Delhi District Court
State vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju And Ors. Sc No. 81/2010 ... on 21 January, 2012
ID No.02403R0482022006
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 (SOUTH EAST)
SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 81/2010
Unique ID No.02403R0482022006
FIR No. 512/2006
PS : Sangam Vihar
U/s. 302/201/120B IPC
State
Versus
Riyaz Khan @ Raju ,
s/o Sh. Nadeem Khan ,
r/o G763, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi ..........accused no. 1
Manoj
s/o Sh. Satya Narayan @ Sukh Narayan
r/o 3/786, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi ..........accused no. 2
Satish
s/o Sh. Nepal Singh
r/o G161, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi ..........accused no. 3
Instituted on : 05th October, 2006
Argued on : 21st January, 2012
Announced on : 21st January, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Accused persons in this case were charged for the commission of offence punishable u/s 302/120B/34 Indian Penal Code. Case of the prosecution as unfolded during trial is that on 30.05.2006, DD No. 22A was recorded regarding the fact that dead body of a lady in naked condition with burnt face was lying in Jungle ahead of Nahari Baba Mandir. Inspector Jai Singh (IO) alongwith staff members reached at the spot, where SI Ram Krishan alongwith Ct. Ishwar and Ct. Vijay met them. IO inspected the scene of crime. Wooden sticks, clothes and plastic chappal were lying over the face of the naked women found in burnt condition and her face was found crushed. A blood stained stone was also lying near her head. An empty whisky bottle having mark of 08:00 pm State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 1/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 was found inserted into the vegina of the dead body. Inspector Jai Singh made endorsement on DD No. 22A (Ex.PW25/A) and handed over the same to Ct. Vijay for registration of the case. Crime team inspected the scene of crime and the photographer took the photographs of the dead body and scene of crime. Ct. Vijay Kumar handed over rukka and copy of the FIR to Inspector Jai Singh who collected the articles from the spot. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. Inspector Jai Singh found that on both hands of the deceased certain names i.e. Bunty, Faimu, Shakil, Rajesh were tattooed, therefore, the photographs of the tattooed names for identification of the dead body were taken. Inspector Jai Singh prepared site plan (Ex.PW8/A) and Police staff was deputed to make efforts to locate the accused persons and for identification of dead body.
2. It is further the case of prosecution that on 31.05.2006, one person namely Bunty, on seeing the tattooed names identified the dead body from the photographs as Sheetal @ Sarita @ Muskan. Bunty told police that his name was also mentioned on the hand of the deceased and he was having intimacy with the deceased. Pursuant to his disclosure, Inspector Jai Singh alongwith Bunty went to House No. 1650, J. J. Colony, Tighri, where Jai Prakash met them. IO got preserved the dead body in the mortuary of AIIMS Hospital. On interrogation, Jai Prakash told IO that on 30.05.2006, the deceased had met him at about 12 (noon) and told him that she had to go to her Mausi's house and he dropped her on her request at LBlock Baandh, TSR Stand, Sangam Vihar. Jai Prakash further told IO that two persons were standing near an auto and deceased told him that she would accompany those two persons to the house of her Mausi. Jai Prakash gave description of those two persons standing near an Auto Rikshaw bearing the word 'Master' on the back side having lot of plastic tapes of brown colour pasted on the torn portion of the body. On the basis of the description of the two persons and auto Riksha given by Jai Prakash, Police started searching for the auto Riksha and accused persons. During investigation, Inspector Jai Singh made inquiries from some persons near the Jungle ahead of Nihari Baba Mandir, who confirmed that they had seen the TSR with plastic tapes of brown colour going State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 2/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 towards jungle in the evening of 30.05.2006. On 01.06.2006 while Inspector Jai Singh along with his team were searching for the TSR, the owner of the TSR bearing No. UP16L8676 namely Kesar Ansari r/o J. J. Camp, Tighri met them on the Baandh and told the police that he had entrusted his TSR to Riyaz about one and half month ago on rent basis who was using the same for last one and half month and was staying at House No. 763, GBlock, Sangam Vihar and that one more person was living with him in the said house. SI Jai Singh along with his team went to the said house alongwith Sh. Kesar Ansari, but room of Riyaz Khan was found locked. He deployed the police personnel and also sought help of the public persons in nabbing the accused persons.
3 It is further stated that on 02.06.2006, at about 04:00 pm, on receipt of secret information IO alongwith police staff including SI Ram Shahay, Ct. Sharwan and Public person Jai Prakash reached at the room of Riyaz from where two persons were apprehended. On interrogation, they told their names as Riyaz Khan and Manoj Kumar. Inspector Jai Singh interrogated and arrested them. During interrogation, accused Riyaz and Manoj made disclosure statement. On 03.06.2006, IO alongwith other staff reached at the house of Satish Singh @ Bidi i.e. G477, Sangam Vihar from where, he was apprehended at the instance of Jai Prakash. During the course of interrogation accused Satish Singh made a disclosure statement and IO seized TSR. IO prepared the Inquest papers for the purpose of postmortem and forwarded the same to the CMO, Department of Forensic Science, AIIMS with his letter seeking opinion regarding sexual assault. After postmortem, nobody received the dead body, therefore, her last rites were performed by the police. IO/Inspector Jai Singh got the accused persons medically examined and after medical examination doctor handed over pullandas containing blood in gauze of the accused persons. IO sought subsequent opinion and sent the exhibits to FSL for examination. He got prepared the scaled site plan and recorded statements of the witnesses.
4. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court on 30.08.2006. Case was committed to the court of Sessions by Learned State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 3/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 Metropolitan Magistrate on 22.09.2006. Charges u/s 302/120B/34 IPC and 201/120B/34 IPC were served to the accused persons on 14.07.2009, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Points which emerge for determination in this case are :
(i) Whether accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and on 30.05.2006 in jungle behind Nahri Baba Mandir, Sangam Vihar, committed murder of Ms. Sarita @ Sheetal @ Khushboo?
(ii) Whether accused persons caused the evidence for the commission of offence to disappear with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment? Prosecution Evidence
6. To prove charges against the accused persons, prosecution examined twentyseven witnesses. First of all, I shall advert to the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses.
Dr. B. L. Choudhary (PW16) conducted postmortem on the dead body of Sarita @ Sheetal @ Khushboo under the supervision of Doctor Adarsh Kumar (PW4). He found following antemortem external injuries were found on the person of deceased.
(i) Crushed injuries with multiple depressed communited fractures of skull bones involving both parietal, temporal, frontal bones of facial (Maxilla, Mandible and nasal bones) with lacerations over right forehead and face. On left side temporal region crushed including left ear and protruding multiple fractured bone pieces with brain matter coming. Brain matter also coming out from right frontal and temporal regions. Laceration of size 5X1 cm X cavity deep was present over base of nose with associated nasal bone fracture. On exploration, extravasation of blood was seen under the scalp, meninges were torn at multiple places. Brain matter lacerated and broken in pieces. Communited fractures were present at base of skull
(ii) Linear graze abrasions of size varying from 0.5 - 22cm X 0.5 - 6 cm present over the back of trunk, obliquely running downward and laterally (outwards) towards right side.
(iii) Abrasion of size 8X2 cm present over anteromedial (front and inner) surface of left thigh placed horizontally and 16 cm above to left knee reddish in colour
(iv) Multiple abrasions of size varying 0.2 - 2 cm X 0.2 - 1 cm present over State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 4/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 upper portion of anterolteral (front and outer) surface of right thigh reddish in colour
(v) Contusion of size 3X2 cm present over upper part of anterior aspect of right knee reddish in colour Doctor Adarsh Kumar (PW4) opined that the cause of death as "craniocerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact by object or surface"
vide antemortem injury no. 1. After completion of postmortem examination, vaginal swab, scalp hair for volatile substance analysis, one glass bangle, blood in gauze and viscera for toxicologial analysis were handed over to IO in sealed condition for further analysis vide detailed report (Ex. PW4/A), PW4 gave an opinion regarding weapon on the request of SHO, PS Sangam vihar. He opined that after perusal of the postmortem report and the examined weapon, he along with Dr. B. L. Chaoudhary opnied that injury no. 1 shown in the postmortem report (Ex. PW4/A) could have been produced by the examined weapon, if hit on the head. Their detailed report was (Ex. PW4/B) Doctor Sudipta Ranjan Singh (PW10) deposed that Dr. Arvind Kumar prepared MLC bearing no. 67991/06, 67992/06 and 67993/06 pertaining to accused Manoj, Riyaz Khan and Satish Singh respectively, which are Ex. PW10/A to Ex.PW10/C. Doctor B. L. Chaudhary (PW16) placed on record FSL reports (Ex.PA and Ex.PB). In cross examination, he deposed that matching of the blood group alone was not enough to establish individual identity. He stated that only DNA analysis and Finger Printing (Dactylography) could establish individual identity.
7. Public witnesses Anil Kumar (PW1), registered owner of TSR no. UP 16 L 8676 deposed that TSR was sold to one Mohd. Qaisar Ansari r/o A/453, JJ Camp, Tigri, on 24.02.2006. RC of TSR no. UP 16 L 8676 is (Ex. PW1/A), passenger permit (Ex. PW1/B), Form no. 29 (Ex. PW1/C), Form no. 30 (Ex. PW1/D), Election Identity Card (Ex. PW1/E) who handed over to the police. In cross examination, PW1 stated that he had not directly made the sale of TSR to Mohd. Qaisar Ansari and had no personal knowledge whether the said TSR was transferred in the name of Mohd. Qaisar Ansari. Sh. Nemveer (PW3) deposed State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 5/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 that he knew Satpal @ Satya from his childhood and Sheetal @ Sarita (deceased) was the daughter of Satpal @ Satya. In the month of January,1997 Sheetal @ Sarita was married with him and after marriage, she started residing with him at Zakhira. PW3 deposed that she remained his wife up to ten months. Thereafter, she left him in the year 1998. In the year 2006, she came to him once or twice with two boys on a motorcycle. He deposed that after leaving him, Sheetal @ Sarita started consuming liquor and came in contact with bad elements. PW3 identified one Mushtaq (who was an accused, produced in case FIR no. 202/08 u/s 363/366/376/368 r/w 34 IPC, Ps Sangam Vihar), as the person who had come to his house along with sheetal @ Sarita. PW3 identified Sheetal from several names written on her arm. In cross examination, PW3 stated that deceased Sheetal had left his house in the year 1998. No divorce had been taken place between him and Sheetal. PW2 stated that some of his neighbours told him that some boys come to his house for maintaining illicit relations with his wife in his absence. He stated that he tried to make her understand but when she paid no heed to his advice, then he scolded her. PW3 admitted that his wife left her matrimonial house due to her loose character. Mohd. Kasur Ansari (PW6) deposed that TSR No. UP 16 L 8676 was in the name of Anil Kumar Roy. He purchased this TSR which was being plied by accused Riyaz Khan one month prior from this incident. PW6 deposed that on 30.05.2006 accused Riyaz Khan along with Manoj came to his house at about 07:00pm and they took his TSR for plying. He deposed that neither Riyaz Khan came in the evening nor returned his TSR. He searched his TSR. PW6 deposed that on 01.06.2007 on inquiry from the police, he told them that same belong to him. On 04.06.2006 he came to know that his TSR had been recovered. PW6 deposed that TSR was having a rape of brown colour pasted on sides of the TSR as the cover of the TSR was torn. On the small rear glass 'Master' was written with white paint. He identified accused Riyaz Khan and Manoj in the Court on 01.06.2006. In cross examination, PW6 stated that he did not maintain any contract or agreement or any log book to shown that he had given the TSR to State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 6/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 Riyaz Khan. He did not lodge complaint with the police about the missing of TSR and Riyaz Khan or the fact that Riyaz Khan did not return his TSR on 30.05.2006, 31.05.2006 or 01.06.2006. PW6 denied that he had never given any TSR on rent or other wise to Riyaz Khas. He denied that he had no concern with TSR no. UP 16 L 8676. PW2 stated that he had seen accused Manoj with Riyaz Khan whenever he had visited the house of Riyaz Khan. PW6 testified that he had seen accused Manoj in the company of accused Riyaz whenever he visited the house of Riyaz Khan but he could not tell dates of such visits.
8. Sh. Jaan Mohd. (PW9) deposed that Muskan @ Sarita (deceased) was his wife. He deposed that she remained with him for the last three four years and thereafter she left him. In cross examination, he stated that his wife left him due to her loose character and she had left him twice or thrice prior to the day when she lastly left his house . PW9 stated that she used to go without information to him and used to come back on her own due to her loose character. She was arrested in different police station in ITP Act cases. PW9 admitted that police tried to falsely implicate him in this case. Sh. Jai Pal (PW11) did not utter anything against accused. He deposed that he had not seen anything. He did not know anything about this case. He was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State. In cross examination, he denied having made any statement to the police. He denied that he had seen a TSR coming from Sangam Vihar or in that TSR two persons were sitting along with a Girl. He denied that that the girl was raising alarm 'bachao bachao' and he had seen the TSR going towards jungle side after passing from his STD shop. He denied that he had seen TSR and noticed any tape pasted on the back side.
9. Sh. Khalil Ahmad (PW17) deposed that he knew Jaan Mohd. Who got married with deceased Sarita @ Sheetal and three years prior to the incident she had left Jaan Mohd. In cross examination, PW17 stated that he did not know why Sheetal had left Jaan Mohd. PW17 had not seen any quarrel between Jaan Mohd. and his wife. He did not know about the native place of Sheetal @ Sarita or about her parents.
State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 7/17
ID No.02403R0482022006
10. Sh. Vikas Sharma (PW18) identified accused Riyaz Khan as his tenant who resided at G763, Sangam Vihar and accused Manoj Kumar resided at F3 Block, Sangam Vihar, who used to visit at the room of accused Riyaz Khan. PW18 stated that accused Riyaz Khan used to drive a TSR belong to UP number and used to park TSR in front of the house of owner of TSR. In cross examination, he stated that premises no. G763, Sangam Vihar was at a distance of 34 kilometers from his residence. He used to visit G763 Sangam Vihar only once in a month for taking rent from his uncle Sh. Naresh, who was the caretaker of that property. He never visited the tenanted room in the property no. G763, Sangam Vihar. He was not aware of the names and addresses of any of tenants. After showing the accused persons by the police he came to know their names . PW18 did not know the registration number of the TSR which was driven by accused Riyaz. PW18 admitted that number of TSR bearing UP number ply in that area. Jai Prakash (PW26), deposed that he had seen two accused standing near the TSR when he had dropped the deceased from his motorcycle near Bandh L block, Sangam Vihar. PW26 deposed that he was called on 31.05.2006 by the police who restrained him in the Police Station for two day. Police did not make any inquiries from him except if he knew Sheetal. Police officials told him that one Bunty and Sheetal were required in a dacoity case and were absconding. Police took him to Shafdarjung Hospital and shown him the dead body of Sheetal and he identified her from the names engraved on her hand. PW26 deposed that police brought him to the Police Station and obtained his signatures on several papers. He did not know anything else. He deposed that the police did not arrest any person on his pointing and police never recorded his statement. He was declared hostile and cross examined by Ld. Addl.PP. In his cross examination, PW26 denied that on 31.05.2006 and on 02.06.2006 police recorded his statement. PW26 denied that he identified accused Riyaz Khan alongwith who the deceased accompanied with other boy and had gone the house of her mausi. He denied that both accused persons made disclosure statements in his presence or that the accused Riyaz Khan got recovered one 'Nirodh' which was stated to be State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 8/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 used in the intercourse with the deceased or that the IO had seized the same. He denied that accused Riyaz got recovered one bag of 'ELLE PARIS' which was stated to be containing the clothes of the deceased consisting of two suits out of which one was stated to be containing the clothes of the deceased consisting of two suits out of which one was of pink colour and another was white blue colour. He stated that in the Court on seeing accused persons perhaps he could identify them and after seeing the accused persons, he could not identify them as the same persons, which were seen by him on 30.05.2006. PW26 deposed that he was wearing helmet and was sitting on motorcycle and those two persons were standing at a distance of 100150 meters and were not facing him. Police and other witnesses
11. Sub Inspector Mahesh Kumar (PW2) prepared scaled site plan (Ex. PW2/A). Head Constable Vinod Kumar (PW5) received information from unknown person that dead body of a female was lying in naked condition at jungleahead of Nahri Baba Mandir. He reduced the information into writing and placed on record copy of DD no. 22A (Ex.PW5/A). PW5 registered FIR (Ex.PW5/B) on the basis of rukka received through Constable Vijay sent by SHO Jai Singh, PS Sangam Vihar. Constable Girdhar (PW7) took seven photographs (Ex.PW7/A to 7/G) and negatives (Ex.PW7/1 to 12) of dead body. PW7 deposed that he developed seven positive photographs although he took 12 photographs as some photographs were taken twice and were identical. In cross examination, he stated that he had not witnessed any signs of dragging near the spot or adjacent to the dead body. PW7 deposed that the entire surface was rough and was not appropriate for driving the vehicle. They had parked their official vehicle outside on the main road. Sub Inspector Vijay Pal Dahiya (PW8) was the First Investigating officer. On 30.05.2006, he reached at the spot and saw the dead body of a female in nude condition , aged about 25 to 26 years, her face was burnt, some burnt wooden sticks were also kept on her face. One sandle was also lying on her face. One liquor bottle was found inserted inside her vagina. One blood stained stone was lying behind her head. Blood was State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 9/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 oozing out from her face, some broken bangles were lying there. He placed on record site plan (Ex. PW8/A) prepared by SHO. He is witness to seizure memo of burnt wooden sticks (Ex.PW8/B), broken bangles (Ex.PW8/C), liquor bottle (Ex.PW8/D),blood stained stone (Ex.PW8/E), earth control (Ex.PW8/F), blood stained earth (Ex.PW8/G), burnt clothes (Ex.PW8/H). He placed on record Form no. 25.35 (b) (Ex.PW8/J).
12. Retired Sub Inspector Ram Kishan (PW12) joined the investigation along with Ct. Vijay and Ishwar. He is witness of seizure memo prepared by IO. Constable Vijay Kumar (PW13) joined the investigation along with SI Ram Kishan. He is witness of arrest memos (Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW13/I) of accused and their personal search memos (Ex.PW13/C, Ex.PW13/D and Ex.PW13/J), seizure memo (Ex.PW13/F) of clothes of deceased, seizure memos (Ex.PW13/G and Ex.PW13/H) of blood stained clothes of accused Manoj and Riyaz, seizure memo of (Ex.PW13/K) of TSR bearing no. UP 16 8776. Inspector Vinod Pal (PW14) prepared scene of crime (SOC) report (Ex.PW14/A). Constable Anil Kumar (PW15) received authority letter to obtain the expert opinion regarding weapon of offence from Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS from IO/Inspector Jai Singh. PW15 collected opinion and received the sealed parcel of weapon of offence and handed over the same to IO. Constable Ishwar Singh (PW19) joined the investigation along with SI Ram Kishan and Constable Vijay. Constable Rajesh (PW20) received sealed parcel of stone vide RC No. 252/21 and deposited the same in AIIMS Hospital for obtaining expert opinion.
13. Head Constable Sharwan (PW21) joined the investigation along with Inspector Jai Singh. He is witness of disclosure statement of Riyaz Khan and of Manoj Kumar (Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B), pointing out memo of place of occurrence (Ex.PW21/C). On 03.06.2006 he along with IO reached at house no. G477, near Maya Goel Public school, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi where accused Satish was arrested and his disclosure statement (Ex.PW21/D) was recorded. PW21 placed on record photographs (Ex.PW21/10 to 21/12) of TSR No. UP 16 State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 10/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 L 8676recovered from G block, Primary School, Sangam Vihar. Head Constable Om Prakash (PW22) MHC(M) placed on record register no. 19 (Ex.PW22/A). Sub Inspector Ram Sahai (PW23) joined the investigation. Head Constable Bhagwan Sahay (PW24) received copy of FIR no. 512/06 and delivered the same to ACP and DCP concerned being special messenger. Inspector Jai Singh (PW25) Investigating Officer investigated the case and placed on record some documents prepared by him during the course of investigation. Statements of accused
14. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. All the accused pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused Riyaz and Manoj stated that they had an altercation with one beat Constable in the Sangam Vihar area. Accused Satish stated that he was taken away by the police on the pretext of making some inquiry. Defence Evidence
15. Accused Manoj produced Sh. Sukh Narayan his father as DW1 in his defence. He stated that his son was taken away from his house in his presence at about 06:00pm on 28.05.2006 on the pretext of making some inquiry. He had gone to the police station on the night of 28.05.2006 as well as on 29.05.2006 and on 30.05.2006 to enquire about him, police officials told him that he would be released after making enquiries. On 30.05.2006, they were informed that his son had been arrested in a murder case. Accused Satish produced Smt. Shanti Devi his mother as DW2 in his defence. She stated that Satish was doing labour job in Mehrauli and about five years ago, it was summer season, on 28th day police had taken away his son. She had gone to chowki Sangam Vihar. The police personnel who had taken her son Satish with them had demanded money to release him.
16. I have heard submissions advanced by Sh. WasiUrRehman, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. Jagdeep Vats Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj and Satish and Sh. Chandan Malik Ld. Counsel for accused Riyaz Khan and have perused the material on record carefully.
State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 11/17
ID No.02403R0482022006
Submissions advanced
17. Ld. Addl. PP submits that PW11 and PW26 were the last seen witnesses and although they turned hostile on vital points, but the inference of the company of accused persons with the deceased soon before her death can be easily drawn, which is sufficient to convict the accused persons. He submits that in view of the testimony of PW6 and PW18 , it is proved that the TSR in which the deceased was taken by accused persons was in possession of accused Riyaz Khan and plied by him and residence of accused Riyaz Khan and regular visits of coaccused Manoj to his residence is proved. Ld. Addl. PP submits that other material witnesses, who have been examined proved all the proceedings and formal circumstances of this case. He submits that in view of this, case is proved beyond doubt and accused persons are liable to be convicted.
18. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsels submits that star witnesses of prosecution have turned hostile on all aspects. It is submitted that the chain of circumstance has not been completed by the prosecution. There is nothing on record to connect the accused persons with the commission of crime and there is not an iota of evidence on record to show that accused persons had entered into any conspiracy or had any meeting of mind for commission of this offence. Ld. Counsels submits that none of the material witness identified the accused persons. None of the witness had deposed that accused Riyaz or Manoj were seen going in the TSR No UP 16 L 8676 on which "Master" was written and was having brown tape.
Legal Position
19. Before embarking upon the discussion of evidence, it may be noted that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. Suspicion howsoever strong, it may be, cannot take the place of proof. In Savita alias Babbal vs State of Delhi reported at 2011 (3) JCC 1687 reference was made to "Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC 1622)".
State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 12/17
ID No.02403R0482022006
Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The following conditions precedent, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
(v)) 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 probability the act must have been done by the accused.
20. Legal position is also well settled that mere recovery of the blood stained clothes or weapons at the instance of accused do not lead to a conclusion that accused persons are the perpetrator of the crime. In a decision reported as 'Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab AIR 1994 SC 110', a watch belonging to the deceased and one dagger found to be stained with human blood were recovered at the instance of the accused. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that said recovery by itself, does not connect the accused person with the murder of the deceased. It was further held that said circumstance may create some suspicion but the same cannot take the place of proof. In the decision reported as 'Prabhoo vs State of UP AIR 1963 SC 1113' a kulhari, a shirt and a dhoti which were found to be stained with human blood were recovered from the house of State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 13/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 the accused, at his instance. It was held that it is well settled that circumstantial evidence must be such as to lead to a conclusion which on any reasonable hypothesis is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and not with his innocence and that from the mere production of the blood stained articles by the accused, one cannot come to the conclusion that the accused committed the murder inasmuch as the fact of production cannot be said to be consistent only with guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence, for the reason it is quite possible that someone else committed the murder and kept the blood stained articles in the house of the accused.
Discussion of evidence
21. On the touchstone of aforesaid position of law, now I would examine the evidence on record. Admittedly there is no eye witness or any direct evidence on record to link the accused with the offence in question. The case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance, put forth by the prosecution is 'last seen evidence' of PWs Jai Pal and Jai Prakash. These two witnesses PW11 and PW26 have not supported the case of prosecution at all and thus, the last seen evidence relied upon by the prosecution has not been proved. Sh. Jai Pal (PW11) did not say anything against accused. He was declared hostile and cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. In cross examination, he denied all the suggestions put to him by Ld. APP. He categorically denied the suggestion that he had seen a TSR coming from Sangam Vihar or in that TSR two persons were sitting along with a Girl. He denied that he had seen any TSR having any tape pasted on the back side. Jai Prakash (PW26) although in his examination in chief, deposed that he had seen two accused standing near the TSR when he had dropped the deceased from his motorcycle near Bandh L block, Sangam Vihar, but in the cross examination he deposed that he could not identify the accused persons. He explained that they were wearing helmets and were at a distance of 100150 meters from him and he could not see their faces. According to him, that on 31.05.2006, he was restrained by the police in the Police Station for two days. He only identified the State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 14/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 dead body of the deceased by the 'names engraved on her hand'. He was also declared hostile and cross examined by Ld. Additional PP. PW26 denied that he identified accused Riyaz Khan alongwith who the deceased accompanied with other boy and had gone the house of her mausi. He denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld. Additional PP that both accused persons made disclosure statements in his presence or that any recovery was effected in his presence by the Police at the instance of accused Riyaz.
22. Other material witnesses examined by the prosecution also have not come to assistance of prosecution. Nemveer (PW3), the Exhusband of deceased, deposed that two boys who had allegedly killed his Exwife Sheetal @ Sarita came to his house with Sheetal three days prior to her murder. Strangely PW3, identified one Mushtaq, an accused, who had appeared in the Court in another case FIR no. 202/08 PS Sangam Vihar as the person who had come to his house with his Ex. Wife. Mushtaq @ Bunty later on appeared as PW27 in this case. He admitted that his name was engraved on the arms of deceased which was 'sixth name' on her arm. He admitted that he had never seen accused persons namely, Riyaz, Manoj and Satish in the company of Sheetal @ Sarita. Thus, last scene evidence has not been proved.
23. FSL report (Ex. PA) as regards serological analysis of blood indicated 'no reaction'. As per the doctor matching of the blood group alone was not enough to establish individual identity and only DNA analysis and Finger Printing (Dactylography) could establish individual identity. Other circumstance alleged against the accused persons was recovery of articles consisting of some personal belonging, lady's bag, cosmetics etc. of the deceased at the instance of accused Riyaz from his room and clothes of the accused and their link with the TSR allegedly seen by Jai Prakash (PW26). There is nothing on record to show any satisfactory nexus of accused with the alleged blood on the clothes. There is no satisfactory evidence on record to show that the articles i.e. bag and cosmetics allegedly recovered from the house of accused Riyaz at G763, Sangam Vihar belonged to be deceased. Mohd. Kesar Ansari (PW6) only deposed State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 15/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 regarding the fact that TSR no. UP 16 L 8676 belonging to him was being plied by Riyaz Khan and that he had come to his house at about 07:00 am and took his TSR and was accompanied by one Manoj and that tape of brown colour pasted on both sides of TSR and "Master" was written on the rear glass of the TSR. PW25/IO admitted that no registration number of the TSR was given by Jai Prakash, when he was interrogated. He could not tell the names and addresses of the persons, who had disclosed about seeing the TSR and stated that their statement was not recorded. He deposed that there was no complaint of missing of TSR by Kesar Ansari and there was no proof of the ownership of TSR in his name. PW SI Ram Sahai (PW23) made contradictory statement. In his cross examination, conducted on 15.04.2011, PW23 deposed that G763, Sangam Vihar was single storyed house whereas in his cross examination conducted on 26.04.2011, he deposed that it was a two storyed house. This evidence again makes dent in the story of prosecution.
24. Furthermore, evidence of vikas Sharma (PW18) that Riyaz Khan was his tenant at house G763, Sangam Vihar and Manoj used to visit his room and Riyaz used to ply TSR belonging to UP number is not credit worthy in view of what he deposed in the cross examination. Sh. Vikas Sharma (PW18) could not tell the number of registration number of the TSR. PW18, who was the alleged landlord of the accused Riyaz deposed that he used to collect rent from Naresh, his uncle who was the caretaker of that house. PW18 could not tell the names as well as numbers of the tenants. He deposed that only Naresh, used to collect rent from the tenants was aware of their names and addresses being the caretaker. Naresh has not been examined by the prosecution. Significantly, PW18 admitted that police had shown him the accused persons and only then he came to know their names. No prosecution witness has deposed that the deceased was seen with the accused persons or had come at the residence of accused or at G763, Sangam Vihar. No public witness has been joined at the time of alleged recovery. IO (PW25) deposed that he had not confirmed the factum of Riyaz Khan residing at G763, Sangam Vihar from any of the State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 16/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 occupants or from the owner or caretaker of the said property. He admitted that there was no proof to show the tenancy of the accused in the said room and no lock or key of the said room was seized by him. IO admittedly, did not lift any fingerprints from House No. G763, allegedly occupied by accused Riyaz Khan and Manoj. IO admitted that he had not prepared any site plan of the alleged place of recovery i.e. G763 and F3/786. Thus, it has not established beyond doubt that accused Riyaz was residing as tenant or was occupant in the house No. G763. Recovery of clothes from the house of the accused Manoj at F3/786 has also not been prove beyond doubt. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, recovery of aforesaid articles from House No. G763 and House No. F3/786 at the instance of accused persons is highly doubtful. Conclusion
25. Thus, on overall appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court finds that there there is no evidence on record to prove that accused persons entered into any conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased on 30.05.2006. Aforesaid discussion of the evidence shows, that prosecution has not been able to establish any of the alleged 'circumstances' and the chain of circumstances is not complete. This Court finds, that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubtful. In the result, accused persons namely Riyaz Khan, Manoj and Satish are hereby acquitted from the charges. File be consigned to Record Room.
announced in the open court on 21st January, 2012. (VINAY KUMAR KHANNA) Additional Sessions Judge04 (SouthEast) Saket/New Delhi State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 17/17 ID No.02403R0482022006
1. Before analyzing factual aspects and adverting to arguments advanced by ld.defence counsel, it may be stated that for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. ( Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1063). Onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 18/17
ID No.02403R0482022006
In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. In Kali Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh,AIR 1973 SC 2773, their lordships of hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
''golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused , the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. It was further observed : ''It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot but be felt State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 19/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 in a civilised society. All this highlights the importance of ensuring, as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the administration of criminal justice. Such a risk can be minimised but not ruled out altogether.'' Their lordships of hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests: (i)the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii)those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii)the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
(iv)the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
(Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs State of M.P.(AIR 1952 SC 3443). Arun Bhanudas Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2008(1)C.C.Cases(SC)261.) State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 20/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 21/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 Discussion of Evidence
11. As regards the motive, Amit Chauhan (PW6) has not supported the story of prosecution. PW6 denied categorically that he had told to the police that around 40 days prior to the incident when he was going in RTV from Kalindi Kunj side, accused Latif, Vinay and Sanjeev were running. He denied that he asked from accused why they were running or they told him that they had sold mobile phone to Sandeep (deceased) who had not paid money for that mobile. Thus, motive of commission of crime has not been established.
12. The present case primarily hinges upon the testimony of Mahipal (PW2), the alleged eyewitness. So long as the single eye witness is a reliable witness, the Court has no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. In a case of circumstantial evidence, different consideration prevail because the balance of evidence after excluding the testimony of the eye witnesses is not of the standard required in cases dependent wholly on circumstantial evidence. In a case, where the eye witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness and his testimony is discarded in toto, no amount of corroboration can cure that defect. In the present case, the testimony of Mahipal (PW2) does not at all inspires confidence. Before I, discuss the testimony of PW2, it may be noted what Rakesh Kumar (PW7) deposed. Constable Rakesh Kumar (PW7) deposed in the cross examination. that he reached at the spot at 02:35pm. SHO and Addl. SHO had also reached at the spot after about five/ten minutes of their arrival. More than hundred persons had gathered at the spot. Nobody came forward as a witness of the scene of occurrence. He admitted that near Dusshera ground there were residential houses on either side. PW7 deposed that he remained at the spot for about two hours before receiving the rukka. The dead body was identified by a person who claimed the deceased to be his nephew. He remained at the spot for about 20 minutes. He had not signed any document during the investigation of this case. At 06:30pm, he had left for AIIMS mortuary when he had taken the dead body to the mortuary. After he had returned with the rukka from the PS, even at that time, no public person had appeared an eye witness or even the next State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 22/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 day at the time of postmortem, no person had appeared claiming to be the eye witness of the incident.
13. In the cross examination, Mahipal (PW2) deposed that the name of deceased's father was Prem Singh Nagar. He did not remember when postmortem of deceased was conducted. PW2 stated that all his brothers were present at the time of cremation of deceased. PW2 deposed that on the day of incident, he had brought two buffaloes from village Bahardurpur on a hired tempo. He did not know owner of the tempo. He could not tell the name of transport company. He had never driven tempo of the transport company for bringing two buffaloes. He deposed that the transport company was in industrial area at Ghaziabad. He could not tell the number of tempo. PW2 deposed that he did not bring helper along with the hired tempo. The transport company people did not ask him to take helper. He did not take help even from the village from where he took buffaloes. He stated that from Bahadurpur village, he reached Bhopra. From Bhopra, he reached Mohan Nagar. From Mohan Nagar, he reached Noida and from Noida via Yamuna Bridge Sarita Vihar, he came to Delhi. He reached Delhi during afternoon time and at that time there was no restriction for entry of the vehicles. He had gone to Hari chand Pradhan's house via Madanpur canal. PW2 deposed that he reached Hari Chand Pradhan's place where buffaloes were being kept during afternoon. He could not tell the exact time when he reached there. He stated that nothing was jotted down while handing over possession of the buffaloes and while receiving money. He deposed that no receipt for receiving cash was given to anyone. He left the house of Hari Chand Pradhan after selling his buffaloes at about 01:45pm. He had taken the same route by which he had come to the house of Hari Chand Pradhan but changed his route and had started going towards Dusshera ground. He had chosen the route of small lanes instead of direct pakka road adjacent to Agra canal by which he had come earlier. He stopped his tempo because many persons had gathered there and he inquired from them as to what had happened. In spur of the moment they five or six persons stabbed Sandeep (deceased) and ran away on State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 23/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 two motorcycles. He did not make any hue and cry after the accused persons had left the scene of occurrence. On asking , he stated that he did not try to reach near the injured Sandeep and did not try to give or provide water to him. Many persons had gathered at the house of Subhash and he brought them in his tempo at the spot. PW2 deposed that the two motorcycles were lying standing at the place of incident which is not the case of prosecution. He was confronted with statement (Ex PW2/DB) where it was not recorded that six boys were stabbing Sandeep (deceased). PW2 deposed that he had lifted deceased when they had reached at the spot along with other family members, then he came to know that he had died. Police did not obtain his signatures on any document at the spot. PW2 deposed that after selling the buffaloes, he was going to his house at village Mathura Pur, District Ghaziabad. The place of occurrence was a crowded place which was about 400 meters from the road from where he was passing. He admitted that he had not given any physical description of any of the assailants to the police. He did not disclose the wearing clothes of the assailants to the police. Police did not ask him about the description or about the clothes/apparels of the assailants . He admitted that the time when he had left the spot, the police party left the spot at the same time.
14. The aforesaid testimony of Mahipal (PW2) shows that his conduct is not natural. Admittedly, he did not stop at the place of occurrence, even after seeing his nephew lying in an injured condition. He did not come to the assistance of Sandeep (deceased), and did not even offer him a glass of water. He went away without informing to the police and came back to the spot only after one and half hour along with other family members. According to him, he was passing through the Agra Canal road almost at the same time when the incident was occurring. He failed to give any explanation as to why he came through kacha road and the narrow lanes instead of going through the main road or through the same route through which he allegedly came, had gone to sell his buffaloes. Next, he saw the crowd from a distance of 400 meters and then came at the spot and thereafter, he inquired as to what had happened. Whereas, in State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 24/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 examination in chief Mahipal (PW2), stated that five six boys were attacking Sandeep meaning thereby he had witnessed the incident and if , he had come to the place of occurrence after seeing the crowd and inquired as to what had happened would indicate that he had come to the spot after the incident had already occurred. Further more, SI Girijesh (PW19) deposed that Mahipal (PW2) came at 06:30pm, and by that time, dead body of deceased had already been shifted. Inspector V. P. Dhaiya (PW22) narrated the sequence of events showing that when Mahipal (PW2) had reached at the spot, the dead body of deceased had already been shifted. Constable Rakesh (PW7) who had taken the rukka from the spot to the PS at 04:30 pm and came back to the spot with copy of FIR and rukka after 20 minutes of registration of FIR at 04:50 pm, deposed that no public witness had appeared as eye witness. He went a step further, while deposing that even till the time of postmortem, no person had appeared claiming to be an eye witness. Whereas, Mahipal (PW2) stated that when he returned back after one and half hour, he lifted the dead body, then he came to know that he had died. Viewed from any angle, the intrinsic worth of the testimony of Mahipal (PW2) does not seems credible and his presence at the spot at the time of alleged incident appears to be highly doubtful. In a decision reported as 'Anil Phukan vs State of Assam AIR 1993, 1462 SC' referred by Sh. Shivaji Shukla , Ld. Defence Counsel, facts were similar. The unnatural conduct of eye witness was that at the time of occurrence he made no attempt to save his uncle from the assailant. He did not continue to stay there and did not himself lodged FIR, as in this case. Hon'ble Supreme Court made observations about the doubtful aspect in the conduct of alleged eye witness.
15. Now, the other 'circumstance' alleged against the accused is the recovery of motorcycle from the road at a distance from the spot and the statement of Ravinder (PW11). PW11 deposed that on 08.12.2007, he was going to his house for taking lunch. About 50 to 60 public persons were making noise when he reached there. He did not make any call on 100 number nor inform to any police officials. After two days of the incident, he was called by State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 25/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 the IO to the PS. When he came back from his house after taking lunch. Then, he reached at the spot and met with police officials at the spot and told them about the motorcycle to the police officials, whereas, motorcycle had already been seized by the IO vide memo (Ex. PW19/A). Ravinder (PW11) is not a witness to this seizure memo. He remained in his house for 10 minutes, but he did not remember the exact time when he came back from his house. As per IO, he came back after 05:00 pm and incident occurred at about 02:15 pm. He chased the accused persons for about one and half kilometer by his car, the motorcycle slipped and accused person ran away towards streets. According to PW11, he was only once called to the PS at morning hours. He did not remember the date. He could not tell if the police had recorded his statement or not, at one point. Then, he stated that police had called him two day's after the incident to make inquiries regarding motorcycle. Police had not recorded his statement on 08.12.2007. He did not get off from the cemented road towards Dussera ground. He did not know what was done by motorcyclist. After the motorcyclist slipped, he did not ran after them, after getting off from his car. Motorcycle is stated to be in the name of Munni Devi, who in her testimony (appeared as DW1) deposed that motorcycle was taken away by police from her residence. It has also come on record and already has been noticed above that motorcycle had already been seized by the IO before Ravinder (PW11) returned to the spot after 05:00 pm. Thus, motorcycle had not been recovered at the instance of Ravinder (PW11) but has already been seized before Ravinder (PW11) came at the spot. PW11 had not seen the faces of accused and had not identified the persons. The place from where motorcycle is recovered has not been established beyond doubt. No site plan in this regard is prepared or placed on record.
16. Now, I shall advert to the recovery of knives and blood stained clothes of accused from them. In this regard, Learned Defence counsel relied upon Dudh Nath Pandey vs State of UP1981 AIR 911. It has already been noticed above that evidence of recovery of the knives at the instance of the accused State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 26/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 cannot by itself prove the offence. In the instant case, evidence surrounding the discovery of the knives does not inspires any confidence at all, in view of testimony of Ajab Singh (PW18), the real uncle of deceased. It is interesting to note that one uncle Mahipal (PW2) reached by chance at the time of incident on 08.12.2007 and another uncle Ajaib Singh (PW18) reached at the spot of alleged recovery also by chance on 12.12.2007. This seems inherently improbable. PW18 deposed that the police officials reached at Lohia Pul with the accused persons, where at the instance of accused Kamal one knife was recovered by the police. Accused Kamal took out the knife from the bushed and produced before the police. Thereafter, PW18 alongwith police officials and accused persons reached at Kalandi Kunj area. From there accused Amit took out a knife from the bushes and produced before the IO. Thereafter, PW18 alongwith police officials and accused persons reached behind Haldiram Sweets near Railway line, from where one knife was taken out again from the bushes by accused Bhola and produced before the IO.
17. In cross examination, PW18 deposed that his relatives reside in Mithapur. On that day he went to meet them. The name of his relative who resides in Mithapur whose name is Pappu S/o Gyano. His village Mathurapur is situated prior to Muradnagar. He stated that Prem Singh Nagar who resides in Mithapur is his brother. He had come in a bus from Bhopra to Mohan Nagar and from Mohan Nagar to Anand Vihar again in a bus and from Anand Vihar again he took a bus and reached at Badarpur. From Badarpur, he took a Mini Bus and got off at Lohiya Pul, Agra Cannal Road, from there he proceeded on foot for Mithapur. On seeing a crowd of people near Lohiya Pul, he out of curiosity, got down. Mithapur was at the distance of 2.53 KM from Lohiya Pul. Police asked about his identity and told him about the facts and circumstances of the case. Strangely, prior to his joining the investigation, he had no knowledge about the facts and circumstance of the present case. Although, Prem Singh Nagar, father of deceased was his real brother and he knew that Sandeep S/o Prem Singh Nagar had expired on 08.12.2007. He admitted that Mahipal was his real State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 27/17 ID No.02403R0482022006 brother. He told to the police that his nephew had expired. He stated that when knife was recovered it was having blood stains but according to SI Hira Lalm (PW21), it was a brand new knife. PW18 stated that he has participated in the funeral of Sandeep. He stated that IO had perhaps affixed 'DPD' seal after sealing the knife. He could not tell to whom that seal belonged and could not say to whom the seal was handed over. Interestingly, he stated that no other article apart from knife was recovered in his presence, although, he is shown to be a witness to recovery of blood stained clothes of accused. He came to know about the incident on 08.12.2007 evening on reaching his village. Police had met him at Lohia Pul at about 08:30 am on 12.12.2007. According to PW18, bushes were spread over a large area of land beneath the Lohia Pul and there was movement of public as well as vehicle, on the road below the pul. PW18 was not sure, if the police measured knives in his presence. He stated that IO had not put any distinguishing mark to identify which knife was recovered from which accused. Ajaib Singh (PW18) admitted that he had signed threefour plain papers given by police officials. It also does not seems convincing that after four days of commission of offence, accused would be wearing same blood stained clothes. There is merit in the submission of Learned Counsel that accused would not hide the knife in the bushes instead of throwing in Agra canal which was adjoining to the bushes.
announced in the
(Vinay Kumar Khanna)
open court on Additional Sessions Judge04(SE)
3rd December, 2011 Saket Court/New Delhi
State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 28/17
ID No.02403R0482022006
State Vs. Prashant
SC No. 132/10
FIR No. 564/07
PS : S. N. Puri
03.10.2011
Present : Sh. WasiUrRehman, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused is on bail.
PW1 Mrs. Archana and PW2 W/ASI Adreena are examined and discharged.
As no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.
Arguments heard. Vide separate judgment announced in the open court, accused is acquitted from the charges. The bonds which have been furnished by the accused shall remain valid for a period of six months as required u/s 437A Cr.P.C..
File be consigned to Record Room.
(VINAY KUMAR KHANNA)
Additional Sessions Judge04
Saket Courts, New Delhi
03.10.2011
State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 29/17
ID No.02403R0482022006
In the decision reported as 'Deva Singh vs State of Rajasthan 1999 Cril. J 265 Supreme Court' had held that merely because a knife is alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused would not lead to a conclusion that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime of the murder.
State Vs Riyaz Khan @ Raju and ors. SC No. 81/2010 30/17