Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Babloo @ Babu on 12 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 117/11
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0667352007
State Vs. (1) Babloo @ Babu
S/o Sh. Ranjit Tiwari
R/o C605, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Sunil Kumar @ Sunny
S/o Sh. Ganesh Kumar
R/o C41, Jhuggi C Block,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Convicted)
(3) Sheikh Mazid
S/o Sheikh Mohsin Ali
R/o C565, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 561/2007
Police Station: Jahangir Puri
Under Section: 302/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to session Court: 23.5.2008
Date on which orders were reserved: 3.7.2012
Date on which judgment announced: 6.7.2012
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 1
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations, on 18.8.2007 at about 8:00 PM in gali near Park BBlock Gurdwara, Jahangir Puri all the accused Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Ram Pratap S/o Mamraj. BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 18.8.2007 DD No. 45A was received at Police Station Jahangir Puri regarding admission of one injured Ram Pratap S/o Manraj in BJRM Hospital. Pursuant to said information ASI Dev Karan and HC Ajeet Singh reached BJRM Hospital where they found the injured Ram Pratap admitted and after some time the doctors declared the injured Ram Pratap dead.
Thereafter information was given to the police station pursuant to which Inspector Inderjeet Singh along with SI Balbir and Ct. Raj Pal reached BJRM Hospital where they met one Madan who was a friend of the deceased and Paras Ram the brother of the deceased. Madan gave his statement to the police wherein he told the Police that on 18.8.2007 at about 8:00 PM he along with his friend Ram Pratap @ Rinku were returning to their house after completing the sanitary work at C973, Jahangir Puri. According to Madan, when they reached in the narrow street near the Gurdwara of B Block, three boys of CBlock whom he knew previously who were having enmity with the family of Ram St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 2 Pratap (deceased), came from behind and started abusing Ram Pratap. Madan also informed the police that Mazid and Sunil @ Sunny caught hold of both the hands of Ram Pratap and gave beatings to him (Ram Pratap). According to Madan when he asked them not to fight, the third boy Babu @ Babloo took out a knife/ chura from his nicker and gave a knife blow on the right thigh of Ram Pratap and on seeing this he (Madan) raised an alarm and in the meanwhile Babloo gave another knife blow on the right thigh of Ram Pratap. Madan further told the police that on hearing the alarm, the younger brother of Ram Pratap namely Parsuram and other public persons came to the gali on which the said three boys ran away from the spot towards CBlock, 400 Wali Gali.
(3) On the basis of the said statement of Madan the present FIR was got registered and investigations were conducted. On the next day i.e. 19.8.2007 at about 4:00 PM he accused Babloo @ Babu and Sunil were arrested. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Babloo @ Babu got recovered the knife with which he had inflicted injuries upon the deceased. However, the third accused Sheikh Mazid absconded and could not be arrested after which was declared Proclaimed Offender by the Ld. MM on 5.3.2008. Later on 10.2.2009 the accused Sheikh Mazid was arrested and a supplementary charge sheet was filed against him.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 3 CHARGE:
(4) Charges under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against all the accused Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid to which they 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:
Sr. PW Name of the Witness Category of witness
No. No.
Prosecution witnesses:
1 PW1 Madan Kumar Eye witness to the incident
2 PW2 Parsuram Brother of the deceased
3 PW3 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary Doctor who had proved the MLC of
the deceased
4 PW4 Dr. Kulbhushan Goel Doctor who had conducted the
postmortem on the deceased
5 PW5 Naresh Kumar Forensic Expert
6 PW6 Pyare Lal Cousin brother of the deceased who
had identified the dead body
7 PW7 Ct. Dalbir Singh Crime Team Photographer
8 PW8 HC Devender Duty Constable posted at BJRM
Hospital
9 PW9 SI Baljeet Singh Crime Team Incharge
10 PW10 SI Manohar Lal Draftsman
11 PW11 HC Bhagirath Duty Officer
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 4
12 PW12 Ct. Raj Pal Police witness who has gone to
BJRM Hospital along with IO
13 PW13 HC Suraj Bhan MHCM
14 PW14 Retd. SI Ranbir Singh IO of case No. 139/07, PS Jahangir
Puri wherein Parsuram was the
witness
15 PW15 HC Ajit Singh Police witness
16 PW16 HC Anil Kumar Police witness who had delivered the
special report to senior officers
17 PW17 Ashwani Sharma Public witness in whose whose both
the deceased and witness Madan had
gone to do the sanitary work
18 PW18 HC Naresh Kumar Police witness who has proved the
arrest of the accused Sheikh Mazid
19 PW19 SI Ramesh Kumar Police witness who has proved the
arrest of the accused Sheikh Mazid
20 PW20 SI Balbir Singh Investigating Officer
21 PW21 Insp. Inderjeet Singh Investigating Officer
List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Document Details Proved by
No. exhibit No.
1. Ex.PW1/A Statement of Madan Madan
2. Ex.PW1/B Seizure memo of blood stained earth
3. Ex.PW2/A Seizure memo of clothes Parsuram
4. Ex.PW2/B Dead body identification statement
5. Ex.PW2/C Dead body handing over memo
6. Ex.PW2/D Arrest memo of accused Sunil
Kumar
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 5
7. Ex.PW2/E Arrest memo of accused Babloo @
Babu
8. Ex.PW2/F Personal search memo of accused
Babloo @ Babu
9. Ex.PW2/G Personal search memo of accused
Sunil Kumar
10. Ex.PW3/A MLC of the deceased Dr. Neeraj
Chaudhary
11. Ex.PW4/A Postmortem report Dr. Kulbhushan
12. Ex.PW4/B Application for autopsy Goel
13. Ex.PW4/C Brief Facts
14. Ex.PW4/D Form 25.35
15. Ex.PW4/E Dead Body identification statement
16. Ex.PW4/F Application for preserving the dead
body
17. Ex.PW4/G FIR
18. Ex.PW4/H DD No. 46A
19. Ex.PW4/I DD No. 45A
20. Ex.PW4/J Application for opinion of weapon
21. Ex.PW4/K Opinion with sketch
22. Ex.PW5/A Biological Report Naresh Kumar
23. Ex.PW5/B Serological Report
24. Ex.PW7/1 to Photographs Ct. Dalbir Singh
Ex.PW7/14
25. Ex.PW7/N1 Negatives
to PW7/N14
26. Ex.PW9/A Crime Team Report SI Baljeet Singh
27. Ex.PW10/A Scaled Site Plan SI Manohar Lal
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 6
28. Ex.PW11/A DD No. 47A HC Bhagirath
29. Ex.PW11/B DD No. 48A
30. Ex.PW13/A Copy of entry no. 3483 in Register No. 19 31. Ex.PW13/B RC No. 234/21 32. Ex.PW13/C RC No. 238/21
33. Ex.PW13/D Receipt of FSL
34. Ex.PW14/A Copy of FIR No. 139/07 SI Ranbir Singh
35. Ex.PW14/B Case diary
36. Ex.PW15/A Seizure memo of parcels handed HC Ajit Singh over by the doctor
37. Ex.PW18/A Kalandra HC Naresh
38. Ex.PW18/B Arrest memo of Sheikh Mazid
39. Ex.PW18/C Personal search memo of Sheikh Mazid
40. Ex.PW18/D Disclosure statement of Sheikh Mazid
41. Ex.PW18/E Arrest memo of Sheikh Mazid in the Kalandra
42. Ex.PW20/A Seizure memo of the container SI Balbir
43. Ex.PW20/B Disclosure statement of accused Babloo
44. Ex.PW20/C Disclosure statement of accused Sunil Kumar
45. Ex.PW20/D Pointing out memo
46. Ex.PW20/E Sketch of the knife
47. Ex.PW20/F Seizure memo of knife
48. Ex.PW20/G Seizure memo of blood stained clothes of accused Babloo St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 7
49. Ex.PW21/A Rukka Insp. Inderjeet
50. Ex.PW21/B Site plan of the incident Singh
51. Ex.PW21/C Site plan of recovery of knife EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as twenty one witnesses as under:
Public witnesses/ complainant:
(7) PW1 Madan Kumar who is the friend of the deceased is the complainant in the present. He has deposed that on 18.8.07 he was residing in CBlock, Jahangir Puri and was working as Plumber along with Rinku who was residing at C Block Jahangirpuri. According to him on that day i.e. 18.8.2007 at about 8:00 PM after finishing their work in BBlock they both were returning to their home and when they reached near Gurdwara wali Gali, three boys came there who stopped them. He has testified that the accused Babu took out a knife from the back of his nicker and touched it on the body of Rinku and asked him "Aaj isko jaan se maar denge". The witness has also deposed that Babu again asked both of them to move towards the park near the Gurdwara (tum dono is side me aa jao aur Gurudwara ke taraf ke park ke paas le gaya). He has further deposed that at that time the two other boys caught hold of himself and Rinku and when they reached near the Park all the three boys started giving beatings to Rinku on St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 8 which he tried to intervene in the matter but in the meanwhile accused Babu stabbed knife blow on the right thigh of Rinku. The witness has further testified he again intervened in the dispute but accused Babu again gave a knife blow on the right thigh of Rinku on which he raised an alarm and thereafter some public persons gathered there.
According to Madan, in the meantime the brother of the accused namely Parsuram came as he was working at Mandi at the same time. He has also deposed that Parsuram also saw the accused persons while running away and thereafter he along with Parsuram removed the injured Rinku to BJRM Hospital where doctor declared him dead after some time. The witness has also deposed that police officials reached at the hospital who recorded his statement. According to him, the accused persons inflicted injuries on the person of Rinku because they have previous enmity.
(8) He has correctly identified the accused Bablu @ Babu as the person who inflicted knife blows on Rinku; accused Sunil Kumar and Sheikh Mazid as the persons who had caught hold of Rinku and had given beatings to Rinku while Bablu @ Babu was inflicting knife blows on Rinku.
(9) The witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he has proved having made his statement which is Ex.PW1/A. According to him, when Rinku received injuries blood was St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 9 oozing out and some flesh also came out. He has deposed that since he alongwith Parsuram removed the injured to the hospital blood was also scattered on their clothes which were produced before the Investigating Officer and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B. The witness has further deposed that on 19.8.2007 accused persons were arrested by the police and he along with Parsuram identified the accused Sunil and Babloo before the police. According to him, on one occasion the police came to him and he identified the place of occurrence and the police took rough notes and measurements for preparation of site plan. (10) He has also correctly identified the case property i.e. knife Ex.P1; the half pant/ knicker and the Tshirt as worn by the accused Bablu at the time of incident which are Ex.P4 & Ex.P5; the shirt having blue and white check and the black colour pant as belonging to him (witness) which are Ex.P6 & Ex.P7.
(11) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that on the day of incident he along with Rinku had worked upto 8:00 PM at B Block. He has also deposed that police recorded his statement twice. The witness has stated that he remained in the hospital upto eleven PM and the police officials of PCR met him in the hospital at about 9.30 PM. According to the witness, he did not tell the police in his statement about the colour of his clothes and colour of the clothes of Parsuram or colour of the clothes of accused Babloo. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 10 He has testified that Parsuram reached the spot at about 8:20 PM when Rinku had already received injuries and the accused persons trying to run away from the spot. The witness Madan has further stated that when the police seized his clothes they did the writing work and prepared seizure memo and obtained his signatures. According to him, the clothes of Parsuram was seized in his presence but he had not signed the seizure memo of the clothes of Parsuram which seizure memo was prepared in his presence. He has further deposed that police seized his clothes at about 11.30 pm on the day of incidence and that the seizure memos were prepared at the Police Station. He has also stated that in his presence no proceedings conducted by police regarding identification of two accused persons Sunil and Babloo. The witness has denied the suggestion that he did not go to the BJRM Hospital along with the injured. According to him, he has stated to the police that he was living with Rinku since Rinku was residing in the same street however, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A where this fact was found not so recorded. The witness has admitted that on the day of incident he was residing at Jhugi C9, 24/37 C Block, Jahangir Puri Delhi which jhuggi, according to him, was situated at a distance of seven house from the residence of deceased Rinku. He has also deposed that he had in his statement stated to the police that deceased and accused persons were having enmity but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A where this fact was not found so recorded. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 11 According to the witness, he was called by the police after 18/19.9.07 when the site plan was prepared by the draftsman. He has further deposed that on previous occasions, there was manhandling (Hata pai) between Babloo @ Babu and deceased Rinku about two months back from the date of incident when he was present and was an eye witness of that incident but he did not make any complaint of that incident. He is unable to tell whether Rinku had made any complaint or not. He has admitted that just after the incident when they raised an alarm, a crowd gathered there but has denied that some public persons from the crowd accompanied him to the hospital as well as to the Police Station. According to him, the width of the gali is five feet and there was light in front of the house of Gupta Boot House. He has denied the suggestion that he did not accompany Rinku on the day of incident. The witness Madan has further deposed that he knew Rinku @ Ram Pratap since childhood and on the date of incident he along with Rinku had worked at House No. B151/152 at B Block. He has admitted that from B Block to C Block if somebody wants to go there are wide roads but has voluntarily explained that a small gali goes as a short cut from B Block to C Block which short gali was convenient and lead to their house. According to the witness, he had stated to the police in his statement Ex.PW1/A that accused persons caught hold of him also but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A this fact was not found so recorded. He has deposed that he did not state to the police in his St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 12 statement that after injuries flesh was oozing out from the deceased Rinku's right thigh. The witness has also deposed that the cause of enmity of accused persons with the deceased Rinku was a quarrel which had taken place about two months prior to this incident and he was the eye witness to that incident. He has also deposed that in that incident one accused Babu and two other Bengalis were involved, but he is not aware of the names of two Bengalis. He has deposed that in his presence, no quarrel took place between deceased Rinku and accused Sunil. He has denied the suggestion that accused Sunil had no enmity with Rinku or that on the day of incident he was not with the deceased Rinku. He has further denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of incident or that the accused Sheikh Mazid was not present at the time of incident.
(12) PW2 Parsuram is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that he used to work at Azadpur Mandi and is dealing with lemons. According to him, on 18.8.2007 at about 8 PM when he was returning from his job and passing through CB Block 500 wali gali, he saw that three boys were running towards 400 wali gali and one of them was having an open knife stained with the blood. He has correctly identified all the three boys by taking their names as Babloo @ Babu who was holding the knife; Sunil Kumar and Mazeer. He has further deposed that he heard the noise "mar diya, mar diya" on which St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 13 he rushed towards the patliwali gali near Gurudwara and he saw that his brother Ram Pratap @ Rinku was lying in injured condition and blood was oozing out from his person. According to the witness, one person namely Madan was also present there who told him that three boys caused injuries to his brother by knife and ran away after which he immediately chased all the three boys but all of them ran away from there. The witness has testified that he came back to the spot and he along with Madan removed his brother to BJRM hospital by a rickshaw but after sometime doctor declared him dead. He has deposed that he along with Madan pointed out the place of occurrence to the police where blood was scattered. According to him, when they were removing his brother to the hospital, blood also spread on their clothes which clothes were taken by the police in their possession and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW2/A. He has also deposed that police lifted blood stained mud, blood, earth control from the spot and after investigation he left the spot. The witness has explained that he was a witness in a case under Section 307 IPC and the accused persons wanted to put him in fear and attacked on the person of his brother so that he should not make any statement in that case but he had refused to do so. He has testified that on one earlier occasion a quarrel had taken place with his brother Ram Pratap and accused Babu who was in drunken state due to which reason accused persons were having St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 14 inimical terms with them. The witness has further deposed that after the postmortem he identified the dead body of his brother vide his statement Ex.PW2/B and the dead body was handed over to him vide memo Ex.PW2/C. He has testified that accused Babloo @ Babu and Sunil Kumar were arrested by the police on 19.8.2007 near Ramlila Maidan and on hearing the apprehension of accused persons, he reached there and identified them after which both the accused Babu and Sunil Kumar were arrested vide memos Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E and their personal search memos were prepared which are Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G. (13) He has correctly identified the case property i.e. the knife which is Ex.P1; his pant and Tshirt of light blue colour stained with blood which he was wearing when he removed his brother to the hospital which are Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.
(14) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by police once i.e. on 19.8.07 at Police Station at about 7 PM to 8 PM wherein he did not state that accused Babloo was seen by him carrying a knife. He has voluntarily added that he might have forgotten about the same at the time of recording of his statement and has denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot that is why he did not see knife in the hand of accused Babloo or that he did not meet the police after the incident. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 15 The witness has deposed that he does not remember whether the police officials prepared any seizure memo regarding the knife or whether they obtained his signatures on seizure memo of knife. According to the witness, he had signed many papers but he does not remember the place where police obtained his signatures on the documents and has voluntarily added that police obtained signatures on document regarding seizure of blood stained clothes at Police Station. He has testified that he had not signed the documents pertaining to seizure of Madan's clothes. According to him, there is no fixed time table of his work at the Azad Pur Mandi and states that on the day of incident he had left the Azadpur Mandi at about 7.30 PM. He has deposed that the distance between his house and Azadpur Mandi is about one or one and a half kilometer and he took about 30 minutes to reach at the spot of crime on foot. According to the witness Parsuram, he might have reached BJRM hospital at about 9 pm and remained there for about one hour. The witness has also deposed that he did not notice the time when the police officials met him and stated that it may be 8.30 PM or 8.45 PM. He has further testified that in his presence police officials had not recorded statement of any rickshawala. He has also denied that the accused Babloo was not having inimical relations with the deceased. He has denied that Babloo has been falsely implicated in this case. He does not remember whether police prepared the documents pertaining to arrest of Babloo in his presence. He has denied that he signed all the St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 16 documents on the instructions of police officials without reading the same in the police station. He has denied that he had not reached at spot of crime at about 8 pm. He has denied that he was deposing falsely being the brother of the deceased. He has also denied that he has been cited as witness being the brother of deceased.
(15) In his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused Sunil, the witness has deposed that he had been working at Azad Pur Mandi, wholesale Mandi, for about 1015 years prior to the incident. He has denied that wholesale mandi used to closed at 5 pm. He has admitted that the way leads to mandi from his house is from Mahindra Park through Mangal Bazar chowk Jahangir Puri but he did not use this route daily. According to the witness, this gali 400500 is situated at a distance of three four gali from Mangal Bazar Chowk. He has denied that the distance is half a kilometer and having 1415 gali in between Mangal Bazar road and gali 400500. The witness has also denied the suggestion that on the day of incident, first he had reached his house from Azadpur mandi. He has further denied that from his house he went to BJRM Hospital. According to him, he does not exactly remember but he signed three four documents prepared by police. He also does not remember whether he signed his statement recorded at police station on 19.8.07 and has denied that the police had not recorded the statement on 19.8.07. He did not remember whether police officials recorded his any other statement after 19.8.07. He has admitted that he St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 17 had no quarrel or enmity with accused Sunil prior to this incident. He has denied the suggestion that accused Sunil was not arrested in his presence and has voluntarily added that police apprehended accused Sunil and Babu and in the meantime he also reached there. According to the witness, police prepared personal search document of accused persons in his presence and Rs.35/ was recovered from Sunil. He does not know whether police officials got sign documents from the accused Sunil. He has admitted that he signed Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/G which are related to accused Sunil.
(16) In his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused Sheikh Mazid, the witness has deposed he does not remember whether he had stated to the police in his statement word 'mar diyamar diya'. The witness has deposed that accused Sheikh Mazid was not arrested in his presence. According to him he had no enmity with accused Mazid but prior to incident a quarrel took place with him. Witness has deposed that he had handed over his blood stained cloth on the same day of incident i.e. cream colour pant having shining whereas the colour of Baniyan he does not remember.
(17) PW6 Pyare Lal has deposed that on 19.8.2007 he went to mortuary BJRM hospital Jahangirpuri where he had identified the dead body of his cousin deceased Ram Pratap and the IO recorded his statement which is exhibited as Ex.PW4/E. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 18 (18) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that Parsuram also signed the documents regarding identification of the dead body. The witness was shown his statement Ex.PW4/E where there was no signatures of witness Parsu Ram. The witness has further deposed that the sister of Parsuram came to his home in the morning on 19.8.07 at about 8 am and disclosed that Ram Partap had been killed and thereafter he reached at the hospital at about 9.30 am alone. He has denied that he had not visited mortuary, BJRM Hospital on 19.8.07 for body identification of deceased Ram Partap. (19) PW17 Sh. Ashwani Sharma has deposed that he is having business of selling apples in Azadpur Fruit Mandi. According to him, he had given the contract of sanitary work in his house to Madan Kumar R/o CBlock of Jahangir Puri who along with his associate Rinku whose complete name he does not remember, were working in his house about two three days prior to the incident. He has testified that these boys used to come at his house for work at about 10 AM and leave around 78 PM. According to the witness, on the day of incident, date of which he does not remember, both the aforesaid persons had come to his house at 10:00 AM and had worked till 7.30 PM and left thereafter. He has testified that after about two days from the incident the police had come to his house and made inquiries to him, when he came to know that Rinku had been killed by two three boys in between Gali no. 400 and 500, who expired at BJRM Hospital.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 19 (20) In his crossexamination by the Ld. counsels for all the three accused persons the witness has deposed that he had not asked Madan Kumar regarding his license for working in the field of sanitary work prior to giving him contract and no writing work was done regarding the said contract between him and Madan Kumar. He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of Parshuram.
Medical evidence/ witnesses:
(21) PW3 Dr. Neeraj Choudhary, CMO BJRM hospital has deposed he was deputed by MS in place of Dr. Prashant, Dr. Chander Bhan and Dr. Manideepa, as all these doctors have left the hospital and their present whereabouts were not known. He has seen MLC of patient Ram Pratap who had been brought to hospital on 18.8.2007 at 8:30 PM by his brother Prasuram and his friends and relative with alleged history of stab injury on right thigh and was examined by Dr. Prashant vide MLC Ex.PW3/A. According to the witness, on examination of the patient, Dr. Prashant observed that patient was unconscious, pulse feeble, blood pressure was not recordable and found two clean lacerated wound over right thigh with active bleeding, measuring 2 x 0.5 cm on medial aspect of the right thigh and the other injury measuring 1 x .25 cm on lateral aspect of right thigh and the patient was thereafter referred to Surgery Department. The witness has deposed that Dr. Prashant declared the patient unfit for statement at about 8.40 pm. The St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 20 witness has identified signatures of Dr. Prashant at point A on MLC Ex.PW3/A. The witness has deposed that the patient was thereafter referred to surgery department at 8:35 PM where Dr. Chandar Bhan examined the patient who was unconscious and vitals were not stable.
Dr. Chander Bhan observed that the blood pressure was not recordable and two clean lacerated stab wounds were seen on right thigh with active bleeding and he advised two unit blood. The witness has proved the endorsement of Dr. Chandar Bhan at point B on MLC on Ex.PW3/A and has also identified writing and signatures of Dr. Chander Bhan. The witness has proved that as per the MLC the patient had expired at 9.15 pm and he was declared dead by Dr. Manideepa vide his endorsement in this regard on MLC Ex.PW3/A. The witness has also identified writing and signatures of Dr. Manideepa at point Z on Ex.PW3/A. (22) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has testified that thigh is not a vital part and has voluntarily explained that in the present case the active bleeding was present and the patient was under shock.
(23) PW4 Dr. Kulbhushan Goel, CMO BJRM Hospital, has deposed that he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Ram Pratap which was sent by Inspector Inderjeet Singh with alleged history of stab injuries and was declared dead on 18.8.07 at 9.15 pm. The witness has St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 21 deposed that the clothes on the body were shirt having blood stains, pant smeared with blood, banyan and blood stained underwear. He found that there was a cut about 4 cm long transversely placed over right limb of the pant in thigh area at medial side of the back and one more cut of about 2.5 cm long placed vertically oblique over left side of zip area of the pant. The witness has deposed that on external examination following injuries were found on the body.
1. Incised penetrating wound 4x1cm over medical aspect of right thigh about 16 cm below medial end of right inguinal ligament placed transversely. The front angle was more acute then the posterior bone. Bleeding was present.
2. Incised penetrating wound 2x0.75cm placed transversely and slightly oblique over front of right thigh about 19 cm below right mid inguinal ligament. Angles of the wound were acute.
(24) According to the witness, on exploration, Injury No. (1) communicated with the Injury No. 2 internally. Right femoral vessels and muscles in the track were cleanly cut. Vessels were completely severed. Massive blood clots were seen in the injury track and surrounding tissues. The direction of the injuries was left to right and slightly downwards and forward. The witness has proved that the cause of death in the present case was due to hemorrhagic shock St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 22 consequent upon injuries to femoral vessels and all injuries were antemortem in nature caused by sharp cutting and penetrating weapon by other party which injuries to femoral vessels were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
(25) According to the witness, the clothes and blood sample of the deceased in gauze piece were sealed and handed over to the police. He has proved his detailed report Ex.PW4/A. According to the witness, total inquest papers received were 11 in number signed by him which are Ex.PW4/B to Ex.PW4/I bearing his signatures at point B and Ex.PW3/A bearing his signatures at point D. (26) According to the witness, on 21.9.2007 Addl. SHO Inspector Inderjeet Singh moved an application for obtaining the subsequent opinion of the weapon which application is Ex.PW4/J and also produced one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of ISB. The witness has deposed that on opening the parcel, one knife was taken out, its handle was of heavy plastic made in two pieces, tightened to each other with three nail system with groove in between two parts accommodating rear part of blade in its full length. Blade of knife was made of steel (iron), heavy; rear 13 cm of the blade was mounted in between the handle; the front length was about 20 cm and maximum width was about 4 cm. According to the witness, one of the edges was sharp and other one was blunt and both edges were tapered at anterior St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 23 end into pointed end and blood like stains were seen over both surfaces of the blade. After examination, he has opined that the Injury No. 1 & 2 with internal injuries of thigh mentioned in PM report Ex.PW4/A were possible by the weapon examined or by similar such type of other weapon. The witness has deposed that the weapon was resealed along with police seal with the seal of KG and handed over to Inspector Inderjeet Singh along with the sample seal and prior to sealing the same, the sketch of the knife was also prepared. The witness has proevd its detailed report with sketch, which is Ex.PW4/K bearing his signatures at point A. According to him, at the time of subsequent opinion, he also signed the application Ex.PW4/J at point A while giving the subsequent opinion. The witness has identified the clothes of the deceased which are Ex. P8, P9, P10 and P11, respectively, and the weapon i.e. the knife Ex.P1. Witness has stated that it was same knife which was produced by the IO while taking the subsequent opinion. During the examination of the witness, this Court has observed that the pant Ex.P8 having two cut marks seemed to be cut by the sharp weapon and another big hole like cut is also seen on the pant and the Addl. PP explained that this big hole cut mark was made by the FSL authorities while examining the blood stains on the pant.
(27) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that the injuries mentioned in PM report Ex.PW4/A were fresh in nature. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 24 According to the witness, in case of excessive bleeding, hemorrhagic shock supervense. He has deposed that initially shock is reversible and later on it may converted into irreversible shock and ultimately death. According to the witness, the reversible shock may occur even loss of small amount of blood may be 400/500 ml, but more amount may lead into irreversible shock, which varies individual to individual as per resistance of the body, and hence definite time in such injuries, could not be given between the infliction of injury and death. He has denied that he had given cause of death in his PM report Ex.PW4/A at the instance of police officials. He has further denied that subsequent opinion Ex.PW4/K given by him which is suitable to the prosecution. The witness has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely at the instance of police officials.
(28) On Court question whether injuries caused to the injured on his vital part or not, the witness has admitted that thigh is not a vital part of the body, but has explained in this case the femoral vessel was severely damaged and femoral vessel is very large vessel, which supplies the blood to whole lower limb and then pressure of blood is very high in this vessel and any injury of such kind is always fatal. Therefore, the injury of femoral vessel in this case was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 25 Forensic witness/ evidence:
(29) PW5 Naresh Kumar, SSA Biology FSL Rohini has deposed that on 26.9.2007 nine sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL Rohini. Parcel No., 1 to 6 were sealed with the seal of ISB and Parcel No. 7 to 9 were sealed with the seal of KG BJRM hospital. According to the witness, at the time of opening the parcels, seals were compared with the specimen seal and found intact. The witness has deposed that on opening the Parcel No. 1, it was found to contain one shirt and one pant which were marked Ex.1a and Ex.1b respectively. The parcel no. 2 was opened and it was found to contain one pant and one sleeveless Tshirt, which were marked Ex.2a and Ex.
2b respectively. The parcel no.3 was opened and it was found to contain one pant and one dark brown cotton wool swab described as blood lifted from the spot which is marked Ex.3. According to the witness, the parcel no. 4 was opened and it was found to contain concrete material described as blood stained soil, which was marked Ex.4; parcel no. 5 was opened and it was found to contain concrete material described as earth control, which was marked Ex.5; parcel no. 6 was opened and it was found to contain one nicker and one orange T shirt, which were marked Ex. 6A and 6b respectively; parcel no. 7 was opened and it was found to contain one weapon of offence (knife) which was marked Ex.7; parcel no. 8 was opened and it was found to contain one pant, one shirt having brown stains, one banian having stains and one underwear, St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 26 which were marked Ex.8a and 8b respectively and parcel no. 9 was opened and it was found to contain dark brown gauze piece described as blood sample, which was marked Ex.9.
(30) According to the witness, on biological examination, blood was detected on exhibits no. 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 6a, 6b, 7, 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d and 9, whereas, blood could not be detected on Ex.5. He has deposed that after examination, he prepared the detailed report Ex.PW5/A. He also examined all samples serologically and prepared detailed report which is Ex.PW5/B. (31) The witness has identified the shirt and pant as the same which was analysed serologically and biologically. The pant and shirt collectively Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 belonging to Madan Kumar. Witness further identified one pant and one sleeveless TShirt that was analysed serologically and biologically. The same are collectively Ex.P2 and P3 belonging to Paras Ram. The dark brown cotton wool swab described as blood lifted from the spot. Witness identified that it was analysed serologically and biologically. The dark brown cotton wool swab is Ex.PW5/1. The witness also identified concrete material described as blood stained soil Ex.PW5/2, concrete material described as earth control Ex.PW5/3 which were analysed serologically and biologically. The witness also identified one nicker and one orange Tshirt Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 belonging to accused Babloo. Witness has identified pant, St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 27 shirt, banian and underwear collectively Ex.PW5/4. The same were analysed serologically and biologically. Witness has identified one dark brown gauze cloth piece which was analysed serologically and biologically. The same is Ex.PW5/5. All the exhibits mentioned in his detailed report and their result also described in his report. (32) In his crossexamination by Ld. Counsels for accused Babloo persons, the witness has deposed that he had prepared rough notes about the test conducted by him. He has admitted that the rough notes are not on the judicial record. He has denied the suggestion that he had conducted the serological and biological examination in a mechanical manner. He has denied that he had prepared the report Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B as per the instructions of the IO and that is why the rough notes are not on the record.
Police/ official witnesses:
(33) PW7 Ct. Dalbir Singh has deposed that on 18.8.2007 he was posted in the mobile crime team and on that day he along with SI Baljeet Singh, incharge of mobile crime team were called at BBlock Jahangir Puri near Gurudwara Wala Bagh, Pathli Gali, they reached there, where the local police was also present. According to the witness, he being the photographer of mobile crime team, took the photographs of the scene and after developing the same were handed over to the IO which photographs are Ex.PW7/1 to Ex.PW7/14 and their negatives are St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 28 Ex.PW7/N1 to Ex.PW7N14.
(34) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that they left the office of the mobile crime team at about 10.15pm and reached at the spot at about 10.50 pm. He did not know whether incharge made departure entry or not or the name of the local police staff. According to him, their vehicle could not reach upto the scene of crime. His statement was recorded by the IO Inspector Inderjeet Singh. He has deposed that he remained at the spot upto 11.30 pm and after leaving the spot all the members of the crime team reached at their office. According to him, he handed over the positives to the IO on 21.9.07. He has denied that he never visited the scene of crime. He has further denied that he did not take any photograph of the scene of crime. He also denied that his statement was never recorded by the IO.
The witness has deposed that he had diploma in photography. (35) PW8 HC Devender has deposed that in the intervening night of 18.8.2007 he was posted at duty constable at BJRM hospital from 8 pm to 8 am and at about 8.45 pm, one injured namely Ram Pratap was got admitted in the hospital by his brother Parsuram. According to the witness, he informed about the admission of the injured to the Police Station Jahangir Puri vide DD No. 45A through telephone on which ASI Dev Karan came to the hospital. The witness has deposed that during treatment, the injured had expired in the hospital and the injured was having injuries on his right thigh. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 29 (36) In his cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed that 34 public persons were also accompanied by the injured to the hospital. The witness has deposed that one another cousin brother, whose name he does not remember, was also accompanying Prasuram. According to the witness, he made telephone within five minutes after his admission in the hospital and the local police reached in the hospital within 10 minutes thereafter. He has deposed that he showed the injured to the local police and thereafter he was busy in his other work. According to the witness, ASI Dev Karan made inquires from Prasuram and the other persons who were accompanying him, but he (witness) does not know about what inquiry was made. The witness has deposed that thereafter the local police and other people took the dead body in the mortuary and thereafter they had left. The witness has admitted that the injured straight away went to the doctor at casualty and at that time he (witness) was present in the casualty. He has admitted that thereafter, the doctor informed him and prepared MLC and then he informed the local police. He has denied that in the casualty, no other person was allowed except the injured. He has admitted that he informed the local police but he did not join any other proceedings.
(37) PW9 SI Baljeet Singh has deposed that on 18.8.07 he was posted as Incharge Crime Team NW District Delhi and on that day, he received a call from control room for inspection of scene of crime at St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 30 House No. 400500, D Block Jahangir Puri near park. According to the witness, he along with photographer Ct. Dalvir Singh and other staff reached at the scene of crime. He inspected the site whereas photographer Ct. Dalvir took the photographs from different angles. He has observed a blood trail continued upto 60 to 70 meter. According to the witness, one blood stained sleeper of left line was also lying in front of H. No, B77, Jahangir Puri. He has further deposed that two blood sample and two earth control were directed to be lifted. He has prepared his detailed report Ex.PW9/A. (38) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that he received information at about 9.20 pm after which he reached at the spot at about 10.45 pm and remained there for about 45 to 60 minutes. He did not made separate departure entry for each and every call. According to him, the spot of crime was pakki gali having cemented floor and many public persons were present there but he is unable to tell names of those persons. He had prepared crime team report Ex.PW9/A at the spot but did not obtain the signatures of any public person on the report. He has denied that he did not visit the scene of crime or that no report was prepared at the spot or that he prepared a false report at the instance of IO.
(39) In his crossexamination by Ld Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that he did not remember his exact location where St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 31 he received the call of this case. He has denied that he did not receive any call from IO and that is why he did not remember. He has also denied that he prepared false and manipulated report at the instance of Investigating Officer.
(40) PW10 SI Manohar Lal (Draftsman) has deposed that on 16.10.2007 he along with IO reached at Gali B Block, Jhangir Puri Delhi, where Madan Kumar met them who took them to the scene of crime and at his instance, he (witness) took rough notes and measurement for preparation of site plan. According to the witness, after preparation of scaled site plan Ex.PW10/A, the rough notes and measurement were destroyed.
(41) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he reached at the spot at about 3 pm and remained there for about 35 to 45 minutes. According to the witness, Madan Kumar was already called by the IO and he led them to the scene of crime. The witness has denied the suggestion that he had prepared scaled site plan at the instance of investigating officer at the Police Station. The witness has further deposed that one or two passers byes were passing from the gali but he is unable to say if the investigating officer called any public persons to join the investigation in his presence. He states that he had not obtained signatures of PW Madan Kumar on scaled site plan. The witness has further deposed that he received information at about 2 pm on 16.10.07 on phone and he left his St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 32 office immediately and reached PS Jahangir Puri. He has deposed that the investigating officer never contacted him prior to 16.10.07 in respect of preparation of scaled site plan of this case.
(42) PW11 HC Bhagirath has deposed that on 18.8.2007 he was posted at Police Station Jahangir Puri and on that day he was working as duty officer from 4 pm to 12 midnight and at about 8.35, DO from DJR hospital informed through telephone that Ram Prasad was admitted at the hospital in injured condition. He recorded this information vide DD No. 45 A copy of which is Ex.PW4/H and handed it over to ASI Dev Karan and HC Ajit Singh for further action. The witness has further deposed that at about 9.20 pm, ASI Dev Karan gave information that the injured Ram Prasad was declared dead by the doctor. The witness has further deposed that he informed Addl. SHO through telephone in this regard and SI Balbir Singh and Ct. Rajpal were sent to the hospital with the DD No. 46A, copy of which is Ex.PW4/I. According to the witness, at about 10.50 PM, Ct. Rajpal brought the tehrir sent by Addl. SHO and he (witness) made entry vide DD No. 47A copy of which is Ex.PW11/A for registration of FIR and after completing the FIR he also made DD No. 48A copy of which is Ex.PW11/B. He also made endorsement on the rukka regarding registration of FIR which endorsement is Ex.PW11/C. According to the witness, he also sent special messenger for supplying the copy of FIR to the senior police St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 33 officials and the Area Magistrate.
(43) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the accused has deposed that Ct. Rajpal remained with him for about one hour. According to the witness, after registration of FIR at about 11.50 pm, he sent Special Messenger. He has denied the suggestion that Ct. Rajpal never brought the rukka before him or that he did not handover copy of FIR and rukka to him.
(44) PW12 Ct. Rajpal has deposed that in the intervening night of 1819.8.07, he was posted at Police Station Jahangir Puri and at about 9.15 pm, he along with SI Balbir Singh and Inspector Inderjeet Singh reached BJRM hospital Jahangir Puri, where ASI Dev Karan and HC Ajeet Singh met them who disclosed the facts to the investigating officer and ASI Dev Karan also handed over MLC of deceased after which the investigating officer inspected the dead body of the deceased. He has further deposed that one eye witness namely Madan Kumar was also present there and the investigating officer recorded his statement and prepared rukka and handed over to him (witness) for registration of FIR. According to the witness, on 26.9.07, as per instructions of Inspector Inderjeet, he collected nine sealed parcels from MHC(M) and deposited the same in the FSL Rohini vide RC No. 238/21 and receipt was handed over to MHC (M). According to the witness, the case property was not tampered with till it remained in his custody. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 34 (45) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer on 19.8.07 at police station at about 7 pm in the evening hours. According to him, he reached the police station at about 4.30 am on 19.8.07 from the spot. He has denied that he had not taken the rukka to police station for registration of the FIR or that he had not joined the investigation of the case. The witness has denied that he had not obtained the sealed parcel on 26.9.07. According to him, rukka was prepared in the hand writing of Inspector Inderjeet. (46) PW13 HC Suraj Bhan has deposed that on 19.8.07, he was posted as MHC (M) at Police Station Jahangir Puri and on that day Inspector Inderjeet deposited nine parcels with sample seal and two personal search and he made entry in this regard at Sl. No. 3483 in Register No. 19 photocopy of the same is Ex.PW13/A. The witness has further deposed that on 21.9.07 he handed over sealed parcel containing knife to Inspector Inderjeet for obtaining subsequent opinion from BJRM Hospital vide entry at point A on Ex.PW13/A and the parcel was handed over vide RC No. 234/21. He has further deposed that on the same day, Inspector Inderjeet deposited the sealed parcel through Ct. Mukesh duly sealed with the seal of KG, BJRM Hospital against the entry in this regard at point B on Ex.PW13/A. The witness has deposed that on 26.9.07, nine parcels were sent to FSL through Ct. Rajpal vide St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 35 RC No. 238/21 and he made entry in this regard at point C on Ex.PW13/A. The witness has deposed that on 7.5.08 Ct. Rajiv deposited nine sealed parcels and he made and entry in this regard at point D on Ex.PW13/A. He has further deposed that photocopy of RC No. 234/21 is Ex.PW13/B, photocopy of RC No. 238/21 is Ex.PW13/C and photocopy of the receipt issued by FSL is Ex.PW13/D. (47) In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed that the investigating officer recorded his statement but he did not remember the date. The witness has deposed that Ct. Rajpal had not signed in Register No. 19 and has voluntarily added that he obtained his signatures on the RC. According to the witness he did not obtain the signatures of the investigating officer in Register No. 19 at the time of deposit of case property. (48) PW14 SI (Retd.) Ranbir Singh has deposed that on 19.2.07 the investigation of case FIR No. 139/07 was handed over to him wherein complainant Deepak received bullet injury on his left hand and in that case Parsuram was witness. He has deposed that he arrested four accused persons namely Noor Mohd @ Aaga, Shamim @ Chote, Asif and Ikram @ Chotu. According to the witness, after completion of investigation, challan was filed and the trial of that case has been conducted in Rohini Court. The witness has deposed that the IO showed a copy of FIR No. 139/07 U/s 307/34 IPC and he told to him that St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 36 witness Parshuwam cited at Serial No. 3 in that challan. Photocopy of the FIR No. 139/07 is Mark PW14/A and the name of Parsuram has been cited at Point X at Sl. No. 3 in the copy of case diary attached with the copy of FIR. The photocopy of the same is Mark PW14/B. The witness has deposed that, later on, he came to know that murder of the brother of Parsuram, was committed vide FIR No. 561/07 i.e. in this case.
(49) In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, the witness has deposed that he came to know about the murder of brother of Parsuram after recording of his statement by the investigating officer.
(50) PW15 HC Ajit Singh has deposed that on 18.8.07, he along with ASI Dev Karan were on night emergency duty and on receiving DD No. 45A, he along with ASI Dev Karan went to BJRM hospital and came to know that injured Ram Pratap was admitted there and treatment was going on. The witness has deposed that ASI Dev Karan collected the MLC of injured and after sometime doctor declared him dead. The witness has deposed that the dead body was removed to the mortuary at BJRM hospital and the postmortem of the deceased was conducted. The witness has deposed that the doctor handed over sealed parcels containing blood stained clothes of the deceased and sealed with the seal of KG BJRM hospital along with two sealed parcels to the St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 37 investigating officer. He has further deposed that the investigating officer prepared the seizure memo of all the three parcels which is Ex.PW15/A. According to the witness, the dead body was not tampered till it remained in his custody. He has identified the case property i.e. the blood stains clothes of deceased which are Ex.PW5/E. (51) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he remained in the hospital till the time of postmortem but he does not remember the exact time of recording of his statement by investigating officer. According to the witness, for the first time, SI Balbir Singh and Inderjeet Singh came to hospital at about 9.30 pm. He does not remember for how many hours, he remained with them. Witness has denied that he had not seen the clothes which were worn by the injured in the hospital but has admitted that clothes were not seized in his presence. The witness has further deposed that in his presence the doctor had taken four clothes of deceased pant, shirt, underwear and vest in a sealed parcel but he does not remember the name of the doctor who conducted the postmortem. The witness has deposed that his duty hours were on that day from 8 pm to 8 am morning. The witness has denied that no postmortem was conducted or that no pulanda was handed over by doctor.
(52) PW16 HC Anil Kumar has deposed that on intervening night of 18/19.8.07, at about 11.30 pm, he was handed over envelopes St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 38 containing FIR of the present case for delivering to area Magistrate, Joint CP Northeren range, DCP (N/W) and ACP of the area. According to the witness, he had delivered the envelopes at the residence of senior officers as per instructions of Duty Officer.
(53) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he had not made any departure and arrival entry himself and states that the duty officer might have recorded the same. According to him, he delivered the envelope containing FIR copy on Govt. motorcycle but he does not remember the number of the motorcycle. He has deposed that he left the police station around 11:30 PM in the night. The witness has further deposed that he had told the investigating officer that he went on a govt. motorcycle, but when the witness was confronted with statement u/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW16/A, this fact is not so recorded. The witness has further deposed that he put the envelop in the letter box at the residence of Ld. MM who was residing at Prashant Vihar, but he does not remember his address. He has denied that he had not delivered the copy of the FIR to Ld. MM, Joint CP Northern range, DCP N/W and ACP of the area.
(54) PW 18 HC Naresh Kumar has deposed that on 09.02.09 he was posted at Police Station Jahangir Puri and on that day he along with HC Anil and Ct. Dharmender were petrolling the area of KBlock, Jahangir Puri when one secret informer informed him that one accused Sheikh Mazid who was proclaimed offender in a case of Police Station St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 39 Jahangir Puri would come from Bhalaswa Dairy side. According to the witness, on the basis of this information he apprehended the accused Shiekh Mazid at the instance of secret informer at Bhalswa Chowk after which the accused was interrogated and he came to know that the accused had been declared a Proclaimed Offender in this case on 05.03.2008 by the Court of Sh. R.K. Goyal, Ld. MM, Rohini. The witness has proved having arrested the accused under Section 41.1C Cr.P.C. by DD No. 73B on 09.02.09 and the Kalandra in this regard is Ex.PW18/A. He has proved that SI Ramesh Kumar arrested the accused in this case vide memo Ex.PW18/B and his personal search was conducted by SI Ramesh Sharma vide Ex.PW18/C after which the accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded by SI Ramesh Kumar vide Ex.PW18/D. The witness has testified that SI Ramesh Kumar prepared the arrest memo of the accused in the Kalandra vide Ex.PW18/E. According to him, the accused was produced before Ld. MM and was got sent to judicial custody. He has identified the accused Sheikh Mazid who was present in the Court. (55) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that on 09.02.09 they left the police station at about 4:00 PM and left the place of arrest of accused Shiekh Mazid within one hour. He has denied that the accused Shiekh Mazid was not arrested by him in any kalandra or that no document was prepared in his presence. He has further denied St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 40 that he had signed the memo and the discloser statement at the instance of SI Ramesh Kumar later on.
(56) PW19 SI Ramesh Kumar has deposed that on 10.02.09 he was posted at Police Station Jagangir Puri and on that day he further investigations of this case was handed over to him by the SHO. According to the witness, he received the case file from the MHCR and perused the same after which he came to know that the accused Sheikh Mazid who was already arrested on 09.02.09 in Kalandra vide DD No. 73B by HC Naresh Kumar was taken out from lockup. He has proved having arrested the accused in this case vide memo Ex.PW18/B and his personal search was also conducted by him vide memo Ex.PW18/C after which the accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded by him vide memo Ex.PW18/D. According to him, the accused was produced before the Ld. MM and was sent to judicial custody. He has proved that he recorded the statement of HC Naresh Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after which further investigation was handed over to some other Investigating Officer pursuant to which he handed over the file MHCR.
(57) The witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused Sheikh Mazid wherein the witness has denied that he had taken signatures of accused Shiekh Mazid on some blank papers or that SHO Police Station Jahangir Puri, Delhi has called the accused in Police St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 41 Station for some inquiry but falsely implicated the accused in this case. (58) PW20 SI Balbir Singh has deposed that on 18.8.2007 he was posted at Police Station Jahangirpuri when on the directions of inspector/ Investigating Officer he along with inspector Inderjeet Singh and Ct. Rajpal reached at BJRM hospital at about 9:30 PM where ASI Dev Karan and HC Ajeet Singh met them who produced the MLC of deceased Ram Pratap to Inspector Inderjeet. According to the witness, ASI Dev Karan informed them that he had received the DD regarding admission of deceased who had expired. He has testified that one Madan and Paras Ram also met them in the hospital along with the aforesaid police officials. He has further deposed that the Investigating Officer Inspector Inderjeet Singh inspected the dead body and found that deceased Ram Pratap was having injuries on places on his right thigh. According to the witness, the dead body was handed over to HC Ajeet Singh and was sent to mortuary, BJRM hospital. The witness has further deposed that Inspector Inderjeet Singh recorded the statement of Madan Kumar on which Inspector Inderjeet Singh prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Raj Pal who got the case registered. He has testified that thereafter he along with Inspector Inderjeet Singh, ASI Dev Karan, Madan Kumar, Paras Ram left for the spot and before leaving the hospital the message was conveyed to the crime team to reach the spot. According to him, they all reached the spot at about 10:55 PM and at the same time the crime team also came to the spot and St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 42 inspected the spot and prepared report. He has further deposed that the photographer of the crime team took the photograph of the spot. He has testified that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of photographer and crime team and they were relieved. The witness has also deposed that at the instance of Madan Kumar, Inspector Inderjeet Singh prepared the site plan. According to the witness, large number of public persons gathered at the place of incident and the Investigating Officer requested many public persons to join the proceedings but none agreed and left the spot. He has proved that the Investigating Officer lifted the blood with the help of cotton from the spot, which was kept in a plastic container and sealed with the seal of ISB. He has also deposed that thereafter the Investigating Officer also lifted the blood stained earth and earth control and kept the same in a separate plastic container and sealed the same with the same seal, which containers were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A. According to him, the public witness Madan and Paras Ram handed over their blood stained clothes to inspector Inderjeet which were converted into parcel and sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW2/A respectively. He has testified that Inspector Inderjeet had recorded the statement of both Madan and Paras Ram under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after which they were relieved. The witness has also deposed that in the meantime Ct. Rajpal had brought the copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to the Investigating St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 43 Officer. The witness has also deposed that thereafter they tried to search the accused persons but they could not be traced till then after which they came back to the police station. According to him, at about 8:15 AM, he along with inspector Inderjeet, ASI Dev Karan, Ct. Raj Pal, Ct. Sudhir and HC Umed Singh left the police station for the search of suspects and they made efforts to trace them but they could not be traced till then.
(59) The witness SI Balbir Singh has testified that he along with Inspector Inderjeet went to BJRM hospital for getting the postmortem on the dead body conducted and remaining staff was briefed and directed to continue the search for the accused persons. He has also deposed that Investigating Officer Inspector Inderjeet prepared the inquest paper and got the postmortem conducted. He has proved that after being identified by the relatives of the deceased, the body was handed over to them and HC Ajeet Singh received the sealed parcels containing the exhibits of the deceased which he handed over to inspector Inderjeet who took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A. He has deposed that thereafter he along with Inspector Inderjeet reached near Kaushal Cinema at about 3 PM where their police staff met them who were deployed there by Inspector Inderjeet. According to the witness, at about 3:00 PM Inspector Inderjeet received an information that the suspects who were wanted in this case were sitting on Chabootra, Ram Leela Ground, Kuashal St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 44 Cinema Road, near the gate and on receipt the information Inspector Inderjeet briefed the information to all of them and requested five to six public persons also to join the raiding party but none agreed and left the spot. He has deposed that thereafter they raided the place of information and held a nakabandi at about 4 PM and at the instance of secret informer they apprehended two persons who disclosed their names as Babloo @ Babu and Sunil Kumar @ Sunny. He has also testified that large number of public persons gathered there whom they requested to join the proceedings but they left the spot. The witness has further deposed that both the accused were interrogated regarding their involvement in this case to which both of them had admitted their guilt. He has stated that at the same time, Prasuram the brother of deceased had also come there who identified both the accused persons as the boys who along with another person had killed his brother on 18.8.07. He has proved that the accused Sunil Kumar was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW2/D; his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/G; accused Babloo was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW2/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/F. He has also proved that the Investigating Officer recorded the disclosure statements of the accused Babloo which is Ex.PW20/B and the disclosure statement of accused Sunil Kumar which is Ex.PW20/C. The witness has also deposed that the accused Babloo St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 45 disclosed in his disclosure statement that the knife which was used in this murder was available in his house and he could get the same recovered. He has testified that both the accused persons led them to the place of incident i.e. 400 wali gali near B Block Gurudwara Jahangirpuri and pointed out the place of incident on which Inspector Inderjeet Singh prepared memo of pointing out which is Ex.PW20/D. According to him, both the accused led them at the house of accused Babloo i.e. C605, Jahangirpuri Delhi and the accused Babloo took them at first floor of the said house and got recovered one knife having blood stains from under the box (sandook) and produced the same before them stating that it was the same knife with which he had inflicted blows upon the deceased while accused Mazid and Sunil had caught hold the hands of the deceased. According to the witness, the said knife was measured and it was found 32.7 cm long, blade was of 19.2 cm, its handle was of 13.5 cm and the width of blade was 4 cm, the blade of the knife was made of steel and the handle was having the plastic on both sides tied with the ripit. He has proved that Inspector Inderjeet Singh prepared the sketch of knife which is Ex.PW20/E after which the said knife was converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of Inderjeet Singh and took into possession vide memo Ex.PW20/F. The witness has further deposed that the clothes worn by the accused Babloo were having blood stains which clothes were got changed and St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 46 were converted into parcel and sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW20/G after which both the accused persons were taken to BJRM hospital where their medical examination was got done. The witness has also deposed that thereafter they came back to the police station and the aforementioned parcels were deposited in the malkhana.
(60) He has correctly identified the accused persons in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. the knife as the same which was got recovered by the accused Babloo which knife is Ex.P1; one T shirt, half pant/ nicker as the same which were worn by Babloo, which Tshirt is Ex.P4 and the nicker is Ex.P5; one pant and one checkdar shirt as the same which were worn by Madan which shirt is Ex.P6 and pant is Ex.P7.
(61) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he received information about this case 18.08.07 at about 9.25 PM through Insp. Inderjeet Singh in the Police Station. According to the witness, he joined the investigations with Inspector Inderjeet Singh from 9.25 PM on 18.08.07 till about 7.30 PM 19.08.07 and a total of 1617 memos were prepared by the Investigating Officer. He has deposed that they left the Hospital to spot after 10:40 PM and he along with the Investigating Officer and other staff reached at the spot first. He has admitted that place of occurrence is surrounded St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 47 by the residential houses and has deposed that the Investigating Officer had inquired about the local residents but none was ready to join the investigation. He does not remember the exact number of the houses from where the Investigating Officer inquired. The witness has further deposed that there were three persons of the crime team present at the spot, however, he is unable to tell how much photographs have been taken by the photographer at the spot. According to him, the Investigating Officer has recorded statements of two persons from the crime team and two persons from the public witnesses. He is unable to tell whether any signature was obtained by the Investigating Officer or not on the site plan. He does not remember as to how much time they remained at the spot nor does he remember the time of the rukka and when the FIR was handed over to the Investigating Officer Ct. Raj Pal. The witness also does not remember the exact name and relation of the person who received the dead body of the deceased but states that the same was handed over to the family member of the deceased. He is unable to tell the exact number of the exhibits/ parcels handed over by the HC Ajit Singh to the Investigating Officer on 19.08.07. He does not remember the DD No. on 19.08.07 when Investigating Officer had received information by the secret informer dated 19.08.07 at about 3.30 PM at Police Booth near Kushal Cinema. He has admitted that the area of the Kushal Cinema is highly populated and that he was the division officer of the area in which Kushal Cinema is situated and in such St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 48 capacity he knew various persons in the locality. The witness is unable to tell the details of the person to whom the Investigating Officer made the request for joining the investigations. He has further admitted that the column of place of arrest in the arrest memos Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E are blank. The witness has also admitted that Ram Leela Ground of Jahangir Puri is surrounded by the densely populated area and that main entry of the Ram Leela Ground is connected with the road of Jahangir Puri. He has further admitted that this is one of the busy roads of Jahangir Puri and has stated that no person were ready to join the proceeding of the case. He has denied that no proceedings were conducted and it is for this reason that no public persons were joined in the proceedings. The witness has also denied that neither the Investigating Officer had received a secret information from the secret informer at the Kushal Cinema nor he had conduct any raid to apprehend the accused persons from the Ram Leela Ground due to which reason no public person joined the investigation. He has further denied that accused Sunil was lifted from his house and falsely implicated him in this case. The witness has also denied that Parshuram was not joined in the investigation on dated 19.08.07 at the time of arrest of the accused or that Parshuram was called at Police Station by the Investigating Officer and his signatures were obtained on some blank papers. He has denied that Madan Kumar who is complainant in this case had killed the deceased which aspect has not been investigated St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 49 or that Gali No. 400 is not the way leading to house of deceased. The witness has further denied that the accused Sunil did not make any disclosure statement to the Investigating Officer in his presence or that he did not join the investigation with the Investigating Officer. He has also denied that accused Sunil had nothing to do with this case or that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is unable to tell how many statements of Madan were recorded by the Investigating Officer on dated 18.08.07. He has denied that the statement of Madan was recorded at Police Station after 11.00 pm on 18.08.07 and has voluntarily stated that it was recorded on 18.8.2007 but before 11 PM. He has further denied the suggestion that Parshuram has been cited as a witness being false and planted. He has further deposed that they reached the house of Babloo at about 5.15 pm. He is not aware how many family members were available in the house however they met the parents of Babloo at that time. According to him, they refused to be a witness on the memo of personal search but he does not remember whether any action was taken against the public persons who had refused to join the investigations. The witness has denied that no knife was got recovered by the accused Babloo or that blood was poured on the clothes of the accused and thereafter the clothes were taken into possession only to create the evidence against the accused Babloo. He has further denied that the blood was also poured on the knife to create the evidence against the accused. He has denied that accused Babloo St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 50 had been falsely implicated in this case or that the documents regarding Babloo were prepared later on while sitting in the Police Station or that he had signed the same later on.
(62) PW21 Inspector Inderjeet Singh is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has deposed that on 18.8.2007 he was posted at police station Jahangirpuri as Addl. SHO and on the receipt of DD No. 46A Ex.PW4/I along with SI Balbir Singh and Ct. Rajpal reached at BJRM Hospital where ASI ASI Dev Karan and HC Ajeet Singh met them and they had produced the MLC of deceased Ram Pratap to him. According to the witness, ASI Dev Karan informed them that he had received the DD regarding admission of deceased and the deceased had expired. The witness has deposed that one Madan and Prasuram also met them in the hospital along with the aforesaid police officials. He inspected the dead body and found that deceased Ram Pratap was having injuries on two places on his right thigh and the dead body was handed over to HC Ajeet Singh and was sent to mortuary, BJRM hospital. He thereafter recorded the statement of Madan Kumar which is Ex.PW1/A on the basis of which, he prepared the rukka Ex.PW21/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Raj Pal. Thereafter, he along with SI Balbir Singh, ASI Dev Karan, Madan Kumar, Paras Ram left for the spot and there at about 10:55 PM and at the same time, the crime team also came to the spot and inspected the spot and St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 51 prepared report which is Ex.PW9/A and photographer took the photograph which are Ex.PW7/1 to Ex.PW7/14 whose negatives are Ex.PW7/N1 to Ex.PW7/N14. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of photographer and official of the crime team after which they were relieved. The witness has deposed that thereafter at the instance of Madan Kumar he prepared the site plan Ex.21/B. According to the witness, Madan and Paras Ram handed over their blood stained clothes to him which he converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of ISB and took into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW2/A and thereafter, he lifted the blood with the help of cotton from the spot; blood stained earth and earth control and kept the same in a separate plastic container and sealed the same with the same seal and into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A. According to the witness, at about 8:15 AM, he along with SI Balbir Singh, ASI Dev Karan, Ct. Raj Pal, Ct. Sudhir and HC Umed Singh left the police station for the search of suspects and they made efforts to trace them but they could not be traced till then. The witness has deposed that he along with SI Balbir Singh went to BJRM hospital for getting the postmortem on the dead body conducted and also prepared the request papers vide Ex.PW4/B, brief facts Ex.PW4/C and death report Ex.PW4/D and thereafter the postmortem of the dead body was got conducted vide PM report Ex.PW4/A. According to the witness, he recorded the statement St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 52 of Prasuram and Pyare Lal regarding the identification of dead body vide Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW4/E and thereafter, he handed over the dead body to Paras and Pyare Lal vide receipt Ex.PW2/C. The witness has deposed that HC Ajeet Singh received the sealed parcels containing the exhibits of the deceased which he handed over to him (witness) which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A and thereafter he along with SI Balbir Singh reached near Kaushal Cinema at about 3:00 PM where the police staff met them who were deployed there by him. According to the witness, at about 3:30 PM, he received an information that the suspects who were wanted in this case were sitting on Chabootra, Ram Leela Ground, Kuashal Cinema Road, near the gate, and he briefed the information to all members of police party and also requested 5 to 6 public persons also to join the raiding party but none agreed and left the spot. They thereafter raided the place of information and held a nakabandi at about 4 PM, and at the instance of secret informer, they apprehended two persons who were interrogated and their names were known as Babloo @ Babu and Sunil Kumar @ Sunny. The witness has deposed that a large number of public persons gathered there who were requested to join the proceedings but they left the spot. According to the witness, both the accused were interrogated who admitted their guilt and at the same time, Paras Ram, the brother of deceased, had also come there, who identified both the accused as the St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 53 boys who along with another person had killed his brother on 18.8.07. According to the witness, thereafter the accused Sunil Kumar was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW2/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/G. The witness has deposed that the accused Babloo was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW2/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/F and thereafter, Para Ram left the spot. According to the witness, the formal search of both the accused persons was conducted and Rs.35/ was recovered from the accused Sunil and Rs.52/ were recovered from accused Babloo. The witness has deposed that thereafter he recorded the disclosure statements of the accused Babloo which is Ex.PW20/B and disclosure statement of accused Sunil Kumar vide Ex.PW20/C. (63) The witness has further deposed that the accused Babloo has disclosed that the knife which was used in this murder, was available in his house and he could get the same recovered and both the accused persons led them to the place of incident i.e. 400 wali gali near B Block Gurudwara Jahangirpuri and pointed out the place of incident and he prepared memo of pointing out which is now Ex.PW20/D and thereafter, both the accused led the police at the house of accused Babloo i.e. C605, Jahangirpuri Delhi. The witness has further deposed that the accused Babloo took them at first floor of the said house and got recovered one knife from under the box / sandook and produced the St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 54 same before them stating that the accused Mazid and Sunil had caught hold the hands of the deceased he (Babloo) inflicted the injuries upon the deceased with this knife. According to the witness, the said knife was examined and found blood stained and thereafter it was measured and found 32.7 cm long. Blade was of 19.2 cm. Handle was of 13.5 cm and the width of blade was 4 cm; blade of the knife was made of steel and the handle was having the plastic on both sides tied with the ripit. He prepared the sketch of knife vide already Ex.PW20/E and the knife was converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of ISB and took into possession vide memo Ex.PW20/F. He also prepared the site plan at the place of recovery of knife vide Ex.PW21/C. According to the witness, the clothes worn by the accused Babloo were having blood stains which clothes were got changed and were converted into parcel and sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW20/G. He has deposed that thereafter, both the accused persons were taken to BJRM hospital where their medical examination was got done and thereafter they came back to the police station. Thereafter, on 21.9.2007, he moved an application for obtaining the opinion from the autopsy surgeon Ex.PW4/J and Dr. Kulbhushan Goyel gave the opinion which is Ex.PW4/K. (64) According to the witness, on 26.9.2007 he sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini through Ct. Rajpal. Thereafter, on 16.10.2007 he took SI St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 55 Manohar Lal to the spot who at the instance of Madan took the rough notes and measurements at the spot and thereafter prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW10/A. He also collected the copy of FIR No. 139/07 PS Jahangirpuri from the MHC (R) HC Vijender Singh which is Ex.PW14/A in which Paras Ram was a witness which is regarding motive behind the murder in the present case. He also collected DD No. 45A dated 18.8.2007 which is Ex.PW4/H which information was received from BJRM Hospital and marked to ASI Dev Karan regarding admission of the injured Ram Pratap at BJRM Hospital by his brother Paras Ram. The witness has further deposed that the proceedings regarding coaccused Shiekh Mazid was got done under Section 82/83 Cr.PC and thereafter he was got declared as proclaimed offender in this case. The witness has identified the accused Sunil and Babloo and also the case property in the court. The witness has identified the knife Ex.P1 as the same which was got recovered by the accused Babloo. He identified one Tshirt, half pant / nicker as the same which were worn by Babloo which are Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. The witness has identified one pant and one checkdar shirt as the same which were worn by Madan which are Ex.P6 and Ex.P7.
(65) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he had left the police station at about 9:25 PM on receipt of the information. According to the witness, when he St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 56 recorded the statement of Madan at BJRM Hospital, the family members of his family were also present but he was told that Madan is the eye witness and therefore he recorded his statement. The witness has also deposed that SI Balbir and Ct. Rajpal had accompanied to the hospital where they went on foot and they reached there in five minutes. The witness has deposed that they remained in the hospital till about 10:40 PM and reached the spot within five to seven minutes on foot and at that time there were not many public persons. He admits that the signatures of Madan were not taken on the site plan. According to the witness, at that time some public persons had also come to the spot but he did not take the signatures of any other person on the site plan and has voluntarily added that he had requested public persons to join the investigations but they refused. He has admitted that the area around the park is residential and there are number of shops also present. He has further admitted that the names and addresses of persons to whom he had made the request to join the investigations. According to him, he remained at the spot till about 121 midnight and till that time he had recorded statements of two persons from the crime team and three seizure memos and the site plan and has voluntarily added that rukka had been already sent by him from BJRM hospital. The witness has deposed that Madan had not received any injuries and has voluntarily added that he did not notice any injury on him. The witness has deposed that at the time when he prepared the site plan, SI Balbir and ASI Dev St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 57 Karan were with him. He did not give any information to the crime team and has voluntarily added that it was given by the duty officer. According to the witness, the report was handed over to him by the crime team at the spot itself and the photographs were also taken by the crime team which they were handed over to him later on. He has denied the suggestion that the report had been prepared by the crime team on his dictation. According to the witness, no weapon of offence was found at the spot of incident. The witness has admitted that the scene of crime had been disturbed by the time they reached there as it is a frequented place where large number of public persons pass and has voluntarily added that it is a public gali. He does not recollect how many photographs were taken by the photographer of the crime team. He had prepared one seizure memo at the spot at that time on 18.8.2007. He has admitted that after the crime team went away and after he prepared the site plan, they did not come back to the spot on 18.8.2007. According to the witness, he had handed over the rukka to Ct. Rajpal at 10:40 PM. Ct. Rajpal had returned along with copy of FIR after about 45 minutes to one hour and he was handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka at B Block 400 wali gali, Jahangirpuri. According to he witness, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his brother and his Chacha. He has deposed that HC Ajeet had handed over to him two parcels and one sample seal in the BJRM hospital mortuary itself on 19.8.2007. He had made the rawangi in the PS before leaving the PS St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 58 but he did not remember the DD number. According to him, he did not inform any senior officer about the secret information and has voluntarily added that the information was received by him later after his departure. According to him, he had not given notice to any public person for their refusal. The witness has denied that the accused Sunil and Babloo had been lifted from their residence and it is for this reason that despite availability of public persons they were not joined in the investigations. He has further denied that all the documentations regarding arrested of accused was done while sitting in the police station and it is for this reason that the column regarding place of arrest in the arrest memos Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E have been blank. He has denied the suggestion that Parsuram is an interested witness being the brother of the deceased and therefore he has been planted by us to workout the case. He has denied that signatures of Parsuram were taken later on in the police station the document to show his presence during the investigations of the case. According to him, he had made investigations so as to explore the possibility of Madan Kumar being the suspect but nothing came out during investigation against Madan Kumar. He has denied that he had not investigate the case fairly and the investigations were motivated and directed at the instance of Madan Kumar, the complainant in the case. He is unable to tell whether gali no. 400 does not lead to the house of the deceased. He has denied that the accused Babloo, Sunil and Mazid had not made any disclosure St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 59 statement and he recorded the same of his own only to workout the present case.
(66) He has denied the suggestion that the accused Sunil, Babloo and Mazid have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of Madan Kumar. He further denied that he apprehended the above accused at the instance of Madan Kumar only to save Madan from penal consequences and it is for this reason that he had not investigate the role of Madan Kumar. According to the witness, on 18.8.07, he recorded only one statement of Madan which he recorded at 11 PM at the police station and has voluntarily added that it was recorded at the BJRM hospital on the basis of which the rukka was prepared. He has admitted that he had recorded the statement of Ashwani Sharma on 17.9.07 which is Ex.PW21/DX1. He has denied that no knife was got recovered by the accused Babloo and it is for this reason that the seizure memo does not bear the signatures of any public persons and family members despite their availability in the vicinity. The witness has further denied that blood was poured on the clothes of the accused and thereafter the clothes were taken into possession only to create the evidence against the accused Babloo. He has also denied that the blood was also poured on the knife to create the evidence against the accused or that the documents regarding the accused were prepared later on while sitting in the police station and were signed by the police witnesses on his directions.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 60 STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(67) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. The accused Babloo @ Babu has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police after lifting him from his house only to solve this case. According to the accused, nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance and the alleged recovery is planted upon him by the police/ Investigating Officer. He has denied having made any disclosure statement. The accused has also stated that Parsuram has wrongly identified him at the instance of the Investigating Officer and the complainant. (68) Similarly the accused Sunil Kumar has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police of Police Station Jahangir Puri in connivance of the complainant of this case. He has further stated that he was lifted from his house by the police for some inquiry but falsely implicated him in this case and fabricated case only to work out this case. He has denied having made any disclosure statement and has stated that police officials had forcibly taken his signatures on some blank papers and some printed papers. (69) The accused Sheikh Mazid has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police of Police Station Jahangir Puri in connivance of the complainant of this case. He has further St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 61 stated that he was lifted from his house by the police for some inquiry but falsely implicated him in this case and fabricated case only to work out this case. He has denied having made any disclosure statement. FINDINGS:
(70) I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record. First, I propose to deal with all the allegations/ averments made by the various witnesses individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition
No. witness
PUBLIC WITNESSES:
1. Madan Kumar This witness is the friend of the deceased and the
(PW1) complainant in the present case. He has deposed on
the following aspects:
1. That on 18.8.07 he was residing in CBlock,
Jahangir Puri and was working as Plumber along with Rinku who was residing at C Block Jahangirpuri.
2. That on that day i.e. 18.8.2007 at about 8:00 PM after finishing their work in BBlock they both were returning to their home and when they reached near Gurdwara wali Gali, three boys came there and stopped them.
3. That the accused Babu took out a knife from the back of his nicker and touched it on the body of Rinku and asked him "Aaj isko jaan se maar denge".
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 62
4. That Babu again asked both of them to move towards the park near the Gurdwara (tum dono is side me aa jao aur Gurudwara ke taraf ke park ke paas le gaya).
5. That at that time the two other boys caught hold of himself and Rinku and when they reached near the Park all the three boys started giving beatings to Rinku on which he tried to intervene in the matter but in the meanwhile accused Babu gave a blow with a knife on the right thigh of Rinku.
6. That he again intervened in the dispute but the accused Babu again gave a knife blow on the right thigh of Rinku on which he raised an alarm and thereafter some public persons gathered there.
7. That in the meantime the brother of the accused namely Parsuram came as he was working in the Mandi at the same time.
8. That Parsuram also saw the accused persons while running away and thereafter he along with Parsuram removed the injured Rinku to the BJRM Hospital where the doctors declared him dead after some time.
9. That police officials reached at the hospital who recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A.
10. That when Rinku received injuries, blood was oozing out and some flesh also came out from the same.
11. That since he alongwith Parsuram removed the injured to the hospital, blood also scattered on their clothes which were produced before the Investigating Officer and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B.
12. That the accused persons inflicted injuries on the person of Rinku because they have previous enmity.
13. That on 19.8.2007 accused persons were arrested by the police and he along with Parsuram identified the accused Sunil and Babloo before the St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 63 police.
14. That on one occasion the police came to him and he identified the place of occurrence and the police took rough notes and measurements for preparation of the site plan.
He has correctly identified the accused Bablu @ Babu as the person who inflicted knife blows on Rinku; accused Sunil Kumar and Sheikh Mazid as the persons who had caught hold of Rinku and had given beatings to Rinku while Bablu @ Babu was inflicting knife blows on Rinku.
He has also correctly identified the case property i.e. knife Ex.P1; the half pant/ knicker and the Tshirt worn by the accused Bablu at the time of incident which are Ex.P4 & Ex.P5; the shirt having blue and white check and the black colour pant as belonging to him (witness) which are Ex.P6 & Ex.P7.
2. Parsuram (PW2) He is the brother of the deceased who has deposed as under:
1. That he used to work at Azadpur Mandi and is dealing with lemons.
2. That on 18.8.2007 at about 8 PM when he was returning from his job and passing through CB Block 500 wali gali, he saw that three boys were running towards 400 wali gali and one of them was having an open knife stained with the blood.
3. He has correctly identified all the three boys by taking their names as Babloo @ Babu who was holding the knife; Sunil Kumar and Mazeer.
4. That he heard the noise "mar diya, mar diya" on which he rushed towards the pathliwali gali near Gurudwara and he saw that his brother Ram Pratap @ Rinku was lying in injured condition and blood was oozing out from his person.
5. That one person namely Madan was also present there who told him that three boys caused injuries to his brother by knife and ran away after which he immediately chased all the three boys but all of St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 64 them ran away from there.
6. That he came back to the spot and he along with Madan removed his brother to BJRM hospital by a rickshaw but after sometime doctor declared him dead.
7. That he along with Madan pointed out the place of occurrence to the police where blood was scattered.
8. That when they were removing his brother to the hospital, blood also spread on their clothes which clothes were taken by the police in their possession and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW2/A.
9. That police lifted blood stained mud, blood, earth control from the spot and after investigation he left the spot.
10. That he was a witness in a case under Section 307 IPC and the accused persons wanted to put him in fear and attacked on the person of his brother so that he should not make any statement in that case but he had refused to do so.
11. That on one earlier occasion a quarrel had taken place with his brother Ram Pratap and accused Babu who was in a drunken state due to which reason accused persons were having inimical terms with them.
12. That after the postmortem he identified the dead body of his brother vide his statement Ex.PW2/B and the dead body was handed over to him vide memo Ex.PW2/C.
13. That accused Babloo @ Babu and Sunil Kumar were arrested by the police on 19.8.2007 near Ramlila Maidan and on hearing the apprehension of accused persons, he reached there and identified them after which both the accused Babu and Sunil Kumar were arrested vide memos Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E and their personal search memos were prepared which are Ex.PW2/F and St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 65 Ex.PW2/G. He has also correctly identified the case property i.e. the knife which is Ex.P1; his pant and Tshirt of light blue colour stained with blood which he was wearing when he removed his brother to the hospital which are Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.
3. Pyare Lal (PW6) He is the cousin of the deceased who has proved that on 19.8.2007 he went to mortuary BJRM hospital Jahangirpuri where he had identified the dead body of his cousin deceased Ram Pratap vide statement Ex.PW4/E.
4. Ashwani Sharma This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW17) 1. That he had given the contract of sanitary work in his house to Madan Kumar R/o CBlock of Jahangir Puri who along with his associate Rinku whose complete name he does not remember, were working in his house about two three days prior to the incident.
2. That these boys (Madan and Rinku) used to come at his house for work at about 10 AM and leave around 78 PM.
3. That on the day of incident, date of which he does not remember, both the aforesaid persons had come to his house at 10:00 AM and had worked till 7.30 PM and left thereafter.
4. That after about two days from the incident the police had come to his house and made inquiries to him, when he came to know that Rinku had been killed by two three boys in between Gali no. 400 and 500, who expired at BJRM Hospital.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
5. Dr. Neeraj This witness has proved the MLC of Ram Pratap @ Chaudhary (PW3) Rinku who had been brought to BJRM hospital on 18.8.2007 at 8:30 PM by his brother Prasuram and his friends and relative with alleged history of stab injury on right thigh and was examined by Dr. Prashant vide MLC Ex.PW3/A. According to the witness, on St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 66 examination of the patient, Dr. Prashant observed that patient was unconscious, pulse feeble, blood pressure was not recordable and found two clean lacerated wound over right thigh with active bleeding, measuring 2 x 0.5 cm on medial aspect of the right thigh and the other injury measuring 1 x .25 cm on lateral aspect of right thigh and the patient was thereafter referred to Surgery Department. The witness has proved that Dr. Prashant declared the patient unfit for statement at about 8.40 pm. The witness has also proved the endorsement of Dr. Chander Bhan on the MLC Ex.PW3/A according to which MLC the patient had expired at 9.15 pm and was declared dead by Dr. Manideepa vide endorsement in this regard on MLC Ex.PW3/A at point Z.
6. Dr. Kulbhushan This witness has proved having conducted the Goel (PW4) postmortem on the dead body of deceased Ram Pratap which was sent by Inspector Inderjeet Singh with an alleged history of stab injuries and was declared dead on 18.8.07 at 9.15 pm. According to the witness, he there was a cut about 4 cm long transversely placed over right limb of the pant in thigh area at medial side of the back and one more cut of about 2.5 cm long placed vertically oblique over left side of zip area of the pant. He has proved that on external examination following injuries were found on the body.
1. Incised penetrating wound 4x1cm over medical aspect of right thigh about 16 cm below medial end of right inguinal ligament placed transversely. The front angle was more acute then the posterior bone. Bleeding was present.
2. Incised penetrating wound 2x0.75cm placed transversely and slightly oblique over front of right thigh about 19 cm below right mid inguinal ligament. Angles of the wound were acute.
The witness has proved that on exploration, Injury No. (1) communicated with the Injury No. 2 internally. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 67 Right femoral vessels and muscles in the track were cleanly cut. Vessels were completely severed. Massive blood clots were seen in the injury track and surrounding tissues. The direction of the injuries was left to right and slightly downwards and forwards. The witness has proved that the cause of death in the present case was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent upon injuries to femoral vessels and all injuries were antemortem in nature caused by sharp cutting and penetrating weapon by other party which injuries to femoral vessels were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
He has proved his detailed report Ex.PW4/A. According to the witness, total inquest papers received were 11 in number signed by him which are Ex.PW4/B to Ex.PW4/I bearing his signatures at point B and Ex.PW3/A bearing his signatures at point D. He has further proved that on 21.9.2007 Addl. SHO Inspector Inderjeet Singh moved an application for obtaining the subsequent opinion of the weapon which application is Ex.PW4/J and also produced one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of ISB. The witness has deposed that on opening the parcel, one knife was taken out, its handle was of heavy plastic made in two pieces, tightened to each other with three nail system with groove in between two parts accommodating rear part of blade in its full length. Blade of knife was made of steel (iron), heavy; rear 13 cm of the blade was mounted in between the handle; the front length was about 20 cm and maximum width was about 4 cm.
According to the witness, one of the edges was sharp and other one was blunt and both edges were tapered at anterior end into pointed end and blood like stains were seen over both surfaces of the blade. After examination, he has opined that the Injury No. 1 & 2 with internal injuries of thigh mentioned in PM report Ex.PW4/A were possible by the weapon examined or by similar such type of other weapon. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 68 The witness has proved his detailed report with sketch, which is Ex.PW4/K bearing his signatures at point A. The witness has identified the clothes of the deceased which are Ex. P8, P9, P10 and P11, respectively, and the weapon i.e. the knife Ex.P1 which was produced by the IO while taking the subsequent opinion.
During the examination of the witness, it was observed by the Court that the pant Ex.P8 was having two cut marks seemed to be cut by the sharp weapon and another big hole like cut is also seen on the pant and the Addl. PP explained that this big hole cut mark was made by the FSL authorities while examining the blood stains on the pant.
FORENSIC EVIDENCE
7. Sh. Naresh Kumar This witness is the Senior Scientific Assistant, FSL, (PW5) Rohini and has proved the Biological Report in respect of the exhibits which is Ex.PW5/A and also the Serological Report which is Ex.PW5/B. According to the said reports Blood of B Group, as that of the deceased, was found on the clothes of both the public witnesses i.e. Madan and Parsuram and also on the weapon of offence i.e. knife. Further, human blood was detected on the clothes of the accused Babloo @ Babu.
POLICE/ OFFICIAL WITNESSES (Proving investigations)
8. Ct. Dalbir Singh He is the Photographer of Crime Team who has proved (PW7) that on 18.8.2007 he along with SI Baljeet Singh, incharge of mobile crime team reached BBlock Jahangir Puri near Gurudwara Wala Bagh, Pathli Gali, where took photographs of the scene and after developing the same were handed over to the IO which photographs are Ex.PW7/1 to Ex.PW7/14 and their negatives are Ex.PW7/N1 to Ex.PW7N14.
9. HC Devender He is a formal witness who has deposed that in the (PW8) intervening night of 18.8.2007 he was posted at duty St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 69 constable at BJRM hospital when at about 8.45 pm, one injured namely Ram Pratap was got admitted in the hospital by his brother Parsuram. According to the witness, he informed at Police Station Jahangir Puri about the admission of the injured vide DD No. 45A through telephone after which ASI Dev Karan came to the hospital. The witness has deposed that during treatment, the injured had expired in the hospital and the injured was having injuries on his right thigh.
10. SI Baljeet Singh He is the Incharge Crime Team who has proved that on (PW9) 18.8.07 he inspected the scene of crime at House No. 400500, D Block Jahangir Puri near park after which he prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW9/A.
11. SI Manohar Lal He is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has (PW10) proved having inspected the spot i.e. Gali B Block, Jahangir Puri Delhi and prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW10/A which he handed over to the Investigating Officer.
12. HC Bhagirath He is the Duty Officer who has proved that on (PW11) 18.8.2007 at about 8.35, Duty Officer from BJRM Hospital informed through telephone that Ram Prasad was admitted at the hospital in injured condition and he recorded this information vide DD No. 45 A copy of which is Ex.PW4/H and handed it over to ASI Dev Karan and HC Ajit Singh for further action.
The witness has further proved that at about 9.20 pm, ASI Dev Karan gave information that the injured Ram Prasad was declared dead by the doctor on which he informed Addl. SHO through telephone in this regard and SI Balbir Singh and Ct. Rajpal were sent to the hospital with the DD No. 46A, copy of which is Ex.PW4/I. He has further deposed that at about 10.50 PM, Ct. Rajpal brought the tehrir sent by Addl. SHO and made entry vide DD No. 47A copy of which is Ex.PW11/A for registration of FIR and after completing the FIR he also made DD No. 48A copy of which is Ex.PW11/B. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 70 He also proved his endorsement on the rukka regarding registration of FIR which endorsement is Ex.PW11/C. According to the witness, he also sent a special messenger for supplying the copy of FIR to the senior police officials and the Area Magistrate.
13. Ct. Rajpal (PW12) He is a formal witness who had gone to BJRM Hospital in the intervening night of 1819.8.07 at about 9.15 pm along with SI Balbir Singh and Inspector Inderjeet Singh where ASI Dev Karan and HC Ajeet Singh met them. He has proved that investigating officer had handed over the rukka to him for registration of the FIR. According to the witness, on 26.9.07, as per instructions of Inspector Inderjeet, he collected nine sealed parcels from MHC(M) and deposited the same in the FSL Rohini vide RC No. 238/21 and receipt was handed over to MHC (M).
14. HC Suraj Bhan He is the MHCM who has proved the entry at Sl. No. (PW13) 3483 in Register No. 19 photocopy of which is Ex.PW13/A; photocopy of RC No. 234/21 which is Ex.PW13/B, photocopy of RC No. 238/21 which is Ex.PW13/C and photocopy of the receipt issued by FSL which is Ex.PW13/D.
15. SI (Retd.) Ranbir He is the Investigating Officer in FIR No. 139/07, Singh (PW14) under Section 307/34 IPC at Police Station Jahangir Puri where Parsuram brother of the deceased is a witness. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 19.2.07 the investigation of case FIR No. 139/07 was handed over to him wherein complainant Deepak received bullet injury on his left hand and in that case Parsuram was witness.
2. That he arrested four accused persons namely Noor Mohd @ Aaga, Shamim @ Chote, Asif and Ikram @ Chotu.
3. That after completion of investigation, challan was filed and the trial of that case has been conducted in Rohini Court.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 71
4. That the Investigating Officer showed a copy of FIR No. 139/07 U/s 307/34 IPC and told to him that witness Parshuwam cited at Serial No. 3 in that challan.
5. He has proved the copy of the FIR No. 139/07 which is Ex.PW14/A and the name of Parsuram has been cited at Point X at Sl. No. 3 in the copy of case diary attached with the copy of FIR. The photocopy of the same is Ex.PW14/B.
6. That later, he came to know that murder of the brother of Parsuram, was committed in the present case.
16. HC Ajit Singh PW15 HC Ajit Singh has deposed as under:
(PW15) 1. That on 18.8.07, he along with ASI Dev Karan were on night emergency duty and on receiving DD No. 45A, he along with ASI Dev Karan went to BJRM hospital and came to know that injured Ram Pratap was admitted there and treatment was going on.
2. That ASI Dev Karan collected the MLC of the injured and after sometime the doctor declared him dead.
3. That the dead body was removed to the mortuary at BJRM hospital and the postmortem of the deceased was conducted.
4. That the doctor handed over sealed parcels containing blood stained clothes of the deceased duly sealed with the seal of KG BJRM hospital along with two sealed parcels to the investigating officer.
5. That the investigating officer prepared the seizure memo of all the three parcels which is Ex.PW15/A.
6. That the dead body was not tampered till it remained in his custody.
He has identified the case property i.e. the blood stained clothes of deceased which are Ex.PW5/E. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 72
17. HC Anil Kumar He is a formal witness has proved that on intervening (PW16) night of 18/19.8.07, he had delivered the envelopes containing FIR of the present case to the Ld. Area Magistrate, Joint CP Northern Range, DCP (N/W) and ACP of the area.
18. HC Naresh Kumar This witness has proved the arrest of accused Sheikh (PW18) Mazid who was declared a proclaimed offender. He has proved the following documents.
Ex.PW18/A Kalandra under Section 41.1 Cr.P.C.
Ex.PW18/B Arrest memo of accused Sheikh Mazid
Ex.PW18/C Personal search memo of accused
Sheikh Mazid
Ex.PW18/D Disclosure statement of accused
Sheikh Mazid
Ex.PW18/E Arrest memo of accused in the
Kalandra
19. SI Ramesh (PW19) This witness had proved having arrested the accused Sheikh Mazid in the present case. He has proved the documents Ex.PW18/B, Ex.PW18/C & Ex.PW18/D which were already proved by HC Naresh Kumar (PW18).
20. SI Balbir Singh This witness had joined investigations with (PW20) Investigating Officer Inspector Inderjeet Singh. He has proved the following documents:
Ex.PW20/A Seizure memo of blood stained earth and earth control.
Ex.PW20/B Disclosure statement of accused
Babloo @ Babu
Ex.PW20/C Disclosure statement of accused Sunil
Kumar
Ex.PW20/D Pointing out memo
Ex.PW20/E Sketch of knife
Ex.PW20/F Seizure memo of knife
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 73
Ex.PW20/G Seizure memo of clothes of the
accused Babloo
28. Inspector Inderjeet He is the investigating of the presence case and apart Singh (PW21) from the proceedings already proved by the various witnesses, he has proved the following documents:
Ex.PW21/A Rukka
Ex.PW21/B Site plan of the scene of crime
Ex.PW21/C Site plan of the place of recovery of
knife
Ex.PW21/D Application for seeking subsequent
opinion on the weapon of offence
Ex.PW21/E Biological Report
Ex.PW21/F Serological Report
(71) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence
against the accused persons.
No delay in registration of FIR:
(72) It is a settled law that promptness of FIR justifies the
inference that the story is not concocted. In this regard the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhag Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1971 Cr LJ 903 has observed as under :
".... The promptness in lodging report justifies the inference in the circumstance of the case that the report was not a concocted story. Where soon after occurrence FIR is lodged, it is difficult to believe that false story was cooked up....."
(73) In the present case it is evident that immediately after the incident, the deceased who had been stabbed was rushed to the hospital St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 74 by the eye witness Madan and his brother Parsuram who had seen the accused running away, information was given to Police Station at 8:35 PM. The eye witness Madan (PW1) has at the first instance named the accused and it was on the basis of his statement the present FIR was registered at 10:50 PM and dispatched to the senior officers immediately at about 11:30 PM, thereby lending authenticity to the prosecution case.
Ocular Evidence/ eye witness account:
(74) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case. In the present case the most important star witnesses of the prosecution are Madan (PW1) who is the complainant and Parsuram (PW2) the brother of the deceased who have both supported the prosecution case.
(75) Madan (PW1) is an eye witness to the incident who had also tried to intervene to save the deceased. He has supported the case of the prosecution and has not only specifically named all the accused but has struck to the earlier version given by him to the police. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:
".... On 18.8.2007 I was residing at Jhuggi in C Block Jahangir Puri. I was working with Rinku as a plumber, Rinku was residing at CBlock in his house. On that day at about 8 PM I along with Rinku were working in BBlock. After finishing our job, we were returning to our home. When we St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 75 reached near the Gurdwara wali Gali, three boys came there, they stopped us. Accused Babu took out a knife from his back of his Kachha and touched it on the body of Rinku and asked him, Aaj Isko Jaan Se Maar Denge. Babu again asked both of us Tum Dono Is side me aa jao Gurdware ke taraf park ke paas le gaya, at that time the two other boys caught hold of myself and Rinku. When we reached near the park, all the three boys started giving beatings to Rinku, I tried to intervene in the matter. In the meanwhile accused Babu stabbed knife blow on the right thigh of Rinku. I again intervened the matter, but accused Babu again gave a knife blow on the right thigh of Rinku. I raised alarm. Some public persons gathered there. All the three boys tried to ran away towards the 400 wali gali. In the meantime, brother of accused namely Parsuram came there as he was working at Mandi and was returning from the Mandi at the same time. Parsuram also saw the accused persons while running. I along with Parsuram removed the injured Rinku to BJRM Hospital. Doctor declared him dead after some time. Police officials reached at the Hospital. I also visited the Police Station. Police recorded my statement. The accused persons inflicted injuries on the person of Rinku because they have previous enmity......"
(76) Further, the witness in his examination has also identified the accused and attributed specific roles to them as under: St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 76
"..... At this stage, witness identifies the accused Bablu @ Babu after pointing out towards him by saying that he is the person who inflicted knife blows on the person of Rinku (since deceased). Witness has correctly identified the accused.
At this stage, witness pointed out towards accused Sunil Kumar and Sheikh Mazid and stating that these are the accused persons who caught hold of us and they also gave beatings to Rinku along with accused Baby and they also caught hold of the injured Rinku while Babu was inflicting knife blow on the person of Rinku. Witness has correctly identified both the accused persons.
While recording my statement by the police, I signed the same and same is Ex.PW1/A which bears my signatures at point A. When Rinku received injuries, the blood was oozing out and some flesh also came out. Since I along with Parsuram removed the injured to the hospital, the blood also scattered on our clothes. We also produced the clothes to the police. Police seized the same and obtained my signatures on the seizure memo Ex.PW1/B bearing my signatures at point A. On 19.8.2007 accused persons were arrested by the police. I identified the accused Sunil and Bablu @ Babu before the police. Police recorded my statement. At that time Parsuram was also present and he also identified both the accused. On one occasion the police came to me and I identify the place of occurrence before the police.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 77 They took rough notes and measurements for preparation of site plan. Police recorded my statement. I can identify the clothes and the knife if shown to me.
At this stage, one parcel bearing serial no.7, sealed with the Court also bearing the case particulars is opened by breaking the seal and it is found to contain one knife. Witness identifies the same, it was the same knife which was used by accused Bablu @ Babu while inflicting injury to Rinku. The knife is Ex.P1.
At this stage, another parcel bearing serial no.6, having sealed with the seal of FSL also bearing case particulars, same is opened by breaking the seal, One Tshirt of orange colour and a half pant (Barmuda/ Knicker) of red colour is taken out and shown to the witness, to which witness states that these are the clothes which were worn by the accused Babu at the time of commission of crime. The half pant/ knicker and the Rshirt are Ex.P4 & Ex.P5 respectively.
At this stage, another parcel bearing serial no.1, having sealed with the seal of FSL also bearing case particulars, same is opened by breaking the seal, one pant of black colour and a shirt having blue and white check, is taken out and shown to the witness, to which witness states that these are the clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident and when he along with Parsuram removing the injured Rinku (since deceased) in the hospital. The blood was scattered on his clothes. The clothes of the witness Madan i.e. shirt Ex.P6 & pant Ex.P7....."
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 78
(77) This eye witness was crossexamined at length. It is Madan (PW1) who had gone with the injured to the hospital and while doing so his own clothes got soiled with the blood of the deceased. He has proved that his clothes were seized in the hospital at about 11:30 PM and at that time Parsuram (PW2) was also present. The witness has further proved having got the site plan of the place of the incident prepared. It is evident from his testimony that at the time of the incident he had raised an alarm, when a large crowd had gathered which corroborates the testimony of Parsuram to the extent that when he saw the accused running from the gali he also heard large cries/ alarm of Maar diya, maar diya on which he rushed to the said direction. Further, in his crossexamination Madan has also explained that there was a previous enmity between the accused Bablu @ Babu and Rinku since even previously a quarrel had taken place between them about two months prior to the incident to which incident he was also an eye witness.
(78) Coming now to the testimony of the brother of deceased namely Parsuram (PW2). He had seen all the three accused running towards 400 wali gali while the accused Bablu @ Babu was carrying an open knife whereas Sunil Kumar and Mazid were following him. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:
"...... I used to work at Azadpur Mandi and dealing with the lemon. On 18.08.2007 at about 8.00PM I St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 79 was returning from my job and passing through CB Block, 500 wali Gali. I saw that three boys were running towards 400 wali gali and one of them was having a open knife stained with the blood. I identify all the three boys present in the court today. At this stage, witness identifies all the boys by taking their names as Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar and Mazeer (witness has correctly identified accused persons). Accused Babu was holding the knife when I saw him.
I heard some noise "Mar diya, Mar Diya".
I rushed towards the Pathiliwali Gali near Gurudwara. I saw that my brother Ram Pratap @ Rinku was lying in injured condition there and blood was oozing out from his person. One person namely Madan was also present there.
Madan told me that these three boys had caused injuries to my brother by the knife and ran away.
I immediately chased all the three boys in the 400 wali gali but all the three boys ran away from there. I immediately returned back to the spot and thereafter I alongwith Madan removed my brother to BJRM Hospital in a rickshaw. After sometime, doctor declared him dead. Police also reached there and recorded the statement of Madan as he was the eye witness of the incident.
I alongwith Madan pointed out the place of occurrence to the police. The blood was scattered there. My blood stained clothes as well as the blood stained clothes of Madan were taken by the police in their possession. When we were removing my brother to the hospital, the blood also spread on St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 80 our clothes. Police prepared parcel of my clothes and sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/A signed by me at point A. Police lifted blood stained mud, blood, earth control from the spot. After investigations, I left the spot.
I was witness in a case U/s 307 IPC and the accused persons wanted to put me in fear and attacked on the person of my brother, so that I should not make any statement in that case. I refused them to do so. At one occasion, a quarrel took place with my brother Ram Partap and accused Babu as accused Babu was in drunken position. Due to these reasons, accused persons were having inimical terms with us.
During the postmortem I identified the dead body of my brother. Police recorded my statement vide memo Ex.PW2/B signed by me at point 'A'.
after postmortem, dead body was handed over vide memo Ex.PW2/C bearing my signature at point A. Accused Babloo @ Babu and Sunil Kumar were arrested by the police on 19.08.2007 near Ramlila Maidan on hearing the apprehension of accused persons, I also reached there and identified the accused persons. Police prepared their arrest memo vide Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E signed by me at point A and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G bearing my signature at point A. I identified both the accused persons before the police. Police recorded my statement.
I can identify the knife, which was in the hand of accused Babu @ Babloo, if shown to me.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 81 At this stage, one parcel bearing serial No. 7 duly sealed with the seal of FSL also bearing case details is opened by breaking the seal and found to contain one knife. Witness identifies the knife which was seen by him in the hand of accused Babloo @ Babu stained with blood while running.
The knife is Ex.P1.
At this stage, one another parcel bearing serial No.2 duly sealed with the seal of FSL also bearing case details is opened with the seal of FSL also bearing case details is opened by breaking the seal and found to contain one pant and one T Shirt of light blue colour stained with blood. Witness identifies the pant and shirt, which was worn by him at the time of removing the injured to the hospital. The pant and Tshirt are Ex.P2 and Ex.P3...."
(79) Parsuram (PW2) has been subjected to a sustained cross examination wherein he has admitted that earlier in his statement to the police on 19.8.2007 i.e. on the date of incident he did not state to the police that Babloo @ Babu was carrying a knife and states that he must have forgotten about the same at that time. I may note that the presence of Madan (PW1) is established from the fact that the MLC of the deceased prepared in the hospital shows that the injured was brought by the friend and relative. It is the name of Parsuram which finds specifically mentioned in the MLC as the person who had given the entire details of the deceased to the doctors in the hospital lending St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 82 credibility of the version of Parsuram that he was present at the spot and had seen the accused running from the spot. The testimony of Madan (PW1) finds due corroboration from the testimony of Parsuram (PW2). Though it is evident from the testimony of Parsuram (PW2) that he did not see the stabbing incident but he has very categorically stated that he had seen all the three accused running from the said gali with the accused Babaloo @ Babu carrying a knife in his hand. According to Parsuram, he had heard the noise "Mar diya, mar diya" on which he rushed towards the Pathiliwali Gali near Gurdwara where he saw that his brother Ram Pratap @ Rinku was lying in injured condition and Madan was also present there who told him it was the accused who had stabbed his brother. It is evident from the report that the incident took place at about 8:00 PM and within minutes the injured Rinku (now deceased) was rushed to the hospital and a call was made from the BJRM Hospital at about 8:35 PM, which conclusively establishes the presence of both Madan (PW1) and Parsuram (PW2) at the spot more so as the presence of Parsuram finds due mention in the MLC prepared at the hospital at the time when the deceased was rushed there. Further, the FSL reports Ex.PW5/A & Ex.PW5/B show the presence of human blood of the same group as that of the deceased on the clothes of both Madan and Parsuram, thereby conclusively establishing their presence at the spot.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 83 (80) The presence of Madan and the deceased Ram Pratap @ Rinku also stands established from the testimony of an independent witness Ashwani Sharma (PW17) who has proved that on the date of the incident both Madan Kumar and Rinku who were working in his house about two/ three days prior to the incident, had come to his house at about 10:00 AM for doing the sanitary work and worked till 7:30 PM after which they left. Thereafter and it was only after two days when the police came to his house and made inquiries, that he came to know that Rinku had been killed by twothree boys in between gali No. 400 and 500 and had expired. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Ashwani Sharma who is a resident of the same area i.e. B151/152, Jahangir Puri, Delhi33 and an independent witness. He has proved that the deceased and the eye witness Madan were together and had left his house at about 7:30 PM thereby explaining how both were together and hence there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the eye witness Madan (PW1).
Motive/ existence of previous history of dispute:
(81) It is a settled law the motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evident should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 84 link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive. (82) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that according to the prosecution the accused particularly accused Babloo @ Babu was inimical to both Parsuram and his brother in view of a previous dispute which had previously taken place between them. Babloo @ Babu is reported to be a local criminal and Parsuram was a witness in another case bearing FIR No. 139/07, under Section 307/34 IPC, Police Station Jahangir Puri which was got registered on the complaint of one Deepak and Parsuram was threatened by Babloo @ Babu not to depose against his friends in the Court to which Parsuram did not agree. The said FIR Ex.PW14/A has duly proved by SI Ranbir Singh (PW14) who has also proved that Parsuram (PW2) was a witness in the said case.
(83) Parsuram has also proved that he was a witness in case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code (FIR No. 139/07 Police Station Jahangir Puri) and the accused persons wanted to put him in fear and St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 85 attacked on the person of his brother so that he should not make any statement in that case. He has further proved that on an earlier occasion a quarrel had taken place between his brother Ram Pratap @ Rinku and accused Babu as Babu was in an intoxicated state at that time and it was in this regard that they had been inimical to him. (84) It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that Babloo @ Babu is not an accused in the case FIR No. 139/07, Police Station Jahangir Puri, under Section 307/34 IPC and hence there is no question of his threatening Parsuram as alleged. On the other hand, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has pointed out that the accused Babloo @ Babu is a resident of the same area where the accused (in FIR No. 139/07, Police Station Jahangir Puri) namely Noor Mohd. @ Aga. Ikram @ Chhotu, Shamim @ Chhote, Asif and Salim @ Chikna are residing.
He has also pointed out that in fact the said Noor Mohd. is a coaccused along with the present accused Babloo @ Babu in another case bearing FIR No.601/05, under Section 452/323/324/427/34 IPC, Police Station Jahangir Puri. He has also placed on record the copy of said FIR (details of which are already mentioned in the charge sheet). (85) I have considered the rival contentions and I find merit in the submissions made by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. It is evident from the FIR No. 139/07 (Ex.PW14/A) that the accused at serial no. 1 i.e. Noor Mohd. @ Aga S/o Sheikh Abdul is a resident of C603, Jahangir Puri whereas the present accused Babloo @ Babu is a resident St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 86 of C605, Jahangir Puri, Delhi showing that they are immediate neighbours. Further, it is also reflected from FIR No.601/05, under Section 452/323/324/427/34 IPC, Police Station Jahangir Puri (of which a judicial notice is taken being a public document and has been placed on record by the Addl. PP) where Babloo @ Babu is an accused. It is apparent from the same that this Noor Mohd. who is the neighbour of Babloo @ Babu (R/o C603, Jahangir Puri) is coaccused in this FIR along with the accused Babloo @ Babu thereby proving their close association. It is this, which lends credence to the version put forward by Parsuram who at the first instance in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had disclosed this fact to the police that the accused in FIR no. 139/07 were the friends of accused Babloo @ Babu and that this accused Babloo @ Babu had been threatening him not to depose against them in the said case and there is no reason to doubt his version. (86) Further, it is also evident from the testimony of Madan that even previously about two months prior to this incident, the accused Babloo @ Babu had quarreled with Ram Pratap @ Rinku while he (Babloo @ Babu) was in a drunken state which incident according to Madan he had witnessed personally. Though this incident was not reported, probably because all the parties are residents of the same area but this certainly reflects that not all was well between the accused Babloo @ Babu and the family of the deceased.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 87 (87) Therefore, under the given circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the motive so attributed to the accused.
Arrest of the accused/ recovery of weapon of offence:
(88) The case of the prosecution is that after the registration of the FIR the Investigating Officer Inspector Inderjeet Singh along with SI Balbir Singh, ASI Dev Karan, Ct. Raj Pal, Ct. Sudhir and HC Umed Singh tried to search the accused persons who had been specifically named in the FIR. On the next date i.e. on 19.8.2007 at about 3:30 PM he received an information that the suspects wanted in this case were sitting on the Chabutra, Ram Leela Ground, Kaushal Cinema Road near the gate on which he requested five to six persons to join the raiding party but none agreed. Thereafter, they held a nakabandi at about 4:00 PM and at the instance of secret informer they apprehended the accused Babloo @ Babu and Sunil Kumar @ Sunny. While the accused were being interrogated, Parsuram the brother of the deceased also came there and identified the accused as the person who alongwith another person had killed his brother on 18.8.2007 and pursuant to the same Babloo @ Babu and Sunil were arrested. The members of the police party have proved that on interrogation the accused Babloo @ Babu disclosed that the knife which he had used the present case, was available in his house which he could get the same recovered on which St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 88 the accused Babloo @ Babu led the police party to the place of incident i.e. 400 wali gali near B Block Gurdwara, Jahangir Puri and pointed out the place of incident after which he led the police party to his house i.e. C605, (First Floor) Jahangirpuri, Delhi and got recovered one knife from under the box/ sandook and disclosed that the accused Mazid and Sunil had caught hold the hands of the deceased while he inflicted injuries on him (deceased Rinku). It has also been proved that the said knife was measured and it was found to be 32.7 cm long, blade was of 19.2 cm, handle was of 13.5 cm and the width of the blade was 4cm.
The members of the police team have also proved the sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW20/E; seizure memo of the knife which is Ex.PW20/F and site plan of the recovery which is Ex.PW21/C. The said knife Ex.P1 had been sent to Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Kulbhushan Goel for opinion which opinion is Ex.PW4/K according to which the injuries No. 1 and 2 (incised penetrating wound 4 x 1 cm over medial aspect of right thigh about 16 cm below medial end of right inguinal ligament placed transversely and incised penetrating wound 20 x 0.75 cm placed transversely and slightly oblique over front of right thigh about 19 cm below right mid inguinal ligament) with internal injuries were possible by the said weapon. Further, the FSL reports Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B prove that blood was detected on the said knife which was having the blood group as that of the deceased (B Group). St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 89 (89) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the arrest of the accused and the recovery of the knife stand duly established. Medical Evidence/ Cause of death:
(90) The MLC of the deceased has been duly proved by Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary (PW3) which is Ex.PW3/A showing that the patient Ram Pratap @ Rinku S/o Nand Raj was brought to BJRM Hospital on 18.8.2007 at 8:30 PM by his brother Parasuram as well as his friend and was examined at 8:35 PM and was declared at 9:15 PM. According to Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary there two clean lacerated stab wounds on the right thigh with active bleeding. PW4 Dr. Kulbhushan Goel has proved having conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Ram Pratap @ Rinku which is Ex.PW4/A according to which report where was one cut about 4 cm long transversely placed over right limb of the pant in thigh area at medial side and there was one more cut about 2.4 cm long placed vertically oblique over the left side of zip area of the pant. He has proved that on external examination the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:
1. Incised penetrating wound 4 x 1 cm over medial aspect of right thigh about 16 cm below medial end of right inguinal ligament placed transversely. The front angle was more acute than the posterior one.
Bleeding was present.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 90
2. Incised penetrating wound 2 x 0.75 cm placed transversely and slightly oblique over front of right thigh about 19 cm below right mid inguinal ligament. Angles of the wound were acute.
(91) The witness Dr. Kulbhushan Goel has further proved that Injury No.1 communicated with the Injury No.2 internally, the right femoral vessels and muscles in the track were cleanly cut, vessels were completely severed, massive blood clots were seen in the injury track and surrounding tissues and the direction of the injuries was left to right and slightly downwards and forward. He has also proved that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock consequent upon injuries to femoral vessels and all the injures were antemortem in nature caused by sharp, cutting and penetrating weapon by other party, which injuries to femoral vessels were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Dr. Kulbhushan Goyal has further proved his subsequent opinion regarding the weapon of offence which is Ex.PW4/K according to which injuries No. 1 and 2 with internal injuries on thigh mentioned in the postmortem report were possible by such weapon or similar type of other weapon. He has identified the said weapon of offence i.e. knife which is Ex.P1 as the same knife which was produced before him and also identified the clothes of the deceased St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 91 and has proved that the cut marks were compatible to the injuries. In his crossexamination, Dr. Goel has further proved that there was a loss of 400/500 ml of blood leading to irreversible shock and has proved that any injury to the femoral vessel which is not reversible is fatal. (92) In view of the aforesaid, I hereby hold that the medical evidence is conclusive to the fact that the injuries particularly the injury no.2 i.e. on the left side zip area of the pant which is a sensitive area in so far as males are concerned, which according to the postmortem report internally communicated with the stab injury inflicted on the right thigh and the impact was so great that the muscles in the track were cleanly cut and the vessels were completely severed and was such that on the face of it, the injury was likely to cause death of the person to whom the injury is caused being on the vital sensitive portion (femoral vessel). In fact according to Dr. Kulbhushan Goel it is this which was fatal as it led to irreversible shock and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Forensic Evidence:
(93) PW5 Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology) FSL has proved the biological report in respect of the exhibits which is Ex.PW5/A and the Serological Report which is Ex.PW5/B thereby St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 92 showing that blood was detected on the clothes of the deceased and the knife. For the sake of convenience, the detailed FSL Report is put in a tabulated form as under:
Sr. Parcel FSL Court Details of exhibit Report/ opinion No. No. Ex. No. Ex. No.
1. 1 1a Ex.P6 Shirt belonging to the Human blood of witness Madan Kumar B Group was detected
2. 1 1b Ex.P7 Pants belonging to the Human blood of witness Madan Kumar B Group was detected
3. 2 2a Ex.P2 Pants belonging to the Human blood of witness Parsuram B Group was detected
4. 3 2b Ex.P3 Sleeveless T shirt Human blood of belonging to the witness B Group was Parsuram detected
5. 3 3 Cotton wool swab Human blood was described as blood lifted detected from the spot
6. 4 4 Concrete material Human blood was detected
7. 5 5 Earth material Blood was detected
8. 6 6a Ex.P4 Nikkar belonging to the Human blood was accused Babloo detected
9. 6 6b Ex.P5 Tshirt belonging to the Human blood was accused Babloo detected
10. 7 7 Ex.P1 Weapon of offence i.e. Human blood of Knife B Group was detected St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 93
11. 8 8a Ex.P8 Pants of the deceased Human blood of B Group was detected
12. 8 8b Ex.P9 Shirt of the deceased Human blood of B Group was detected
13. 8 8c Ex.P10 Baniyan of the deceased Human blood was detected
14. 8 8d Ex.P11 Underwear of the Human blood was deceased detected
15. 9 9 Blood stained gauze Human blood of (blood sample) B Group was detected (94) It stands conclusively established from the aforesaid that the blood group of the deceased was B Group. Blood of B Group was found on the clothes of both the public witnesses i.e. Madan and Parsuram thereby lending credence to the version regarding their presence at the spot of the incident and also of having shifted the deceased to the hospital. Further, even on the weapon of offence i.e. knife got recovered by the accused Babloo @ Babu, human blood of B Group (same as that of the deceased) has been detected connecting this weapon to the offence.
(95) Further, human blood was detected on the clothes of the accused Babloo @ Babu. Here, I may observe that at the time when the accused Babloo @ Babu was apprehended on the next day he was wearing the same clothes which he was wearing at the time of the St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 94 incident. Naturally so, because soon after the incident the accused must have run away from the spot but was soon arrested within a few hours (i.e. 19 hours on the next date 19.8.2007). Though the Forensic Report did not reveal the grouping of the blood on account of putrification which has taken place yet this will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution since it stands established that the blood present on his clothes i.e. Tshirt and nicker was human blood. I hereby hold that the Forensic Evidence corroborates the prosecution version. Defence of the accused:
(96) During the course of the arguments, it is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that a second version of the incident is possible. It is submitted that it was Madan himself who had stabbed the deceased and had shifted the blame on Babloo @ Babu being fully aware that there was a history of previous dispute between the accused and the deceased.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the other hand has disputed this version and has pointed out that this could not have been possible under any circumstances because the area being thickly populated a large number of persons were present. He submits that even otherwise there was no reason why Madan would have committed the offence. According to the Ld. Addl. PP, this is only a mischievous attempt by the accused to corner the eye witness who has dared to stand up against them. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 95 (97) I have considered the rival contentions and also gone through the photographs placed on record which are Ex.PW7/1 to Ex.PW7/14 duly proved by PW7 Ct. Dalbir Singh a member of the Crime Team and the Crime Team Report which is Ex.PW9/A duly proved by Crime Team Incharge SI Baljeet Singh (PW9). It is evident from the photographs that the place of incident is a small gali surrounded by houses. It is impossible that at about 8:00 pm Madan would have stabbed the deceased which fact could have gone unnoticed by the residents of the area. Further, the fact that while all the three accused were running away from the spot of the incident, it was Parsuram (PW2) who had noticed them in the gali coupled with the fact that the weapon of offence/ knife had been got recovered by Babloo @ Babu from his house which clothes of Babloo @ Babu and the knife contain human blood (knife contains blood of B Group belonging to the deceased) for which no explanation is forthcoming. This completely demolishes the above defence now sought to be raised by the accused. Common intention:
(98) The case of the prosecution is that all the accused namely Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid in pursuance to their common intention attacked the victim Ram Pratap @ Rinku.
While the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid caught hold of the victim, the accused Babloo @ Babu gave repeated knife St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 96 blows on the thigh of the victim. On the other hand the Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that there is nothing on record to show that the accused have acted in consortium and shared a common intention.
(99) Now, it has to be seen whether Section 34 Indian Penal Code is attracted or not. I may observe that Section 34 Indian Penal Code has been enacted on the principal of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be if prearranged or on the spur of the moment, but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true concept of the Section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 97 act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. As observed in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1997 (1) SCC 746 the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential elements for application of this section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision. The Section does not say "the common intentions of all" nor does it say "an intention common to all". Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in section 34, when an accused is convicted under section 302 read with section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. As was observed in Chinta Pulla Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 134. Section 34 is St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 98 applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For applying section 34, it is not necessary to show some over act on the part of the accused. The above position was highlighted in Girija Shankar Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(3) SCC 793. (100) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that there is ample material on record to prove that all the accused persons shared common intention. The fact that the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid caught hold of the victim Ram Pratap @ Rinku, the accused Babloo @ Babu took out a knife from his knicker and repeatedly inflicted knife injuries on his thigh, establish the common intention so attributed to them. There is no history of any dispute between Madan on one side and Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar or Sheikh Mazid on the other. Therefore, there is no reason why the eye witness Madan would have falsely implicated them in the murder of Ram Pratap @ Rinku. Also, Parsuram had seen Sunil Kumar and Sheikh Mazid running away from the gali with accused Babloo @ Babu. There is no history of any dispute between Parsuram on one side and Sunil Kumar and Sheikh Mazid on the other. The previous incident/ history of dispute is only between Babloo @ Babu and Parasuram and this being the background, there is no reason why he would have falsely implicated Sunil and Sheikh Mazid. (101) Further, Dr. Kulbhushan Goel (PW4) has given a definite finding that right femoral vessels and muscles in the track were cleanly St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 99 cut, vessels were completely severed and massive blood clots were seen in the injury track and surrounding tissues, direction of the injuries was left to right and slightly downwards and forward. This is indicative of the force, direction and the manner in which two consecutive knife blows were inflicted on the thighs of the deceased, which reflect the intention of the accused and show that it was the work of more than one person. Hence the version given by the eye witness Madan explaining that while Sunil Kumar and Sheikh Mazid caught hold of the deceased while Babloo @ Babu stabbed Ram Pratap @ Rinku appears credible and truthful. It therefore stands established that all the accused Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid acted in consortium and the common intention attributed to all the accused stands proved. Whether the provisions of Section 302 or Section 304 IPC would apply:
(102) Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that assuming that the allegations against the accused are admitted, even then, the present case is not covered within the purview of Section 300 Indian Penal Code since the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased were not on vital organs and at the most the case falls within Section 304 Indian Penal Code. On the other hand the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that the present case squarely covered within the provisions of Section 302 Indian Penal Code since it was not one but two repeated blows one of which was on the left zip area of the pant St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 100 which is a vital and sensitive point in so far as the males are concerned and can lead to immediate irreversible shock and death. He has submitted that the repeated injuries inflicted on the femoral vessels and excessive bleeding can cause irreversible shock resulting into death of the deceased due to which reason the case of the accused is squarely covered under the provisions of Section 300 Indian Penal Code since the bodily injury caused was such as was likely to cause death. In fact the postmortem report indicates that the impact of both the injuries was so great that muscles in the track were cleanly cut, vessels were completely severed and massive blood clots were seen in the injury track and surrounding tissues.
(103) I have considered the submissions made before me. I may observe that as per the provisions of Section 300 Indian Penal Code culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 101 death or such injury as aforesaid and this is punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. There are five exceptions provided to the above.
Firstly culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of selfcontrol by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. I may observe that this exception is also subject to the proviso that the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person; the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant; the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence; the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Secondly Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. Thirdly Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 102 doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill will towards the person whose death is caused. Fourthly Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Lastly Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
(104) The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300 Indian Penal Code. (Ref.: Daya Nand Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2008 SC 1823).
(105) Whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 103 on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four Clauses of the definition of 'murder' contained in Section300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third Clause of Sec. 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the Exceptions enumerated is Section 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the First Part of Section 304, Indian Penal Code. Note: All murders are culpable homicide but not viceaversa. (Ref.: State of A.P. Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya reported in AIR 1977 SC 45).
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 104 (106) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the case in hand does not fall within any of the exceptions contemplated in Section 300 Indian Penal Code. Rather, the fact that there existed a history of dispute between the family of the deceased and Babloo @ Babu establishes the fact that there was a premeditation and preplanning or else there could have been no reason why the accused, armed with knife, would have stopped the deceased while he was returning from his work with Madan. This is indicative of the fact that the accused were aware of the route which the deceased normally took for returning to his house and the time around which he returned. The fact that Babloo @ Babu also armed with a knife also establish the preparation and prior intent so attributed to the accused. (107) Parsuram (PW2) the brother of the deceased was an eye witness in another case bearing FIR No.139/07, Police Station Jahangir Puri, under Section 307/34 IPC and according to him, the accused in the said case are all friends of Babloo @ Babu being the residents of same Block (CBlock) where Babloo @ Babu is residing. Parsuram has testified in the Court that Babloo @ Babu was pressurizing him not to depose in the above case against his friends and had even threatened to harm his brother despite which threat Parsuram was insistent. The perusal of the FIR No. 139/07, Police Station Jahangir Puri establish that all the accused in the said case are the residents of CBlock Jahangir Puri particularly Noor Mohd. who is residing at C603 St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 105 Jahangir Puri, Delhi. In fact Babloo @ Babu is also a resident of C605, Jahangir Puri and therefore it stands established that he is the immediate neighbour of this Noor Mohd. who is an accused in FIR No. 139/07, Police Station Jahangir Puri in which Parsuram is an eye witness. Further, the perusal of FIR No. 601/05, Police Station Jahangir Puri establishes that this accused Noor Mohd. is also an accused in the said FIR wherein Babloo @ Babu is the coaccused and this particularly proves the close association between Babloo @ Babu and Noor Mohd. (accused in FIR No. 139/07, Police Station Jahangir Puri). (108) Further, as per the evidence on record another incident of quarrel had also taken place between the deceased and the accused Babloo @ Babu when he (Babloo @ Babu) was intoxicated. All this is indicative of the intention of the accused Babloo @ Babu which was to create terror not only in the mind of Parsuram but also in the minds of others in the area so that none should stand up against him or his other associates i.e. Noor Mohd. and others. It is in this background that Babloo @ Babu had inflicted repeated injuries on the body of the deceased (Ram Pratap @ Rinku) upon the right femoral vessels while Sunil @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid caught hold of the deceased. In view of the above, I hereby hold that all the accused namely Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid had the requisite intent as contemplated under Section 300 Indian Penal Code and pursuant to the St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 106 same they inflicted such bodily injury as was likely to cause death and hence caused these injuries which according to the doctor were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. I therefore hold all the accused namely Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
(109) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 107 probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(110) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. From the evidence on record, the following facts and sequence of events emerge:
➢ That the deceased Ram Pratap @ Rinku was the real brother of Parsuram (Admitted fact).
➢ That on 18.8.2007 at about 8:00 PM the deceased Rinku along with his friend Madan were returning to their house after completing the sanitary work in the house of Ashwani Sharma (PW17) at C973, Jahangir Puri.
➢ That when they reached in the narrow street near the Gurdwara of B Block, three boys of CBlock who were inimical with the family of Ram Pratap, came from behind and started abusing Ram Pratap.
➢ That accused Babloo @ Babu took out a knife from the back of his knicker and touched it on the body of Rinku by saying "Aaj isko jaan se maar denge".
➢ That thereafter Babloo @ Babu pushed them towards the adjoining park near the Gurdwara.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 108 ➢ That when they reached near Gurdwara all the three boys i.e. Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid started giving beatings to Rinku.
➢ That Madan tried to intervene in the same but in the meanwhile accused Babloo @ Babu gave a knife blow on the right thigh of Rinku.
➢ That when Madan again intervened in the dispute the accused Babloo @ Babu again gave another knife blow on the right thigh of Rinku on which Madan raised an alarm after which public persons gathered there due to which reasons all the three accused ran away from the spot. ➢ That in the meantime the brother of the victim namely Parsuram who was returning from his work and was passing through the patliwali gali, he saw the accused Babloo @ Babu running from the spot with an open knife in his hand while the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid were following him.
➢ That Parsuram simultaneously heard the alarm/ cries of Maar diya maar diya on which he went to the said directions and found his brother Ram Pratap @ Rinku lying in a pool of blood with Madan present there. ➢ That Madan informed Parsuram that the accused Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid had St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 109 inflicted injuries upon Ram Pratap @ Rinku. ➢ That thereafter both Madan and Parsuram took Ram Pratap @ Rinku to BJRM Hospital in a cycle Rickshaw (which explains why it took some time to reach the hospital) from where an information was given to Police Station Jahangir Puri at about 8:35 PM.
➢ That doctors gave treatment to Ram Pratap @ Rinku but could not save him and he expired during treatment at around 9:15 PM.
➢ That the police arrived in the hospital and recorded the statement of Madan and Parsuram where Madan specifically named the accused Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid and it was on the basis of the statement that FIR was registered at about 10:50 PM after which the statement of Parsuram was also recorded wherein he informed the police about the previous threats given by accused Babloo @ Babu to him asking him not to depose in the Court against his friends/ accused in the said case where Deepak was the complainant and had also threatened to harm his brother in case if he did not comply but according to Parsuram he had refused to comply with the dictates of Babloo @ Babu.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 110 ➢ That police tried to search for the accused (duly named in the FIR) in the area in the intervening night of 1819.8.2008 but could not succeed and on 19.8.2007 at around 4:00 PM both the accused namely Babloo @ Babu and Sunil Kumar @ Sunny were apprehended near Ram Leela Ground, Kushal Cinema on a secret information and at that time the accused Babloo @ Babu was wearing the same clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident (apprehension/ arrest was immediately on the next day within 19 hours of the incident).
➢ That pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Babloo @ Babu got recovered a knife from his jhuggi i.e. C605, Jahangir Puri.
➢ That the accused Sheikh Mazid absconded and could not be arrested after which was declared Proclaimed Offender by the Ld. MM on 5.3.2008 and on 10.2.2009 after the accused Sheikh Mazid was arrested, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against him.
➢ That in FIR No.139/07, Police Station Jahangir Puri, under Section 307/34 IPC the accused therein are the friends of Babloo @ Babu being residents of same Block (C Block Jahangir Puri). Out of the said accused one Noor Mohd. is in fact a resident of C603, Jahangir Puri, Delhi being St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 111 immediate neighbour of Babloo @ Babu who is residing at C605, Jahangir Puri. This Noor Mohd. is also coaccused along with Babloo @ Babu in FIR No.601/05 of Police Station Jahangir Puri, under Sections 452/ 323/ 324/ 427/ 34 IPC thereby establishing their close association.
➢ That another incident of quarrel had also taken place between the accused Babloo @ Babu and Ram Pratap @ Rinku when the accused Babloo @ Babu was in a drunken condition and this quarrel was also witnessed by Madan. ➢ That the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock consequent upon injuries to femoral vessels and all the injures were antemortem in nature cause by sharp, cutting and penetrating weapon by other party, which injuries to femoral vessels were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
➢ That blood of deceased i.e. B Group was found on the clothes of both the public witnesses i.e. Madan and Parsuram. That on the weapon of offence i.e. knife got recovered by the accused Babloo @ Babu, human blood of B Group (same as that of the deceased) has also been detected thereby connecting this weapon to the offence. ➢ That at the time when accused Babloo @ Babu was apprehended on 19.8.2007 (day next to the incident) he was St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 112 wearing the same clothes which he was wearing on the date of the incident and the FSL report establishes the presence of human blood on the same.
(111) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. (112) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 113 (113) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against all the accused Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid beyond reasonable doubt. It stands established that while the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid caught hold of the victim Rinku, the accused Babloo @ Babu gave repeated blows on the thigh of victim; thereby proving that all the accused namely Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid had acted in consortium and had the intention to cause the death of the deceased as contemplated under Section 300 Indian Penal Code for which reason all the accused namely Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid are hereby held guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
(114) Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 9.7.2012.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 6.7.2012 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 114
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 117/11 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0667352007 State Vs. (1) Babloo @ Babu S/o Sh. Ranjit Tiwari R/o C605, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (Convicted) (2) Sunil Kumar @ Sunny S/o Sh. Ganesh Kumar R/o C41, Jhuggi C Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (Convicted) (3) Sheikh Mazid S/o Sheikh Mohsin Ali R/o C565, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (Convicted) FIR No.: 561/2007 Police Station: Jahangir Puri Under Section: 302/34 Indian Penal Code Date of Conviction: 6.7.2012 Arguments heard on: 9.7.2012 Date of sentence: 12.7.2012 St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 115 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Babloo @ Babu in judicial custody with Sh. Abdul Aziz Advocate.
Convict Sunil Kumar @ Sunny in judicial custody with Sh. Satya Prakash Advocate.
Convict Sheikh Mazid in judicial custody with Sh. Om Prakash Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
The case in hand relates to the murder of the brother of an eye witness in order to create fear in his mind so as to prevent him from deposing in the Court.
The case of the prosecution is that on 18.8.2007 at about 8:00 PM the deceased Ram Pratap @ Rinku along with his friend Madan were returning to their house after completing the sanitary work at the house of Ashwani Sharma at C973, Jahangir Puri while they were passing through a narrow street near the Gurdwara of B Block, three boys of CBlock whom they knew previously i.e. Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid who were inimical to the family of Ram Pratap @ Rinku stopped them and started abusing him. Initially the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid caught hold of both the hands of Rinku and gave beatings to him on which St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 116 Madan (eye witness) tried to intervene and asked them not to fight but in the meanwhile the third boy i.e. Babloo @ Babu took out a knife/ chura from his nicker and gave a knife blow on the right thigh of Ram Pratap @ Rinku. On seeing this Madan who was accompanying Ram Pratap @ Rinku raised an alarm but in the meanwhile Babloo @ Babu gave another knife blow on the right thigh of Ram Pratap and on hearing the alarm raised by Madan ran away towards the CBlock 400 Wali Gali. Large number of public persons collected in the gali including Parsuram the brother of the deceased Ram Pratap @ Rinku but in the meanwhile the accused managed to escape. Madan and Parsuram immediately rushed Ram Pratap @ Rinku to BJRM Hospital on a Rickshaw from where an information was given to the Police Station Jahangir Puri regarding the incident and DD No. 45A was lodged at 8:35 PM. The doctors gave treatment to Ram Pratap @ Rinku but could not save him and at 9:15 PM declared him dead. The police arrived in the hospital and recorded the statement of the eye witness Madan wherein Madan specifically named the accused Babloo @ Babu, Sunil @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid and also informed the police that the above accused were inimical to the family of Ram Pratap @ Rinku. The statement of the brother of the deceased who had rushed him to the hospital namely Parsuram was also recorded who informed the police that while he was coming back from his work and reached near patliwali gali, he saw the accused Babloo @ Babu running in the St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 117 gali with a knife in his hand and the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid following him. He further told the police that he also heard the cries of Maar diya, maar diya on which he immediately rushed towards the said direction and found his brother Ram Pratap @ Rinku lying in a pool of blood with Madan also present there and he was told by Madan that the accused had stabbed Ram Pratap @ Rinku on which he along with Madan immediately shifted Ram Pratap @ Rinku to the BJRM Hospital in a cycle Rickshaw. There in the Hospital the doctors tried to save him but Rinku was declared dead at about 9:15 PM. He further told the police that Babloo @ Babu was inimical to him because he (Parsuram) is a witness in a case bearing FIR No. 139/07, Police Station Jahangir Puri under Section 307 IPC where one Deepak is the complainant in which case the friends of the accused Babloo @ Babu who reside in the same Block were accused. He also informed the police that he had been threatened by Babloo @ Babu not to depose in the above case or else it would not be good for his brother but he (Parsuram) had refused and hence even on a previous occasion Babloo @ Babu had quarreled with Ram Pratap @ Rinku while he (accused Babloo @ Babu) was in a drunken condition. This aspect of previous quarrel has also been mentioned by Madan who submitted that he was a witness to the same. According to Parsuram the accused had targeted his brother Ram Pratap @ Rinku only to ensure that he (Parsuram) does not depose in case FIR No.139/07 Police Station Jahangir Puri. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 118
On the basis of the statement of Madan the present FIR was got registered at 10:50 PM and on the very next day i.e. 19.8.2007 at about 4:00 PM (i.e. within 19 hours of the incident) the accused Babloo @ Babu and Sunil were apprehended and arrested near Ram Leela Ground, Kaushal Cinema. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Babloo @ Babu got recovered the knife with which he had inflicted injuries upon the deceased. The accused Sheikh Mazid could not be apprehended and was declared Proclaimed Offender by the Ld. MM on 5.3.2008. Later on 10.2.2009 the accused Sheikh Mazid was arrested and a supplementary charge sheet was filed against him.
The eye witness Madan has appeared in the Court and had correctly identified the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid as the boys who had caught hold of the deceased Ram Pratap @ Rinku and also identified the accused Babloo @ Babu as the boy who had inflicted injuries upon Ram Pratap @ Rinku with the knife. Parsuram has also appeared in the Court and identified all the three accused as the boys who were running from the gali when he heard the cries Maar diya, maar diya. In the Court he has also specifically deposed that he had seen the accused Babloo @ Babu running with an open knife in his hand and has also identified the said knife which is Ex.P1.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 119
On the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution particularly the eye witness Madan (PW1) and Parsuram (PW2) and also on the basis of medical and forensic evidence on record, this Court had held all the accused namely Babloo @ Babu, Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code for which they have been accordingly convicted.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Babloo @ Babu a young boy of 24 years is reported to be totally illiterate and is doing the work of cloth embroidery. He has a family comprising of aged widow mother, two elder brothers, one younger brother, wife and one son. He is in judicial custody since 19.8.2007 and is also involved in another case bearing FIR No.601/05, under Sections 452/323/324/427/341/34 IPC, Police Station Jahangir Puri. The convict Sunil @ Sunny a young boy of 26 years is reported to be 8 th class pass and has a kabari shop. He has a family comprising of aged widow mother, two elder and four younger brothers. He is in judicial custody since 19.8.2007. The convict Sheikh Mazid a young boy of 23 years is reported to be 4th class pass and was doing a private job. He has a family comprising of aged parents, two elder brothers and two younger brothers, five sisters out of whom three are married, wife and one son aged 4 years. He is in judicial custody since 10.2.2009. St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 120
Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict Babloo @ Babu has vehemently argued that the convict belongs to a poor family and is the sole bread earner of his family, his younger brother having expired and another brother being suffering from mental disorder. He has argued that there is none in the family of the convict to look after and survive his family members in his absence. Ld. Counsels for the convicts Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid have argued that both the convicts are young boys having no criminal record and are first time offenders. It is requested that a lenient view be taken against all the convicts.
The Ld. Public Prosecutor has on the other hand, placed his reliance on the judgments of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 SCC (Crl.) 580 and Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 SCC (Crl.) 681 and has argued that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no alternative before this court but to impose death sentence upon the convicts. It is also stated that the convicts have not been able to show any mitigating circumstances in their favour which could make out a case for imposition of sentence of imprisonment for life.
I have considered the submissions made before me. At the very outset, I may state that there can be no dispute as to the applicability of the various principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 121 Court of India in the aforesaid two cases viz Machhi Singh (Supra) and Bachan Singh (Supra) which are required to be keep in mind before awarding a death sentence in any given case.
The law is well settled in the decision in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 898], where it was held that the death penalty can be inflicted only in the gravest of the grave cases. It was also held that such death penalty can be imposed only when the life imprisonment appears to be inadequate punishment. Again it was cautioned that while imposing the death sentence, there must be balance between circumstances regarding the accused and the mitigating circumstances and that there has to be overall consideration of the circumstances regarding the accused as also the offence. Some aggravating circumstances were also culled out, they being:
(a) Where the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or
(b) Where the murder involves exceptional depravity.
The mitigating circumstances which were mentioned in that judgment were:
(a) That the offence was committed under the St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 122 influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance;
(b) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death;
(c) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society;
(d) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (c) and (d) above;
(e) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence;
(f) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person; and
(g) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 123 The law was further settled in the decision in Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 957], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court insisted upon the mitigating circumstances being balanced against the aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances were described as under:
(a) When the murder is in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.
(b) When the murder of a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality is committed.
(c) When the murder of an innocent child, a helpless woman is committed.
It was also observed by the Hon'ble Court that at the same time it must be kept in mind that the principle of there being a proportion between punishment and offences ought not to be so mathematically followed so as to render the laws subtle, complicated and obscured. Brevity and simplicity are a superior good. Something of exact proportion may also be sacrificed to render the punishment more striking, more fit to inspire people with a sentiment of aversion for those vices which prepare the way for crimes.
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 124
The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again stressed upon the need for awarding the punishment for a crime which should not be irrelevant but should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and the brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence of crime and responding to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. (Ref. Ravji Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996 (II) SCC 175). Punishment ought to fit the crime and sometime it is desirability to keep the offender out of circulation.
Now I would like to draw a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating factors. The only mitigating factor in the present case is that all the convicts are young boys and at the time of the incident they were in their early twenties. Further, the convicts Sunil Kumar @ Sunny and Sheikh Mazid are not involved in any other case. The aggravating factors are that the convicts have committed the murder of the brother of a witness namely Parsuram (in FIR No. 139/07 Police Station Jahangir Puri under Section 307 IPC) without any instigation only to prevent Parsuram from deposing in the Court against the accused in the above case who are all residents of the same Block (C Block, Jahangir Puri) where the accused in the present case are also residing. In fact Noor Mohd. who is the main accused in FIR No.319/07 is the immediate neighbour of Babloo @ Babu and also a coaccused/ associated with him in another case bearing No.601/05, Police Station St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 125 Jahangir Puri under Sections 452/323/324/427/34 IPC and established why the accused Babloo @ Babu was so eager so as to ensure that Parsuram does not depose against them.
"Witnesses" as Bentham said: are the eyes and ears of justice and if the witness himself is incapacitated from acting as eyes and ears of justice, the trial gets putrefied and paralysed. Threat to witnesses results in to Casualty of Justice and any leniency granted to persons who take the law of the land into their hands and create a fear psychosis upon the witnesses undermines and destroys public confidence in administration of justice which may ultimately pave way for anarchy, oppression and injustice resulting in complete breakdown and collapse of the edifice of rule of law, enshrined and zealously guarded and protected by the Constitution (Ref: Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors. Appeal (Crl.) No. 446449 of 2004 decided on 8.3.2006).
In view of the above background and after having considered the various aggravating and mitigating factors particularly in view of the nature of injuries inflicted on the deceased, I am of the view that the present case will not fall within the category of Rarest of Rare. I hereby award the following sentence to the convict Babloo @ Babu:
1. The convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine for a sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rs. Fifty Thousand) for the offence St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 126 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three months. The total fine of Rs.50,000/ (Rs.
Fifthly Thousand) if recovered, shall be given to the family of the deceased Ram Pratap @ Rinku as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
Further, I award the following sentence to the convict Sunil Kumar @ Sunny:
1. The convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine for a sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rs. Fifty Thousand) for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three months. The total fine of Rs.50,000/ (Rs. Fifty Thousand) if recovered, shall be given to the family of the deceased Ram Pratap @ Rinku as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
In so far as the convict Sheikh Mazid is concerned, I also award him the following sentence:
1. The convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine for a sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rs. Fifty Thousand) for the offence St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 127 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three months. The total fine of Rs.50,000/ (Rs. Fifty Thousand) if recovered, shall be given to the family of the deceased Ram Pratap @ Rinku as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to all the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial in the present case as per rules.
The convicts are informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to all the convicts free of costs and another copy be attached with their jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 12.7.2012 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Babloo Etc., FIR No. 561/07, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 128