Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Karma Agarwal on 29 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. BANSAL : SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
S.C. No. 50/10
FIR No. 97/10
P.S. Bhalsawa Dairy
U/s 302/201/34 IPC
State Versus 1. Karma Agarwal
S/o Moti Lal Agarwal
R/o H. No. 78, Gali no. 2,
Sirhind Brahman Manjra,
Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib,
Punjab
2. Satnam @ Sattu
S/o Balbir Singh
R/o Ward no. 12,
Sirhind Brahman Manjra,
Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib,
Punjab
Date of Receipt : 18.10.2010
Date of arguments : 16.11.2011
Date of Decision : 19.11.2011
JUDGMENT :
1. The accused Karma Agarwal, Satnam @ Sattu, Babbi (not arrested) and Smt. Karuna (not arrested) have been chargesheeted by Police Station Bhalsava Dairy for commission of offences under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 1 of 43
2. Case of the prosecution, briefly stated is that on 22.05.2010, a call was received in the Police Control Room that a dead body of 35 years male is lying near Bhalsawa Dairy Jheel, MCD Workship and DD no. 6A was recorded in this regard at PS Bhalsawa Dairy. Police reached there. Dead body was found in burnt condition and near the dead body, one driving license in the name of Karma Aggarwal, one voter Icard in the name of Karma Aggarwal, one wallet, three photographs and a paper slip having telephone number 9910291584 were found. A telephone contact was made on the mobile number found written on the slip, which was found near the dead body and one Babbi responded on that telephone. He was told about the recovery of the dead body. He reached the mortuary along with one Karuna and they identified the dead body as to Karma Aggarwal. Post mortem was got conducted on the dead body. As it was a case of murder, therefore, FIR no. 97/10 u/s 302 IPC was registered.
3. On 27.06.2010, one Rajpal came to the PS and told the police that on 26.06.2010, Karma Agarwal and Sattu came to his house and they told that they had killed one unknown person sitting on the patri, put his own clothes on him and burnt him, so that he may escape from the cases pending against him. Thereafter on 28.08.2010, both the accused Karma Aggarwal and Satnam @ Sattu were apprehended from near Gurudwara, NDPL Power House, Bhalsawa Chowk. They confessed about the commission of crime. FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 2 of 43
After completion of the investigation, chargesheet against all the four accused was filed in the court.
4. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the court of Sessions as the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
5. Both the accused Karma Aggarwal and Satnam @ Sattu were charged for the offences punishable U/s 302/201/34 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
6. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 28 witnesses and thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.
7. HC Anand SinghIncharge of PCR Van commander was examined as PW1 and he stated that on 22.05.10, on receiving a call regarding dead body, he along with staff reached at MCD Workshop near lake, where he found the dead body of a male aged about 32 years in burnt condition and one driving license and one voter Identity card in the name of Karma Aggarwal was found lying near the dead body.
FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 3 of 43
8. Sh. Raj Palthe complainant was examined as PW2. He stated that his daughter Karuna was married with accused Karma Aggarwal and out of this wedlock, two boys were born. He also stated that accused was lodged in various jails from time to time and that he was dealing in Afeem and Bhuki etc. He stated that on 23.05.2010, he received a telephone call of his daughter Karuna, who told him, "Papa kisi ne karma ko jala kar marr diya hai". She also told him that she is coming to Delhi. He along with Karuna, his soninlaw Babbi and wife went to the mortuary of Jagjeevan Ram Hospital and there one badly burnt dead body was shown, which was identified as that of Karma on the basis of clothes and documents i.e. driving license etc. recovered. Witness further stated that on 26.06.2010, at about 6.00 AM, he received telephone call of accused Karma, who told him that he wants to meet him and requested him to come to Nathu Pura and also asked him not to call him as Karma, but to call him as Vaaris. He reached Nathu Pura, where Karma met him and Satnam was also with him at that time and Karma told him that, "he with the help of accused Sattu killed one unknown person and they burnt his dead body with the help of kerosene oil." Karma also told him that he had done this to get rid of his all previous cases. Witness thereafter informed the police on 27.06.2010. He also stated that his statement was recorded by one Judge Sahab on 13.07.2010 in the chamber, which was also proved as Ex. PW2/A. He identified the burnt FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 4 of 43 clothes as Ex. P1 and also the burnt pieces of yellow white cross strip as Ex. P2.
9. During crossexamination, he was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C, wherein it was not found that Karma visited Delhi and also came to his house or that he along with his soninlaw Babi, daughter Karuna and his wife and some other person went to Jagjeevan Ram Hospital, where they saw one dead body, which was badly burnt. He was also confronted with his statement that on 26.06.2010, he received a phone call of accused Karma, who asked him to meet at Nathu Pura or that Sattu was also with him at that time. He was also confronted with his previous statement, wherein it is not mentioned that they burnt the dead body with the help of kerosene oil or that accused had told him that he had done this to get rid of his previous cases.
10. HC Narain Singhduty officer of PS Bhalsawa Dairy was examined as PW3 and he stated that on 22.05.2010 at about 7.04 am, wireless operator informed him that dead body of a male aged about 35 years is lying near Bhalaswa Dairy Jheel, MCD Workship and this call was recorded vide DD no. 6A, copy of which is proved as Ex. PW3/A and this DD was assigned to PSI Sandeep, who left for the spot along with Ct. Narender. FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 5 of 43
11. HC Mahender Singhduty officer of PS Bhalsawa Dairy was examined as PW4 and on 26.06.2010, on receipt of rukka from SI Rajender Singh, he got recorded the FIR no. 97/10 u/s 302 through the computer operator and copy of FIR is proved as Ex. PW4/A and endorsement is proved as Ex. PW4/B. After registration of the FIR, investigation was assigned to Inspector Ram Pal Singh.
12. Ct. Amit Kumar was examined as PW5 and on 23.05.2010, he along with SI Rajender went to BJRM Hospital mortuary for getting the postmortem conducted on the dead body and after postmortem, doctor handed over some sealed pullandas and sample seals, which he handed over to SI Rajender Singh and SI Rajender Singh took the same into possession vide memos proved as Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW5/C.
13. Dr. Rahul was examined as PW6 and he examined accused/patient Karma Agarwal and noted down his findings encircled in red, proved as Ex. PW6/A.
14. Ct. Satya Parkash was examined as PW7 and he collected exhibits vide RC no. 14/21/10 and deposited the same at FSL, but some of the exhibits were not received by FSL official because of some objection and as such, he returned the same to the MHCM. He stated that till the exhibits remained in his custody, these were not tampered with.
FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 6 of 43
15. Sh. Raj Kumar Asstt. Nodal Officr from Reliance Communication was examined as PW8 and he proved the call details of mobile no. 9355108260 as Ex. PW8/B, certificate u/s 65 of India Evidence Act as Ex. PW8/C and also stated that said mobile phone was n the name of Karuna Rani (wife of accused Karma Aggarwal) 2092, Part2, Ward6, Sirhind, House no. 2775, Hari Palace Road, Ambala City, Sirhind.
16. Sh. Neeraj Gaur, ld. M.M was examined as PW9 and he proved the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C of PW2 Rajpal recorded by him as already Ex. PW2/A and he also appended the certificate proved as Ex. PW9/B, certifying that it is the true and correct statement.
17. Dr. Diwakar PrashadJRO of Babu Jagjeevan Ram Hospital was examined as PW10 and on 29.06.2010, he examined accused Satnam @ Sattu vide MLC proved as Ex. PW10/A and accused Karma Aggarwal vide MLC already Ex. PW6/A.
18. SI Rajender Singh was examined as PW11. On receipt of the information, he reached on the spot and recovered one slip bearing telephone no. 9910291584. He dialed on the said number from his cellphone and on 23.05.2010, one Babbi s/o Kharag Singh and Smt. Karuna w/o Karma Aggarwal arrived at PS Bhalswa Dairy. Dead body was identified as that of FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 7 of 43 Karma Agarwal by Babbi and Karuna and thereafter, he got conducted the postmortem on the dead body and after postmortem the body was handed over to Babbi and Karuna. After the postmortem, doctor also handed over one viscera box and one sealed pullanda along with sample seal to PW11 SI Rajender Singh, which were taken into possession. During cross examination, PW11 specifically stated that "Telephone no. 9910291584 belonged to Babbi."
19. Sh. Vishal Gaurav Nodal Officr from Bharti Airtel was examined as PW12 and he proved the call details of mobile no. 9996425613 as Ex. PW12/A, certificate u/s 65 of India Evidence Act as Ex. PW12/B. He also proved the call details of mobile no. 9910291584 as Ex. PW12/C, certificate u/s 65 of India Evidence Act as Ex. PW12/D.
20. Ct. Jitender was examined as PW13. On 03.08.2010, he took one sealed pullanda long with sample seal to FSL and deposited the same there and on return to PS, he handed over the receipt to MHCM. Till pullanda remained in his custody, no body tampered with the same.
21. HC Brijpal SinghMHCM of PS Bhalsawa Dairy was examined as PW14 and he proved the entries regarding deposit of case property/exhibits in Mal khana as Ex. PW14/A, Ex. PW14/B and Ex. PW14/C. He also proved the FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 8 of 43 relevant entries of register no. 19 and 21 regarding sending of the exhibits to FSL on different dates as Ex. PW14/D to Ex. PW14/M. Till case property remained in his custody, no body tampered with the same.
22. Smt. Nirmala RaniElection Kanoongo of Election Office of Fatehgarh Sahab, Punjab was examined as PW15 and on 14.08.2010, on a query made by ASI Nag Singh regarding verification of election identity card no. KZN1746031, she gave a report on the back of the photocopy of the said election identity card proved as Ex. PW15/A.
23. SI Manohar Laldraftsman was examined as PW16 and he proved the scaled site plan of the spot as Ex. PW16/A.
24. ASI Nag Singh was examined as PW17. He stated that on 14.08.2010, on the instructions of the SHO, he visited the office of Tehsildar (Election) Fatehgarh Sahab, Punjab and collected the report regarding photocopy of election Icard of accused Karma Aggarwal. He further stated that on 17.08.2010, he again visited District Transport Officer, Fatehgarh Sahab and verified the driving licence no. 2760/C issued in the name of Karma Aggarwal. On return to Delhi, he handed over all the reports to the SHO.
25. Sh. Amit RawatSr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry) FSL Rohini was examined FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 9 of 43 as PW18 and he after examining the exhibits, reported that exhibits were found to contain ethyl alcohol 147.4 mg/100 ml of blood, vide his report proved as Ex. PW18/A.
26. Ms. L. Babyto DeviSr. Scientific Officer (Biology) FSL Rohini was examined as PW19 and she after examining the exhibits, reported vide her reports proved as Ex. PW19/A and Ex. PW19/B that blood was detected on exhibit 2 and it was found to be of human origin, but blood group could not be ascertained.
27. SI S.D. MeenaIncharge of mobile crime teamNorth West Distt. was examined as PW20 and he along with photographer and finger print expert reached the spot and he after inspection of the spot, prepared his report proved as Ex. PW20/A and handed over the same to IO.
28. SI Sandeep Kumar was examined as PW21. He stated that on 22.05.2010, on receipt of DD no. 6A, he along with Ct. Narender reached at Jheel near MCD Workshop and there they found one dead body in burnt condition. Crime team also reached the spot. He lifted the exhibits from the spot i.e. earth control, blood stained earth, one brown colour purse containing Rs. 230/ two photocopies of Election Icard of Karma Aggarwal, three photographs and one DL in the name of Karma Aggarwal and burnt cloth FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 10 of 43 pieces. He also found one paper slip on which number 09910291584 was written, lying at the spot near the purse. He took into possession all these exhibits and got the dead body shifted to mortuary of BJRM Hospital.
29. Ct. Narender was examined as PW22 and on 22.05.2010, he along with PW21 SI Sandeep Kumar reached the spot and he deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW21.
30. HC Gayasuddin was examined as PW23. He stated that on 28.06.2010, he along with Ins. Dharmpal, Ct. Manjeet, Ct. Arun and secret informer was present at Bhalsawa Dairy Chowk and on secret information, they all reached at Swaroop Nagar Road, Near Gurudwara in front of NDPL Power House and there, on the pointing of secret informer, accused Karma Aggarwal and Satnam @ Sattu, who were standing near black colour Eterno Scooter bearing no. PB23H4340, were apprehended and arrested vide memos proved as Ex. PW23/C and Ex. PW23/D. Their personal search was also conducted vide memos proved as Ex. PW23/E and Ex. PW23/F and their disclosure statements proved as Ex. PW23/A and Ex. PW23/B were recorded. Said scooter along with its key and RC were taken into possession vide seizure memo proved as Ex. PW23/G. He further stated that thereafter both the accused led the police party to a Patri, Outer Ring Road leading towards Wazirbad, in front of Gandhi Vihar and pointed out the FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 11 of 43 place vide pointing out memo proved as Ex. PW23/H and Ex. PW23/j, from where they had lifted one unknown person, who was later on killed by them. Both the accused persons also led the police party to Jheel/Lake, near MCD Workshop, Bhalsawa Dairy and pointed out the place vide memos Ex. PW 23/K and Ex. PW23/L, where they had killed that unknown person.
31. Dr. Meet KumarCMO of BJRM Hospital was examined as PW24 and he stated that Dr. Diwakar Prasad in his presence medically examined both the accused namely Satnam @ Sattu and Karma Aggarwal vide MLCs already proved as Ex. PW10/A and Ex. PW6/C.
32. Sh. Himmat Singhclerk of office of District Transport Officer, Fateh Garh Sahib, Punjab was examined as PW25 and he proved his report Ex. PW 25/A and stated that as per record, said license had been issued by the said office of DTO Fateh Garh Sahib in the name of Karma Aggarwal s/o Moti Lal Aggarwal. He also proved the photocopy of the register bearing entry at serial no. 2760 at point A as Ex. PW25/B.
33. Ins. DharampalIO of the case was examined as PW26. He stated about the investigation conducted by him in detail and supported the version of earlier prosecution witnesses.
FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 12 of 43
34. Dr. V.K. Jha, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body was examined as PW27 and he proved his postmortem report as Ex. PW27/A and after the postmortem, he opined cause of death as neruogenic shock as a result of antimortem burn. He also stated that in view of head injury, assault before death cannot be ruled out.
35. Ins. Rampal Singh was examined as Ex. PW28. He conducted further investigation of this case and proved the site plan as Ex. PW28/A and after completion of investigation, he prepared report u/s 173 Cr.P.C and filed the chargesheet. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and the case was fixed for recording the statement of the accused persons.
36. Statement of both the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they pleaded innocence and denied the entire evidence. They stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case after obtaining their signatures on blank papers. Nothing was recovered from them.
37. Accused Karma Aggarwal submitted that he did not visit Delhi at the relevant time and he was picked by the police from his house situated at Ambala on 20th or 22nd of June 2010 as he was having quarrel with his wife and she was not residing with him. He was mercilessly beaten up by the police and was forced to sign several blank papers and forms, which were later on converted FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 13 of 43 into various memos and documents. He further stated that police seized the scooter from the parking of bus stand of Ambala Cantt. and his original driving license and receipt of parking stand were taken by the police on 20.06.2010. He further stated that only two mobile phones were recovered from him by the police and both were of make reliance and one was in working order and other was out of order. Accused further stated that his fatherinlaw Rajpal used to reside with them mostly and he used to instigate his wife Karuna that she should leave him as Rajpal desired that Karma should purchase a house at Ambala in the name of Karuna after selling his house at at Sarhand. After purchasing the house in the name of Karuna, she started residing at Delhi and she used to visit his house at Ambala only for one or two days. Rajpal used to ask Karma to reside at Delhi with him and leave Ambala. He further stated that he was lodged in Nabha Jail in March 2008 and released in April 2008 and thereafter, he visited Delhi on second or third month of 2010 to take his wife and thereafter, he did not visit Delhi. When Karma went to jail, all my documents were with my wife, but when Karuna and Yogita also went to Jail in 2008, all documents remained with Rajpal and when he released from Jail, he took back all my original documents from Rajpal. He also examined his sister Prakash Kaur as DW4 in support of his contention.
38. Accused Satnam @ Sattu also stated that on 22.05.2010, he was at his FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 14 of 43 home in village Brahman Majra, Serhind, Punjab and he never visited the place of occurrence. On 28.06.2010, at about 3.30 am, he was lifted by the police officials of PS Bhalsawa Dairy from his house at village Brahman Majra and thereafter, he was taken to police post Brahman Majra and then he was taken to PS Fatehgarh Sahib and then, he was taken to PS Bhalsawa Dairy. He was tortured by the police of PS Bhalsawa Dairy and under threat, his signatures were obtained on some blank papers by the police, which were later on used by the policed for preparation of disclosure statement and pointing out memos etc. He also wished to lead evidence in his defence and examined his father Sh. Balbir Singh as DW1, Sh. Hakam Singh as DW2 and Sh. Sher Singh as DW3 in support of his contention that he was lifted from his house situated at Brahman Majra on 28.06.2010. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed and the case was listed for final arguments.
39. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State, ld. counsel for the accused persons and have also perused the record.
40. Learned Addl. PP submitted that it is a case, where the accused Karma Aggarwal is facing trial for his own murder. Ld. Addl. PP further submitted that murder was very well planned by Karma Aggarwal along with his co accused Satnam @ Sattu. On the intervening night of 21st and 22nd of May FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 15 of 43 2010, they killed one innocent person, who was sleeping at footpath and was under the influence of liquor, removed him near the Bhalsawa Jheel and put him on fire. The body was burnt to such an extent that it could not be identified. Accused persons deliberately planted the identity documents of accused Karma Aggarwal, so that the dead body be identified as that of Karma Aggarwal. For that purpose, he left behind the photocopy of his election Icard, driving license and a paper slip on on which "house 09910291584" found written. Police received the information about the dead body vide DD no. 6A Ex. PW3/A, on which PSI Sandeep along with Ct. Narender reached there. PSI Sandeep and Ct. Narender were examined as PW21 and PW22. They also deposed that they found the dead body in burnt condition and near the dead body, one brown colour purse containing Rs. 230/ and photocopy of election eyecard of Karma Aggarwal, three photographs and one driving license in the name of Karma Aggarwal were found. He also stated that one paper slip on which the above mentioned telephone number was found written, was also there. PW22 also deposed about the same and identified the documents and also the paper slip, which is on record as Ex. PX.
41. Ld. Addl. PP further submitted that these documents were deliberately planted upon the spot by the accused, so that the police could contact the person, whose telephone number was left on the spot. A call was made on FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 16 of 43 the telephone number found written on that slip by SI Rajender Singh examined as PW11 and one Babbi responded from the other side. Babbi along with Karunawife of accused Karma arrived at police station Bhalsawa Dairy and they both identified the dead body as that of Karma Aggarwal. Postmortem was got conducted on the dead body and postmortem report is proved on record as Ex. PW27/A and the doctor opined that cause of death as, "neurogenic shock as a result of antimortem burn. In view of the head injury, assault before death cannot be ruled out." Police registered a case u/s 302 IPC supposing that Karma Aggarwal has died, which was also the motive of the accused Karma Aggarwal as he was facing trial in seven more cases in Punjab in various courts under NDPS Act, Excise Act and IPC. Everything went according to the plan, but on 26.06.2010, Karma Aggarwal made a call to PW2 Rajpal and Rajpal is none else but the fatherinlaw of accused Karma Aggarwal. He told him that he wanted to meet him. Rajpal was surprised to know that his soninlaw is alive. He went to meet Karma Aggarwal and there Karma Aggarwal made a confessional statement before PW2 Rajpal that he along with his coaccused Satnam killed a person, who was sleeping on the patri, put his shirt upon the dead body and burnt him. Rajpal appeared in the witness box as PW2 and fully proved the extra judicial confessional statement made by the accused Karma Aggarwal before him. Though, he also deposed about the other facts, which were not there in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C, but that does not make a difference and that FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 17 of 43 does not impeach the veracity of the witness.
42. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that accused was having trust in his fatherinlaw, who was closely related to him. There was no reason to believe that his confession made before him would be disclosed by PW2 to anybody or to the police and that is why, he confided in him about his misdeeds, but Rajpal Singh as a true citizen reported the matter to the police. Ld. Addl. PP further submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve PW2 as PW2 was having no reason to falsely depose against his own soninlaw. The confession made by accused Karma Aggarwal before Rajpal is also corroborated by the medical evidence. According to the confession, which he made before PW2 Rajpal, he killed one person, who was sleeping on the footpath and had consumed liquor. Analysis report of viscera also supported the confessional statement made by the accused and according to this report, which is proved on record as Ex. PW18/A, Viscere was found to contain ethyl alcohol 147.4 mg/100 ml of blood. His confession that he killed that person is also supported by the postmortem report, in which doctor opined that there was head injury on the person of the deceased before he was put on fire, coupled with the circumstances that his documents were also found near the dead body. These documents were in possession of the accused. The evidence that has come on record in the form of testimony of PW25 Himmat Singh, who proved that driving license was issued in the name of accused FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 18 of 43 Karma Aggarwal and then PW15, witness from the election office that this election Icard was issued in the name of Karma Aggarwal.
43. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that there was a strong motive for the accused to commit this offence because he was involved in many criminal cases in Punjab and the only remedy with him to get rid of all those cases was to get himself declared dead and with that intention, he murdered one innocent person, planted his documents there to get the dead body identified as of his through his relative Babbi (sadunot arrested) and Karuna (his own wife). Call details of his mobile phone, which the accused was using was also proved on record. When Karma Aggarwal was arrested, three mobile phones were recovered from his possession, but in one mobile phone, there was no SIM card or IMEI Number. One mobile number was 9355108260 and the call details of this mobile number has been proved on record as Ex. PW8/B along with the certificate u/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act. This mobile phone was in the name of Karunawife of accused Karma Aggarwal and according to this record, accused was in Delhi and was present near the place of occurrence during that time as is evident from the position of his mobile phone during this period. It also shows that he started from Ambala on that day for coming to Delhi. Other mobile phone, which was recovered from his possession was 9996425613 and the call details of this phone have been proved on record as Ex. PW12/A and according to this call details, accused FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 19 of 43 even contacted his wife on her mobile phone on 08.06.2010. Call details of mobile phone of Babbi, which infact in the name of Asha Rani, but used by Babbi were also proved on record as Ex. PW12/C and this call details shows that they were in touch with each other and on 21.05.2010 also, they contacted each other and even thereafter, on 22.05.2011, at 3.00 am, accused Karma Aggarwal made two calls to Babbi, one at 3.04.27 and second on 4.00.21 hours. On 22.05.2010 itself again, accused made a call to Babbi at 7.23.16 hours.
44. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that all these call details coupled with the other facts and extra judicial confession shows that accused Karma Aggarwal along with his friend Satnam killed one innocent person and caused his death and thereafter burnt him in order to screen his identity. It is prayed that as prosecution has fully proved its case against the accused persons, they be held guilty.
45. Ld. Defence counsel for accused Satnam has submitted that there is no evidence against accused Satnam. PW2 Rajpal had not stated anything against accused Satnam and in his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C, he even did not say that Karma Aggarwal was accompanied by Satnam, when PW2 met him. Ld. Counsel submitted that in fact, Satnam had never visited Delhi before that day and there is no evidence on record to show that FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 20 of 43 Satnam ever visited Delhi before that day. As per the defence witnesses examined as DW1, DW2 and DW3, Satnam was lifted from his residence by the police, brought to Delhi and falsely implicated in this case. Father of the accused was called to Delhi and his signatures were obtained here. Ld. Counsel submitted that as there is nothing on record against accused Satnam, he be acquitted.
46. Learned counsel for accused Karma Aggarwal submitted that the story of the prosecution is very vague. Prosecution story starts with the recovery of dead body, but the police had not tried to find out even till date as to who was murdered and the identity of that person has not been established. Even the details of the dead body, description, height etc. were not noted down by the police. It was not tried to ascertain that the height of the dead body was as that of accused Karma Aggarwal. Police even did not try to ascertain from Babbi and Karuna about any particular identification mark on the dead body to ascertain the identity of deceased. Police blindly believed the persons including PW2 that the dead body is of Karma Aggarwal. Ld. Counsel further submitted that in fact, this story was cooked and concocted by Rajpal Singh in connivance with Babbi and his daughter Karuna to take the property of accused Karma Aggarwal. Rajpal was already pressurizing accused Karma Aggarwal to sell his property and under that pressure, accused Karma Aggarwal sold his property at Sirhand and purchased a property in Ambala. FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 21 of 43
When Karma shifted to Ambala, Rajpal again started pressurizing Karma Aggarwal to transfer this property in the name of his daughter Karuna or sell this property and to shift to Delhi, but Karma Aggarwal refused and that is why, Rajpal hatched a conspiracy and he killed one person to get the Karma Aggarwal declared dead, so that property could be transferred in the name of Karuna.
47. Ld. Counsel further submitted that investigation of the police starts with the recovery of the dead body, near which some documents were found. SI Rajender also reached the spot and he stated that paper slip, on which telephone number was found written, was found in the clothes of the deceased, whereas PW21 stated that paper slip was found near the purse. No site plan of the place of recovery of dead body was prepared by PW21. In view of the discrepancy in the testimonies of PW11 and PW21, it cast a serious doubt even about the recovery of any such paper slip. It is not even mentioned in the seizure memo that it was lying near the purse or was recovered from the clothes of the deceased.
48. Ld. Counsel further submitted that number which was found written on the paper slip is "09910291584" and according to the evidence brought by the prosecution i.e Ex. PW12/C, this number was issued in the name of Asha Rani. Asha Rani is none, but the wife of PW2 Rajpal. Asha Rani had not FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 22 of 43 been produced in the witness box and there is no evidence on record that this mobile phone was used by Babbi. Onus was upon the prosecution to prove and establish that this mobile phone was of Babbi, which the prosecution has failed to prove and establish. Ld. Counsel further submitted that so far as the extra judicial confessional statement is concerned, it is a very week type of evidence and accused cannot be held guilty on the basis of the same.
49. Learned counsel for Karma Agarwal further submitted that for proving the extra judicial confession, the evidence shall exactly be the same and it has to be shown that accused has any reason to confide in that person. There must be trust between the two and only then, the person will share any such information with that person, that also with the belief that it will not be disclosed to any other person. In this case, as has come in the evidence, there was no such relationship between Karma Aggarwal and Rajpal, which can show that accused has any trust in PW2 because there was very strained relationship between the two. Rajpal was pressurizing the accused to sell his property and due to that pressure only, the accused sold his property at Sarhind as had come in the testimony of DW4, sister of the accused and now he was pressurizing the accused to sell the property at Ambala also or transfer it in the name of daughter of PW2. Under the circumstances, there was no reason for accused Karma Aggarwal to depose FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 23 of 43 faith in him. Therefore, testimony of PW2 with regard to extra judicial confession made by the accused cannot be relied upon.
50. Ld. counsel further submitted that even otherwise, extra judicial confession must be corroborated by other evidence as it is a very week kind of evidence and there is no corroboration in the present case. According to the testimony of PW2, accused Karma Agarwal poured kerosene oil on the person, who was already murdered and set him on fire, but the FSL Result, which is admissible on record u/s 293 Cr.P.C clearly shows that no residues of Kerosene oil, diesel or petrol could be detected in the exhibits, which clearly shows that there is no corroboration to the extra judicial confessional statement made by the accused to Rajpal and as such no reliance can be placed on the same. Ld. counsel in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgment cited as AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 214 titled as Chhittar v. State of Rajashtan, wherein it is was held : "......... The extra judicial confession should be taken as a whole and should not suffer from any infirmity even if it is to be acted upon. But in this case we find that belated confession itself becomes doubtful in the light of the medical evidence apart from being the same retracted. We think it is highly unsafe to sustain the conviction. ......"
FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 24 of 43
51. Ld. counsel has also relied upon the judgment cited as AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 369 titled as C.K. Raveendran v. State of Kerala, wherein it is was held : " ......... The extrajudicial confession as deposed by PW 15 has not been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge and High Court also came to the conclusion that it is difficult to rely upon the same, as the exact words or even the words as nearly as possible have not been reproduced by PW 15. That apart, as has been stated earlier, even the evidence of PW 15 indicates that Raveendran and he went to arrack shop and consumed liquor. Whereafter Raveendran disclosed the entire incident and therefore, such statement cannot be said to be a voluntary and truthful one and on the other hand it is the outcome of the consumption of liquor, both the witness as well as the accused, if at all he can be said to have made the statement. In this view of the matter, the socalled extra judicial confession has to be excluded from the purview of consideration for brining home the charge. ....."
Ld. counsel further submitted that as the prosecution has failed to prove all the circumstances, the accused cannot be held guilty and he be acquitted.
FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 25 of 43
52. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that it is a case based upon the circumstantial evidence and not on ocular evidence. It is well settled law that a person can be convicted even on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. The well known rules governing circumstantial evidence are that : (a) the circumstances from which the inference of 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 ; (b) the circumstances should be of a determinative tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused ; and (c) the circumstances, taken collectively, are incapable of leading to any conclusion, on a reasonable hypothesis, other than that of the guilt of the accused. No doubt, the courts have also added two riders to the aforesaid principle namely, (i) there should be no missing links, but it is not that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence, since some of these links can only be inferred from the proved facts and (ii) it cannot be said that the prosecution must meet each and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however farfetched and fanciful it may be.
53. The circumstances must be proved and established beyond doubt as held in various judgments. In the present case, the prosecution relies upon the circumstances (i) Recovery of documents of accused near the dead body on the spot (ii) Presence of accused in Delhi at the relevant time according to FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 26 of 43 the call details (iii) Extra judicial confession and (iv) Motive. The prosecution in order to prove all these circumstances examined 28 witnesses.
54. I take up the circumstances, one by one.
(i) RECOVERY OF DOCUMENTS OF ACCUSED NEAR THE DEAD BODY :
55. In this case on 22.05.2010, PW1 on receiving the information about the dead body near Bhalsawa Lake, MCD Workshop, reached there and found that a dead body of male aged about 32 years in burnt condition. This information was recorded at PS Bhalsawa Dairy as DD no. 6A on this information, PW21 PSI Sandeep along with PW22 Ct. Narender also reached there and they found that on the spot, along with dead body, one photocopy of voter Icard of Karma Aggarwal, his driving license and three photographs were lying. Besides that, they also found and one paper slip was also found lying there and on that paper slip "house" and mobile no. 09910291584" was found written and that paper slip was proved on record as Ex. PX. It was seized vide memo Ex. PW21/B.
56. Learned defence counsel has argued that recovery of this paper slip is doubtful, because one of the witness i.e PW21 stated that paper slip was FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 27 of 43 found lying near the wallet, whereas according to PW11, paper slip was recovered from the clothes of the deceased. It is important to note here that it were PW21 and PW22, who reached the spot and recovered the same and not PW11. Even otherwise, the photographs of the dead body, which were on record, shows that there was no cloths on the body except the arm of the shirt, because the clothes were in burnt condition. Therefore, testimony of PW11 i.e. paper slip was recovered from the clothes of the deceased carries no weight, particularly when he reached the spot later on and the witnesses who visited the spot i.e. PW21 and PW22, who recovered the slip Ex. PX and seized it, stated that slip was found lying near the wallet at some distance from the dead body.
57. When the telephone number, which was found written on that slip, was contacted by PW11 SI Rajinder Singh, Babbi responded on the same. It is pertinent to mention here that Babbi is none else, but brotherinlaw (sadu) of Karma Aggarwal i.e. husband of sisterinlaw (sali) of accused Karma. Babbi reached the police station along with Karuna, wife of accused and identified the dead body as that of Karma Aggarwal vide their identification statements proved as Ex. PW11/F and Ex. PW11/G. Witnesses were also examined to the fact that the Driving license, which was found on the spot near the body, was issued in the name of Karma Aggarwal and even the photocopy of the election card, which was found on the spot, was also issued in the name FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 28 of 43 of Karma Aggarwal as is evident from the testimonies of PW15 and PW25. The presence of the documents of the accused along with paper slip Ex. PX were in fact planted on the spot to create the evidence to get the dead body identified as that of Karma Aggarwal and the police finding the slip, contacted the person, which the accused wanted and that person came to the PS and identified the dead body of that person as that of Karma Aggarwal. There is no explanation coming forward from the defence as to how the documents of accused and paper slip Ex. PX reached the spot. Ld. defence counsel tried to make out a case that PW2 planted these documents, but firstly there is no evidence to show how these documents came in possession of PW2 and secondly there is no crossexamination of PW2 on this aspect. This circumstance clearly points towards the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence of the accused.
(ii) PRESENCE OF ACCUSED IN DELHI AT THE RELEVANT TIME ACCORDING TO THE CALL DETAILS :
58. Prosecution has also proved the call details of the mobile phones of accused Karma Agarwal. PW26 arrested the accused Karma Aggarwal and at the time of his arrest, Karma Aggarwal was found in possession of three mobile phones, number of one mobile phone was 9355108260 and number of other mobile phone was 9996425613. Call details of the same have been proved on record as Ex. PW8/B and Ex. PW12/A respectively. Call details proved FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 29 of 43 as Ex. PW8/B are of mobile no. 9355108260 and it is in the name of Karuna Rani, wife of accused and the call detailed proved as Ex. PW12/A are of mobile number 9996425613 and certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act has also been proved on record that no tampering whatsoever has been done with this record. According to Ex. PW8/B, location of mobile phone of the accused on 21.05.2010 was in Ambala in the morning, but he moved to Delhi and the location of mobile phone of accused was at Gannaur, Distt. Sonepat at about 12.13 pm, then the location was in Maharani Enclave, Dehi at 6.20 pm and on 22.05.2010 at about 3.00 am, the location was in Prashant Vihar and at 3.52 am, his location was at Uttam Nagar, Hastshal Road, which remained there upto 4.00 and 4.32 am and in the area, where the dead body was found and his documents were also found near the dead body. There is no explanation whatsoever by the accused as to how his documents reached near the dead body and also about his locations in Delhi, which continued to be in Delhi upto 23.05.2010 till 5.43 pm and then again his location was in Ambala, where he was residing.
59. It is important to note that murder had been committed on the intervening night of 21/22th May 2010 and accused Karma Aggarwal was in Delhi at the relevant time. Post mortem report of the deceased is proved on record as Ex. PW27/A and it clearly shows that postmortem was conducted on 23.05.2010 at 1.00 pm and time since death is 34 hours, if this time is to be FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 30 of 43 calculated from 1.00 pm, then it comes around 3.00 am in the night on 22.05.2010 i.e. the same time, when the position of the mobile phone of accused Karma Aggarwal was in the area, from where, the dead body was found.
60. Ld. counsel submitted that PW6 has nowhere mentioned earlier that these mobile phones were recovered from the possession of the accused, but I do not agree on this aspect with the learned defence counsel, particularly in view of the fact that it is mentioned in personal search memo Ex. PW23/E of the accused that three mobile phones were recovered from his possession and statement of PW6 on oath that these mobile phones were recovered from his possession and coupled with the fact that call details of these mobile phones were taken on record.
61. Ld. counsel has also submitted that mobile phones, which according to the police allegedly belongs to Babbi is in the name of one Asha Rani as is evident from the call details proved on record as Ex. PW12/C and Ex. PW 12/D. Ld. counsel further submitted that there is no such evidence on record that this mobile phone was ever used by Babbi and said Asha Rani has not been examined by the prosecution to prove that this mobile phone was used by Babbi. But I do not agree on this aspect with the learned defence counsel, particularly when PW11 stated that when he called on the mobile FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 31 of 43 phone no. 9910291584, Babbi responded from the other side and there is no crossexamination of PW11 on this aspect that Babbi could not respond on this mobile phone as it was not used by Babbi. Secondly, there is statement of Babbi proved on record as Ex. PW11/D regarding identification of dead body and there also, he had given his number as 9910291584. Keeping in view this evidence and particularly when the defence was not disputing the testimony of PW11 that this mobile phone was in possession of Babbi and Babbi responded, when the call was made on this number, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned defence counsel that this mobile phone was never used by Babbi.
62. This circumstance with location of the mobile phone of accused Karam Aggarwal in the area, where the dead body was found lying clearly points towards the guilt of the accused and is also inconsistent with any hypothesis of the innocence of the accused, particularly when accused himself failed to give any explanation as how his mobile phone, which was recovered from his possession, when he was arrested, was in Delhi on the relevant time and also in the area from where the dead body was found recovered. EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT :
63. The next important circumstance is the extra judicial confessional statement made by accused Karma Aggarwal to PW2 regarding committing FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 32 of 43 the crime. No doubt, it is a very weak kind of evidence and it has to be scrutinized minutely before, any reliance can be placed on the same, but there is no such principle of law that no reliance can be place on extra juridical confession. In the present case the relation between the accused and the person before whom, he confided and made a statement is father inlaw (sasur) and soninlaw (damad). There was nothing on record that there was any dispute between the two or any litigation was going on between the two. No doubt, DW4 has tried to make out a case that there was certain dispute between the two, but nothing of that sort has been brought on record. DW4 had deposed that PW2 Rajpal was pressurizing the accused to get the property transferred in his daughter's name and that is why, he sold the property, but evidence on record shows that once police raided at his house at Sirhand, wherein he pelted stones as deposed by PW 2 and this fact was also admitted by DW4 and he was involved in a case u/s 307 IPC, thereafter, he sold the property at Sirhand and shifted to Ambala. Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to believe the arguments advanced by the ld. defence counsel that there was a dispute between Karma Aggarwal and Rajpal. They were having good relations, this can be inferred from the testimony of DW4, who deposed that Rajpal used to visit regularly the house of Karma Aggarwal and even used to stay with him. This again strengthens the story of the prosecution that accused Karma Aggarwal was having very good and cordial relations with Rajpal and that is FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 33 of 43 why he made a call to Rajpal on his phone after the incident.
64. Ld. defence counsel further submitted that call details had not been placed on record to show that accused made a call to PW2 on 26.06.2010 or that he called him. There is some lacuna in this regard on the file that Investigating Agency has not collected the call details of mobile phones of Karma Aggarwal and Rajpal to show that such call was made or not, but that does not make the entire story unbelievable. Rajpal is the fatherinlaw of the accused as discussed above and they were having very good relation and therefore, he had every reason to confide in him and trust him and he never thought that his fatherinlaw would inform the police and he disclosed all the facts before his fatherinlaw trusting him and told him that he killed one person. PW2 Rajpal when appeared in the witnessbox deposed that accused confided in him and told him that he had killed one person, who was sleeping on footpath after consuming liquor and set him on fire. This confessional statement of accused, which he had given to PW2 find corroboration from the postmortem report and FSL Result. Postmortem report is proved on record as Ex. PW27/A and PW27 clearly shows that deceased had died as a result of antimortem burn injury and it is also mentioned that there was head injury and therefore, assault before death cannot be ruled out. Fact that accused told to PW2 that the person, whom he killed was under the influence of liquor also stands corroborated from the FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 34 of 43 FSL result proved on record as Ex. PW18/A and according to that report ethyl alcohol 147.4 mg/100 ml of blood was detected. Therefore, the aspect of extra judicial confession made by accused before PW2 stands corroborated by medical evidence and there is due corroboration to the extra judicial confession. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 2001 AIR SC 330 summed up the law about the extra judicial confession and held that :
(i) Extra judicial confession , if true and voluntary, it can be relied upon by the court to convict the accused for the commission of the crime alleged. Despite inherent weakness of extra judicial confession as an item of evidence, it cannot be ignored when shown that such confession was made before a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is made in the circumstances which tend to support the statement.
(ii) Evidence in the form of extra judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be always termed to be a tainted evidence.
(iii) If the court believes the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone.
(iv) It is not open to the court trying the criminal case to start with presumption that extra judicial confession is always a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witness who speak for such a confession .
FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 35 of 43
(v) Retraction of extra judicial confession which is a usual phenomenon in criminal cases would by itself not weaken the case of the prosecution based upon such a confession .
(vi) An unambiguous extra judicial confession possesses high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of any falsity.
(vii) Before relying on the alleged confession , the court has to be satisfied that it is voluntary and is not the result of inducement, threat or promise envisaged under Section 24 of the Evidence Act or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent Sections 25 and 26.
(viii) Court is required to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out as to whether such confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of law suggesting that it may be true. All relevant circumstances such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made have to be scrutinised.
(ix) Extra judicial confession which is not obtained by coercion, promise of favour or false hope and is plenary in character and voluntary in nature can be made the basis for conviction even without corroboration. 1999(2) RCR (Crl.) 285 (SC) relied and AIR 1987 SC 1507 distinguished.
65. In the present case, the accused made confession before his close relative FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 36 of 43 i.e his fatherinlaw, in whom under the normal circumstances, confided hoping help and protection. There is no reason why PW2 would depose falsely against the accused, who is his soninlaw. As discussed above, PW 2 is reliable and trustworthy. In view of all these facts and the law laid down in the judgment referred above, in my opinion, the extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW2 can be relied and acted upon. MOTIVE :
66. In this case, there was strong motive with the accused to commit the offence and get himself declared dead. According to the evidence, accused was having many cases in Punjab and those were under NDPS and one case was u/s 307 IPC and to escape from those cases, accused thought to get himself declared dead and submit the death certificate before the court and for that purpose, he killed one person, who was sleeping at footpath and planted his documents near the dead body. The fact that documents were found intact and were not burnt with the clothes clearly shows that these were planted, otherwise the clothes which were found on the body were burnt and the documents in the pocket should also have been burnt. He with the motive to get rid of cases pending against him deliberately committed this ghastly crime of murdering the other person in a planned manner and placing his own identity near the dead body and then got identified the same as that of his own through his brotherinlaw Babbi. Keeping in view all this evidence FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 37 of 43 in my opinion, there was a strong motive with the accused to kill some person and get that dead body identified as that of Karma Aggarwal. In view of the above discussion, in my opinion the prosecution has successfully proved and established the motive behind the commission of crime.
67. Ld. counsel has also submitted that prosecution has failed to prove as to who was the deceased, his description, height and weight have also not been mentioned and no efforts whatsoever was made by the police to establish that the deceased was Karma Aggarwal. In my opinion, this looses important in view of the fact that when the dead body was identified by two persons, one close relatives of the deceased and Karuna wife of the deceased. Even otherwise, documents were found lying near the dead body, which also establishes that deceased was Karma Aggarwal. In view of all these facts, in my opinion as the dead body was identified by two independent witnesses and also close relatives, police did not find it necessary to go further regarding identification of the dead body and I do not find any reason to find fault in the approach of the police in this regard and in my opinion, no benefit whatsoever can be given to the accused on this point.
68. So far as the accused Santam is concerned, there is no evidence against him except the disclosure statement of coaccused. There is also doubt about his arrest from Delhi in view of testimonies of DW1, DW2 and DW3. FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 38 of 43
It is also important to note that so far as PW2 is concerned, he in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C had not named Satnam at all. No doubt, two persons were involved in the commission of offence as it was not possible for accused Karma Aggarwal alone to take the deceased from footpath to lake and then burn him, but as the prosecution has not been able to link Satnam with the commission of offence and there is no evidence whatsoever showing either his presence in Delhi or his connection with the accused Karma Aggarwal in any manner whatsoever or his involvement in the commission of offence, there is also no recovery at his instance. Merely because he is of the same village, in which Karma Aggarwal was earlier residing or that he knows Karma Agarwal, does not make him a culprit in this case. It was for the prosecution to prove that Satnam was also involved in the commission of crime and it was the prosecution, who had to bring the evidence against him on record, in which the prosecution has failed. I, therefore, acquit accused Satnam @ Sattu of the charges leveled against him giving him benefit of doubt.
69. In this case, the dead body was deliberately burnt so that it be not easy to identify as to who had died and with a view so that dead body can easily be identified as that of Karma Aggarwal. This has been done to screen himself from the punishment of crime of murder committed by him. FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 39 of 43
70. In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that all the circumstances stand proved and they also form a complete chain and clearly points towards the guilt of the accused and at the same time, are also inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence of the accused Karma Aggarwal, I convict accused Karam Agarwal for the offences punishable u/s 302/201 IPC.
Announced in open Court
on today i.e. 19.11.2011 (V.K. BANSAL)
ADDL. SESSION JUDGE : ROHINI : DELHI
FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 40 of 43
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. BANSAL : SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
S.C. No. 50/10
FIR No. 97/10
P.S. Bhalsawa Dairy
U/s 302/201/34 IPC
State Versus 1. Karma Agarwal
S/o Moti Lal Agarwal
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE
29.11.2011
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict produced from J.C, with Sh. Aseem Bhardwaj,
Ld. Amicus Curie.
Arguments heard on the point of sentence and perused the file. Ld. Counsel for the convict submitted that convict is not a previous convict ; He belongs to a very poor family ; he is of young age and is having wife and two minor children ; It is prayed that a lenient view may kindly be taken and the convict may be given a chance to rehabilitate himself in the society.
FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 41 of 43
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that manner in which the convict had killed an innocent person is very brutal. He killed that person and thereafter put him on fire by pouring kerosene oil. Convict killed that person only to conceal his identity so that he can escape fromthe other cases, which he was facing. He is a habitual offender and as such no leiency be shown to him and he be awarded capital punishment.
Keeping in view all the submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, I found that it is a unique case, where the convict faced trial for his own murder. The facts emerged are repeated here again that he killed one innocent person, who was sleeping on footpath, put his clothes on the person of that fellow and burnt him. Convict Karma Aggarwal also placed his documents near the dead body in order to get him identified as that of Karma Aggarwal, through his coaccused/relatives and wife i.e. Babbi and Karuna, but he ran out of luck and his beens were spoiled by his own father inlaw, in whom he confided believing that he will also support him.
Keeping in view all these facts, it is clear that he planned the murder very well, executed it in cold blood. At the same time, he is a young person, having two minor children. Keeping in view the guide lines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court for awarding capital punishment, I do not FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 42 of 43 find that this case falls in the category of rarest of the rare cases, I, therefore, sentence the convict Karma Aggarwal to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/ for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I., for one year. He is further sentenced to five year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/ for the offence punishable u/s 201 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I., for six months.
Copy of judgment and copy of order on the point of sentence be given to the convict, free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court
on today i.e. 29.11.2011 (V.K. BANSAL)
ADDL. SESSION JUDGE : DELHI
FIR no. 97/10 : State vs. Karma Aggarwal etc. : Page 43 of 43