi with regard to weapon of offence i.e knife. On 17.04.2015, he again joined the investigation with IO when accused Vinod Paswan was arrested in this case. He deposed about arrest, personal search and disclosure statement of accused Vinod Paswan.
8. PW4 Sh. Chandan Prakash is the brother of deceased, to whom the dead body was handed over after postmortem.
9. PW5 HC Khem Chand is the duty officer, who had received the call from control room regarding murder and had recorded DD No.35A (Ex.PW5/A). He also proved registration of FIR as Ex.PW5/B and his endorsement as Ex.PW5/C.
10. PW6 is SI Vijay, who deposed that on 16.04.15 on the basis of secret information, he arrested accused Vinod Paswan & conducted his personal search. Medical of accused was got conducted and he was taken to lockup. SHO was informed about it. He deposed that DD No. 49B was lodged about apprehension of accused. He deposed that on the next FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 8 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan day, disclosure statement of accused was recorded, thereafter, accused led the police team to the place of incident and pointing out memo was prepared.
11. PW6 HC Manoj Kumar had taken the exhibits from MHC(M) and deposited the same at FSL Rohini.
12. PW7 is Mohd. Salman, who at the relevant time was posted on Ambulance Alpha08 as a para medical. He on receiving the information had reached the spot, examined the deceased, who was lying in pool of blood and declared him dead.
13. PW8 Dr. Arun Kumar had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased. He proved his report as Ex.PW8/A. As per him, injury no.1 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually. In his subsequent opinion Ex.PW8/C given on the application filed by IO/Inspector Harish Chander on 14.03.2014, with regard to weapon of offence, he stated that injury no.1 & 2 as mentioned in PM report are possible by weapon of offence i.e knife provided for examination. He had also taken the measurement FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 9 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan of knife and prepared its sketch Ex.PW8/B.
14. PW9 Ct. Seema was at the relevant time posted in PHQ CP CR and had received a call from mobile number 7503769459, wherein caller informed that " Vishwas Nagar Road, 7 ft Road, Gali No.14, Yaha Par Murder Ho Gaya Hai". She proved the copy of PCR form as Ex.PW9/A1 and certificate u/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW9/B.
15. PW10 HC Sonu Kaushik had at the instance of IO inspected the place of incident and prepared rough notes and measurements. Thereafter, on the basis of rough notes, he had also prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW11/C.
16. PW11 HC Sunil Dutt is the MCH(M), who deposed about depositing of pullandas by IO/ Inspector Harish Chander at Malkhana. He, on the direction of IO, had sent sealed viscera peti alongwith sample seal and 11 sealed pullandas to FSL Rohini through HC Manoj. He deposed that on 26.06.14 one sealed wooden box alongwith sealed report was submitted in Malkhana by Ct. Nazim.
FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 10 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan
17. PW12 Ct. Somveer on 01.03.2014 remained associated with PW3 SI Bharat Singh and deposed on the similar line.
18. PW13 is SI Kaushal Ganguli, who on 01.03.2014 was posted as Incharge Mobile Crime Team and on receiving information through control room regarding murder, had reached the spot alongwith Ct. Vikas, photographer and Ct. Sandeep, finger print proficient. He deposed that finger print proficient attempted to lift chance prints from beer bottle, plastic whiskey bottle and kitchen knife but the same could not be lifted. He proved scene of crime report prepared by him as Ex.PW11/A.
19. PW14 Ct. Vikas is the photographer posted in Mobile Crime Team. He had taken 22 photographs of the spot at the instance of IO and Incharge Crime Team and proved the photographs as Ex.PW14/A1 to Ex.PW14/A19.
20. PW15 Inspector Harish Chander deposed on the same terms as deposed by PW3 SI Bharat regarding the investigation done by him.
FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 11 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan
21. PW16 is SI Savai Lal, who had executed process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C against accused Vinod Paswan. He proved his report as Ex.PW16/A.
22. Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and pleaded innocence. In answer to question no.1 of his statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, he stated that in the year 2014, he was not living with Raghuveer, Pramod Paswan and deceased Ajay Paswan at the first floor in back portion of house of PW2 Sh. Kishan Pal. Accused did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence.
Arguments and conclusion
23. Arguments have been addressed by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as also by Sh. Gaurav Vashisth, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused.
24. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that in his first statement complainant stated that Raghuveer (who has already been acquitted) had caught hold of deceased, however, in his FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 12 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan deposition before the court, he did not assign any role to him, which creates a doubt on the entire testimony of complainant. He argued that deceased himself was a habitual offender and was involved in 23 cases. He further argued that gamchha allegedly used by complainant for putting on the wound of deceased, was not handed over to the police and no blood stains were found on the clothes of deceased, which create a doubt about his presence at the spot. He argued that PW1 complainant is an interested witness, being relative of deceased and has falsely implicated the accused due to previous enmity.
25. In rebuttal, Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt with the testimony of complainant, who is also eye witness of the incident and has given a consistent testimony. He further argued that accused ran away after the incident and evaded his arrest, as such, conduct of accused also proves his guilt.
26. Complainant, who is an eye witness of incident has remained consistent throughout and has in his first statement given to the police, as well as in depositions before the court FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 13 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan narrated the same facts and has not made any improvement or alterations with regard to the role of accused Vinod Paswan. He stated that after taking liquor, accused Vinod asked Ajay to cook food, for which he refused saying that he was not his servant and both entered into a scuffle. In the said scuffle, Ajay caught the shirt of accused Vinod Paswan and accused Vinod stabbed Ajay with knife in his neck, due to which Ajay started bleeding. After stabbing Ajay, accused Vinod Paswan fled away from the house. There is hardly any omission or improvement with regard to role of accused in the statement of complainant, which could render his testimony doubtful. He has remained firm on his stand even in the lengthy cross examination done by Ld. Defence Counsel.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal)231, Sampath Kumar Vs Inspector of Police Krishangiri referring to Vadivelu Thevar v State of Madras AIR 1957SC614 spoke of three category of witnesses: those that are wholly reliable, those that are wholly unreliable and who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the case of the first category the courts have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion either way. It can convict or acquit the accused on the deposition of single witness if it is found to be FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 14 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan fully reliable. In the second category also there is no difficulty in arriving at an appropriate conclusion for there is no question of placing any reliance upon a deposition of a wholly unreliable witness. It is only in the case of witnesses who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable that the Courts have to be circumspect and have to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony direct or circumstantial.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2012 SC 3157, Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs State of NCT of Delhi with Hari Singh v State of NCT of Delhi while laying down the quality of a witness held as under:
' "Sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court.....The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross examination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 15 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan the factum of occurence, the person involved, as well as, the sequence of it...It should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where they should not be any missing link in the chain of the circumstances, to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. ...To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant material namely, oral documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve."
27. In view of above judgment, totality of the facts when considered, clearly reveals that statement of complainant cannot be stated to be of untruthful witness and he is the witness of first category. He was undoubtedly present at the spot and in coherent manner has described as to how the injury was caused on the person of the deceased. Certain omissions here and there would not lead to a conclusion that the testimony of the complainant is unreliable.
28. There is recovery of weapon of offence i.e knife FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 16 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan from the spot itself. The version of complainant that accused stabbed deceased in his neck finds corroboration from the postmortem report which says that injury no.1 i.e incised stab wound with clean margins measuring 2 cm x 0.2 cm x 5.2 cm present almost horizontally on left side neck, is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually. PW8 Dr. Arun Kumar, who had conducted postmortem, in his subsequent opinion with regard to weapon of offence, has stated that injury no.1 & 2 as mentioned in PM report are possible by weapon of offence i.e knife provided for examination. Weapon of offence i.e knife has been identified in the court by complainant as well as other witnesses of recovery. Thus, it has been proved on record that the murder was committed with the same knife, which was seized from the spot and in the manner as deposed by complainant.
29. The recovery of two quarter bottles of liquor and a beer bottle from the spot also supports the version of complainant, who stated that on 01.03.2014, they all returned at the rented house at about 6.30 pm. While he started taking beer, accused Vinod Paswan, Ajay and Raghuveer started taking liquor. Thus, the above recoveries combined with the FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 17 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan statement of complainant makes the case of prosecution stronger and believable.
30. Now coming to the defence taken by accused. The defence has taken a plea of enmity between deceased and accused Vinod Paswan stating that deceased Ajay had built up a house on the property of family of accused. Any previous enmity between deceased and accused has been outrightly rejected by PW1 during his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel. He even has deposed that no serious quarrel had taken place between them prior to incident. No documentary or oral evidence has been adduced on record to prove that there was in fact, any enmity between deceased and accused, due to which he has been falsely implicated by the complainant, who is relative of deceased. The contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that complainant is relative of deceased and is therefore, an interested witness, cannot be a ground to reject his testimony.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar, 1996 (1) SCC 614, wherein it was held that " a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term ' interested ' postulates that the witness must have FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 18 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animus or for some other reason." In the instant case, defence has not been able to prove any enmity between complainant and accused and has also failed to prove that complainant has an interest adverse to that of accused, as such, mere relationship of complainant with deceased does not disqualify him to depose as a witness and does not render his testimony unreliable.
31. Defence of accused that he was not living with PW1 Pramod Paswan and deceased at the time of incident stands contradicted by testimony of PW2 Sh. Kishan Pal, who deposed that in the years 2014, four boys namely Vinod, Raghuveer and two others, names of whom he does not remember, were living as tenants in the back portion of his house. He has identified accused Vinod Paswan as the person, who was his tenant. PW2 is an independent public witness and has no concern with either party, hence there is no possibility of his suppressing the truth and telling a lie. Thus, testimony of PW2 Sh. Kishan Pal, completely discards the plea of accused that at the time of incident, he was not living with PW1 and deceased.
FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 19 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan
32. Another defence taken by accused that the gamchha allegedly used by complainant for putting on the wound of deceased, was not handed over to the police and no blood stains were found on the clothes of deceased is also not sustainable since complainant has nowhere stated that he ever tried to lift the deceased or to take him to the hospital. He rather stated that he did not provide any first aid to the deceased and that he had no medicine and tried to stop the blood by keeping his gamchha on the neck of deceased for about two minutes. Thus, there was no occasion for him to get his clothes blood stained. Complainant is a rickshaw puller and cannot be expected to behave like an educated person, who would have in such circumstances very minutely narrated the incident and what happened thereafter, in detail, to the police or would himself had handed over the articles, which could be connected with the case. Thus, nohanding over of Gamchha to the police by complainant stands explained considering the background of complainant and the situation in which he was at that time.
33. The conduct of accused in running away from the spot is also relevant to prove his guilt. Accused immediately FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 20 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan after committing the offence, ran away and could not be arrested since long. He could be arrested after about two years of incident only when he was declared proclaimed offender. As such, the conduct of accused in itself is sufficient to prove that he was the person, who had in fact caused injuries on the person of deceased.
34. The case of the prosecution has been proved by the eyewitness supported by the medical and scientific evidence and the other witnesses of prosecution.
35. The complainant/eye witnesses remained consistent on all aspects as discussed above, which shows that the incident did occur in his presence and that accused was the person, who committed the offence. In view of all these facts, the evidence of the witness appears truthful and trustworthy. The prosecution thus, has proved that incident of stabbing took place inside the four corners of the room, where deceased alongwith accused and other two used to reside. However, these facts taken per se make out a case u/s. 304 IPC and not U/s. 302 IPC. Reliance placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 1995 (2) RCR, Bhagwan Das Vs. State.
FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 21 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan The facts of the said case as mentioned in para 6 at page no. 598 are similar to the facts of the present case and are reproduced hereunder:
" There is not even an iota of suggestions that the appellant had any motive to kill Sukh Lal or had any intention to cause his death. She has pointed out that the occurrence had taken place in a very sudden manner. The real purpose of the appellant and his coaccused was to somehow make Sukh Lal to gamble with them but Sukh Lal was not keen for gambling at that time because his two brothers had come and so he wanted to go back to his house and suddenly the appellant had taken out the knife and gave one stab blow at the back of the thigh of deceased and so the offence committed is under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code."
" That death was due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from injury to the said artery and the said injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature."
In the instant case, prosecution has failed to prove that accused had any motive or intention to cause death of deceased. No previous enmity or dispute between the deceased and accused could be proved. The incident took place at the spur of the moment and nothing was preplanned. To impute FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 22 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan upon the accused, an intention to cause death of the deceased would not be appropriate as the evidence of the prosecution does not suggest this. PW1 complainant has deposed that after taking liquor, accused Vinod Paswan asked Ajay to cook food, for which he refused saying that he was not his servant and both entered into a scuffle. In the said scuffle, Ajay caught the shirt of accused Vinod Paswan and accused Vinod stabbed Ajay with knife in his neck, due to which Ajay started bleeding. The deposition of complainant shows that accused stabbed deceased in a sudden quarrel and in a fit of anger while he was under the influence of liquor only when deceased refused to cook for him. Accused thus, did not intend to cause such injury to the deceased as would have resulted in his death as per the requirement of section 300 IPC. Going by the judgment cited above, the accused having caused injury on the person of accused, which resulted into his death at the spur of moment, did not commit his murder and is not liable under section 302 IPC. The offence committed in this case is u/s. 304 part II IPC having been caused with the knowledge that the act may result into the death, which ultimately occurred. Accused is accordingly convicted u/s.304 part II IPC.
FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 23 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan
36. Coming to the charge u/s. 174A IPC framed against accused, PW16 SI Savai Lal, who had executed process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C against accused, has deposed that on 22.06.2014, process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C against accused was entrusted to him. He deposed that he visited both the addresses of accused of accused i.e Village Basauli, PS. Bochaha, Distt. Mujaffarpur, Bihar and 500/20, Gali No.15, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara and publicly read proclamation in both the localities. He also affixed copies of proclamation u/s. 82 Cr.P.C at both the addresses of accused and one copy at the notice board of the court room. He has proved his report in this regard as Ex.PW16/A. In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he has stated that when he reached the village of accused, he made arrival entry in the local Police Station Bochaha. He even deposed that wife and father of accused met him and he also got their photographs. The permanent address of accused on which the process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C has been executed, is the same address, which has also been given by accused in his statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. He has not taken any specific defence in reply to question no.19 of his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, wherein it was stated that he concealed his presence and FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 24 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan proclamation at the aforesaid two addresses was executed against him. He simply stated " it is incorrect". In the absence of any specific plea taken by accused, from the statement of PW16 SI Savai Lal, it is proved that process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C has been duly executed against accused at the address at which he was residing, he, however, intentionally evaded his arrest. In view of above, accused is also held guilty u/s. 174A IPC. Let accused be heard at the point of sentence.
SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA Announced in the open court Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA on 05.08.2017 Date: 2017.08.05 15:32:25 +0530 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra) ASJ/FTC/ECOURT Shahdara/KKD/Delhi FIR No. 181/2014, PS. Farsh Bazar Page 25 of 25 St. Vs. Vinod Paswan