Delhi District Court
State vs . Arvind @ KaleSc No. 19/2011 1/9 on 28 November, 2011
ID No. 02406R0127242011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 (SOUTH EAST)
SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No.19/2011
Unique ID No. 02406R0127242011
FIR No. 21/2011
U/s. 302/201 IPC
PS : Sangam Vihar
State
Versus
Arvind @ Kale
s/o Late Sh. Om Prakash,
r/o C116, JJ Camp, Tigri,
New Delhi62. ..........Accused
Instituted on : 20th May, 2011
Judgment reserved on : 28th November, 2011
Judgment pronounced on : 28th November, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Accused in this case has been tried for the commission of offence punishable u/s 302/201 Indian Penal Code. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.01.2011, W/Constable Chanchal, DD writer, received an information through wireless operator regarding a quarrel at G116, JJ Camp, Tighri. She recorded DD No.94B and the information was conveyed to Assistant SubInspector Virender Singh for proceeding further. Assistant SubInspector Virender Singh reached at the spot where he came to know that a quarrel had taken place between accused Arvind @ Kale and Pradeep. No one met him at the spot. DD No.44B was recorded in this regard. On 16.01.2011, SubInspector Braham Dutt received a call at about 09:45 am regarding admission of one Pradeep at Trauma Centre, AIIMS. SubInspector Bhraham Dutt along with Constable Hukma Ram reached at AIIMS, Trauma Center, from where he collected MLC of the injured. At about 04:30 PM, SubInspector Braham Dutt (PW14) received information about the death of injured Pradeep from Constable State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 1/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 Deepak vide DD No.15A. SubInspector Braham Dutt reached at AIIMS, Trauma Center and collected the death summary of deceased Pradeep. On 16.01.2011, at about 05:35 pm, SubInspecor Braham Dutt informed Inspector Dalip Singh, SHO that one Pradeep had sustained injury at House No. G116, J.J. Camp, Tighri, New Delhi, who was admitted at AIIMS, Trauma Center and had expired. Inspector Dalip Singh along with Constable Subhash reached at House No. G116, J.J. Camp, Tighri, New Delhi where inquiries were made from Smt. Babli, mother of the deceased about the occurrence. She claimed to be an eyewitness. Smt. Babli, stated that at about 08:30 am on 16.01.2011, at the first floor Pradeep demanded money from her and she refused to give money because he was drug addicted. She told him that he had already stolen her gold articles and committed theft of money from her piggy bank(gullak) and now she had nothing to give him. On this, Pradeep started throwing utensils and breaking domestic articles. In the meantime, Pradeep started grappling with Arvind @ Kale, who shit him with something on which Pradeep fell down on the floor and Arvind @ Kale (accused) took him to the hospital. IO/Inspector Dalip Singh inspected scene of crime and called SubInspector Jitender(PW19), Incharge Crime Team. Constable Girdhar Singh (PW5) took the photographs of the scene of occurrence. IO/Inspector Dalip Singh prepared site plan at the instance of Smt. Babli. Rukka was sent for registration of the case. Accused was arrested. Some traces of blood were noticed from the room of occurrence and the blade of knife was found molded and kept in the polythene in a heap of clothes. IO/Inspector Dalip Singh prepared the sketch (Ex.PW2/F) of knife and wrapped the knife with piece of clothes and seized the same. Postmortem on the body of deceased Pradeep was conducted. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court. Case was committed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate to the court of Sessions. Charges u/s 302/201 IPC were framed against the accused on 26 th May, 2011. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 2/9ID No. 02406R0127242011
2. Points which emerged for determination in this case are :
i. Whether on 16.01.2011 at 08:00 accused committed murder of Pradeep his brother at G116, J. J. Camp, Tigri, New Delhi?
ii. Whether at the aforesaid time and place after committing murder, accused caused certain evidence i.e. blood stains connected with the said offence?
3. In order to establish the accusations against the accused, prosecution examined following twenty witnesses. Medical Evidence 3.1 Doctor Sanjay Gidwani (PW13) medically examined on 16.01.2011 injured Pradeep who was brought to hospital by one Rahul with alleged history of "Patient found in drowsy state outside home in painful". PW13 found the two stabbed injuries, (i) on left 6th ICS (inter costal space) below nipple 4x3 cm and (ii) on right 8th ICS 2x2x2 cm with clavicular line and left iliac. He prepared the MLC (Ex.PW13/A) and opined that the possibility of causing injury by fall on the sharp object or such injuries being self inflicted could not be ruled out. 3.2 Doctor Sanjay Kumar (PW11), conducted postmortem on the dead body. He found that rigor mortis was present all over the body. He found external and ante mortem injuries on the dead body. He found (i) fresh stapled wound of 34 cm length persecution front of chest 2cm below right nipple and 3cm below left nipple horizontally, (ii) stab wound of 02X02X02 cm present on right 8 th intervocal space in midleavicular line, (iii) pentrutina wound of 4X3 cm X8cm deep on left 6 th intervocal space (iv) lacerated wound of 01X1cm X deep, 10cm below left nipple in midleavicular line (v) lacerated wound of 04X02X02 cm X soft texur deep located on left iliac fossa. PW11 deposed that time since death was about fourteen to sixteen hours. He opined the cause of death "coma as a result of multiple antemortem injuries on the head caused by blunt force". The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary cause of nature. PW1 prepared the postmortem report (Ex.PW7/A). In his cross examination, he stated that injuries could be caused with blunt force and the possibility that such injuries could be caused with the help of hathora (hammer) could not be ruled out.
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 3/9ID No. 02406R0127242011 Public Witnesses 3.3 Ms. Jyoti (PW1) sister of deceased deposed that Pradeep (deceased) was drug addict and he used to demand money from her as well as from her mother for consuming drugs. She stated that he used to drink liquor, consume ganja and consume tablets of drugs and also inject drug. On the day of incident, deceased came with her mother on the first floor and started demanding money from her mother. Her mother refused to give money, whereupon he raised a quarrel with her mother and came down stairs. On hearing his voice, her mother came down. Pradeep told them that he had stabbed himself in his stomach. Her brother Arvind @ Kale, Rahul the neighbour and her mother took Pradeep to AIIMS Hospital. She was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP.
3.4 Mrs. Babli (PW2) mother of deceased deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1. She stated that she heard Pradeep (deceased) was calling her uttering that "mummy mere khoon nikal raha hai" (Mother, I am bleeding). She came downstairs and saw he was bleeding from his stomach area. She called Arvind @ Kale to down stairs. Pradeep (decased) did not tell them anything as to how he had sustained injuries. She was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP. 3.5 Sh. Rahul (PW12), stated that in January, 2011 he was purchasing gutka from a shop, he saw Pradeep being taken to the hospital by his brother Arvind @ Kale and twothree other boys. He helped Arvind @ Kale in shifting Pradeep to Hospital at Trauma Centre, AIIMS. Mother of the deceased told him that the deceased used to quarrel with the family and used to torture them and deceased had himself inflicted the injuries upon him. He was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP. There is nothing in his cross examination, which could be of any help to the prosecution.
Police Witnesses 3.6 SubInspector Bharat Singh (PW3) duty officer registered FIR (Ex.PW3/A) on the basis of rukka (Ex. PW3/B) sent by Inspector Dalip Singh. 3.7 W/Constable Chanchal (PW4) DD writer, on 15.01.2011 at 09:40pm, received an information regarding quarrel at G116, JJ Camp and made DD no. 94B (Ex. PW4/A).
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 4/9ID No. 02406R0127242011 3.8 Constable Girdhar Singh (PW5), Photographer in mobile Crime Team took photographs of the scene of crime team (Ex.PW5/A1 to Ex.PW5A3 and negatives thereof (Ex.PW5/A4 to Ex.PW5/A6). 3.9 Constable Rajendra Prasad (PW6) on receipt of information regarding murder at house no. G116, JJ Camp, Tighri, alongwith Head Constable Ram Niwas reached at the spot where they came to know that injured had been shifted to the hospital. He is a witness to arrest memo of accused (Ex.PW6/A) and personal search memo (Ex.PW6/B).
3.10 Constable Narender Singh (PW7) received sealed parcels from MHC (M) and he deposited the said parcels of the exhibits in the FSL, Rohini. 3.11 SubInspector Mahesh Kumar (PW8) visited the place of occurrence and prepared scaled site plan (Ex. PW8/A) on 15.03.2011 at the request of IO/Inspector Dalip Singh.
3.12 Assistant SubInspector Krishan Kumar (PW9) received information vide DD No. 12B (Ex.PW9/A) regarding admission of the injured Pradeep, having fallen from the roof of his house. This information was conveyed to SubInspector Bharam Dutt .
3.13 SubInspector Harpal Singh (PW10) on 17.01.2011, on the instructions of SHO along with Jiauddin went to mortuary Trauma Center, AIIMS Hospital for postmortem of the deceased. He recorded statement of witnesses as regards the dead body identification. He placed on record statement of Bijender (Ex.PW10/A). He collected exhibits vide seizure memo (Ex.PW10/B) and sample seal. He placed on record written application for conducting postmortem (Ex.PW10/C). 3.14 Assistant SubInspector Virender Singh (PW15) on 15.01.2011 at about 09:14 pm, received a call vide DD No. 94B (Ex.PW4/A) on his mobile phone from the Duty Officer regarding the quarrel at G116, J. J. Camp, Tighri. On this information, he reached at the spot and on inquiry, it was revealed that a quarrel took place between two brothers Arvind @ Kale (accused) and Pradeep (deceased). No quarreling persons met him at the spot. He made DD No. 44B (Ex.PW15A). 3.15 Head Constable Ram Niwas (PW16) on 16.01.2011 was on duty as a beat constable in the area of Tigri. He alongwith Constable Rajender made search for State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 5/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 the accused. In the evening, they apprehended accused Arvind @ Kale in the Gali while he was coming to his house. He signed the arrest memo (Ex.PW6/A) and personal search memo (Ex.PW6/B).
3.16 Constable Jorge Kutti (PW17) stated that on 15.01.2011, at 09:00 am, one Pradeep (deceased) was got admitted in the hospital by his brother Ram Pal. He gave the said information vide DD no. 12A to Police Station Sangam Vihar. 3.17 Constable Deepak (PW18) on 16.01.2011 was at JPN Apex Trauma Center. On that day one Pradeep was admitted in the hospital was declared 'dead' by the doctor during his treatment. He gave the information to the Police Station Sangam Vihar vide DD No. 15A.
3.18 SubInspector Jitender Kumar (PW19), Incharge Crime Team on 16.11.2011 at about 7:30 pm, alongwith photographer Constable Girdhar and proficient Head Constable Ram Sahay reached at G116, J.J. Camp, Tigri Extn and inspected the spot. He saw that articles were lying in broken condition at the ground floor of the house and some blood stains near the door of the room appeared to have been washed. Photographer took the photographs of the scene of the occurrence. He prepared inspection report (Ex.PW19/A).
3.19 SubInspector Braham Dutt (PW14) on 16.01.2011, at about 09:45 am, received a PCR call regarding one Pradeep falling from the roof at G116, Tigri Extn. pursuant to the call, he along with Constable Hukma Ram reached at AIIMS Trauma Center. He collected the MLC of injured Pradeep. He went to the house of injured but the house was found to be locked. At about 04:30 pm, he again received an information on his mobile phone from the duty officer of Police Station Sangam Vihar about the death of injured Pradeep. He collected death summary. He signed the seizure memos of the case property.
3.20 Inspector Dalip Singh (PW20), was SHO at Police Station Sangam Vihar. At about 05:35 pm, on 16.01.2011, reached at J.J Camp Tigri, SubInspector Braham Dutt informed him about the incident and went to the spot where Constable Ram Niwas and Constable Rajender and mother of the deceased Smt.Babli were present. She was interrogated about the occurrence and claimed to be an eye witness. Her statement (Ex.PW2/A) was recorded. IO made endorsement (Ex.PW20/A) and gave State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 6/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 the rukka to Constable Rajender for getting the FIR registered. SubInspector Braham Dutt handed over to him MLC and death certificate of the deceased. He prepared site plan (Ex.PW20/B) at the instance of complainant and lifted blood stains and earth control from the place of occurrence and sealed the same with the seal of 'BD' and seized the same vide memo (Ex.PW2/D). During investigation he recorded statements of witnesses and seized the knife vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/D.
4. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused pleaded innocence and false implication case.
5. I have heard submissions advanced by Sh. Wasi Ur Rehman, Learned Additional PP for State and Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Learned Defence Counsel and have perused the material on record carefully.
6. Learned Defence Counsel submits that Mrs. Babli (PW2), mother of deceased had not made the complaint recorded by the IO and she made a complaint in this regard to DCP (SouthEast) on 22.02.2011, copy of which is placed on record. Copy of DD No. 44B dated 16.01.2011 shows that on 16.01.2011, Assistant Sub Inspector Virender Singh (PW15) visited the house of accused at about 08:20 pm. In the Court he deposed that no one was present at spot, whereas IO stated that he as well as Crime Team was present at the spot. Rahul (PW12), who brought the deceased to the hospital also has not deposed against the accused. Rahul (PW12) in his examinationin chief deposed that complainant told him that deceased had himself inflicted injuries upon him. He was cross examined by Learned Addl.PP, but he did not disclose anything to connect the accused with the crime. Learned Defence Counsel submits that Constable Narender Singh (PW7) stated in his cross examination that all the parcels sent to FSL were sealed with the seal of 'DS' whereas these were sealed with 'BD'. PW7 was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP, but he reiterated that the parcels were sealed with the seal of 'DS'. This creates doubt about sealing of the articles recovered. SubInspector Bharma Dutt (PW14) in his cross examination, deposed that the knife was not blood stained when it was recovered and no sketch or photographs of molded knife were taken. There is no public witness to recovery of knife. Learned Defence Counsel further submits that the site plan was admittedly prepared at the instructions of IO and was not prepared at the instance of State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 7/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 complainant.
7. Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof and mere recovery of knife at the instance of accused do not lead to a conclusion that accused persons are the perpetrator of the crime. In the decision reported as Deva Singh vs State of Rajasthan 1999 Cril. J 265 Supreme Court had held that merely because a knife is alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused would not lead to a conclusion that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime of the murder. Prabhoo vs State of UP AIR 1963 SC 1113 a kulhari, a shirt and a dhoti found to be stained with human blood were recovered from the house of the accused, at his instance. Holding that it is well settled that circumstantial evidence must be such as to lead to a conclusion which on any reasonable hypothesis is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and not with his innocence and that from the mere production of the blood stained articles by the accused, one cannot come to the conclusion that the accused committed the murder inasmuch as the fact of production cannot be said to be consistent only with guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence, for the reason it is quite possible that someone else committed the murder and kept the blood stained articles in the house of the accused and that the accused might have produced the said articles when interrogated by the police, Hon'ble Supreme Court acquitted the accused.
8. On scrutiny of evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. None of the material witness has supported the case of the prosecution. All of them were cross examined by Ld. Addl. P. P. for the State . There is nothing in their crossexamination which could be of any help to the case of prosecution. There is nothing in the FSL report to link the accused with the knife. Doctor Sanjay Gidwani (PW13), who examined deceased Pradeep deposed that the possibility of injuries being selfinflicted could not be ruled out. Similarly, Doctor Sanjay Kumar (PW11) who conducted postmortem also deposed that the possibility of the injuries being self inflicted could not be ruled out. Prosecution has failed to establish beyond doubt that State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 8/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 accused caused stab injuries to deceased at 08:00 am on 16.01.2011. There being no evidence on record to hold the accused guilty for the offence of committing culpable homicide, accused Arvind @ Kale is hereby acquitted from the charges. File be consigned to record room.
announced in the
open court
28th November, 2011 (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge04(SE)
Saket Court/New Delhi
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 9/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State vs Arvind @ Kale
SC No. 19/2011
FIR No. 21/2011
PS : Sangam Vihar
28.11.2011
Present : Sh. Wasi Ur Rehman , Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC
Sh. Sudhir Kumar Ld Counsel for the accused.
Arguments heard.
Vide separate Judgment, announced in the open court, accused is acquitted from the charges. The bonds which have been furnished by the accused shall remain valid for a period of six months as required u/s 437A Cr.P.C.. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge04 Saket: New Delhi/28.11.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 10/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 11/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State vs Arvind @ Kale S C NO. 19/11 FIR No : 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar U/s 302/201 IPC 26.05.2011 C H A R G E I, Vinay Kumar Khanna, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi do hereby charge you (1) Arvind @ Kale S/o late Sh. Om Prakash as under:
That on 16.1.2011 at 8:00am, at G116, JJ Camp, Tigri , New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Sangam Vihar, you committed murder of Pradeep and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 302 IPC and within the cognizance of Session Court.
Secondly, at the aforesaid time and place, after the aforesaid murder of Pradeep had been committed, you caused certain evidence connected with the said offence, namely, blood stains to disappear and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 201 IPC and within the cognizance of Session Court.
I hereby direct you be tried by this court for the aforesaid offences.
ASJ/New Delhi/ 26.5.2011 The above said charge is read over and explained to the accused who is questioned as under :
Q. Have you understood the charge?
Ans. Yes.
Q. Do you plead guilty?
A. I plead not guilty and claim trial.
RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge04
Saket: New Delhi 26.5.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 12/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale
SC No. 19/11
FIR No. 21/11
PS : Sangam Vihar
25.07.2011
PW1 STATEMENT OF MS. JYOTI, W/O LATE SH. VIRENDER, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O G116, J. J. CAMP, TIGRI, OCCUPATION PRIVATE SERVICE.
ON SA I am doing the work of Private Nurse. At about 08:30 am, on 15.01.2011, I was present at my house at G116, J. J. Camp, Tigri, First Floor and was cooking food. At that time, only myself, my mother Babli, my two children, my brothers Pradeep and Kale were present at home. My brother Pradeep was drug addict and he used to demand money from my mother and from myself for consuming drugs. He used to drink liquor, consume Ganja, and consume tablets of drugs and also inject drug. Pardeep usually used to reside at the ground floor, but on the day of incident on 15.01.2011, he came with my mother on the first floor. He was demanding money from my mother. My mother refused to give money, whereupon he raised a quarrel with our mother and came down stairs. After sometime, he started calling my mother. On hearing his voice my mother came down and told my mother that he was bleeding from his stomach. My mother called KaleKale, whereupon Kale came down stairs. I was cooking food at that time. I also came down stairs after sometime. Pradeep told us that he had stabbed himself in the stomach. My brother Arvind @ Kale, Rahul the neighbour and my mother took Pradeep to the Truama Center, AIIMS. Doctor informed us that he was under the influence of drugs. Doctor operated upon him, but he could not be saved and he died in the hospital on 15.01.2011. Police had met me in the hospital, but my statement was not recorded.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP for the state submits that he wants to cross examined the witness as she was resiling from her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Heard. Allowed.
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 13/9ID No. 02406R0127242011 XXXXXX by Sh. R. K. Gurjar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
The previous statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., which is markA and portion A to B, readover and explained to witness, she denied having made such statement to the police on 16.01.2011. It is wrong to suggest that on 16.01.2011, my statement was recorded by the IO. I did not tell to the police that during quarrel between Pradeep and my mother, in the meantime Arvind came and thereafter, he caused stab injuries with the knife to Pradeep and due to injuries caused by Arvind, Pradeep fell down on the floor (Confronted with the statement markA, where it is so recorded between portion C to D). Vol. I am illiterate. I did not tell the police that due to injuries caused by Arvind @ Kale with the knife that is why Pradeep had died (Confronted with the statement markA, where it is so recorded between E to F).
It is wrong to suggest that being the sister of the accused, I am deposing falsely to safe him. It is wrong to suggest that accused Arvind @ Kale had committed murder of Pradeep.
XXXXXX by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Nil. (Opportunity given).
RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge 04
Saket : New Delhi :
25.07.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 14/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale
SC No. 19/11
FIR No. 21/11
PS : Sangam Vihar
25.07.2011
PW2 STATEMENT OF MRS. BABLI, W/O LATE SH. OM PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O G116, J. J. CAMP, TIGRI, OCCUPATION PRIVATE NURSE.
ON SA I am doing the work of Private Nurse. On 15.01.2011, I went to my office and at about 08:30 am, on 16.01.2011, I came at my house at G116, J. J. Camp, Tigri, First Floor from my office. My elder son Pradeep demanded money from me and I refused to give money to him because he was a drug addict. My younger son Arvind @ Kale was preparing to go to his office. Thereafter, I went to first floor, where my daughter Jyoti was cooking food. Thereafter, Pradeep also came at first floor and again started demanding money from me. When I refused to give money to Pradeep, he came down at ground floor. He told me that he will do something to himself, in case money was not given to him. I remained at the first floor and after sometime, I heard that Pradeep was calling me stating that "mummy mere khoon nikal raha hai" (mother, I am bleeding). On hearing his voice, I came down stairs and saw he was bleeding from his stomach area. I called Arvind @ Kale to down stairs. On asking, Pradeep did not tell us anything as to how he had sustained injuries. He was under the influence of drugs. He came down and then we took Pradeep to the hospital. Doctor informed us that he was under too much influence of drugs. Doctor operated upon him, but after operation, he died in the hospital on 15.01.2011. My statement was not recorded by the Police nor my signatures were obtained on the statement.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP for the state submits that he wants to cross examined the witness as she was resiling from her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Heard. Allowed.
XXXXXX by Sh. R. K. Gurjar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 15/9ID No. 02406R0127242011 It is correct that I had signed on Ex.PW2/A at pointA. The previous statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., which is ExPW2/A dated 16.01.2011 of portion A to B, completely readover and explained to witness, she denied having made such statement to the police. It is wrong to suggest that on 16.01.2011, when Pradeep had started throwing household articles, in the meantime Arvind@ Kale came and a scuffle took place between them and thereafter, he caused stab injuries with the knife to Pradeep and due to injuries caused by Arvind, Pradeep fell down on the floor (Confronted with the statement Ex.PW2/A, where it is so recorded between portion C to D). It is wrong to suggest that on 16.01.2011, Arvind @ Kale caused injuries to Pradeep due to which Pradeep had died. It is wrong to suggest that Arvind @ Kale committed murder of his elder brother Pradeep. It is wrong to suggest that being the mother of the accused, I am deposing falsely to safe Arvind @ Kale. It is correct that on 17.01.2011, I identified the dead body of my son Pradeep and my statement regarding identification of dead body was recorded, which is Ex.PW2/B, bears my signature at pointA. I received the dead body of Pradeep from the hospital vide receipt, which is Ex.PW2/C, bears my signature at pointA. It is correct that I had signed the seizure memo of blood stained and earth control, which is Ex.PW2/D, bears my signature at pointA. My signatures obtained on the blank papers. It is wrong to suggest that knife was got recovered by the accused Arvind @ Kale and I had signed the seizure memo of the knife. It is correct that I had signed on Ex.PW2/E at pointA. It is correct that I had signed on Ex.PW2/F at pointA. It is wrong to suggest that the sketch of knife was prepared by the IO and I had signed the sketch Ex.PW2/F at pointA. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. XXXXXX by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
It is correct that police had obtained my signatures on the blank papers. None of the documents was readover or explained to me. I am illiterate. It is correct that I had come to know from Pradeep that he had inflicted injuries to himself.
RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna) State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 16/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 Additional Sessions Judge 04 Saket : New Delhi : 25.07.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 17/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 17.08.2011
PW3 STATEMENT OF SI BHARAT SINGH, NO. D4089, PS SANGAM VIHAR. ON SA On 16.01.2011, I was working as duty officer at PS Sangam Vihar from 04:00 pm to 12:00 (night). At about 07:15 pm, I received a rukka through Ct.Rajender sent by Inspector Dalip Singh. On the basis of which I got recorded the computerized FIR as Ex.PW3/A (Original seen and returned). I also endorsed on the rukka which is Ex.PW3/B which bear my signatures at point A. After registration of the case copy of FIR and Rukka was handed over to Ct. Rajender to deliver the same by me to the IO/Inspector Dalip Singh. XXXXX on behalf of accused.
Nil. (Opportunity given)
RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge04
Saket/New Delhi/17.08.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 18/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale
SC No. 19/11
FIR No. 21/11
PS : Sangam Vihar
17.08.2011
PW4 STATEMENT OF W/CONSTABLE CHANCHAL, NO.3034SE, PS SANGAM VIHAR.
ON SA On 15.01.2011, I was working as DD writer at PS Sangam Vihar from 04:00 pm to 12:00 am (night). On that day, at about 09:40 pm, I received an information through wireless operator regarding quarrel at G116, JJ Camp, Tighri. I made a DD No. 94B about the said information. Attested copy of DD No. 94B is Ex.PW4/A. I had informed to ASI Virender Singh about the said information of the DD entry for further proceedings. XXXXX on behalf of accused.
Nil. (Opportunity given)
RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge04
Saket/New Delhi/17.08.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 19/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale
SC No. 19/11
FIR No. 21/11
PS : Sangam Vihar
17.08.2011
PW5 STATEMENT OF CONSTABLE GIRDHAR SINGH, NO. 6898, 3rd BATTALION, PS VIKASPURI LINE.
ON SA On 16.01.2011, I was posted as Constable Photographer in Mobile Crime Team, South District. On that day, I alongwith SI Jitender Kumar, Incharge Mobile Crime Team reached at G116, JJ Camp, Tighri. I had taken three photographs of scene of crime from different angles as per directions of the IO and Incharge Crime Team. After developing the above said three photographs handed over to the IO. Today I have brought the negatives of the above said photographs. Three photographs is Ex.PW5/A1 to Ex.PW5/A3 respectively and there negatives are Ex.PW5/A4 to Ex.PW5/A6 respectively (Negatives of photographs are placed on record).
XXXXX on behalf of accused.
Nil. (Opportunity given)
RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge04
Saket/New Delhi/17.08.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 20/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale
SC No. 19/11
FIR No. 21/11
PS : Sangam Vihar
17.08.2011
PW6 STATEMENT OF CONSTABLE RAJENDRA PRASAD, NO.1448SE, PS BADARPUR.
ON SA On 16.01.2011, I was posted as Constable at PS Sangam Vihar. I was beat constable at that time. I received an information that a murder had been committed at House No. G116, J. J. Camp, Tighri. I alongwith HC Ram Niwas reached at the spot where I came to know that injured had been shifted to the hospital. In the meantime, SHO, PS Sangam Vihar namely Inspector Dalip Singh reached at the spot, who recorded the statement of the complainant Babli, w/o Late Sh. Om Prakash and prepared the rukka. I went to PS Sangam Vihar with rukka and case was got registered by me. I came back at the spot with copy of FIR and rukka and same were handed over to the IO/Inspector Dalip Singh.
IO had given the instructions to us, if the accused Arvind @ Kale is apprehended he should be produced before him. On 16.01.2011, accused Arvind @ Kale met us. I alongwith HC Ram Niwas apprehended the accused Arvind @ Kale and produced before the IO. After interrogation accused was arrested in this case. I signed the arrest memo of accused Arvind @ Kale vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A and personal search of accused conducted in my presence vide memo Ex.PW6/B, which bears my signature at pointA. Accused Arvind @ Kale is present in court today (correctly identified by witness). XXXXX on behalf of accused.
Nil. (Opportunity given)
RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge04
Saket/New Delhi/17.08.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 21/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale
SC No. 19/11
FIR No. 21/11
PS : Sangam Vihar
18.08.2011
PW7 Statement of Ct. Narender Singh, No. 2937SE, PS Sangam Vihar ON SA On 28.02.2011, I was posted as Constable at PS Sangam Vihar. On that day, I received sealed parcels from MHC(M). RC Number, I do not remember. On the same day, I deposited the above said parcels of the exhibits in the FSL. One receiving copy of the RC handed over to the MHC(M). As long as the above said parcels of the exhibits were remained in my position nothing was tampered with the parcels.
XXXXX by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Today, I have not brought any record to show that on the above said date I was on duty. The above said parcels were sealed with the seal of IO as 'DS'. I had handed over the receipt of deposit of the exhibits to the IO and copy of the RC was handed over to MHC(M). I do not know the contents of the parcels. The parcels deposited with FSL were not open in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that I have tampered with the parcels. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP request to reexamine the witness to clarify about the mark of the seal as the mark of the seal stated by the witness 'DS' is contradictory to the mark of the seal mentioned in the documents (Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E). Allowed.
Witness states that he had no doubt that the seal mark put on the exhibits were as 'DS'.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP submits that he may be allowed to cross examined the witness as witness is deposing against the record. Heard and Allowed.
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 22/9ID No. 02406R0127242011 XXXXXX by Sh. R. K. Gurjar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
It is correct that I have received the above said sealed parcels from the MHC(M) vide RC No. 28/21/11. It is correct that I have received the five sealed parcels and one sample seal from the MHC(M). It is correct that the above said five sealed parcels were duly sealed with the seal of 'BD'. I had got confused about the seal of 'DS' as the name of the IO was Inspector Dalip Singh. It is correct that the mark of seal as 'BD' was mentioned in the copy the RC which was received by me from MHC(M).
Further XXXXXX by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
The RC was prepared in my presence and I had signed the copy of the RC. The RC was prepared by MHC(M).
(Further cross examination is deferred as no time left) RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge04 Saket/New Delhi/18.08.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 23/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 19.08.2011 PW7 Statement of Ct. Narender Singh (Recalled for further cross examination continued after 18.08.2011) ON SA XXXXX by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
I cannot tell which pullanda was having signature of the doctor and which pullanda was having signature of the IO. I am only a messenger that is not my duty to see the signature of the IO, that is why I did not check the signature of the IO. I took a sample seal alongwith the pullandas which was affixed on a plain paper. It is wrong to suggest that the pullandas were sealed properly. The instructions given to the FSL with regard to examination of the pullandas were also in sealed packet and stamp of 'BD' was affixed on it. It is wrong to suggest that on forwarding letter and RC certificate parcel/packet no. were not mentioned. I collected the pullandas in between 9:00 to 10:00 am from MHC(M). Around 01:30 pm, I deposited the pullandas with the FSL, Rohini. It is wrong to suggest that after 01:00 pm, FSL did not receive any pullanda/case property for examination as their time of receiving is 10:00 am to 01:00 pm. Vol. Whosoever reaches there upto 01:00 pm, his pullandas are received after checking even upto 05:00 pm. It is wrong to suggest that I have tampered with the seal in connivance with SI Bharam Dutt. It is wrong to suggest that sealed was changed from 'DS' to 'BD' after tampering the pullandas. Vol. I was confused, therefore, I stated 'DS' as in my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., the exact mark of seal was not mentioned. It is wrong to suggest that as mark of seal put on the exhibit is not mentioned in my statement deliberately by the IO with intent to tamper the same. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 24/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge04 Saket/New Delhi/19.08.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 25/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 19.08.2011
PW8 STATEMENT OF SI MAHESH KUMAR, NO. D460, DRAFTSMAN, CRIME BRANCH, POLICE HQ.
ON SA:
On 15.03.2011, I was posted as SI/Draftsman at Crime Branch, Police HQ. On that day, I along with Inspector Dalip Singh visited place of occurrence i.e. Jhuggi of Smt. Babli, G116, JJ Camp, Tigri, Sangam Vihar and took rough notes and measurement on the pointing out of Inspector Dalip Singh. Thereafter, On the basis of rough notes and measurement, at the instance of Inspector Dalip Singh, I prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW8/A, bears my signatures at point A. After preparation of scaled site plan, rough notes and measurements were destroyed.
XXXXXX by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
I visited the alleged place of occurrence at about 03:00/04:00 pm. It is correct that the site plan is computerized. It is correct that I prepared rough notes of site, but I did not prepared any rough site plan. It is wrong to suggest that I did not visit the place of occurrence or that I casually prepared the draft site plan or that I did not prepare the rough notes. It is wrong to suggest that I prepared the said site plan as per the instructions and wish of the IO. It is wrong to suggest that the site plan is wrong and I am deposing falsely.
RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge04
Saket/New Delhi/19.08.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 26/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale
SC No. 19/11
FIR No. 21/11
PS : Sangam Vihar
19.08.2011
PW9 STATEMENT OF ASI KRISHAN KUMAR, NO.2540SE, PS SANGAM VIHAR.
ON SA:
On 16.01.2011, I was working as DO at PS Sangam Vihar from 08:00 am to 04:00 pm. On that day, at about 09:45 am, I received an informed from Duty Ct. George Kutti, Trauma Centre, AIIMS regarding admission of the injured Pradeep s/o Sh. Om Prakash on MLC No. 242618/11 and got admitted by his brother with alleged history that injured had fallen from the roof of his house. I made a DD entry vide DD No. 12B. Attested copy of the DD entry is Ex.PW9/A. Thereafter, I informed to SI Bharam Dutt by telephone for further proceedings. Today, I have brought the original DD register (original seen and returned). XXXXXX by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
It is correct that Ct. Gorge Kutti did not inform about any other injury/offence except the history of fallen from the roof of the house.
RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge04
Saket/New Delhi/19.08.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 27/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale
SC No. 19/11
FIR No. 21/11
PS : Sangam Vihar
20.08.2011
PW10 Statement of SI Harpal Singh, No. D4432, PS Sangam Vihar.
ON SA:
On 17.01.2011, I was as SI at PS Sangam Vihar. On the instructions of the SHO, I alongwith Ct. Jiauddin went to Mortuary Truama Centre, AIIMS for get conducting the postmortem on the body of deceased Pardeep. Smt. Babli and Mr. Bijender identified the dead body of deceased Pardeep. I recorded statements of Smt. Babli and Mr. Bijender as regards the dead body identification. The statement of Smt. Babli is already Ex.PW2/B, bears my signature at pointB. Statement of Bijender is Ex.PW10/A, bears my signature at pointA. The postmortem of deceased Pardeep was conducted vide PM No. 49/11. I collected exhibits given by Ct. Jiauddin given to him by doctor, who conducted postmortem. Seizure memo of the parcel and sample seal is Ex.PW10/B, bears my signature at pointA. After postmortem dead body was handed over to the relatives of the decased vide memo already Ex.PW2/C, bears my signature point B. I had given written application for conducting postmortem, which is Ex.PW10/C, bears my signature at pointA. XXXXXX by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
No written instructions was given by the SHO to get conduct the postmortem of the deceased. The exhibits which seized by me and given to the Constable Jiauddin were sealed with the seal of 'JPNATC'. I do not know the contents of exhibits. It is wrong to suggest that I had not got conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Pardeep. It is wrong to suggest that I had not recorded the statement of Babli and Bijender and handed over the dead body to Babli. It is wrong to suggest that I had not seized any envelope from the doctors. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 28/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge04 Saket/New Delhi/20.08.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 29/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 246/10 PS Jaitpur 05.09.2011
PW11 Statement of Doctor Sanjay Kumar, Senior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, JPN Apex, Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi.
ON SA On 17.01.2011, one dead body of deceased Pardeep was received for postmortem with alleged history of assault, stabbed by brother on 16.01.2011 and declared dead after brief treatment on 16.01.2011 at 12:45 pm vide MLC No. 242618. On that day, at about 01:45 pm the autopsy was started upon the body of the said deceased. On local examination there was four antemortem external injuries found on the body of the deceased. The injury number one was 'surgically induced' during the treatment before the death. and I explained the same in detail in the postmortem report. I had also mentioned the general observations in the report. The cause of the death of deceased was opined by me as the death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock due to injury to heat caused by antemortem stab injury. On internal examination hemo pericardium was found and stitched wound of 3 cm length was found on left ventricle. Injury number three is 'sufficient to cause of death in ordinary course of nature.' My detail report is on PMR No. TC49/2011 and the same is Ex.PW11/A, bears my signature at pointA. XXXXXX by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
It is correct that Injury No. 2, 4 and 5 are not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The possibility of self inflicting the injury no. 2 and 3 cannot be ruled out. Vol. In case of self inflicting, after inflicting injury no. 3, it is unlikely that deceased would have been able to inflict any other injury. I cannot tell the sequence of inflicting of the injuries i.e. which injury was caused first and which of second etc. The viscera was not preserved and collected as no such request was made by the police and also the cause of death was obvious and apparent and there was no need to preserve the viscera. There were no features found suggesting of drug addiction. It is wrong to suggest that I had prepared the above report in routine manner and I am deposing falsely. It is wrong to suggest that I did not conduct the postmortem upon the body of State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 30/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 deceased.
RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE)
Saket : New Delhi : 05.09.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 31/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale
SC No. 19/2011
FIR No. 21/2011
PS : Sangam Vihar
26.09.2011
PW12 Statement of Sh. Rahul, s/o Sh. Mahesh Chand, aged about 21 years, r/o House No. K222, J. J. Camp, Tighri.
ON SA I do not remember the exact date, but it is in the month of January, 2011, at about 08/09:00 am, I was purchasing 'Gutka' from a shop in Tighri, then I saw Pardeep, who was in injured condition and his clothes were blood stained and he was being taken to Hospital by his brother Arvind @ Kale and twothree other boys. I also help Arvind @ Kale in taking injured Pradeep to Hospital at Trauma Centre, AIIMS. The mother of the injured had also reached at the hospital. On the way, when we taking the injured to the hospital, he was alive and was breathing. The injured was taken into the operation theater by the Doctor, where the doctor declared him as dead.
I had asked the mother of deceased as what happen with the deceased and how he had sustained the injuries. She told me that the deceased was used to quarrel with the family and used to torture them and deceased had himself inflicted the injuries upon him. I did not ask from Arvind about the injuries of deceased. The police had recorded my statement in this regard.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP submits that he wants to cross examine the witness as he is resiling from his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Heard. Allowed. XXXXXX by Sh. WasiurRehman, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
I did not tell to the police that accused Arvind @ Kale had told me that the deceased was used to torture his mother and used to take liquor and due to which he caused the knife injury upon the deceased (Confronted with the statement (Ex.PW12/A) of portion A to A1, where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused or his family or that I am deposing falsely in order to save accused at the instance of his family. It is correct that the doctor had put the blood stained clothes of the deceased near dustbin in the hospital and I do not know as to who had taken the clothes. I know accused Arvind, who is present in court today. XXXXXX by Sh. Pawan Kumar, Ld. Proxy Counsel for Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Nil. (Opportunity given).
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 32/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 RO & AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 26.09.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 33/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 SC NO.19/11 FIR no.21/2011: PSSangam Vihar State Vs. Arvind @ Kale 20.10.2011
PW 13: Dr. Sanjay Gidhwani, Medical Observer, JPN Apex Trauma Center, AIIMS, New Delhi on SA On 16.01.2011 one injured Pradeep was brought to hospital by one Rahul with alleged history of "Patient found in drowsy state outside home in painful". I had examined the patient and found the two stabbed injuries, one on left 6th ICS (inter costal space) below nipple 4 x3 cm and the other stabbed injury was on right 8th ICS 2x 2x 2 cm with clavicular line and left iliac. I had prepared the MLC of the injured which is Ex.PW13/A bearing my signatures at point A. Xxxxxx by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused The possibility of causing such injury by fall on the sharp object cannot be ruled out. The possibility of such injuries being self inflicted cannot be ruled out.
RO & AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE)
Saket: New Delhi 20.10.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 34/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
SC NO.19/11
FIR no.21/2011:
PSSangam Vihar
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale
20.10.2011
PW 14 SI BRAHAM DUTT, D 4111,PS SANGAM VIHAR
ON SA:
On 16.1.2011 I was posted at PS Sangam Vihar and on that day, I was on emergency duty from 8:00am to 8:00pm . At about 9:45am, I had received a PCR call regarding falling of one Pradeep from the roof at G116, Tigri Extn. In pursuant of this call, I along with Ct. Hukma Ram reached at AIIMS Trauma Center where I collected the MLC of injured Pradeep . Doctor had declared the injured to be unfit for statement. Thereafter, I went to the house of injured but the house was found to be locked. In the meantime, I had received some other calls regarding some other incident and I became busy in the inquiry of said calls. At about 4:30pm , I had again received an information on my mobile phone from the duty officer of PS Sangam Vihar about the death of said injured Pradeep .
Thereafter, I again reached AIIMS Trauma Center. I had collected the death summary of deceased Pradeep. I had inspected the dead body of injured/deceased and found two stabbed injuries upon the person of dead body. After that I went to the spot at G116, JJ Camp, Tigri. The SHO had met me on the way. I narrated the incident to the SHO, then the SHO alongwith me reached at the spot where one Smt Babli , mother of the deceased had met and who got recorded her statement to the SHO. The SHO made his endorsement on the statement of Smt. Babli and sent it to PS through Ct. Rajender Singh. The SHO had inspected the spot and prepared the rough site plan. The crime team had called on the spot alongwith the photographer and they also inspected the spot and assisted the SHO. The Incharge of the Crime Team had prepared the report and handed over to IO/SHO Inspector Dalip Singh.
On the spot there were blood stains were found near the frame of the door State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 35/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 which were found to be washed. The blood stained earth was taken after breaking with the hammer and kept in a plastic container which was converted into cloth pulanda and sealed with the seal of BD and the serial no.1 was given to it. The IO had also taken the pieces of plaster i.e earth control from the wall by breaking the same with the hammer and kept in the plastic jar which was converted into cloth pulanda and sealed with the seal of BD. The serial no.2 was given to it. IO had seized the above pulandas through the seizure memo Ex.PW2/D which bears my signatures at point B. The seal was given to me after use. The IO had recorded the statement of witnesses. He had taken the above pulandas to PS and deposited the same in the malkhana.
In pursuant to the direction of SHO, HC Ram Niwas, Ct. Rajender had brought the accused Arvind @ Kale s/o Ram Parkash who is present in the court today, in the PS and produced before the SHO. The SHO made the enquiry from the accused and arrested him in this case vide his arrest memo Ex.PW6/A and the personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW6/B both bears my signatures at point B. The IO had also recorded the disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW14/A bears my signatures at point A. The mother of the accused was informed about the arrest.
On 17.01.2011 I had again joined the investigation of this case. On that day in pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused, the accused had led police party at the house and pointed out the room on the ground floor where he had committed the murder of his brother and he further pointed out the other room on the first floor from where he had got recovered the knife used in commission of offence. The IO had prepared the sketch of the knife which is Ex. PW2/F bearing my signatures at point B. The total length of knife was 49.5 cm out of which the length of blade was 36.3cm . The IO had sealed the knife in a cloth pulanda with the seal of BD and seized the same through seizure memo Ex.PW2/E bearing my signatures at point B. The seal was handed over to me after use. IO had recorded my statement in this regard also. I can identify the knife, if shown to me.State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 36/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011 At this stage, the MHC(M) has not produced the knife and states that the knife is yet to be received from FSL.
Further examination in chief is deferred.
RO & AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE)
Saket: New Delhi 20.10.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 37/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale.
SC No. 19/11
FIR No. 21/11
PS : Sangam Vihar.
15.11.2011
PW 14, SI Brahma Dutta, (recalled for further examination after
20.10.2011).
ON SA I can identify the case property if shown to me. At this MHCM has produced one sealed pulanda bearing the seals of forensic medicine, JPNATC, AIIMS and bearing the particulars of the case. The pulanda is opened and one long knife is taken out which is having the same description as stated by the witness. The knife is shown to the witness who identifies the same correctly and states that the said knife was recovered from the first floor of the house of the accused at his instance.
XXXX by Sh. Sudhir Kumar counsel for the accused.
I have not brought any record with regard to my duty on 16.01.2011. I received information from the duty constable regarding falling of Pradeep from roof from hospital Trauma Center. I directly visited the hospital and not visited the house of the injured. When I reached hospital the injured was in operation theater and I was not allowed to see the injured. Thereafter, I went to the house of the injured but it was found locked. On inquiry from the neighbour no body told me anything regarding incident. I had not recorded name and statement of the neighbour/witness from whom I made inquiry. I had not deputed any constable at the spot to take care of the scene of occurrence. I had not made any inquiry as regards the incident till 4:00 pm. Vol. I have received other emergency call and I was busy in connection with that call. Only after seeing the MLC, it was reveal that the injured had sustained stab injuries. I do not remember as to when I received the second call from AIIMS, Trauma Center as at that time I was in police station and busy in other inquiry. I collected the MLC around 12:00 pm on 16.01.2011. Around 12:30 I came back from the Trauma Center and State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 38/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 reached the spot. Around 5:00 pm I reached trauma center again and the body of the deceased was in mortuary. The injured was declared dead around 12:45 pm. I have not seen contd......
2 any other injury on the body of the deceased except two stab injuries. Around 6:00 pm I came back to the spot and in the meantime at Tigri Road, SHO met me and we both went to the spot and met mother of deceased namely Ms. Babli. SHO has recorded the statement mother of the deceased in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that Ms. Babli had got recorded some other statement which was destroyed and placed the other concocted statement on the file after obtaining signature of Ms. Babli as she was illiterate and in deep shock. The rough site plan was prepared by the SHO after recording the statement of the Ms. Babli mother of deceased. The site plan was prepared around 8:00 pm. It is wrong to suggest that I did not visit the spot alongwith SHO.
Further cross examination deferred.
RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE)
Saket : New Delhi : 15.11.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 39/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
Sc No. 19/11
State vs Arvind @ Kale
FIR No. 21/11
PS Sangam Vihar
PW14 SI BRAHMA DUTT(RECALLED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION
CONTINUED AFTER 15.11.2011)
ON SA:
XXXXXX BY Sh. Sudhir Kumar ld. Counsel for the accused. Blood stained earth was lifted by the IO . Same was sealed and deposited in the malkhana by the IO/Inspector Dalip Singh. Seizure memos disclosure statements were prepared in my presence and are in my hand writing. I do not remember the name of other police officials who were present during recording of disclosure statements. The dagger/knife was molded from middle of the blade and concealed among the clothes in the room. I do not remember if the polythene of dagger/knife was taken into possession. Clothes were not taken into possession. Photographs or the sketch of the knife were not taken when it was found in the molded (mod rakha tha) condition. Knife was straightened by me with hand. Sketch (Ex. PW2/F) does not depict the place from where it was molded. I had not sealed the knife but IO had sealed the knife. It is wrong to suggest that neither I visited the spot nor any knife was recovered in my presence as stated above or that it was planted upon the accused.
Public persons were requested to join the said proceedings but none of them agreed to do so . Their names and addresses were not noted down as they were not ready to become witness. When we reached at the spot, there were many relatives were present at the ground floor. The first floor room from where the knife was taken out was not locked. There were only ladies at the ground floor. None of them was joined at the time of effecting recovery of knife. The knife was not blood stained when it was recovered. No blood stains were found in the first floor room from where the recovery was effected. We had not offered our own personal search to the occupant of the ground floor before visiting the first floor.
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 40/9ID No. 02406R0127242011 At this stage, as prayed by Ld. Defence counsel, case property i.e. knife in a sealed with the seal of Court is opened. It is correct that knife (Ex. MOI) is rusted from the front side. Since the design of handle was dharidar (embossed strips) , therefore, it was not possible to lift the finger prints. Crime team was not called at the time of effecting recovery of knife to lift finger prints. It is wrong to suggest that we had planted (Ex. MOI) to falsely implicate the accused. It is correct that such type of knife are available in the market. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
RO &AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE)
Saket : New Delhi : 19.11.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 41/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale .
SC No. 19/11
FIR No. 21/11
PSSangam Vihar
11.11.2011
PW17 Statement of ASI Virender Singh, No. 2647/SE, PS Sangam
Vihar, New Delhi.
ON SA
On 15.1.2011, I was posted as a ASI at PS Sangam Vihar. On that day I was on an emergency duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00am of the next morning.
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 42/9ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 11.11.2011 PW17 Statement of Ct. Jorge Kutti, No. 864SD, PS Safdurjung Enclave. ON SA On 15.01.2011, I was posted as Duty Constable at JPN Apex, Trauma Centre, AIIMS. My duty hours were from 10:00 am 15.01.2011 to 10:00 am 16.01.2011. At 09:00 am on 16.01.2011, one Pradeep s/o Om Prakash aged 25 years was got admitted in the hospital by his brother Ram Pal and he had further disclosed that he has sustained injuries by fall from the roof. Pradeep was admitted in the hospital vide MLC No. 242618/11. I gave information to the PS Sangam Vihar vide DD No. 12A. IO/SI Bharam Dutt had recorded my statement in this case.
XXXXXX by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused. I had personally inquired from the brother of the injured as to how he had sustained injuries .
RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE)
Saket : New Delhi : 11.11.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 43/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale
SC No. 19/11
FIR No. 21/11
PS : Sangam Vihar
11.11.2011
PW18 Statement of Ct. Deepak 1377, PS SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE ON SA On 16.01.2011, I was posted as Constable at PS Safdarjung Enclave and I was having duty at JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS as a duty constable. My duty hours were from 10:00 am to 10:00 am. On 16.01.2011, one Pradeep s/o Om Prakash aged 25 years who was admitted in the hospital was declared dead by the doctor during his treatment. I gave information to the PS Sangam Vihar vide DD No. 15A.
XXXXXX by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
I have no personal knowledge regarding the case and I have not seen the face of the dead body.
RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE)
Saket : New Delhi : 11.11.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 44/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale.
SC No. 19/11
FIR No. 21/11
PS : Sangam Vihar.
15.11.2011
PW 19, S.I Jitender Kumar, No. D3308, Mobile Crime Team, South District, New Delhi.
ON SA On 16.11.2011 I was posted as in charge Mobile Crime Team, South District. On that day on request of IO I alongwith my staff consisting of photographer Ct. Girdhar and proficient HC Ram Sahay had reached at about 7:30 pm at the spot of G116, J.J. Camp, Tigri Extn. I had inspected the spot on the direction of the IO. I saw the articles were lying in broken condition at the ground floor of the house and some blood stains near the door of the room were appeared to be washed. The photographer had taken the photographs of the scene of the occurrence. I had prepared my inspection report which Ex PW19/A which bears my signatures at point A thereon and the same was handed over to the IO at the spot.
XXXX by Sh. Sudhir Kumar counsel for the accused.
I have not brought any record to show that I was on duty on 16.01.2011. I have done a Scientific Investigation LevelI certificate course. I was having search light at that time and the same were used in the present case. It is correct that no blood stains are visible in the photographs which are Ex PW5/A1 to A3. It is correct that the bed shown in photograph does not appears to be broken. It is wrong to suggest that I have not inspected the alleged site and I had prepared the report Ex PW19/A in police station. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
RO&AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE)
Saket : New Delhi : 15.11.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 45/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
Sc No. 19/11
State vs Arvind @ Kale
FIR No. 21/11
PS Sangam Vihar
PW20 INSPECTOR DALIP SINGH SHO, PS SANGAM VIHAR
ON SA:
On 16.01.2011 I was posted as SHO PS Sangam Vihar . On that day, while I along with ASI Bhajan Lal and Ct. Subhash were on patrolling duty in the area of PS Sangam Vihar by Government gypsy being driven by ASI Bhajan Singh and when we reached JJ Camp tighr at about 5:35pm, SI Braham Dutt met us and informed me that one Pradeep had sustained injury at house no. G 116, JJ Camp Tighri , New Delhi and was admitted at AIIMS Trauma center and died thereon . We immediately went to the said house where Ct. Ram Niwas and Ct. Rajinder were found present, mother of the deceased Smt. Babli was also present there. She was interrogated about the occurrence and she claimed to be eye witness. She gave her statement (Ex. PW2/A) signed by her at point A and attested by me at point B. Thereafter, I made endorsement (Ex. PW20/A) and gave the rukka to Ct. Rajender for getting the FIR registered. SI Braham Dutt had also handed over to me the MLC and death certificate of the deceased. I inspected the scene of crime . I also called crime team and got the place of occurrence inspected vide report (Ex. PW19/A). I prepared site plan (Ex PW20/B) at the instance of complainant. Later scaled site plan was also got prepared by draftsman SI Mahesh Kumar. I had also lifted blood stained and earth control from the place of occurrence and sealed the same with the seal of BD and seized the same vide memo (Ex. PW2/D). I had instructed HC Ram Niwas and Ct. Rajender to find out the whereabouts of the accused Arvind as they were deputed in the same beat where the incident had happened. In the night of 16.01.2011 at about 09:30pm both the said police officials had apprehended the accused , (present in the court today, correctly identified ) and brought in the PS and handed him over to me. I interrogated him and arrested him at about 11:15pm at PS Sangam Vihar vide arrest memo (Ex. PW6/A) . I also conducted his personal search vide memo (Ex.
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 46/9ID No. 02406R0127242011 PW6/B). I also recorded disclosure statement of accused (Ex. PW14/A) on 17.01.2011. All these memos bear my signatures at point B. I recorded the statement of witnesses who had joined the said proceedings and deposited the exhibits in the malkhkana.
Pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused , he had led the police party comprising myself , Ct. Vinod and SI Braham Dutt to his house bearing no. G116, Tighri, JJ Camp and got recovered one knife (dagger) from a room at first floor. The knife was concealed by the accused in the heap of clothes after keeping the knife in a polythene bag . Some traces of blood were also noticed on the knife when it was recovered. Since , the blade of knife was so long, it was found molded (mod ke rakha tha) and kept in the said polythene . I prepared the sketch of knife (Ex. PW2/F) The length of knife was measured as 49.5cm including length of blade 36.3 cm and length of handle was 13.2 cm . The maximum width of knife was found to be 3.8 cm . I wrapped the knife with piece of clothes and prepared pulanda of the same and sealed with the seal of BD and took the same into possession vide memo (Ex. PW2/E). A separate pulanda of the said polythene bag (in which the knife was kept) having traces of blood was also taken into possession vide common memo (Ex. PW2/E) bearing my signatures at point B. On 17.01.2011, while I was busy in the investigation of this case, the postmortem of the dead body was got conducted by SI Harpal Singh from mortuary AIIMS Hospital . I had also collected postmortem report and obtained the opinion regarding cause of death .
After recovery of said knife (Ex. MOI) , I had also obtained subsequent opinion (Ex. PW20/C) and filed the same in the Court with regard to the use of the same in a commission of the offence. Autopsy surgeon opined that "possibility of injuries sustained by deceased Pradeep by the alleged weapon cannot be ruled out". The sketch of knife (Ex. PW20/D) sent to him for opinion was prepared by the doctor was also annexed with the said report. I also got sent the exhibits of the case to FSL Rohini for the examination and obtained its report (Ex. PW20/E and F) State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 47/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 I recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared charge sheet and filed the same in the Court.
I can identify the case property if shown to me. AT this stage, MHC (M) , PS sangam Vihar has produced one knife (opened earlier today during the examination of previous witness PW14) and shown to the witness who identified the same which was got recovered by the accused as stated above. Knife is Ex. MOI. AT this stage, MHC (M) , PS sangam Vihar has produced one paper parcel sealed with the seal of FSL, Rohini and on opening the same one polythene is taken out having the label of FSL and shown to the witness who identified the same which was got recovered at the instance of accused as stated above. Polythene is Ex. MO2.
Cross examination is deferred as it is 1:30pm RO & AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 19.11.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 48/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State vs Arvind @ Kale SC NO. 19/11 PS Sangam Vihar FIR No. 21/11 21.11.2011 PW20 Statement of Inspector Dalip Kumar (recalled for cross examination continued after 19.11.2011).
XXXXXX by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
It is correct that till 05:30 pm, I had no information about the commission of murder in this case. On receipt of information from the hospital regarding the dead of the injured, I had not personally gone to the hospital to make inquiries. Vol. SI Bharam Dutt was already present in the hospital. I have not personally seen the dead body of the deceased including injuries on his person during the investigation. I was aware about the injuries sustained by the deceased noted in the MLC as well as in the Postmortem report. On the spot, sister of the accused was also present with complainant. No separate statement of the sister of the accused was recorded . I had also made inquiries about the falling from roof of deceased from the neighbourers but nobody came forward to make any statement. I had recorded their names and addresses but no statement u/s 161 Cr. P. C was recorded. I had recorded the statement of complainant in my own hand writing. It is wrong to suggest that the complainant made some other statement and I recorded the different statement to implicate the accused in false and frivolous case. Around 8:30pm I received the FIR. Crime team was called before registration of FIR. It is correct that the crime team left the spot before I received FIR . Section 302 IPC was written on the crime report as we informed the team about the murder. The rough site plan was not signed by the complainant. On the basis of rough notes prepared by draftsman after visiting the site, scaled site plan was prepared by the draftsman. It is wrong to suggest that house no. 116 is not shown in the scaled site plan . The earth control was lifted after the departure of crime team from the spot. It is wrong to suggest that the State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 49/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 accused was falsely implicated n this case. It is wrong to suggest that the accused did not make any disclosure statement . It is wrong to suggest that the mother of accused and sister of the deceased falsely planted as witness to the incident. I cannot recollect if Smt. Babli had given a complaint to the DCP, SE dated 22.02.2011 against IO/SHO that her statement was not correctly recorded by me. At this stage, witness is shown copy of complaint mark X , received in the office of DCP, SE in this regard. The witness shows ignorance about the said complaint . It is wrong to suggest that I have not investigated the case properly and fairly and implicated the accused in this case. The clothes of the deceased were not given to me by the doctor. It is wrong to suggest that the doctor had given clothes of the deceased to us but we had not seized the same and the polythene in which the clothes were wrapped was used by us to show that knife was kept therein. It is wrong to suggest that I did not send the alleged recovered knife but rather sent some other knife having plastic handle for opinion. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
RO & AC (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE)
Saket : New Delhi : 21.11.2011
State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 50/9
ID No. 02406R0127242011
State Vs. Arvind @ Kale
SC No. 19/11
FIR No. 21/11
PS : Sangam Vihar
20.05.2011
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present : None for the State.
Accused produced from J/C. Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused. Ld. Counsel files Vakalatnama. It be placed on record. List on 26.05.2011 for arguments on charge.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge04 Saket: New Delhi/20.05.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 51/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State vs Arvind @ Kale S C NO. 19/11 FIR No : 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar Present: Sh. R. K. Gurjar Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC.
Sh. K. K. Sharma Ld. counsel for all accused.
Arguments heard on the point of charge.
As per the allegations, on 16.1.2011 at 8am at G116, JJ Camp, Tigri , New Delhi accused committed murder of his brother namely, Pradeep, with sharp edge weapon. It is alleged that knife was recovered at the instance of the accused from his house. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused had removed the blood stains in order to disappear the evidence A prima facie , case for the offence punishable u/s 302/201 IPC is made out. Charge is framed , read over and explained to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses be summoned as per the following schedule:
Witnesses at sl. no. 1,2,3,4 : 25.7.2011 Witnesses at sl. no. 5,13,14,15 : 12.8.2011 Witnesses at sl. no. 6,7,16,18 : 17.8.2011 Witnesses at sl. no. 8,9,10,11 : 18.8.2011 Witnesses at sl. no. 12,19 : 19.8.2011 Witnesses at sl. no. 20,21 : 20.8.2011
IO and MHC (M) be also summoned on each and every date. List on 25.7.2011 and 12.8.2011, 17.8.2011 to 20.8.2011 for Prosecution Evidence.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge04 Saket: New Delhi 26.5.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 52/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 25.07.2011 Present : Sh. R. K. Gurjar, Ld. Addl.PP for the State.
Accused produced from J/C. Sh. Sudhir Pumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused. PW1 Jyoti and PW2 Babli are examined and discharged. No other PW is present.
List for PE on 12.08.2011, the date already fixed.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 Saket : New Delhi : 25.07.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 53/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State vs Arvind @ kale FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar Present : Sh. A. K. Mishra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC.
No PW is present.
List on 17.08.2011 for PE, date already fixed.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 Saket : New Delhi/12.08.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 54/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 17.08.2011 Present : Sh. R. K. Gurjar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from J/C. PW3 SI Bharat Singh, PW4 W/Ct. Chanchal, PW5 Ct. Girdhar Singh and PW6 Ct. Rajendra Prasad are examined and discharged.
No other PW is present.
List for PE on 18.08.2011, the date already fixed.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge04 Saket/New Delhi/17.08.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 55/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 18.08.2011 Present : Sh. R. K. Gurjar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from J/C. Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused. PW7 Ct. Narender Singh is examined in chief, partly cross examined and his further cross examination is deferred as no time left. He is bound down for the date fixed.
List for PE on 19.08.2011, the date already fixed.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge04 Saket/New Delhi/18.08.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 56/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 19.08.2011 Present : Sh. R. K. Gurjar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from J/C. Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused. PW7 Ct. Narender is further cross examined and discharged. PW8 SI Mahesh and PW9 ASI Krishan Kumar are examined and discharged. No other PW is present.
List for PE on 20.08.2011, the date already fixed.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge04 Saket/New Delhi/19.08.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 57/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 20.08.2011 Present : Sh. R. K. Gurjar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from J/C. Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused. PW10 SI Harpal Singh is examined and discharged. IO/SHO Dalip Singh submits that FSL result is still not ready. All the material witnesses have been examined. Director FSL is directed to expedite the result and hand over the same to the IO/SHO, PS Sangam Vihar at the earliest, preferably within 10 days. Copy of this order be given to the IO/SHO for compliance.
PWRahul and witnesses at Sl. No. 4 and 5 be summoned through IO for 05.09.2011. IO is bound down for 05.09.2011.
List for PE on 05.09.2011.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge04 Saket/New Delhi/20.08.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 58/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 246/10 PS Jaitpur 05.09.2011 Present : Sh. Wasiur Rehman, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from J/C. Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused. PW11 Dr. Sanjay Kumar is examined and discharged. No other PW is present.
Witnesses at Sl. No. 3, 4, 9 be summoned for 26.09.2011, witnesses at Sl. No. 8, 10, 14 be summoned for 27.09.2011 and witnesses at Sl. No. 13, 15, 21 be summoned for 28.09.2011.
IO & MHC(M) with case property be summoned for each date. List on 26.09.2011, 27.09.2011 and 28.09.2011 for PE.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 05.09.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 59/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/2011 FIR No. 21/2011 PS : Sangam Vihar 26.09.2011 Present : Sh. WasiurRehman, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from J/C. Sh. Pawan Kumar, Ld. Proxy Counsel for Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused.
PW12 Sh. Rahul is examined and discharged.
No other PW is present.
List for PE on 27.09.2011, the date already fixed.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 26.09.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 60/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State vs Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR NO. 21/11 27.09.2011 Present: Sh. Wasi Ur Rehman Ld. Addl PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC.
Sh. Sudhir Kumar Ld. Counsel for the accused. No PW is present. FSL report has been filed.
Copy given to the counsel for the accused.
List on 28.09.2011 for PE, date already fixed.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 27.09.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 61/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 28.09.2011 Present : Sh. WasiUrRehman, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from J/C. Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused. Inspector Dalip Singh is present and discharged unexamined as Ld. Add. PP submits that other witnesses namely PWSI Brahma Dutta and Doctor Sanjay Gidhwani are yet to be examined. PWSI Brahma Dutta and Doctor Sanjay Gidhwani be summoned for 01.10.2011.
List on 01.10.2011 for PE.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi :28.09.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 62/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 20.10.2011 Present : Sh. WasiUrRehman, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from J/C. Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused. PW13 Dr. Sanjay Gidhwani is examined and discharged. PW14 SI Braham Dutt is partly examined in chief and his further examination in chief is deferred for want of case property. He is bound down for 22.10.2011.
Witnesses at Sl. No. 9, 13, IO and MHC(M) with case property be summoned for the next date of hearing.
List on 22.10.2011 for PE.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 20.10.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 63/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 22.10.2011 Present : Sh. WasiUrRehman, Ld. Addl.PP for the State.
Accused produced from J/C. Sh. Pawan Kumar, Ld. Proxy Counsel for Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
PWHC Ram Niwas, PWASI Virender and PWSHO/Inspector Dalip Singh, PS Sangam Vihar are present and discharged unexamined on the request of case property as Ld. Addl.PP submit that they cannot be examined in the absence of case property. PWHC Ram Niwaw and PWInspector Dalip Singh are bound down for 01.11.2011.
SHO submits that subsequent opinion is still not prepared. SHO shall collect the subsequent opinion and also produce the case property on the next date.
Copy of this order may also sent to the Medical Superintendent/ Incharge, who shall take necessary steps.
MHC(M) be summoned with the case property on the next date of hearing. List for PE on 01.11.2011.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 22.10.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 64/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 01.11.2011 Present : Sh. WasiUrRehman, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from J/C. Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused. PW15 Asi Virender Singh and PW16 HC Ram Niwar are examined and discharged. No other PW is present.
PWSI Jitender Kumar, PWCt. Jorge Kutti, PWCt. Deepak, PW14 SI Bharam Dutt, PWIO Dalip Singh and MHC(M) with case property be summoned for 11.11.2011.
Issue notice to the SHO, who shall appear with subsequent opinion, if any. List on 11.11.2011 for entire remained PE.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 01.11.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 65/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 11.11.2011 Present: Sh. A.K. Mishra Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC.
Subsequent opinion filed. Copy given PW17 and PW18 are present, examined and discharged. No other PW is present.
PW SI Braham Dutt be served through DCP (SE) who shall ensure his presence on the next date.
PW SI Jitender and IO be also summoned.
List on 15.11.2011 for PE, date already fixed.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 11.11.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 66/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar.
15.11.2011 Present : Sh. WasiUr Rehman, Ld. Addl. P.P for the state.
Accused produced from JC.
Sh. Sudhir Kumar counsel for the accused.
PW19, SI Jitender examined and discharged. PW14, SI Brahm Dutta examined and bound downed for 19.11.2011. No other PW is present today.
Put up on 19.11.2011 for remaining PE and MHC (M).
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 15.11.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 67/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State Vs. Arvind @ Kale SC No. 19/11 FIR No. 21/11 PS : Sangam Vihar 11.11.2011 Present: Sh. A.K. Mishra Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC.
Subsequent opinion filed. Copy given PW17 and PW18 are present, examined and discharged. No other PW is present.
PW SI Braham Dutt be served through DCP (SE) who shall ensure his presence on the next date.
PW SI Jitender and IO be also summoned.
List on 15.11.2011 for PE, date already fixed.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 11.11.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 68/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State vs Arvind @ Kale SC NO. 19/11 PS Sangam Vihar FIR No. 21/11 21.11.2011 Present: Sh. Wasi ur Rehman Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC.
Sh. Sudhir Kumar Ld. Counsel for the accused. PW20 is present, cross examined and discharged. No other PW is present. PE is closed.
List on 24.11.2011 for SA u/s 313 Cr. P. C (Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 21.11.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 69/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State vs Arvind @ Kale SC NO. 19/11 PS Sangam Vihar FIR No. 21/11 24.11.2011 Present: Sh. Wasi ur Rehman Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC.
Sh. Sudhir Kumar Ld. Counsel for the accused. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P. C recorded . List on 26.11.2011 for final arguments.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 24.11.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 70/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State vs Arvind @ Kale SC NO. 19/11 FIR NO. 21/11 PS Sangam Vihar 26.11.2011 Present: None for the State.
Accused produce from JC with counsel.
Regular PP is on leave today.
List on 28.11.2011 for final arguments.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 26.11.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 71/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 State vs Arvind @ Kale SC NO. 19/11 FIR NO. 21/11 PS Sangam Vihar 26.11.2011 Present: Sh. Wasi Ur Rehman ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produce from JC with counsel.
Arguments heard.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge 04 (SE) Saket : New Delhi : 26.11.2011 State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 72/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011
1. Before analyzing factual aspects , it may be stated that for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed . A case may rest squarely on circumstantial evidence but the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1063 .
Onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Kali Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh,AIR 1973 SC 2773, their lordships of hon'ble Supreme Court observed:''golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 73/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused , the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. It was further observed : ''It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot but be felt in a civilised society. All this highlights the importance of ensuring, as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the administration of criminal justice. Such a risk State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 74/9 ID No. 02406R0127242011 can be minimised but not ruled out altogether.'' Their lordships of hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(i)the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii)those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii)the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
(iv)the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs State of M.P.AIR 1952 SC 3443. Arun Bhanudas Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2008(1)C.C.Cases(SC)261.
2. State Vs. Arvind @ KaleSC No. 19/2011 75/9