Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Smt Darshana on 30 April, 2011
IN THE COURT OF S.K. SARVARIA DISTRICT JUDGEVIII &
INCHARGE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:
ROHINI COURTS DELHI
SESISONS CASE NO. 70/10
State Vs. (1) Smt Darshana
wife of Sh Chattar Singh
R/o J69495, Jahangir Puri
Delhi
(2) Harbir Singh
s/o Chattar Singh
R/o J 69495, Jahangir Puri
Delhi.
(3) Chattar Singh
s/o Mange Ram
R/o J 69495, Jahangir Puri
Delhi.
(4) Prakshit @ Pappy
s/o Chattar Singh
R/o J 69495, Jahangir Puri
Delhi.
S/vs Darshana and ors 1
FIR No. 732/05
Police Station Jahangir Puri
Under Section 302/323/34 IPC
Date of Institution 10/03/2006
Date when arguments
were heard 15/04/2011
Date of judgment 27/04/2011
JUDGMENT
The SHO police station of Jahangir Puri has challaned the accused persons to face trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections. 302/323/34 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate after compliance of provisions under Section 207 Cr.PC. supplied the copies to the accused persons and committed the case to the Court of Session for their trial. BRIEF FACTS The prosecution case, in brief as disclosed in the challan filed under Section 173 CrPC is that on 27.11.2005 on receipt of DD No.23A regarding a quarrel, ASI Jagbir Singh along with Constable S/vs Darshana and ors 2 Ashok Kumar and Constable Dalbir Singh went to the spot at gali in front of House No. J671, Jahangir Puri and they came to know that the two injured women had been taken to BJRM hospital by PCR van. On the spot, on the wall of House No. J694, Jahangir Puri and in the gali at two places the blood was present. ASI Jagbir Singh left the Constable Dalbir Singh at the spot and went along with Constable Ashok Kumar to BJRM Hospital where he received MLC of Sunita wife of late Vijay Singh in which the doctor has recorded that patient was brought dead. ASI Jagbir Singh recorded the statement of injured Krishna Devi in which she has stated, in short, that her husband was employed in DMS, Shadipur Depot. Last year, in the month of November son of Chattar Singh namely Prikshit @ pappy went inside the house of neighbour Kishan Lal and outraged the modesty of his daughter Swati. She (Krishna) was witness in the said case so Chattar Singh and his family was inimical towards her and her family. Due to this reason, Chattar Singh and his family used to abuse and quarrel with them. But, due to the fact that they were neighbour and they tried to escape from confrontation with Chattar Singh and his family. On 27.11.2005 at 2.15 p.m when her daughter Sunita was doing some work in front of S/vs Darshana and ors 3 her house, Chattar Singh, his son Harvir @ Dinku and Prikshit @ pappy came with danda, hockey and cricket bat in their hands in the meantime the wife of Chattar Singh, Darshana also came there. They four exhorted that they would finish the daily quarrel. Accused Darshana caught hold of her (Krishna's) daughter Sunita and Chattar Singh attacked Sunita on her head with danda in his hand and attempted to commit her murder. Accused Harbir @ Dinku with hockey and accused Prikshit @ pappy with cricket bat. Thereafter these four accused attacked her (Krishna) with intention to kill. The occurrence was witnessed by Smt. Darshana wife of Shyam Singh and her son Neeraj who also came at the spot. The telephone call was made at 100 number and PCR van came there . Then Neeraj took her (Krishna) and Sunita to BJRM hospital where doctor declared her daughter Sunita as brought dead. On this statement of complainant, endorsement was made by ASI Jagbir Singh. He sent rukka to police station on the basis of which FIR was registered in this case. The spot was inspected. The Inspector and Additional SHO also came at the spot. During investigation, the spot was got inspected by crime team. The photographs were taken, crime team report was received. The site plan was got prepared. From the S/vs Darshana and ors 4 spot, the blood stained soil and sample of blood was seized by seizure memos and taken into possession of police. Smt. Darshana and her son Harbir Singh were arrested. They gave disclosure statements. At the instance of accused Harbir Singh, weapon of offence hockey was seized by the police and taken into possession in a sealed pulanda. On the next date i.e 28.11.2005, the postmortem on the dead body of Sunita was got conducted at BJRM hospital and the dead body after postmortem was handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased. The clothes of deceased were taken into possession of police. Postmortem report was obtained according to which anti mortem injuries could be due to blunt object. MLC of complainant Krishna was obtained according to which doctor has given opinion of "simple blunt'. Accused Chattar Singh and Prikshit @ pappy were absconding so first NBWs were got issued against them thereafter proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C were conducted.
After that investigation was conducted by Inspector Inder Singh, Additional SHO P.S Jahangirpuri. During investigation, the premises was got photographed. The scaled site plan was S/vs Darshana and ors 5 received. The autopsy surgeon gave opinion regarding weapon of offence, according to which the injury on the body of deceased Sunita could be caused by the hockey. The exhibits were sent to FSL for analysis. Accused Chattar Singh and Prikshit @ pappy were declared proclaimed offenders. The statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded and on completion of investigation, the accused persons were challaned, as referred above.
CHARGE AND PLEA OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS Primafacie case for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/308/34 IPC was made out against accused persons. The accused Smt Darshana and Harbir Singh were charged with said offences on 12.05.2006 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Separate charges for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302/308/34 IPC were framed against accused Chattar Singh on 03.11.2006 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
S/vs Darshana and ors 6
Separate charges for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302/308/34 IPC were framed against accused Parikshit @ Pappy on 06.09.2007 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE In support of its case the prosecution has examined twenty six witnesses in all namely PW1 Smt Krishna Devi, PW2 Ishwar Singh, PW3 Smt Darshana Devi, PW4 Neeraj, PW5 Dr Seema, PW6 Meena, PW7 Constable Ashok Kumar, PW8 Constable Hawa Singh, PW9 Constable Ashok Kumar,PW 10 Constable Dalbir, PW 11 Head Constable Suresh Kumar, PW 12 Head Constable Prem Dutt, PW 13 Constable Chunni Lal, PW 14 Dr. Upender Kishore, PW 15 Assistant Sub Inspector Rehman, PW 16 Dr Neeraj Chaudhary, PW 17 Retired Sub Inspector Dharampal Singh, PW 18 Head Constable Govind Singh,PW 19 Retired Head Constable Vitthal Patil, PW 20 Assistant Sub Inspector Bhagat Bahadur Gurung, PW 21 Head Constable Ajay Kamal, PW 22 Sub Inspector Jagbir Singh, PW 23 Sub Inspector Manohar Lal, PW 24 Inspector Inderjeet Singh, PW 25 Ms Anita Chhari and PW 26 Inspector Ravi S/vs Darshana and ors 7 Singh.
PW1 is Smt Krishna Devi who deposed that one Chattar Pal resides near to her house whose number is 9495, J Block, Jahangir Puri along with his family. Chattar Pal has two sons namely Pappy and Dinku, his wife Darshana and two small children. Chattar Pal used to pick quarrels with the persons of locality. She further deposed that her husband generally go to his work in the morning at about 5.00 AM and works in Delhi Milk Scheme.
th This witness further deposed that on 27 of November, two years back, accused persons entered in their house. Accused Chattar Singh was having wooden danda in his hand, Dinku was having hockey and Puppy was having a cricket bat in his hands at that time. Accused Darshana also came there. At that time she herself, her daughter Sunita and her two small children were present in the house. All the four accused persons exhorted to finish Krishna and Sunita so that the daily fight is finished. Accused Darshana caught hold the hand of her daughter Sunita S/vs Darshana and ors 8 and dragged her into the gali and accused Chattar Singh started hitting Sunita with danda, accused Dinku started hitting Sunita with hockey and accused Puppy started hitting Sunita with cricket bat. All the accused persons started hitting Sunita on her head in her presence. Sunita fell down and was seriously injured.
This witness further deposed that after that all the accused persons started hitting her on her head and right arm with the objects in their hands. Her neighbnours Neeraj and Darshana wife of Shyam who were watching the whole incident intervened and saved her. Other persons of the locality also came there and on seeing them accused persons fled away from the spot. Somebody informed the police and PCR van came at the spot. Neeraj took PW1 Smt Krishna Devi to BJRM Hospital in the PCR van. Her daughter Sunita was medically examined in the hospital and she was declared brought dead by the doctors. Her head injury was stitched there and she got about 1617 stitches. This witness further deposed that police came in the hospital and recorded her statement Ex PW1/A. S/vs Darshana and ors 9 This witness further deposed that one Kishan Lal who resides in house no. 93 of the same locality with his family was having a daughter Swati aged about 14 years. About one year prior to the said incident accused Puppy entered into the house of Kishan Lal and outrage the modesty of Swati ( Izat par hath dala). At that time Swati was alone in the house. On raising alarm by Swati, PW1 Smt Krishna Devi and other persons of the locality went to the spot. PW1 Smt Krishna Devi had seen the accused Puppy running out from the house of Kishan Lal. PW1 further deposed that she is a witness against accused Puppy in that case. As PW1 Smt Krishna Devi was witness in the said case, the accused were having animus with them as a result her daughter Sunita was killed by them. The real name of accused Dinku is Harbir and the real name of Puppy is Parikshit.
This witness had identified the dead of Sunita in the mortuary and her statement Ex PW1/B was recorded.
PW2 Ishwar Singh deposed that he was working in Delhi Milk Scheme. He further deposed that on 27/11/2005 after returning S/vs Darshana and ors 10 from the office, he went to the mortuary of BJRM hospital and identified the dead body of Sunita. Police recorded his statement Ex PW2/A in this regard. After the postmortem the dead body was handed over to him vide receipt Ex PW2/B. PW3 Smt Darshana Devi deposed that she knows the accused persons as they are her neighbours. She knows Krishna Devi wife of Ishwar Singh who is also her neighbour. She further admitted that daughter of Krishna Devi had expired but she cannot tell whether she was killed. This witness was hostile and was cross examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor after seeking permission from the court. But this witness has not stated anything against the accused persons in the cross examination conducted on behalf of the State and in the cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused persons.
PW4 Neeraj deposed that he did not remember the date, month and year but about two years ago, he saw Sunita daughter of Ishwar Singh lying dead in the BJRM hospital, Jahangir Puri. Except this he did not know anything about the present case. This S/vs Darshana and ors 11 witness was hostile and was cross examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor after seeking permission from the court. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of State this witness has denied that on 27/11/2005 at about 2.15 PM he was standing in front of his house and all of sudden Chatter Singh, his wife Darshana, his son Harbir, Parikshit came in gali from their house. He was confronted with his previous statement mark PW4/A. He has not stated that Chatter Singh was having danda, Tinku was having hockey, Puppy was having a cricket bat and they started abusing Smt Krishna and her daughter Sunita and they were exhorting " Aaz Tumre Roz Roz Ke Jhadge Ka Kissa Hi Khatam Kar Dete Hai". He was confronted with statement Mark PW4/A. He further denied that Darshana caught hold of Sunita, Chatter Pal Singh gave a danda blow, Tinku gave a hockey blow and Puppy gave a bat blow on the person of Sunita and similarly they also assaulted on the person of Krishna with the above mentioned weapons and caused injuries on her person also. He was again confronted with statement Mark PW4/A. He denied that he came to the spot and joined the investigation with the police and investigating officer got the scene of occurrence photographed in S/vs Darshana and ors 12 his presence and investigating officer also took the blood from the spot and put the same in plastic jars. He denied that accused Smt Darshana was arrested by the investigating officer from J Block Gali 200 wali where she was sitting on the Chabutra of the temple, arrested accused Harbir @ Tinku confronted with statement Mark PW4/A. He further denied that accused Smt. Darshana and Harbir had not made any disclosure statement. However, Ex PW4/A ie, disclosure statement of accused Darshana bears his signature at point A. Similarly, disclosure statement of Harbir Singh Ex PW4/B also bears his signature at point A. Ex PW4/C pointing out memo of accused Harbir Singh bears his signature at point A. Ex PW4/D is seizure memo blood etc. from the spot also bears his signature at point A. Ex PW4/E seizure memo of hockey also bears his signature at point A. Arrest memo of accused Harbir Singh Ex PW4/F, arrest memo of accused Darshana Ex PW4/G and their personal search memos are Ex PW4/H and Ex PW4/K. PW5 Dr. Seema proved the MLC Ex PW5/A of deceased Sunita which is in the handwriting and signature of Dr Nima. She further deposed that after examination of Sunita doctor Nima S/vs Darshana and ors 13 declared her brought dead.
PW6 Meena deposed that she knows the accused persons as they are residing nearby his house. She deposed that at the time of incident she was not present at the spot as she had gone to Bhairon Mandir Near Zoo, Delhi. She deposed that some altercation had taken place between him and accused Parikshit on the point of dispute between their children. They went to the police and made a phone call at No. 100, but a compromise had taken place between them in the police station. She further deposed that no quarrel had taken place between son of Krishna and accused persons and accused persons had not assaulted Sunita in his presence. This witness was hostile so was cross examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor after seeking permission from the court. In her cross examination she denied that one year prior to the incident in the month of November, accused Parikshit @ pappy entered into her house and attempted to outrage the modesty of her daughter Swati aged about 1415 years at that time and on this act of accused. She lodged a report at police station Jahangirpuri, Delhi. She was confronted with statement Mark Ex S/vs Darshana and ors 14 PW6/A. This witness admitted that Krishna was eye witness in that case against accused Parikshit. This witness further admitted that there was enmity between the accused persons and the family of Krishna before this incident. Rest of the suggestions put to this witness were denied and she has not supported the case of prosecution either in the cross examination conducted on behalf of State and on behalf of accused persons.
PW7 is Constable Ashok Kumar deposed that on 27/11/2005, he was posted at police station Jahangirpuri and duty officer gave him copy of DD No. 23A, Ex PW7/A to handover the same to Assistant Sub Inspector Jagvir Singh. Thereafter PW7 Constable Ashok Kumar along with Assistant Sub Inspector reached House No. J671, Jahangir Puri. The investigating officer made inquiry at the spot and they came to know that injured had been taken to BJRM hospital by PCR. Investigating officer collected MLC of injured Smt. Sunita and he also found Smt Krishna admitted there. On the MLC of Smt. Sunita doctor mentioned that she was brought dead. Assistant Sub Inspector Jagvir Singh recorded statement of injured Krishna and prepared rukka. He deposed that crime team S/vs Darshana and ors 15 inspected the place of occurrence and photographer took photograph of the spot from different angles. One public witness Neeraj was present at the spot at that time. Investigating officer lifted blood stained earth, earth control from the gali in front of house no. J654 and investigating officer lifted blood from the wall of the house and from the corner from house no. 694 and 695 after scratching the same and blood stained earth from there and put the same in separate plastic dibbis and sealed with the seal of DP. This witness further deposed that accused Darshana and Harbir Singh were arrested from Gali J 200 wali at the instance of public witness Neeraj. Both accused were interrogated and arrest memo of accused Harbeer Singh Ex PW4/F and arrest memo of accused Darshana Ex PW4/G were prepared. Personal search of accused Darshana was conducted by lady constable Geeta and personal search of accused Harbeer Singh was taken by investigating officer vide memo Ex PW4/H. Disclosure statement of accused Darshana is Ex PW4/A and that of accused Harbeer Singh is Ex PW4/B. This witness further deposed that accused Harbeer disclosed that he had concealed the weapon of offence, i.e., hockey in the bushes behind the wall of Government School and he disclosed that he can S/vs Darshana and ors 16 get recovered the hockey. Thereafter accused Harbeer Singh led the police and got recovered one hockey from the bushes behind the wall of school. Investigating officer sealed the hockey in the pullanda sealed with the seal of DP and had taken it into possession vide memo Ex PW4/E. PW8 is Constable Hawa Singh who deposed that on 27/11/2005, he was posted at Police Station Jahangir Puri and on that day Duty Officer handed over to him three sealed envelopes containing the special report of this case. He delivered the same ie one envelope at the residence of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate at Jagat Puri Extension, at the residence of Joint Commissioner of Police, Northern Range and to the residence of Deputy Commissioner of Police, he went to the residence of above mentioned officers on his official motorcycle no. DL1SL3030. So long as these envelopes remained in his possession, they were not tampered by him.
PW9 Constable Ashok Kumar deposed that on 09/01/2006, he was posted at police station Jahangir Puri and on that day on S/vs Darshana and ors 17 the direction of investigating officer, he received one pullanda sealed with the seal of DP and took the same to BJRM Mortuary along with the application addressed to Incharge Mortuary and handed over the same to Dr. Upender for opinion.
This witness further deposed that on 13/01/2006, on the direction of investigating officer he went to BJRM hospital Mortuary and Dr Upender handed over the said pullanda which was sealed with the seal of FM, BJRM Hospital alongwith one sealed envelope. He handed over the same to investigating officer who deposited the same in the malkhana. So long as these exhibits remained in his possession they were not tampered with.
PW 10 is Constable Dalbir who deposed that on 27/11/2005, he was posted at police station Jahangirpuri and was on emergency duty from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. He along with Constable Ashok went to place of occurrence and found blood lying at many places there. They came to know that injured had been removed to BJRM hospital. Investigating officer directed him to remain present at the spot and investigating officer along with S/vs Darshana and ors 18 Constable Ashok went to BJRM hospital. Crime team and photographer reached at the spot. They inspected the place of occurrence and photographer took photographs of scene from different angles. Investigating officer took into possession the blood, blood stained earth from the spot and sealed the same in a separate pullandas and had taken it into possession. Investigating officer prepared inquest proceedings of the body of deceased Sunita and dead body was sent to mortuary. Postmortem on the dead body was conducted and doctor handed over exhibits to him which were sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM hospital alongwith one sample seal. He handed over the same to Duty Officer, Head Constable Prem Dutt which were taken into possession vide memo Ex PW10/A. PW 11 is Head Constable Suresh Kumar deposed that on 16/01/2006 he was posted at Police Station Jahangir Puri and on that day on the direction of investigating officer he had taken pullanda Ex. No.1, i.e. ,small plastic box containing blood stained soil and blood with cotton, another pullanda of small plastic box containing blood stained soil and blood with cotton, third pullanda S/vs Darshana and ors 19 of small plastic box containing blood stained soil and blood with cotton, all sealed with seal of DP. Another parcel containing the suit, salwar and bra of deceased, another pullanda containing blood sample of deceased, both were sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM hospital and sample seal of FMT BJRM hospital alongwith FSL Form vide RC No. 06/21/06 from MHC(M) Head Constable Ajay Kamal, he took the same and deposited in the office of FSL Rohini for chemical analysis and report. He obtained the receipt copy of RC and handed it to MHC(M) at Police Station Jahangir Puri. The pullandas and documents as long as remained in his possession were not tampered with and same remained intact.
PW12 Head Constable Prem Dutt deposed that on 28/11/2005 he was working as duty officer from 8.00 AM to 4.00 PM in Police Station Jahangir Puri. On that day Constable Dalbir produced a sealed pullanda, blood sample and sample seal with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital. He deposited the same in the malkhana after preparing seizure memo Ex PW 10/A. PW 13 Constable Chunni Lal deposed that on 27/11/2005, he S/vs Darshana and ors 20 was posted as photographer in Crime Team North West District. On that day, on receipt of call he along with Sub Inspector Ravi Singh went at house no. J671, Jahangir Puri where he took 12 photographs of the spot . The photographs are Ex PW13/1 to 12 and the negatives are Ex PW13/13 to 24. He further deposed that they had also gone to J694/95 Jahangir Puri.
PW 14 Dr. Upender Kishore conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Sunita with the alleged history of sustaining injury with blunt object by group of people on 27/11/2005 at about 2.15 PM. Deceased had some dispute with the assailants. On external examination of injuries he found:
Lacerated wound of size 9x1.5cm x bone deep present over the vertex placed obliquely 7 cm above the eye brow in the mid line.
Reddish abrasion of size 0.5x 0.5cm present over the left cheek and 3 cms outer to left angle of mouth.
Reddish cresentric abrasion of size 1.5x 0.2cm present over the middle of neck in front.
S/vs Darshana and ors 21
Reddish abrasion of size 0.5 cm x 0.5cm cresentric shape present over the left side of neck just outer to mid line in the middle.
Internal examination:
Scalp and skull bones:
Extensive sub scalpal haematoma over both parietal region and frontal region. Linear fracture of the skull present, fracture of the right temporal bone and both parietal bone present. Brain sub dural haemorage present in the right temporal parietal region. Sub arachenoid haemorhage present both hemisphere, parenchyma pale. Neck structures intact and nad, both lungs pale, heart nad, all internal organs pale, stomach contains semi digested food material about 250 g. no abnormal smell present, uterus empty NAD.
OPINION Death in this case was due to cranio cerebal damage produced by blunt object, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries antemortem in nature. Time since death was about one day. He also preserved clothes and blood in S/vs Darshana and ors 22 gauze piece. He also make a rough sketch of the injury on the vault. He prepared his detailed report Ex PW 14/A. PW 14 also gave subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence on the request of Inspector Inderjit Singh and subsequent opinion is Ex PW14/B. PW 15 Assistant Sub Inspector Rehman deposed that on 27/11/2005 he was posted as Head Constable on PCR. At about 2.20 PM, a telephonic information was received from Shrimati Meena regarding a quarrel at house no. J693, Jahangir Puri. He filled up the PCR form and passed on the information to the control room, C37 the PCR form is Ex PW15/A. PW 16 is Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary who proved the MLC No. 84763 dated 27/11/2005 of Krishna Devi which is in the handwriting of Dr N.K. Bora. On 05/01/2006, Dr N. K. Bora after going through the X ray report opined on the nature of injury as simple on MLC Ex PW15/A. He further opined that injury was simple with blunt object.
PW 17 Retired Sub Inspector Dharampal Singh deposed that S/vs Darshana and ors 23 on 27/11/2005, he was posted at police station Jahangir Puri as Sub Inspector. On that day, FIR No. 732/05 was entrusted to him for investigation. He along with Constable Ashok Kumar went to the spot. He noticed blood near house no. 694, 675 and in the gali. Crime team was called at the spot, they inspected the spot. Photographer of the crime team took photographs of the spot. Blood earth and the earth control lifted from the spot were kept in clothe pullanda and sealed with the seal of DP. He prepared the inquest documents. He further deposed that he and Constable Ashok went in the search of accused. Accused Darshana and Harbir Singh were apprehended from J Block 200 Wali Gali near Mandir. Accused Harbir Singh got recovered a hockey from the J Block, Jahangir Puri jhuggies. He identified hockey as Ex P1. He prepared site plan Ex PW 17/A. PW 18 is Head Constable Gobind Singh who recorded FIR No. 656/04 under Sections 451/354 IPC, copy of FIR is Ex PW 18/A. PW 19 Retired Head Constable Vitthal Patil deposed that on S/vs Darshana and ors 24 27/11/2005, he was posted at PCR Commander 37 as incharge. On that day at about 2.20 pm, he received an information from control room regarding a quarrel at J 693, Jahangir Puri. He immediately rushed to the spot at 2.35 PM. He rushed an old injured lady Krishna to BJRM hospital. He also came to know that other injured had already been rushed to the hospital by the public. He passed the message to control room.
PW 20 Assistant Sub Inspector Bhagat Bahadur Gurung deposed that on 11/09/2004, he was posted at police station Jahangir Puri as Assistant Sub Inspector and on that day Smt Swati gave a statement on the basis of which FIR No 656/04 under Sections 451/354 IPC, Ex PW18/A was got registered by him regarding eve teasing by pappy. During the investigation of the said case, he recorded statement of witness Smt Krishna Devi and cited her as a witness.
PW 21 Head Constable Ajay Kamal deposed that on 27/11/2005 he was posted at police station Jahangirpuri and was working as MHCM. On that day, Sub Inspector Dharampal handed S/vs Darshana and ors 25 over four sealed pullanda which were deposited in malkhana vide entry no. 3778 in register no. 19, copy of which is Ex PW21/A. He further deposed that on 28/11/2005, head Constable Prem Dutt deposited two pullandas bearing seal of BJRM hospital and sample seal in malkhana which were entered at Sr. No. 3780 in register no. 19, copy of which is Ex PW21/B. He further deposed that on 01/12/2005, Assistant Sub Inspector Jagbir Singh deposited a sealed bottle bearing seal of of BJRM hospital in malkhana which was entered at Sr. No. 3788 in register no. 19, copy of which is Ex PW21/C. He also further deposed that on 09/01/2006 the hockey bearing seal of DP was sent to BJRM hospital mortuary through Constable Ashok Kumar vide RC No 4/21/06. On 13/01/2006, Constable Ashok Kumar returned back the hockey with the seal of FMT, BJRM hospital.
He further deposed that on 16/01/2006, three pullandas S/vs Darshana and ors 26 bearing seal of DP and two pullandas bearing seal of BJRM were sent to FSL Rohini vide RC No 6/21/06. After depositing the pullandas the copy of the RC was returned to him by the Constable, copies of the same are Ex PW21/D and Ex PW21/E. PW 22 Sub Inspector Jagbir Singh deposed that on 27/11/2005, he was posted as police station Jahangir Puri as an ASI. On that day, constable Ashok handed over DD No 23A, Ex PW7/A to him regarding a quarrel near J671, Jahangir Puri. On receipt of information he along with Constable Ashok and Constable Dalbir reached at J Block. He came to know that injured had been taken to BJRM hospital. He along with constable Ashok reached at BJRM hospital where the doctor handed over the MLCs of Krishna and Sunita. Sunita was declared brought dead on the MLC. Injured Krishna was declared fit for statement by the doctor. He recorded her statement and prepared rukka Ex PW 22/A. PW 23 Sub Inspector Manohar Lal deposed that on 27/12/2005 ,he was posted as draftsman in North West District. On that day he visited the spot, i.e., near house no. 671, J Block, S/vs Darshana and ors 27 Jahangir Puri and prepared the rough notes and took measurement on the basis of which he prepared scaled site plan and handed over the same to investigating officer. Scaled site plan is Ex PW 23/A. PW 24 is Inspector Inderjeet Singh investigating officer of the present case. He proved the various steps taken by him during investigation of the case. He stated that he moved application for seeking opinion Ex PW24/A regarding the weapon. He further deposed that on 17/07/2006, DD No. 20A was marked to him by the SHO, Polilce Station Jahangir Puri regarding the arrest of accused Chattar Singh under Section 41.1(C) Cr.P.C. , true copy of DD is Ex. PW 24/B. On 20/07/2006 accused Chattar Singh was arrested with the permission of the court vide arrest memo Ex PW 24/C. On interrogation, accused Chattar Singh gave a disclosure statement Ex PW 24/D. Accused Chattar Singh pointed out the place of occurrence in the gali in front of house no. J 671, Jahangir Puri vide pointing out memo Ex PW 24/E. At the time of pointing out, complainant Smt Krishna also joined the investigation, her thumb impression was also obtained on the pointing out memo Ex S/vs Darshana and ors 28 PW24/E. He further deposed that on 23/02/2007, he got the information vide DD No 57B, Ex PW 24/F regarding the arrest of accused Parikshit by special investigation team, Crime branch. He was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW 24/G and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex PW 24/H. On interrogation, accused Parikshit gave a disclosure statement Ex PW 24/I. On 25/02/2007, accused Parikshit pointed out the place of occurrence in front of J 671, Jahangir Puri vide pointing out memo Ex PW 24/J. He collected kalandra/ DD entry and the other documents from SI Ritesh which are Ex PW 24/K ( collectively).
PW 25 Ms Anita Chhari deposed that on 16/01/2006, four clothe sealed parcels and one sealed envelope were received in the office for examination. She biologically and serologically examined the exhibits and gave the report. The biological report is Ex PW 25/A and serological report is Ex PW 25/B. PW26 Inspector Ravi Singh deposed that on 27/11/05, he S/vs Darshana and ors 29 was posted as Crime Team Incharge North West. At about 4.50 PM, he received a call from Control Room. Accordingly, he along with his team including photographer Chuni Lal reached at J Block near Prachin Shiv Mandir, Jahangir Puri where they met ASI Jagbir Singh. He along with his team inspected the scene of crime and on his direction photographer Chuni Lal took photographs from different angles. He took three blood samples from the scene of crime and handed over the same to ASI Jagbir Singh along with his report with the direction to investigate the case as per law. The report prepared by him is Ex PW 26/A. PLEA AND DEFENCE OF ACCUSED PERONS In their statements of accused persons recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons have either expressed their ignorance about or have denied the incriminating evidence from the prosecution case put to them. The accused persons have also stated that the prosecution witnesses are interested and false witnesses. They further deposed that Sunita had died due to injuries inflicted by the companions of PW Krishna Devi but they wanted to shift the onus upon them and that is why they have S/vs Darshana and ors 30 deposed falsely to save themselves. The accused persons lead DW1 Sushil Kumar in their defence who stated that on 27.11.2005 he was working at M/s Anil Property J751 Jahangirpuri, Delhi. He left home for the office of Anil Property at about 2.00 p.m on that day. While he was coming out of his office, he saw some people collected on a pulia in JBlock gali. He went at the spot and saw that there was a quarrel between accused Darshana and deceased lady and her mother and 2/3 persons who were having dandas in their hand. He tried to intervene and separate them. He had not seen the said 2/ 3 people earlier but they were standing with deceased and her mother and were abusing Darshana who was lying on the ground and these people were attacking her and Darshana was trying to save herself. In the meantime, while he was trying to save Darshana he also received injuries on his right hand. He sat down on the ground and saw that deceased was also lying on the ground. The mother of deceased and other people along with them took the deceased lady with them and accused Darshana remained there. Darshana also received some injuries on her hand. He left the spot for home. Thereafter he came to know at Barat Ghar Chowk that the lady to whom he named as S/vs Darshana and ors 31 Gajo had expired and he knew her since school time as she was studying with him.
Thereafter accused persons closed their evidence. ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS I have heard Sh Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Ld. Counsel for accused persons Sh Avadh Bihari Kaushik and have gone through the record of the case and relevant provisions of law, carefully.
The contentions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State are that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of the injured witness Krishna and medical evidence also supports the prosecution. It is argued that the motive of the crime is established in this case by PW1 Krishna and PW6 Meena has stated in the crossexamination that there was enmity between the complainant Krishna and accused persons. The defence of the accused persons is not worth believing as it is in conflict with the statement of accused persons recorded under section 313 CrPC and also S/vs Darshana and ors 32 suggestions put on behalf of accused persons to the witnesses of prosecution. It is argued that due to the number of injuries suffered by this victims it is clear that the intention of accused persons was to commit murder. Therefore, the accused persons are liable to be convicted of the charges framed against them.
The arguments on behalf of the accused persons are that but for the interested witness Krishna who is mother of the deceased victim all other public witnesses, PW3 Smt Darshana Devi, PW4 Neeraj and PW 6 Smt Meena are hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. The motive of the crime is not proved as PW 6 Smt Meena has stated in the crossexamination that there was no enmity between the complainant party and accused persons. The strong defence proved by the accused persons by producing DW1 Sushil Kumar also shows that the complainant party attacked the accused persons and the injuries were suffered by the deceased Sunita and the witness PW1 Krishna at the hands of the persons who were holding dandas in their hands and attacked the accused persons. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and all the S/vs Darshana and ors 33 accused persons are acquitted of the charges framed against them.
In the alternative it is argued on behalf of the accused persons that due to only one major injury on the person of deceased woman the charge against the accused persons should have been framed under section 304/34 IPC and not under section 302/34 IPC. It is argued alternatively that even if the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 304 IPC and not under section 302 IPC.
I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the accused persons and have gone through the record of the case and relevant provisions of law.
It would be worthwhile to deal with the important aspects of the case under different headings for clarity and convenience. S/vs Darshana and ors 34
MOTIVE Though it is a sound proposition that every criminal act is done with a motive, it is unsound to suggest that no such criminal act can be presumed unless motive is proved. After all, motive is a psychological phenomenon. Mere Act that prosecution failed to translate the mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailant. ( See Atley Vs State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1955 SC
807) Commentary under the same heading in Section 299, ante, may be referred to. Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether based on the testimony of an eye witness or circumstantial evidence ( See State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Babu Ram (2000) Cr.L.J. 2457 (SC). However, when the participation of the accused is established by the evidence of an eyewitness, absence of motive pales into insignificance and cannot be a ground to justify his acquittal.( See State of Uttar Pradesh V Nahar Singh( dead) and ors (1998) Cr.L.J. 2006(SC).
S/vs Darshana and ors 35
It is true that motive is not an essential ingredient of the offence of murder and when there is direct evidence about the commission of the offence, motive loses its significance and recedes in the background.( See Gordhan Vs State of Rajasthan 1987 Cr.L.J. 541, p 547 ( Raj)(DB); Dasan Vs State of Kerala 1987 Cr.L.J.180 P 184 ( Ker) (DB); Suhash Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 1987 Cr.L.J., P 995, AIR 1987 SC 1222).
In the present case the prosecution has alleged that there was enmity between the accused persons with the family of the complainant on account of the fact that the complainant Krishana Devi was a witness in a case against one of the accused Prakisht @ pappy who had outraged the modesty of one Swati daughter of the neighbour of both the parties for which a police case was registered against accused Prakisht @ pappy. Ld. counsel for accused persona have pointed out that PW6 Smt Meena has stated in the crossexamination on page 4 that there was no enmity between the accused and Krishna so the motive of crime is not proved in this case.
S/vs Darshana and ors 36
Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution on the other hand, has argued that in the crossexamination conducted on behalf of State of PW6 Meena she had stated that there was enmity between PW1 Krishna and accused persons and the reason for enmity is explained by PW1 Krishna in her examination in chief. So the motive of crime is also proved on record.
The fact that that accused Prakisht @ pappy was prosecuted for outraging the modesty of one Swati and the complainant Krishna was a witness in that case is not disputed. However, PW6 Meena has made contradictory statements with regard to enmity between complainant Krishna and accused persons. In her cross examination conducted on behalf of State such enmity is confirmed by PW6 Meena while in the crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused persons, she has stated that there was no enmity between the family of accused persons and family of Krishna. Under the circumstances, the statement of PW6 Meena as to the enmity between the accused persons and the complainant and their families needs to be discarded. However, the fact remain that PW1 injured/complainant Krishana in her cross S/vs Darshana and ors 37 examination has specifically stated about this enmity but it is difficult to believe that such fact would be a motive to commit such a serious crime of murder by the accused persons as the said case of outraging modesty of a woman was not against all the accused persons and secondly the deceased victim was not a witness in the said case against Prakisht @ pappy. However, as already stated the proof of motive by prosecution or its absence in a criminal case is not of much significance in the light of the case law pointed out before. Therefore, the mere fact that the motive of crime of the offences for which the accused persons are charged is not firmly established by the prosecution is no ground to discard the prosecution case as a whole.
Statement of Injured Witness:
In a criminal trial the statement of injured witness is considered to be a very important piece of evidence. The fact that the eye witness was injured himself in the crime in question in itself shows his presence at the time of incident. Therefore, PW1 Krishana is a star witness of prosecution in this case. S/vs Darshana and ors 38
PW1 Smt. Krishna Devi has stated in her statement that th accused persons entered her house on 27 November two years back. Accused Chattar Singh was having wooden danda in his hand, Dinku was having hockey and Puppy was having a cricket bat in his hand at that time. Darshana also came there at that time. She also stated that all the four accused exhorted to finish Krishna and Sunita so that the daily fight is finished. Accused Darshana caught hold the hand of her daughter and dragged her into the gali and accused Chattar Singh started hitting Sunita with Danda, accused Dinku started hitting Sunita with hockey and accused Puppy started hitting Sunita with cricket bat. All the persons collectively started hitting Sunita on her head in her presence. She fell down and was seriously injured. After that accused persons started hitting her (Krishna) on her head and right arm with the objects in their hands. She also stated in the crossexamination that her head injury was stitched and she got about 1617 stitches. She had also stated in her statement that accused persons having animus towards them as she was witness in the case in which daughter of the neighbour Kishan Lal namely Swati was subjected to outraging her modesty by accused Puppy. This witness has S/vs Darshana and ors 39 proved her statement given to the police as Ex. PW1/B. In the crossexamination, this witness was confronted with her statement that accused entered her house which fact was not recorded in the previous statement Ex.PW1/A. She was also confronted with her previously recorded statement Ex. PW1/A in which it was not specifically mentioned that at the time of exhortation accused stated to finish them and instead it was mentioned that 'roz roz ke jhagdey ka kissa hi khatam kar dettey hain'. She was also confronted with her statement Ex. PW1/A that accused Darshana caught hold of her daughter Sunita and dragged her into the gali but in her previous statement Ex. PW 1/A, it is stated by her that Darshana caught hold of her daughter. In the further crossexamination, she was confronted with the statement Ex. PW1/A wherein it was not recorded that accused persons collectively started beating Sunita on her head in her presence and she fell down as in the statement Ex. PW1/A it was stated that Chattar Singh was having danda in his hand and hit Sunita on her head with the intention to kill her and Harbir and Parikshit attacked her with hockey and cricket bat.
S/vs Darshana and ors 40
Although PW1 was confronted with her previous statement Ex. PW1/A with regard to some important aspects in the case, but the contradictions in her statement are only slight variations and are not major contradictions which may discredit the prosecution's case. This witness has stood the test of the lengthy cross examination and has also specifically, denied the suggestions given on behalf of accused persons that she along with her daughter along with 23 other persons went to the house of accused to beat them. Therefore, the lengthy crossexamination of star witness of prosecution PW1 Krishna Devi could not discredit her testimony made in the examination in chief implicating all the accused persons of having beating her and deceased Sunita with the alleged weapons in their hands. The minor variations in her statement made in the examination in chief and before the investigating officer in Ex. PW1/A are natural and such variations are insignificant due to lapse of time on the date statement Ex. PW1/A and the statement of PW1 Krishna Devi was recorded in the court. The fact that the other public witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution's case is also not sufficient to discredit the statement of PW1 Krishna Devi who is S/vs Darshana and ors 41 also injured in the case. She has stood by prosecution and in my view should be believed.
Medical and forensic evidence :
The MLC of deceased Sunita Ex. PW5/A shows that she was brought dead in the hospital and there was clean incised wound 8x05 cm over parietal region of head of the victim.
The MLC of Krishna Ex. PW16/A shows that she had injury of about 1 cm in length and 0.2 cm in depth in the right parietal area. She also had an injury in the left parieto occipital area of about 0.5 cm in length and 0.2 cm in depth besides abrasion in the right shoulder and she was fit for giving statement on 27.11.2005 at about 2.35 pm. The two head injuries of victim Krishna though simple in nature would attract Sec. 308/34 IPC for which the accused persons are charged.
The postmortem report of victim Sunita Ex. PW13/A shows S/vs Darshana and ors 42 that cranio cerebral damage produced by blunt object was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and all the injuries are ante mortem in nature. The other injuries shown in the postmortem report are radish abrasion of size 0.5 x 0.5 cm present, radish abrasion caressive of size 1.5 cm x 0.2 cm, radish abrasion of size 0.5 x 0.5 cresentric shape. Subsequent opinion was given by the Dr. Ex. PW24/A shows that injuries 1 and 2 can be possible from the hockey recovered from the accused Harbir @ Tinku. Therefore, medical evidence also supports the prosecution's case.
As to the forensic evidence, the FSL report Ex. PW25/A shows that brown gauze cloth piece, cemented piece described as 'blood stains earth', gauze cloth piece having lightbrown stains alongwith fungal growth, blood stained cemented piece described as blood stains earth, one sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM, one lady shirt having darker stains, one salwar having very few darker stains, one brassiere, one sealed envelope sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM containing Ex. P5 kept in a paper were found to contain blood. As per serological report Ex. PW25/B of the FSL, the lady shirt contained 'O' group of blood and S/vs Darshana and ors 43 blood stain gauze pieces also contained 'O' group of blood and also the other articles were found human blood and the blood stained cemented piece, lady shirt and salwar and blood stained gauze cloth piece having human blood on it but the blood group of 'O' was ascertained only on lady shirt and blood stained gauze cloth. The other articles found having no reaction have contained human blood or not. However, it is not established that either of the two victims have 'O' group of blood, so forensic report is of that no much value to the prosecution. Though, it supports the prosecution's case only with regard to presence of human blood on the articles recovered from the spot/victims.
Recovery Of Weapon Of Offence :
Although, the case of the prosecution is and PW1 injured Krishna Devi has stated that accused Chhatar Singh was having wooden danda in his hand and accused Dinku was having hockey and accused Puppy was having cricket bat in his hand, but only one weapon of offence i.e. hockey was got recovered by accused Harbir Singh @ Dinku during investigation vide memo Ex. PW4/E and the wooden danda and cricket bat could not be recovered. S/vs Darshana and ors 44 However, it is a settled legal preposition that non recovery of a weapon of offence does not affect the prosecution case, if eye witness account is credible. In the present case eye witness account of PW1 Krishna is trustworthy. Further the forensic evidence vide Ex. PW13/B shows that injury on the head of the victim could be caused by hockey recovered from accused Harbir Singh @ Dinku.
Murder Or Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder The interesting question raised during the arguments, is as to whether offences u/Sec. 302/34 IPC or 304/34 IPC is attracted against the accused persons. According to Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor since several injuries were caused and all the male accused persons were armed with weapons of offence and have used the weapons in the crime, they are liable u/Sec. 302/34 IPC for causing death of victim Sunita by inflicting several injuries. The contention of Ld. counsel for accused, on the other hand, is that main injury on the victim Sunita is on her head and all other injuries are minor injuries, so this case can be equated with single blow cases and for such cases offence u/Sec. 304 IPC and not u/Sec. S/vs Darshana and ors 45 302 IPC is attracted.
On behalf of the accused persons, reliance is placed upon Latoori and ors. vs. State of Delhi, Crl Appeal No. 145/1996 decided by Devision Bench of our High Court on 20.10.2009 wherein following observations were made :
"The legal principles enunciated aforesaid, in our considered view, would squarely apply to the case of appellant Raj Pal. In the instant case, there was no enmity between the appellant Raj Pal and the deceased. He had no motive whatsoever to cause his death and this is a case of a single blow given to the deceased in that heat of moment. There being no pre meditated act with a view to cause death of the deceased and the appellant Raj Pal having acted in the heat of passion, during quarrel without having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual th manner is entitled to the benefit of 4 Exception of Section 300 IPC. Thus, in our view, appellant is liable to be convicted under Part II of Section 304 of the IPC and not under Section 302 IPC."
S/vs Darshana and ors 46
Reliance is further placed upon Camilo Vaz vs. State of Goa, (2009) 9 SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
"14. This section is in two parts. If analysed, the section provides for two kinds of punishment to two different situations: (1) if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Here the important ingredient is the "intention"; (2) if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. When a person hits another with a danda on a vital part of the body with such force that the person hit meets his death, knowledge has to be imputed to the accused. In that situation the case will fall in Part II of Section 304 IPC as in the present case."
I have carefully, considered the respective arguments and have gone through the authorities relied upon on behalf of accused persons.
S/vs Darshana and ors 47
In Camilo's case (supra) the accused hit with a danda on the deceased's head, a vital part of the body with such a force that victim fell down unconscious and later succumbed to his injuries. There was also group rivalry between complainant party and accused persons and some of the accused persons were convicted u/Sec. 326/149 IPC therefore, the conviction of the accused/appellant was altered from Sec. 302 IPC to Sec. 304 (II) IPC. Similarly, in Latoori's case (Supra) relied upon by Ld. counsel for accused persons, which was single blow case, the conviction of the appellant/accused persons was converted from Sec. 302/34 IPC to one u/Sec. 304 IPC.
In the present case, the MLC Ex. PW5/A and the postmortem report Ex. PW13/A of deceased Sunita shows that the major long injury was on her head. All other three injuries shown in the postmortem report Ex. PW13/A are abrasions of small size and can be said to be superficial injuries having no nexus with the death of the victim. So, practically this case can also be treated at par with single blow cases, so far as the offence committed by accused persons of causing death of Sunita, is concerned. The S/vs Darshana and ors 48 weapons used were also not sharp edged weapons and it cannot be said in the given facts and circumstances, that the intention of the accused persons was to kill the victim. So although, there is some material incriminating evidence on record emerging from the statement of PW1 Krishna that there was enmity between the two families on account of the fact that she was a witness against one of the accused person who was facing criminal case for outraging modesty of daughter of a neighborer, but this, in itself, is not a strong piece of evidence from which the motive to commit the crime of murder can be inferred.
In the given facts and circumstances of the case and Camilo's case (Supra) and Latoori's case (Supra), I am of the view that accused persons, though charged with offence u/Sec. 302/34 IPC for causing death of victim Sunita are proved on record to be liable to be convicted for the offence u/Sec. 304(II)/34 IPC.
Besides they are also liable to be convicted for the offence u/Sec. 308/34 IPC for causing head injuries to PW1 Krishna with blunt objects.
S/vs Darshana and ors 49
In view of the above, I hold that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons for the offences u/Sec. 304(II)/34 IPC read with Sec. 308/34 IPC.
DEFENCE Coming to the defence of accused persons, the accused persons have produced DW1 who stated that 23 persons with dandas in their hand had accompanied the complainant party and collected on a pulia in J Block gali and quarreled with the accused persons. Those persons accompanying the complainant party had inflicted injuries to Krishna and caused death of victim Sunita. But this defence is not worth believing as it is in contradiction to the defence taken by the accused persons, in their statements u/Sec. 313 CrPC, on account of omission that one Sushil Kumar had witnessed the incident in question or the incident occurred in the manner stated by DW1 before this court. Further, the suggestion given to the prosecution witness PW1 Krishna in the cross examination was that PW1 Krishna alongwith her daughter alongwith 23 persons had gone to the house of accused persons to beat them. But DW1 had not stated so. Instead he stated S/vs Darshana and ors 50 incident took place at pulia in 'J' Block gali. Therefore, I am not inclined to believe the statement of DW1 that injuries on the person of PW1 Krishna or victim Sunita were inflicted by the persons accompanying them and not by the accused persons. RESULT OF THE CASE In view of the above, I hold that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons for the offences u/Sec. 304(II)/34 IPC read with Sec. 308/34 IPC and the accused persons have not been able to rebut or disprove the prosecution's case in their defence. The accused persons are accordingly, convicted for the offences u/Sec. 304(II)/34 IPC read with Sec. 308/34 IPC.
Let the accused persons be heard on the point of sentence. Judgment be sent on server (www delhidistrictcourts.nic.in). Announced in the open court on 27.04.2011 (S.K.Sarvaria) Additional Sessions Judge/Incharge District Courts Rohini, Delhi S/vs Darshana and ors 51 IN THE COURT OF S.K. SARVARIA DISTRICT JUDGEVIII & INCHARGE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:
ROHINI COURTS DELHI SESISONS CASE NO. 70/10 State Vs. (1) Smt Darshana wife of Sh Chattar Singh R/o J69495, Jahangir Puri Delhi (2) Harbir Singh s/o Chattar Singh R/o J 69495, Jahangir Puri Delhi.
(3) Chattar Singh s/o Mange Ram R/o J 69495, Jahangir Puri Delhi.
(4) Prakshit @ Pappy s/o Chattar Singh R/o J 69495, Jahangir Puri Delhi.
FIR No. 732/05
Police Station Jahangir Puri Under Section 302/323/34 IPC S/vs Darshana and ors 52 ORDER ON SENTENCE
By my judgment dated 27/04/2011,the accused persons/convicts were convicted for the offences u/s 304(II)/34/308/34 IPC.
Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has argued for deterrent punishment against accused persons/convicts , keeping in view the serious nature of the crime committed by them and in view of the fact that a person has died on account of offence in question committed by the accused persons/convicts.
Ld. Addl PP has argued that accused persons/convicts have committed a serious offence of attempt to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. So, deterrent punishment should be given to the accused persons/convicts.
Learned Counsel for the accused has argued that different convicts remained in custody for above three to above five years . The convict Parikshit was 19 years and two months of age and accused Harbir Singh was 22 years as on S/vs Darshana and ors 53 the day of incident. Convict Chattar Singh was 61 years of age and convict Darshana was 57 years of age at the time of incident so lenient view should be taken against them. Reliance is place upon the authorities Tholan Vs State of Tamil Nadu (1984) 2 SCC 133, Mohammad alias Biliya Vs State of Rajasthan (2000) 10 SCC 486 and Kuldip Singh and another Vs state of Punjab 1994 Cri. L.J. 2201, so lenient view should be take against them.
I have heard Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State and Ld. counsel for the convicted persons and have gone through authorities cited on behalf of convicts.
In Tholan case (supra) the conviction was converted from Section 302 IPC to Sec. 304(II)IPC and accused was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment.
In Mohammad alias Biliya , the conviction of the accused was converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 (II) IPC and accused was released on probation. However, Mohammad Alias Biliya case and Tholan case are S/vs Darshana and ors 54 distinguishable on facts as in the present case besides conversion of the offence from under Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304(II)/34 IPC the accused persons are also convicted for the offence under section 308/34 IPC for causing injuries on the head and arm of victim with blunt weapons in possession three male accused persons., therefore, authorities relied upon by Ld. defence counsel do not help the accused persons.
Kuldeep Singh's case is not applicable as it deals with the question of conviction of differents accused persons under differents sections/offences in the same incident.
In the present case the allegations against the accused Darshana is that she only caught hold of victim Sunita and exhorted with other convicts at the spot and she was not armed with any weapon, therefore, she being aged woman deserve leniency on the point of sentence. As per nominal roll of accused Darshana called from jail she remained in jail for three years and 13 days. Therefore, for the offence under S/vs Darshana and ors 55 Section 304(II)/34 IPC accused Darshana sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and 13 days and for the offence under Section 308/34 IPC she is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and four months.
Keeping in view the fact that victim Sunita has died in the incident and injured Krishna had sustained head injuries, the other three accused persons namely Harbir Singh, Chattar Singh and Prakshit @ Pappy are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years each under Section 304(II)/34 IPC and for the offence under Section 308/34 IPC convicts Harbir Singh, Chattar Singh and Prakshit @ Pappy to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each.
The substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the convicts shall run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone by the convicts during the period of investigation and trial of this case shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed against the convicts by this S/vs Darshana and ors 56 order, as provided under section 428 Cr.P.C. As the convict Darshana has already undergone the substantive sentence of imprisonment and she is on bail, she need not be sent to jail.
Judgment dated 27.04.2011 and this order on sentence be sent to server(www.delhidistrict courts. nic.in). Copy of judgment and order of sentence be supplied to convicts free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 30.04.2011 (S.K.Sarvaria) District Judge VIII & Incharge/Additional Sessions Judge District Courts Rohini, Delhi S/vs Darshana and ors 57