Delhi District Court
State vs . Amit Kumar @ Amit on 25 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No. 65/2015
Registration No. 27853/2016
State Vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit
S/o Shyam Kumar
R/o House No. 1216,
2nd Floor, Sangat Rashan,
Near Sai Mandir, Pahar Ganj,
Delhi.
(ACQUITTED)
FIR No.: 482/2015
Police Station: Pahar Ganj
Under Sections: 307/323 Indian Penal Code
Date of Committal: 07.11.2015
Judgment Reserved on: 24.05.2019
Judgment Pronounced on: 25.05.2019
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per the allegations, on 21.07.2015 at about 11:30 PM in front of Hotel Gush International, Baoli Chowk, House No. 626, main Bazar, Paharganj, Delhi the accused Amit Kumar @ Amit stabbed Harmeet @ Pappu fourfive times with a meat chopper, in such circumstances and with such intention and knowledge that in case Harmeet @ Pappy would have died, the accused would have been guilty of his murder. It is further alleged that on the said date the accused Amit Kumar @ Amit voluntarily caused hurt to Gautam Bhatia.
State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.1 of 29 Brief Facts/ Case of the Prosecution:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 21/22.07.2015, DD No. 2 & 3 PPST were received at Police Post Sangtarashan, Police Station Pahar Ganj, Delhi pursuant to which ASI Fajruddin reached the spot i.e. Baoli Chowk in front of Gush International Hotel, 626 Main market, Paharganj, Delhi. On inquiry it was revealed that the injured had been taken to Lady harding Hospital treatment on which ASI Fajruddin reached Lady Harding Hospital where he collected the MLCs of Harmeet Singh and Gautam Bhatia.
The injured Harmeet Singh was declared unfit for statement whereas the injured Gautam Bhatia was declared fit for statement. Gautam Bhatia informed the police that on 22.07.2015 at about 11/11.30 PM he along with his friend Harmeet @ Pappu was going towards Railway Station for having dinner and when they reached at Baoli Chowk in front of Gush International Hotel, Amit S/o Shyam who was having a chopper (meat katne wala chaaku) and gave four to five knife blows on the hand of Harmeet @ Pappu and blood started oozing out after which he (Gautam Bhatia) tried to apprehend Amit S/o Shaym but he managed to escape. According to the complainant, while trying to apprehend Amit, he also received injuries upon his knee and left hand. He further stated that in the meantime Sandeep Parihar who was working in their Hotel came at the spot and he along with Sandeep Parihar rushed the injured to the Lady Harding Hospital in the car of Manish who was his neighbour. On the basis of the statement of Gautam Bhatia, the present FIR was registered and the investigations State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.2 of 29 were commenced.
(3) During investigations, at the instance of accused Amit Kumar @ Amit was arrested from Dr. Mujia Chowk and pursuant to his disclosure, the accused got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. meat chopper which was duly seized and taken into possession. After completion of investigations, charge sheet was filed in the Court.
CHARGES:
(4) Pursuant to the order on charge dated 07.11.2015 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, charges under Sections 307 and 323 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(5) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of witnesses:
S. PW No. Name of Witness Description
No.
1. PW1 Sh. Gautam Bhatia Public WitnessEye Witness to the
incident/ injured
2. PW2 Retd. SI Satpal Official WitnessDuty Officer
3. PW3 Harmeet @ Pappu Public WitnessVictim/Injured
4. PW4 HC Jagdish Prakash Official WitnessDuty Officer
5. PW5 Ct. Kuldeep Official WitnessDD Writer at PP
Sangtrashan, P.S. Paharganj
6. PW6 Smt. Inderjeet Kaur Public WitnessWife of Injured Harmeet
@ Pappu
7. PW7 Sh. Manish Public Witness who had taken the injured
to hospital
State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.3 of 29
8. PW8 Dr. Abhishek Anand Official WitnessHOD (Causality)
9. PW9 Sh. Fajruddin (Retired Official Witness Initial IO ASI) 10 PW10 SI Khajan Singh Official Witness Investigating Officer List of Documents/Exhibits:
S. Exhibit No. Document Proved by
No.
1. Ex.PW1/A Statement of Sh. Gautam Bhatia Sh. Gautam Bhatia
(PW1)
2. Ex.PW1/B Site Plan Sh. Gautam Bhtia
(PW1)
3. Ex.PW1/C Seizure memo of earth control and Sh. Gautam Bhatia
blood stained earth (PW1)
4. Ex.PW1/D Seizure memo of pants of the Sh. Gautam Bhatia
injured Harmeet (PW1)
5. Ex.PW1/E Arrest Memo of accused Amit Sh. Gautam Bhatia
(PW1)
6. Ex.PW1/F Personal Search Memo of accused Sh. Gautam Bhatia
Amit (PW1)
7. Ex.PW1/G Disclosure statement of accused Sh. Gautam Bhatia
Amit (PW1)
8. Ex.PW1/H Seizure memo of clothes of accused Sh. Gautam Bhatia
Amit (PW1)
9. Ex.PW1/I Seizure memo of Chopper Sh. Gautam Bhatia
(PW1)
10. Ex.PW1/J Sketch of chopper Sh. Gautam Bhatia
(PW1)
11. Ex.PW4/A FIR HC Jagdish Prakash
(PW4)
12. Ex.PW4/B Endorsement on Rukka HC Jagdish Prakash
(PW4)
13. Ex.PW4/C Certificate under Section 65B of HC Jagdish Prakash
Evidence Act (PW4)
State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.4 of 29
14. Ex.PW5/A Copy of DD No.2 Ct. Kuldeep (PW5)
15. Ex.PW5/B Copy of DD No.3 Ct. Kuldeep (PW5)
16. Ex.PW8/A MLC of Gautam Bhatia Dr. Abhishek Anand (PW8)
17. Ex.PW8/B MLC of Harmeet Singh Dr. Abhishek Anand (PW8)
18. Ex.PW8/C Observation of Dr. Vikas Bhaise Dr. Abhishek Anand (PW8)
19. Ex.PW9/A Rukka Sh. Fajruddin (Retired ASI) (PW9)
20. Ex.PW10/A Photographs of the injured taken SI Khajan Singh to from Digital Camera (PW10) Ex.PW10/F
21. Ex.PW10/F1 Photographs of scene of crime SI Khajan Singh to (PW10) Ex.PW10/F2
22. Ex.PW10/G Pointing out memo SI Khajan Singh (PW10) EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Ten Witnesses, which are put in a tabulated form as under:
S. Witness Deposition
No.
Public Witnesses
1. Sh. Gautam PW1 Sh. Gautam Bhatia is a businessman who in his
Bhatia (PW1) examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects :
1. That he is doing a business of export of garments and on 21.07.2015 at about 11.15/11.30 p.m., he alongwith his neighbour and his childhood friend Harmeet @ Pappu were going to the railway station for taking dinner and when they reached near hotel "Guru International" at Baoli Chowk, accused Amit (correctly identified by the witness) who was carrying a chopper (meat cutting knife) came from their front side and started stabbing Harmeet @ State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.5 of 29 Pappu with the said chopper for 45 times.
2. That after stabbing him, accused Amit said "mar gaya ya bach gaya".
3. That he tried to save Harmeet @ Pappu and also tried to apprehend accused Amit, however, the accused pushed him and ran way from the spot.
4. That during the process and when accused Amit pushed him, he fell down and received injuries on his left knee.
5. That one person from the hotel also came outside and they took Harmeet @ Pappu to near his house where their other neighbour Manish also came and they all took Harmeet @ Pappu to Lady Harding Medical College for treatment.
6. That he alongwith Harmeet @ Pappu got medical treatment there.
7. That police also arrived at the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point 'A'.
8. The police prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW1/B which bears his signature at point 'A'.
9. That in his presence police lifted the blood stains lying on the road and also the earth and kept them in separate boxes which were sealed.
10. That the seizure memo of earth control and blood stained earth is Ex.PW1/C which bears his signature at point 'A'.
11. That victim Harmeet @ Pappu was referred to RML Hospital by LHMC.
12. That on 22.07.2015, the doctors handed over the wearing blood stained pant of Harmeet @ Pappu to the police which were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D.
13. That on 22.07.2015 itself he accompanied the police for the search of accused Amit and at his instance accused Amit was apprehended by the police.
14. That the accused Amit was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/E and was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW1/F and his disclosure statement is Ex.PW1/G.
15. That thereafter the accused led them to his house from where he got recovered his lower and TShirt (which were blood stained) which he was wearing at the time of incident which were also taken into State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.6 of 29 possession by the police in a sealed pullinda and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/H bearing his signature at point 'A'.
16. That thereafter, the accused led them to an under construction house which was near to his house and got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. chopper which was also taken into possession by the police after preparing a sealed pullinda and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW1/1 bearing his signature at point 'A'.
17. That before making the pullinda, the police also prepared the sketch of the chopper Ex.PW1/J and thereafter the accused led them to the place of incident and pointed out towards the same.
With the permission of the Court, leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein the witness has deposed that the name of the hotel was "Hotel Gush International" and not "Hotel Guru International"
(the witness correctly identified the place of incident from the photograph).
The witness has correctly identified the case property i.e. big knife with wooden handle which is Ex.P1; one blue coloured jeans pants of the injured Harmeet @ Pappu which is Ex.P2; one lower of blue colour and one TShirt of white colour having brown stains as the clothes of accused Amit which are Ex.P3 (Colly).
However, in his crossexamination the witness did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile. He has deposed as under:
That he did not know accused Amit prior to the incident and he is not aware of the name of his father and his address.
That the name of accused Amit was told to him by the Head Constable who brought him to the police post, Santrashan after two days of the incident. That he signed the documents at police post. That the police officials had read over the statement to him on 28.01.2016 outside the court before he deposed.
State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.7 of 29 That the police officials also instructed him that he has to give the same statement before the court. That he has not disclosed name of accused Amit to the police at the hospital as assailant. That police made inquiries from him as to whether Harmeet had enmity with one person namely Amit. That he alongwith Harmeet had taken liquor on the date of incident.
That it was dark at the spot and many vehicles are parked there.
That at the time of incident threefour persons were coming from the side of vehicles and all of them manhandled Harmeet and tried to rob him. That Harmeet was stabbed in between the vehicles and he was unable to see as to who has stabbed Harmeet since the incident had occurred within seconds.
That somebody pushed him from behind due to which he fell down.
That house of injured Harmeet was at a walking distance of five minutes from the spot. That he alongwith one employee of nearby restaurant picked up injured Harmeet and took him to his house and from there he was taken to LHMC. That they remained present at LHMC for about two hours and thereafter doctors referred Harmeet to RML Hospital.
That he also accompanied Harmeet to RML Hospital.
That police came at LHMC hospital after about five minutes of their reaching.
That during that period, he did not sign any document at LHMC.
That he came back to his house at about 7.00 a.m. from RML Hospital.
That he was called at PP Sangtrashan at about 8.00 a.m. where his signatures were obtained. That police obtained his signatures on Ex.PW1/A at that time at PP Sangtrashan.
That he remained present at PP Sangtrashan for about ten minutes thereafter, he was called by the police at PP Sangtrashan at about 6.00 p.m. on the day when accused Amit was brought to the police State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.8 of 29 post.
That police had shown the accused to him and told to him that he is the person who stabbed Harmeet. That he accompanied police to the spot where police took blood sample.
That he was not present with the police at the time of recovery of knife and clothes.
That he was standing outside the house of accused at that time.
That police told him that they have recovered a knife from one dilapidated building situated in front of Gurudwara is about ten minutes walking distance from PP Sangtrashan at about 8.00 a.m. where his signatures were obtained.
That police obtained his signatures on Ex.PW1/A at that time at PP Sangtrashan.
That he remained present at PP Sangtrashan for about ten minutes and thereafter he was called by the police at PP Sangtrashan at about 6.00 p.m. on the day when accused Amit was brought to the police post.
That the police had shown the accused to him and told to him that he is the person who stabbed Harmeet.
That he accompanied police to the spot where police took blood sample.
That he had signed the seizure memos and sketch of knife at PP Sangtrashan.
That he is not aware from which place accused Amit was apprehended by the police.
That on 28.01.2016, he had deposed as told by the police.
The witness was reexamined by the Ld. Addl PP for State wherein he has deposed as under:
That whatever deposed by him in the Court is true and on 28.01.2016, he deposed as per the instruction of the police.
That he is aware that giving false evidence is an offence.
That Harmeet had compromised the matter with accused Amit and both of them moved a joint petition for quashing of this case before Hon'ble High Court State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.9 of 29 of Delhi.
That it is wrong that he had not intentionally modified his deposition on 28.01.2016 at the instance of accused and Harmeet in view of compromise between them.
2. Harmeet @ Pappu PW3 Sh. Harmeet @ Pappu is the injured in the present (PW3) case who has not supported the prosecution version and has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects :
1. That in the year 2015, he was working as a cook in Spice Green Chilly Restaurant situated at H. No. 1440, Sangtrashan, Paharganj, Delhi.
2. That accused Amit is his neighbor whose house is situated in front of his house.
3. That accused Amit was running a meat shop below his house.
4. That on 21.07.2015, at about 11.0011.30 p.m., he alongwith his friend were going to have dinner in a restaurant at New Delhi Railway Station after taking alcohol.
5. That when they reached at Baoli Chowk, threefour persons stopped them and started beating them and tried to snatch their belongings.
6. That one of them stabbed him on his chest with some weapon, thereafter, he became unconscious.
7. That he cannot identify the assailants.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, therefore he was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein the witness has stated as under: That after the incident, police had recorded his statement but his statement was not read over to him and police had recorded on their own.
That accused Amit Kumar is living with his family in front of his house.
That accused used to run a meat shop under his residence and they (witness) were running a vegetarian restaurant in their house.
That he had not asked Amit Kumar to remove his meat Rehri as his customers used to object the same and due to this reason Amit Kumar used to abuse them and other Punjabies. (However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/A the above State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.10 of 29 fact was found so recorded).
That he had not stated to the police that on 21.07.2015 when he alongwith his friend Gautam Bhatia were going towards New Delhi Railway Station for dinner and when reached at Baoli Chowk, Paharganj in front of Gush International Hotel he saw accused Amit Kumar from their front side and he was having a chopper and on seeing him, he started giving abuses and gave a stab blows on his person due to which he fell on the ground and become unconscious and Amit fled away from there. (However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/A the above fact was found so recorded). That he had not stated to the police that after receiving injury, he was removed to Lady Harding Hospital by his friends Gautam Bhatia and Sandeep Parihar. (However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/A the above fact was found so recorded).
That he was referred to RML Hospital from Lady Harding Hospital.
That he had not stated to the police that accused Amit Kumar caused injury to him with a chopper (Chaku) due to previous enmity. (However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/A the above fact was found so recorded).
The witness has correctly identified his pant which he was wearing at the time of incident which is Ex.P2 but he could not identify the weapon of offence i.e. the knife claiming that it was dark and they had consumed liquor.
He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
3. Smt. Inderjeet PW6 Smt. Inderjeet Kaur who is the wife of injured Kaur (PW6) Harmeet @ Pappu has also not supported the prosecution version and has in her examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That she does not know who had stabbed on her husband on 21/22.07.2015.
2. That there was some noises and some persons were shouting that Amit ne mara, but she had not seen assailants who had attacked her husband.
State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.11 of 29
3. That except it, she doesn't know anything regarding the present case.
Since the witness was resiling from her previous statement, hence she was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein the witness has deposed as under:
That police never recorded her statement. That accused Amit Kumar @ Amit was running a meat Rehri in front of their restaurant.
That she had not stated to the police that Amit was digging for the purpose of putting an umbrella to cover his Rehri in front of their restaurant and on this issue hot words were exchanged between her husband and accused Amit Kumar and accused Amit hurled filthy abuses on them, but she did not inform her husband of the same. (However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW6/A, the above fact was found so recorded).
That she had not stated to the police that at about 11.00 PM one Sandeep Parihar who is working in their restaurant told her that Amit caused injury with a knife to her husband on which she reached there while crying and saw her husband lying in a pool of blood and he told her that Amit gave stab injury to him. (However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW6/A, the above fact was found so recorded).
That her husband was removed to the Lady Harding Hospital by Gautam Bhatia in the car of their neighbour Manish and she also reached in the hospital.
That her husband was referred to RML Hospital from Lady Harding Hospital where he was operated. That she took photographs of injuries on the person of her husband with mobile phone of her husband in the hospital but she did not take the photographs of the spot from the mobile phone.
In her cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
That if anyone raised alarm from the spot one cannot hear the same while sitting at her house.
That she was at the home at the time of alleged incident.
State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.12 of 29
4. Sh. Manish @ PW7 Sh. Manish @ Sonu is a public witness who in his Sonu (PW7) examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is doing the business of paper plates and on the intervening night of 21/22.07.2015, at about 11.30 p.m., he was returning to his home after attending a party alongwith his family.
2. That he dropped his family outside the gali of his house and thereafter he was going to park his car in the parking and on the way wife of Pappu (Harmeet) had come in front of his car and informed that her husband was lying in unconscious condition.
3. That thereafter they had shifted Harmeet to Lady Harding Hospital in his car.
4. That at that time, one other person accompanied them but he does not remember his name.
5. That he had dropped Harmeet in the hospital.
6. That police recorded his statement.
Since the witness was not disclosing complete facts of the case, therefore he was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein the witness has deposed that he had not stated to the police in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that wife of Pappu (Harmeet) had told him that Amit had stabbed knife on the person of Pappu (Harmeet). However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW7/A, the above fact was found so recorded.
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused person despite grant of opportunity.
Medical Witness/ Evidence:
5. Dr. Abhishek PW8 Dr. Abhishek Anand, Sr. Resident CMO, Lady Anand (PW8) Harding Medical College has in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That the MLC No. 52564 pertaining to patient Gautam Bhatia S/o G.S. Bhatia, aged 34 years, male with alleged history of Assault which is Ex.PW8/A was prepared by Dr. Prem Kishore.
2. That as per MLC Ex.PW8/A, the nature of injury was simple which was caused by blunt object and the injury was fresh.
3. That the MLC No. 52563 in the name of Harmeet Singh S/o Sh. Balbir Singh, aged about 38 years State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.13 of 29 with alleged injury of assault which is Ex.PW8/B was also prepared by Dr. Prem Kishore.
4. That after initial medical examination, the patient Harmeet was referred to Surgery Department where patient was examined by Dr. Vikas Bhaise who after examination had referred the patient to RML Hospital, CTVS Department which observations of Dr. Vikas Bhaise are mentioned on the back side of the MLC which are Ex.PW8/C.
5. That he has identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Prem Kishore and Dr. Vikas Bhaise as he had seen them writing and signing during the official course of his duty.
6. That Dr. Prem Kishore and Dr. Vikas Bhaise have left hospital services and their present whereabouts not known to the hospital authority.
In his cross examination by the accused, the witness has deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the present case.
Police/ Official Witnesses:
6. Retd. SI Satpal PW2 Retd. SI Satpal has in his examinationinchief (PW2) deposed on the following aspects :
1. That on 02.08.2015, he was posted at PS Paharganj, PP Sangtarashan and on that day, further investigation of the case was marked to him.
2. That during investigation, he got deposited the sealed pullindas of the present case at FSL, Rohini through Ct. Satish and Ct. Upender for analysis.
3. That he obtained the opinion of the doctors regarding nature of injuries and the MLC.
4. That he also recorded statement of the injured.
5. That after completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet for trial.
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused.
7. HC Jagdish PW4 HC Jagdish Prakash is a formal witness being the Prakash (PW4) Duty Officer at PS Paharganj who has proved having recorded the FIR of present case which is Ex.PW4/A; having made his endorsement on the rukka which is rukka Ex.PW4/B and having issued a certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW4/C. State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.14 of 29 He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing much has come out of the same.
8. Ct. Kuldeep (PW PW5 Ct. Kuldeep isa formal witness being the DD Writer
5) at PP Sangtarashan, P.S. Paharganj who has proved that on 21.07.2015 at about 12.20 a.m. an information was received that one person has been stabbed near Sai Baba Mandir, 1503, Gali No.4, Sangtarashan, Paharganj, who is serious which information was reduced vide DD No.2 which is Ex.PW5/A. He has also proved that at about 12.30 a.m, another information of stabbing a person was received which was reduced into DD No.3 which is Ex.PW5/B. This witness has not been cross examined by the accused person despite grant of an opportunity.
9. Sh. Fajruddin PW9 Sh. Fajruddin, Retired ASI has in his examinationin (PW9) chief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on the intervening night of 21/22.07.2015, he was posted as ASI in P.P. Sangatrashan, P.S. Paharganj, Delhi.
2. That on that night DD No. 2 & 3 PPST were received and thereafter he alongwith Constable Satish reached at the spot i.e. Baoli Chowk in front of Gurh International Hotel, 626 Main Market, Paharganj, Delhi where he had seen blood lying on the road.
3. That during enquiry, it was revealed that the injured had been taken in a private vehicle to Lady Harding for treatment on which he left Constable Satish at the spot to preserve the seen of crime and he himself reached Lady Harding Hospital where he had collected MLC's of Harmeet Singh and Gautam Bhatia.
4. That on the MLC of Harmeet Singh, Doctor had reserved the opinion regarding nature of injury but they had given the opinion regarding weapon which was used in the crime as Sharp.
5. That the injured Harmeet was unfit for statement but injured Gautam Bhatia was fit for statement and he met in the hospital.
6. That he had recorded the statement of Gautam Bhaia in the hospital which is Ex.PW1/A and thereafter he returned at the spot where ATO Inspector Yash Pal Singh and Crime Team was also present at the spot.
State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.15 of 29
7. That he prepared a rukka Ex.PW9/A and handed over the same to Constable Satish for registration of FIR.
8. That after registration of FIR, further investigation was assigned to SI Khajan Singh.
In his cross examination by the accused, the witness has deposed that he recorded the statement of Gautam Bhatia at about 2.00 a.m. in the hospital and has denied the suggestion that the statement of Gautam Bhatia was not recorded in the hospital but it was recorded in the police station later on.
10. SI Khajan Singh PW10 SI Khajan Singh is the Investigating Officer of the present case who in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on the intervening night of 21/22.07.2015, he was posted in P.S. Paharganj as Sub Inspector.
2. That on that night after registration of FIR further investigation was assigned to him pursuant to which he reached the spot where ATO Inspector Yash Pal Singh, ASI Fazruddin and other police staff were present.
3. That he had left ASI Fazruddin on the spot to preserve the seen of crime and thereafter, he alongwith Constable Satish reached Lady Harding Medical College where it was found that injured Harmeet was already referred for RML Hospital on which he alongwith Constable Satish reached at RML Hospital where Harmeet Singh was declared unfit for statement.
4. That doctor had handed over blood stained pant of injured Harmeet to him which he had converted in a pullinda and sealed with the seal of KS and took him possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D.
5. That he had clicked photographs of the injured from digital camera which photographs are Ex.PW10/A to Ex.PW10/F.
6. That thereafter, he returned to the spot where crime team had handed over to him Gauze Piece, Earth Control and Earth Control with blood.
7. That he had converted it in three different pullindas and the same were marked as A, B & C and sealed the same with the seal of KS and took it in possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/C. State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.16 of 29
8. That he also took photographs of the crime seen and surrounding of crime seen from his mobile phone which are Ex.PW10/F1 and Ex.PW10/F2.
9. That thereafter, he had inspected the spot and prepared the site plan at the instance of Gautam Bhatia which is Ex.PW1/B.
10. That thereafter, he alongwith complainant Gautam Bhatia had started search for accused Amit.
11. That during the search of accused Amit, he was apprehended in front of New Delhi Railway Station at Dr. Munjia Chowk on the pointing out of Gautam Bhatia.
12. That he had enquired from the accused Amit and thereafter he arrested him and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F and then he took the accused at the spot where he recorded disclosure statement of accused Amit which is Ex.PW1/G.
13. That the accused had pointed out spot of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW10/G and thereafter, the accused led them to a under construction house at Baoli Chowk, near Shiv Mandir from where accused got recovered the Chopper which was used in the crime.
14. That he had prepared a sketch of the Chopper vide Ex.PW1/J and thereafter, he had converted the same in a pullinda and sealed with the seal of KS and took the same into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/I.
15. That thereafter, accused led them to his residence from where he had handed over his nicker and T shirt which he had worn at the time of incident.
16. That he had converted the same in pullinda and sealed with the seal of KS and took in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/H.
17. That the medical examination of the accused was conducted and thereafter, they returned to police station.
18. That the case property was deposited in the Malkhana of P.S.
19. That the accused was lodged in Lockup of the police station after providing him meals.
20. That on the next day, accused was produced before the concerned court and he was sent in Judicial Custody.
State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.17 of 29
21. That he had submitted the MLC's of both the injured at LHMC Hospital for obtaining final result and had recorded the statement of witnesses.
22. That thereafter, he had gone to attend a six months departmental training and the file was handed over to MHCR.
23. That later on, he had filed FSL Result in the present case in the court which is Ex.C3.
The witness has correctly identified the accused Amit in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. the Chopper got recovered by accused Amit which is Ex.P1, jeans pants of the injured Harmeet @ Pappu which is Ex.P2; clothes of accused Amit which are Ex.P3 (Colly); Blood Gauze Piece which is Ex.P4; earth control with blood which is Ex.P5; earth control which is Ex.P6.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: That he had reached in RML Hospital on 22.07.2015 at about 6.00 AM where Gautam Bhatia met him. That he remained with him till 5.00 PM.
That he does not remember the time for which he remained in the RML Hospital.
That he recorded the statement of Gautam Bhatia near the spot.
That the house of injured Harmeet was at a distance of about 10 to 20 paces from the place where he recorded the statement of Gautam Bhatia. That he does not remember the time taken by him in recording statement of Gautam Bhatia.
That residence of accused Amit is just in front of the place where he recorded the statement of Gautam Bhatia.
That he came to know about the name of accused Amit from Gautam Bhatia.
That he recorded the statement of Gautam Bhatia under Section 161 Cr.P.C., after the arrest of accused Amit.
That when the investigation was handed over to him he had the knowledge about the statement of Gautam Bhatia on which the case was registered and he had the knowledge that Amit is accused in this case.
State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.18 of 29 That from the RML Hospital, they came to the spot and on the way the house of complainant and house of accused Amit falls.
That when he went to the spot, he had found that no CCTV Camera was installed there nor any person met with him who could have told about the alleged occurrence.
That he asked from the staff of Hotel Gush International but they were not ready to tell anything.
That the place from where the accused was apprehended was about half kilometer from the spot. That the accused was arrested at about 2.30 p.m. That after the investigation, they reached Police Station Paharganj alongwith accused at about 7.00 PM.
That he does not remember how they took accused to the police station.
That they did all the investigation with the accused on foot.
That they had no vehicle with them.
That the Jeans pant which he seized was of injured Harmeet.
That the choppers like Ex.P1 are easily available in the market and also in the meat shop.
That benches and chairs were lying at Baoli Chowk but he does not remember if the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded while sitting on bench or on chair.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(7) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused Amit was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused which he has denied. He has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to him, the witness Gautam Bhatia had initially identified him in the court due to misunderstanding State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.19 of 29 and on the asking of the Investigating Officer since he had specifically clarified in his crossexamination that he (accused) was never known to him (witness) prior to the incident and his name was to him by the Head Constable who had brought him to the Police Post Sangtarashan after two days of the incident. The accused has further stated that he has been falsely implicated only to work out the present case.
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS:
(8) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the testimonies of the various witness and documents on record. My findings are as under:
Ocular Evidence:
(9) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses corroborate each other on material aspects connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies.
(10) I may observe that in so far as the identity of the accused Amit is concerned, the same is not disputed. It is an admitted case of the accused that the injured Harmeet @ Pappu and the accused Amit State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.20 of 29 were known to each other even prior to the incident since they are both neighbours and the accused Amit was running his rehri of meat under his house whereas Harmeet @ Pappu was running a vegetarian restaurant in his house.
(11) As per the allegations against the accused Amit, he had stabbed Harmeet @ Pappu, four to five times with a meat chopper with such intention or knowledge that under such circumstances in case Harmeet @ Pappu would have died, he would be guilty of murder. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined two public witnesses i.e. the injured / complainant Gautam Bhatia (PW1) and the victim Harmeet @ Pappu (PW3).
(12) The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimony of victim Harmeet @ Pappu (PW3) who had received the injuries and another injured Gautam Bhatia (PW1). Since the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the testimonies of Harmeet @ Pappu (PW3) and Gautam Bhatia (PW1) hence it is necessary for this Court to first determine whether what they have testified is reliable and truthful. It is settled law that in a case where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained.
In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.21 of 29 then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court (Courts of Act). It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.:
Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978). (13) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, at the very outset I may observe that Harmeet @ Pappu (PW3) who is the injured in the present case, is admittedly the neighbour of the accused Amit. He has turned totally hostile and has not identified the accused Amit as the person who had stabbed him.
Similarly, Smt. Inderjeet Kaur (PW6) who is the wife of Harmeet @ Pappu has supported the version of her husband Harmeet @ Pappu. She has stated that she is not aware who had stabbed her husband and had only heard the cries outside the house. She has explained that she had State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.22 of 29 come to know of the name of accused Amit on the basis of what she had heard from the persons outside her house. In so far as the witness Gautam Bhatia (PW1) who is the complainant in the present case is concerned, though initially in his examination in chief he supported the version of the prosecution but later in his crossexamination he turned totally hostile and stated that he had never given the name of the accused Amit either in the hospital or otherwise and that in the Court he had given the name of the accused Amit on the asking of the police / Head Constable. He has also stated that at the time of incident the victim Harmeet @ Pappu had consumed liquor and at that time three to four persons had come from the side of the vehicles who manhandled them and and tried to rob him. According to him, Harmeet was stabbed in between the vehicles and he was unable to see as to who had stabbed Harmeet since the incident had occurred within seconds and somebody had pushed him due to which he fell down, The relevant extract of his crossexamination is as under:
"....... I do not know accused Amit prior to the incident. I am not aware about the name of his father and his address. Name of accused Amit was told to me by HC who brought him to the police post, Sangtrashan after two days of the incident. I signed the documents at police post. Police officials had read over the statement to me on 28.01.2016 outside the court before I deposed. They also instructed me that I have to give the same statement before the Court. I have not disclosed name of accused Amit to the police at the hospital as assailant. Police made inquiries from me as to whether Harmeet had enmity with anybody and I told them that about 2025 days prior to the incident, Harmeet told me that he had enmity with one person namely Amit. I State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.23 of 29 alongwith Harmeet had taken liquor on the date of incident. It was dark at the spot and many vehicles were parked there. It is correct that at the time incident 34 persons were coming from the side of vehicles and all of them manhandled Harmeet and tried to rob him. Harmeet was stabbed in between the vehicles. I was unable to see as to who has stabbed Harmeet as incident occurred within seconds. Somebody pushed me from behind due to which I fell down. House of injured Harmeet was at a walking distance of five minutes from the spot. I along with one employee of near by restaurant picked up injured Harmeet and took him to his house and from there he was taken to LHMC. We remained present at LHMC for about 2 hours and thereafter doctors referred Harmeet to RML Hospital. I also accompanied Harmeet to RML Hospital. Police came at LHMC after about 5 minutes of our reaching. During that period I did not sign any document at LHMC. I cam back to my house at about 7:00 am from RML Hospital. I was called at PP Sangtrashan at about 08.00 am where my signature were obtained. Police obtained my signatures on Ex.PW1/A at that time at PP Sangtrashan. I remained present at PP Sangtrashan for about 10 minutes. Thereafter, I was called by the police at PP Sangtrashan at about 06.00 pm on the day when accused Amit was brought to the police post. Police had shown the accused to me and told to me that he is the person who stabbed Harmeet. I accompanied police to the spot where police took blood sample. I was not present with the police at the time of recovery of knife and clothes. I was standing outside the house of accused at that time. Police told me that they have recovered the knife from one dilapidated building situated in front of Gurudwara. Gurudwara is about 10 minutes walking distance from PP Sangtrashan. I do not know how many stories are there in the house of accused Amit. I signed the seizure memos and sketch of knife at PP Sangtrashan. I am not State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.24 of 29 aware from which place accused Amit was apprehended by the police. It is correct that on 28.01.2016 I had deposed as told by the police....."
(14) Now coming to the testimony of main injured Harmeet @ Pappu (PW3) who admits that the accused Amit is his neighbor who resides in front of his house and on the date of incident he along with his friend had consumed alcohol and when they reached Baoli Chowk, three to four persons stopped them and tried to snatch their belongings and one of the person had stabbed him on which he became unconscious. The relevant portion of his testimony is reproduced as under:
".... In the year 2015, I was working as a cook in Spice Green chilly Restaurant situated at H. No. 1440, Sangtarashan, Pahanrganj, Delhi. Accused Amit who is present in the Court today, is my neighbor and his house is situated in front of my house. Accused Amit was running a meat shop below his house.
On 21.07.2015, at about 1113:30 PM, I along with my friend were going to have dinner in a restaurant at New Delhi railway Station. We had taken alcohol earlier. When we reached at Baoli Chowk, 34 persons stopped us and started beating us and tried to snatch out belongings. One of them stabbed me on my chest with some weapon, thereafter I became unconscious. I cannot identify the assailants today....."
(15) In so far as Smt. Inderjeet Kaur (PW6) the wife of victim Harmeet and the witness Manish @ Sonu Seth (PW7) are concerned, they are not the eye witnesses to the incident. Smt. Inderjeet Kaur (PW6) has stated that she had not seen the assailants who had State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.25 of 29 attacked her husband whereas Manish @ Sonu Seth (PW7) had only shifted the injured Harmeet to the hospital. (16) All the public witnesses have turned hostile on the aspect of identity of the accused Amit as the person who had stabbed the victim Harmeet @ Pappu with a meat knife/ chopper.
Medical Evidence:
(17) Now coming to the medical evidence on record, Dr. Abhishek Anand (PW8) has proved the MLC of Gautam Bhatia which is Ex.PW8/A according to which the nature of injury was simple which was caused by blunt object and the injury was fresh. He has also proved the MLC of Harmeet Singh which is Ex.PW8/B according to which there were following injuries on the body of the victim:
1. Sharp incised wound on right subclavicular region 2 x 1 cm.
2. Sharp incised wound of 1.5 cm over upper part of sternum.
3. 10 cm sharp incised wound over posterolaterial aspect of left arm.
4. 1 cm sharp incised wound over lateral aspect of left axilla.
(18) The nature of injuries were opined to the 'Grievous' in nature as per the opinion Ex.C3.
(19) The above medical evidence on record only proves that the victim Harmeet @ Pappu (PW3) had received injuries which were 'Grievous' in nature whereas the injured Gautam Bhatia (PW1) has received simple injuries.
State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.26 of 29 Forensic Evidence:
(20) In so far as the Forensic Evidence is concerned, the Serological Report Ex.C11 which has been duly admitted by the accused, shows that the blood group of the victim Harmeet was 'A' Group which was found on the blood gauze and jeans of the victim.
Though human blood was found on the weapon of offence i.e. Knife but the blood group of the victim Harmeet @ Pappu i.e. 'A' blood group was not confirmed as there was no reaction. (21) Therefore, I hold that the forensic evidence on record also does not connect the accused with the offence alleged.
Recovery of Weapon of offence:
(22) The case of the prosecution is that pursuant to his arrest, the accused Amit got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. Chopper Ex.P1 from a dilapidated building at Baoli chowk near Shiv Mandir. In this regard, I may observe that no opinion has been obtained from the Doctor with regard to the weapon of offence as to whether the injuries caused on the person of Harmeet @ Pappu could have been caused by the said chopper or not. Even the Serological Report Ex.C11 does not connect the weapon allegedly got recovered by the accused Amit with the injured Harmeet as there was no reaction on the alleged weapon of offence. Further, the eye witness Gautam Bhatia (PW1) whose signatures are present on the various memos, has turned hostile on the aspect of the recovery of the knife and has stated that the recovery was not affected in his presence, rather, it was the police officials who told State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.27 of 29 him that they had recovered the knife from one dilapidated building situated in front of Gurudwara. There are material contradiction with regard to the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence i.e. Chopper which even otherwise is not linked to the alleged incident in as much as the Investigating Officer has failed to obtain any opinion from the doctor as to whether the injuries caused to Harmeet @ Pappu could have been caused by this weapon or not, and even the blood present on the weapon has not been confirmed to be of the victim Harmeet.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(23) In view of my aforesaid discussion, I hereby hold that there is no material on record, either direct or indirect or circumstantial to link the accused Amit with the offence. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused Amit beyond reasonable doubt. I hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused. The material brought on record by the prosecution are insufficient so as to hold that the accused Amit was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Further, each circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not established a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused. Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.28 of 29 bridge the gap between "may be true" and "must be true" so essential for a court to record a finding of guilt of an accused, particularly in cases based on circumstantial evidence. (24) I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Amit beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to the accused Amit who is acquitted of the charges under Sections 307/323 Indian Penal Code.
(25) The accused is directed to furnish his fresh bail bonds and surety bonds to the tune of Rs. 25,000/ as per the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU (26) File be consigned to Record Room. KAMINI Date:
LAU 2019.05.25
17:55:13
+0530
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 25.05.2019 Addl. Sessions JudgeII (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
State vs. Amit Kumar @ Amit, FIR No. 482/15, PS Pahar Ganj, Judgment dated 25.05.2019 Page No.29 of 29