Delhi District Court
State vs . on 5 April, 2014
ID No. 02403R0428142009
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04
& SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 80/2012
Unique ID No.
FIR No. 370/08
U/s 302/34 IPC
PS : Ambedkar Nagar
State
Vs.
Paramveer Sahu ..........Accused
s/o Sh. Indrfashan Sahu
r/o Village Sonbarsa,
PS Buxar Industrial Area,
District Buxar, Bihar.
Instituted on : 23th July, 2011
Arguments concluded on : 03rd April, 2014
Decided on : 05th April, 2014
JUDGMENT
1. On 28.07.2008, vide daily diary (DD no. 56-A), an information was received to the effect that "behind 521 bus stand, near water tank, one person was lying dead" IO/SI Dharampal alongwith Ct. Ravinder reached at the place of occurrence and found one dead body an Innova Car bearing no. DL 1Y B 2062. Lot of blood was found spilled alongside the dead body and also on the stones lying nearby. Crime team inspected the spot. Photographs of dead body were taken. No eye witness was found and as dead body could not be identified, it was sent to AIIMS mortuary for preserving it for 72 hours. Hue and cry notice was issued. Photographs of dead body were sent to the "missing squad". Local inquiries was conducted but dead body could not be identified. On 06.08.3008, postmortem on the dead body was conducted.
2. During investigation, an information was received that a person of features similar to the accused was working in laundry department, Singhania State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 1/16 ID No. 02403R0428142009 Hospital, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi. He had come through Meg Tech system 9/97, A-1st, Gali No.9, Anand Parwat, New Delhi to work in Singhania Hospital. On 24.08.2008, Sh. Dharam Singh Yadav, owner of Mac Tech Systems identified dead body from the photographs of deceased and stated that name of deceased was Santosh Kumar Sharma, who was resident of Bihar. Postmortem report was conducted on the dead body. Autopsy surgeon opined the cause of death as "Cranial Cerebral damage consequent upon injuries caused by blunt force". FIR No. 370/08 u/s 302 IPC was registered on 25.08.2008. During investigation, site plan of place of occurrence was prepared on the pointing out SI Dharampal Gulia. During inquest proceedings, stone, shoes, blood stained soil, sample soil, blood, viscera and clothes of deceased were seized. 'Scene of Crime' report was obtained. Statement of driver Dharam Singh Rawat s/o Pratap Singh, owner of Innova Car bearing no. DL-1YB-2060 was recorded, who stated that he parked his car as usual everyday and did not know deceased. It is further the case of prosecution that Satnosh Kumar Sharma was beaten mercilessly by Subhash, Govind and Paramveer due to which he died. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
3. Accused Paramveer could not be arrested. He was declared Proclaimed offender (PO). Vide judgment dated 23.07.2011, Learned Predecessor of this Court has acquitted accused Subhash Kumar, who had earlier faced trial. Paramveer Sahu (PO) was arrested and supplementary charge sheet was filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, which was committed to the Court of Sessions on 14.07.2011. Charge u/s 302 IPC was framed on 14.12.2011 by the Learned Predecessor of this Court, to which State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 2/16 ID No. 02403R0428142009 accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Point, for determination in this case is whether on 27.07.2008, at about 10:00 pm, near water tank, behind bus stand, route no. 521, Dakshin Pur, accused Paramveer Sahu alongwith co-accused Subhash Kumar and Govind (absconding) committed murder of Santosh Sharma.
5. To prove charges against the accused prosecution examined nineteen witnesses. The outline of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses is as under.
6. Doctor Manish Kumath (PW-12) prepared postmortem report (Ex. PW7/A). In cross examination. PW-12 deposed that if an accident occurs with a vehicle in that eventuality the injuries similar to the injuries sustained in this case could be sustained. Smt. Babita Gupta (PW-2), Manjeet @ Montu (PW-3) and Yash Kumar Tamta (PW-4) are projected as an eye witnesses by the prosecution. Smt. Babita Gupta (PW-2) did not named accused Paramveer Sahu. PW-3 was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP for the State. Dharam Singh Yadav (PW-5) identified photographs of deceased on 24.08.2008. Surender Sharma (PW-6) is brother-in-law of Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) . Smt. Kiran (PW-7) is wife of Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased). PW-6 and PW-7 were cross examined by Learned Addl. PP. Y. M. Sharma (PW-8) Laundry supervisor of M/s Pushpawati Singhania Institute deposed that Santosh Kumar (deceased) had worked in their institute during the period between 25.05.2008 to 02.06.2008 under the supervision of contractor. Dharam Singh Rawat (PW-9) parked his Innova car bearing no DL-1YB-2062 at about 02:00 pm on 27.08.2008 near water tank. On 28.8.2008, when he reached there, he found lot of police official, public person State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 3/16 ID No. 02403R0428142009 and media persons were present and he saw that one dead body was lying parallel side to his vehicle on the road. Om Prakash (PW-10) deposed that Prakash brother of Subhash Kumar was his tenant and Subhash used to stay with his tenant for one or two days. He was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP. T.U. Siddiqui (PW-11) Mechanical Inspector inspected Innova car bearing no. DL-1YB-2062 and prepared report (Ex.PW5/A). Constable Sunil (PW-1) joined investigation with the IO. He is witness to the arrest memo (Ex.PW1/A), personal search memo (Ex.PW1/B), disclosure statement (Ex.PW1/C) of accused Paramveer Sahu and pointing out memo (Ex.PW1/D) of place of occurrence. HC Inderjeet Singh (PW-13) placed on record copy of road certificate no. 339/12 (Ex.PW13/A). HC Rameshwar (PW-14) duty officer recorded FIR (Ex.PW12/A). Ct.Mahender Singh (PW-15) joined investigation with IO/SI Dharampal on receipt of DD No. 56-A on 28.07.2008. Ct. Vikram (PW-16) joined investigation with IO/SI Dharampal on 11.09.2008. SI Dharampal (PW-17), Inspector M. S. Poonia (PW-18) and Inspector Hansraj (PW-19) conducted investigation and prepared documents during the course of investigation.
7. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused pleaded innocence and false implication.
8. I have heard submissions advanced by Sh. Wasi-Ur-Rahman, Learned Addl. PP for the State as well as Sh. Sajjad Hussain Learned Counsel for the accused and have perused the record.
9. Learned Addl PP for the State argued that Babita (PW-2), Manjeet @ Monti (PW-3) and Yash Kumar Tamta @ Yash Singh (PW-4) have deposed against accused Paramveer Sahu and have explained role played by the State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 4/16 ID No. 02403R0428142009 accused in commission of offence. It is submitted that they identified the accused in the Court and the factum of incident is proved by Babita (PW-2). Learned Addl. PP submits that Surender Sharma (PW-6) and Kiran (PW-7) also identified accused.
10. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the accused submits that co-accused Subhash has already been acquitted by the Learned Predecessor of this Court on 23.07.2011. After appreciating entire material on record including deposition of Manjeet Singh @ Montu, Yash Kumar Tamta @ Yash Singh. It was found that testimony of these witnesses was not credible. Learned Defence Counsel submitted that Surender Sharma (PW-6) and Kiran (PW-7) were cross examined by Learned Addl. PP for State and have not supported the case of prosecution. It is submitted that PW-Babita denied entire version of the prosecution and there is nothing on record to show that the Investigating Officer or any police official had gone to the village of accused Paramveer Sahu to arrest him, before he was declared absconder.
11. Now, I shall advert to the crux of evidence adduced by material prosecution witnesses. On 06.08.2008, Doctor Manish Kumath (PW-12) medically examined an unknown person aged about 30 years, male, with alleged history of deceased being found dead near a parked Innova vehicle with multiple injuries over head. Injuries sustained by deceased were stellated shape lacerated wound in the area of 5cm x 3cm x bone deep present just above occipital region; lacerated wound measuring 3 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep present over right parietal region, 8 cm above right eye brow; lacerated wound measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep present 3 cm above inner side of right eye-brow; lacerated wound measuring 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep present over left parietal region, 5 cm above left eye brow; lacerated wound two in number each measuring 4.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 5/16 ID No. 02403R0428142009 and 4 cm x 2 cm x bone deep respectively present over chin. The underlying bones were fractured and fragmented into multiple pieces; nasal bone was fractured and abrasions 5 cm x 4m over left cheek 4 cm x 3 cm over right cheek and over left calf region. Cause of death opined by Autopsy surgeon was cranial cerebral damage consequent upon head injury sustained by blunt force.
12. Smt. Babita Gupta (PW-2) testified that on 29.07.2008 between 08:30 to 10pm, she was sitting outside her house and at that time, she had come back after performing Aarti in the mandir. She saw that Subhash, Montu and Satnosh Kumar Sharma were quarreling with each other and no other person came there in her presence. Subhash and Montu took Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) on motorcycle. Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) sat between Montu and Subhash. At about 10:30pm, Subhash, Montu and Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) came back on the same motorcycle. She saw that Montu, Subhash and three other persons were beating Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) with legs. PW-2 was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP for the State. In cross examination, she deposed that she did not know any person by the name of Yash Kumar Tamta @ Yash Singh. She denied the suggestion that on the day of occurrence at about 10:00pm Yash Kumar Tamta @ Yash Singh alonwith Montu @ Manjeet came to the shop and bought a cigarette. She denied the suggestion that all three persons including accused Paramveer Sahu called Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) or started abusing him. PW-2 testified that she had not seen accused Paramveer Sahu that night. She denied the suggestion that during the course of beating to Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased), they picked up a brick and stones from there and hit him with stones. State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 6/16
ID No. 02403R0428142009 She denied the suggestion that during the course of beating him accused persons picked up a big stone and hit Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased).
13. Manjeet (PW-3) deposed that he used to see accused alongwith one Subhash and Govind. They alongwith one Govind and one more boy used to drink liquor at the bus stand of route no. 521 at Ambedkar Nagar. On 27.07.2008, between 09:30 to 10:00pm, he saw accused alongwith Subhash, Govind and one more boy were beating and abusing Santosh, who had got down from the bus. He saw the incident of beating Santosh with legs and fist blows. PW-3 deposed that Subhash was having a stone in his hand and after Santosh had fallen down after becoming semi-conscious then Subhash hit him with a big stone on his chest. He became nervous. He alongwith Yash ran away from the spot. In cross examination, PW-3 admitted that he had not informed the police about the incident. He had told police about the incident after about 20 days and after police made inquiries from him. PW-3 was confronted with the statement mark D-1, recorded u/s 161 Cr. P. C as well as statement made by him in the Court (Ex.PW3/X) where he stated that "I used to see him alongwith one Subhash who was residing in our locality and they alongwith one Govind and one more boy belonging to the village of Subhash used to drink liquor at the bus stand of 521 at Ambedkar Nagar." and this fact is not so recorded therein. PW-3 admitted that Paramveer Sahu (accused ) had not hit with legs and fists or with the stone to the injured who was being beaten near bus stand. He did not know whether accused Paramveer Sahu was residing at Dakshinpuri or somewhere else. PW-3 denied the suggestion that he identified Santosh (deceased) after seeing his photograph in the Police Station. He stated that a newspaper was State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 7/16 ID No. 02403R0428142009 shown to him wherein he was asked to identify the deceased. It was blurred photograph and the same was not identifiable. PW-3 deposed that he did not know if the accused persons had thrown the deceased under the Innova car standing there.
14. Yash Singh Tamta (PW-4) deposed that on 27.07.2008, he was going towards house of Montu for walking after taking food. At about 09:30pm, when he was smoking cigarette with Montu @ Manjeet of bus stop route no. 521, they saw accused alongwith co accused. In the meantime, Santosh Kumar Sharma got down from the bus. They were uttering that he speaks too much and would have to be taught a lesson. Thereafter, a quarrel took place with Santosh Kumar Sharma. They were manhandling him and took him behind the khokha in a park. On hearing cries, out of curiosity, they also reached at the spot and tried to save Santosh. PW-4 deposed that Santosh Kumar Sharma was lying on the ground and those persons were beating him hands and somebody was beating him with stone. PW-4 deposed that he had not told to the police about the incident on the day of incident or thereafter, till police came in their gali. PW-4 stated that he did not know the date when they went to Police Station. He had heard that Subhash had taken away Pooja. He did not know Subhash and did not know the name of the police officials, who had taken him to the bus stand of route no. 521, Dakshinpuri. As per PW-4, Police had not taken his statement at the bus stand of route no. 521, Dakshinpuri, but had only made inquiries about the place of incident. No public person had come near them at that time. Police did not take them to the Paan Shop and he did not know the name of owner of the Paan Shop. Police had not recorded his statement in this regard. PW-4 State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 8/16 ID No. 02403R0428142009 deposed that no articles were recovered when police took him to the bus stand for inquiry in the case of kidnapping of girl Pooja. Firstly, police recorded his statement in the Police Station and then, they went to the bus stand of route no.
521. PW-4 deposed that he had told in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. P. C to the police that Paramveer was also having a stone in his hand, he was confronted with the statement (Ex. PW4/X) where this fact was not recorded. PW-4 stated that he did not know Paramveer prior to the incident and did not know any person in the name of Govind as well as Santosh (deceased). He did not know whether Paramveer, Govind and Santosh were residing in his locality. He did not know whether accused persons left the deceased in the park or not. He stated that accused persons were not carrying any object in their hands or in what direction accused persons fled away. He stopped coming out from his house after the incident for 10-15 days, so he could not say whether Subhash was available or not.
15. Surender Sharma (PW-6) deposed that his sister Kiran Devi was married to Santosh Kumar Sharma and he was informed about his murder. He alongwith his sister Kiran Devi reached at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, where he identified photograph of Santosh Kr. Sharma and his belongings. He stated that Santosh Kumar Sharma was the younger brother of his elder brother-in-law (Jija). Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) had friendship with Govind and Paramveer. He identified accused Paramveer. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP wherein, he admitted that initially Santosh Kr. Sharma residing with them in their village Sonvarsa, Bihar, where he had relationship with his sister Kiran. He admitted that due to their relationship, his sister Kiran got pregnant State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 9/16 ID No. 02403R0428142009 and Santosh got married with her. After four-five months, his sister delivered a female child. He denied the suggestion that accused Paramveer was in love his sister Kiran one side, but his sister never loved her as Paramveer was of different caste. He stated that Santosh Kumar Sharma was taken by accused Paramveer and thereafter, Santosh never reached in their village. He admitted that he had not identified the dead body of Santosh in the mortuary and same was identified only on the basis of photograph, clothes and belonging articles of Santosh.
16. Kiran (PW-7) wife of Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) deposed that her husband Santosh Kumar Sharma was brought to Delhi by accused Paramveer, Govind and Sunil from their village on the pretext of getting him a job. On being informed by police, she came to Delhi alongwith her brother Surender Kumar Sharma. She deposed that they had a dispute with accused Paramveer Sahu and his family, over a plot situated in their village. PW-7 stated that she was not having any love affair with Paramveer. She deposed that accused Paramveer Sahu and other co accused persons might be knowing as to what happened with her husband. She was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP. In cross examination, she denied the suggestion she had stated to the police in her statement (Ex.PW2/A) that accused Paramveer was having bad intention on her. She admitted that disputed land was not adjoining with the house of accused and the dispute over the land persisted since before her birth with her family and quarrel regarding the same used to took place every six-seven months. She admitted that there was no complaint or any civil suit pending in any Court or Police Station. She belonged to Sharma (Lohar) community and accused belongs to Sahu community. She did not know where her husband had resided State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 10/16 ID No. 02403R0428142009 or where he had worked. She deposed that on earlier occasion, he had come alongwith Govind and he had returned back to Village alongwith Govind. She denied the suggestion that there was not land dispute between the family of accused and her family in Village Sonbarsa.
17. Dharam Singh Yadav (PW-5) deposed that he did not know accused Paramveer Sahu and had never seen him. Y. M. Sharma (PW-8) deposed that Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) had worked in their PSRI Institute from 25.05.2000 to 02.06.2008. He stated that no record of Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) could be produced. Om Prakash (PW-10) was owner of house no. C-314, Dakshin Puri. In cross examination, he deposed that Paramveer Sahu had never resided in his house as tenant. T. U Siddiqui (PW-11) mechanical inspector deposed that as per his report, vehicle bearing no. DL1YB 2062 was not found to be involved in any type of accident as there was no trace of blood, spot or marks of the car. There was no marks of skid on the wheels and there was nothing to suggest that the vehicle in question was involved in a fresh accident.
18. M. S. Poonia (PW-18) stated that during the course of inquiry regarding the kidnapping of Pooja by co-accused Subhash, the witnesses namely, Yash and Manjeet had disclosed the factum of incident of the present case and claimed themselves as an eye-witness. He had no knowledge as to who was conducting inquiry or investigation in the matter of kidnapping of the Pooja by co-accused Subhash. He had recorded statement of Yash and Manjeet u/s 161 Cr.P.C. As far as he could recollect, SI Jitender had produced these witnesses before him. He had not recorded statement of SI Jitender that, he had State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 11/16 ID No. 02403R0428142009 produced these witnesses before him. He admitted that it was a matter of record that SI Dharampal had taken steps for burying the dead body of Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased). He admitted that he had not made efforts to inquire about the place where deceased was residing permanently. He admitted that Smt. Kiran, who claimed to be wife of the deceased and Smt. Surender, who claimed to be brother-in-law of the deceased had not re-claimed the dead body, buried by SI Dharam Pal on his direction.
19. Inspector Hansraj (PW-19) admitted that no recovery was effected at the time, when accused Paramveer Sahu was taken at the place of occurrence. PW-19 stated that he had not visited Hoshangabad (MP) to verify whether deceased was the resident of said place or not. He had not verified at his level that whether deceased was the resident of Sonbarsa, Buxar, Bihar. PW-19 stated that he had not examined Smt. Kiran, wife of deceased. He could not tell the exact place or the gali, where they took the accused in the area of Sangam Vihar. He had not called local police of PS Sangam Vihar. PW-19 stated that he had not made any further specific inquiry regarding the fact that accused Paramveer Sahu was the same persons, who was working with Govind Pathak and deceased Santosh Kumar Sharma. He denied the suggestion that accused Paramveer Sahu was not working with Govind Pathak and the deceased. He had not inquired from owner of Jaguar Security regarding the fact whether they were working in the said company or not. He had not inquired from Sh. D. S. Yadav, owner of M/s Kleen Rite Enterprises regarding the fact whether accused or deceased were working in the said company or not. He had not inquired from Pashupati Singhania Research Institute or Dr. Col. R. K. Sharma regarding the State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 12/16 ID No. 02403R0428142009 fact whether they were working in the said Hospital or not. PW-19 stated that since, accused Paramveer Sahu had himself surrendered in the Court, therefore, he had not verified his identity from any resident of Dakshin Puri area.
20. Case set up by the prosecution is that on 28.07.2008, dead body of an unknown person was found at the spot which was later identified as Santosh Kumar Sharma and after recording statement of Dharam Singh Yadav on 24.08.2008, Investigating Agency could identify the deceased as Santosh Kumar Sharma. Perusal of statement of Dharam Singh Yadav (PW-8), shows that he was not working in Singhania Hospital whereas, as per investigation, Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) was sent by Dharam Singh Yadav (PW-8) to work at Singhania hospital. It is not clear as to how police came to know about the identity of Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) on 24.08.2008. Inspector M. S. Poonia (PW-18) has stated that Babita Gupta (PW-3) had told him about the presence of Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased), accused Paramveer Sahu and co accused Subhash, Govind, Yash and Montu on the day of incident but admittedly, he had not recorded her statement. Deposition of PW-18 shows that Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) was identified on 24.08.2008 (i.e. after 10.08.2008) and pursuant to statement of eye witnesses Babita (PW-2), Manjeet Singh @ Monu (PW-3), Yash Kumar Tamta @ Yash Singh (PW-4) and police concealed knowledge of incident on 10.08.2008. Dharam Singh Yadav (PW-9) denied the suggestion that he had not come to the police station on 28.07.2008 and had not handed over documents i.e. marks sheet and bio-data of Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) to the IO. As per prosecution, PW-9 was aware of the identity of Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) on 28.07.2008. Prosecution has State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 13/16 ID No. 02403R0428142009 failed to prove the fact that how investigating agency first came to know about the identity of unknown dead body.
21. Perusal of statement of Manjeet Singh @ Montu (PW-3) shows that he could not identify Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) from the photograph shown by the police, as his face was badly mutilated and it was blurred photograph and was not identifiable. He identified Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) from a small photograph. On 25.08.2008, prosecution was not having any small photograph. This witness was examined as the documents supplied by Dharam Singh Yadav (PW-5) were photocopy of marks sheet and bio-data and both these documents had no photograph of Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased). There are inconsistencies in the statements of Babita (PW-2) and Manjeet Singh @ Montu (PW-3). It is unbelievable that these witnesses were not asked about for the identification of dead body of Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased), who was 'buried' as per Muslim Rites. Assumption of SI Dharampal (PW-17) that deceased appeared to be Muslim by face cannot be relied upon because as per seizure memo of clothes (Ex.PW19/B) i.e. one gale ka dora, one black coloured qamar ka dora which was like 'janeu' were found. If a dead body was wearing janeu, then it could not be identified as Muslim. Investigating Officer wrongly identified deceased as Muslim. This casts doubt on the identity of deceased.
22. According to eye witnesses, when Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) alighted from bus, accused persons started quarreling with him and further started giving fists and kick blows and thereafter, hit him with stones and in the meanwhile, they had taken away his bag in which document i.e. bio data, State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 14/16 ID No. 02403R0428142009 high school certificate, enrollments forms etc. were found. There is nothing to show that in this alleged recoveries would point out the purpose of killing of Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) by the accused. Furthermore, Inspector M. S. Poonia (PW-18) deposed that he got the knowledge of entire incident on 10.08.2008 from Smt. Babita Gupta (PW-2), Neither, he recoded statement of Smt. Babita (PW-2) nor inquired from Manjeet Singh @ Montu (PW-3) and Yash Kumar Tamta @ Yash Singh. Delay in registration of FIR on 25.08.2008, when police already had knowledge of entire incident on 10.08.2008 raises doubts over veracity of prosecution version. As per the case of prosecution, Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) was killed by accused Paramveer Sahu, Subhash Kumar and Govind on the night of 27.07.2008. Smt. Babita (PW-2), who was projected as an eye witness, deposed that Montu (PW-3), Subhash and three other persons were beating Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased). In the morning hours, she same to know that Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) died. Witness was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP. She denied the suggestion that three persons including accused Paramveer Sahu called Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) and started abusing him. She categorically deposed that she had not seen accused Paramveer Sahu that night. Manjeet Singh @ Montu (PW-3) also admitted that accused Paramveer Sahu had not hit with legs and fits or with the stone to Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased). He did not know whether accused Paramveer Sahu was residing at Dakshinpuri or somewhere else.
23. Motive projected by the prosecution that accused Paramveer Sahu was angry because of marriage of Kiran (PW-7) with Santosh Kumar Sharma (deceased) and due to enmity, accused Paramveer Sahu and Govind had killed State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 15/16 ID No. 02403R0428142009 Santosh Kumar Sharma has not been established. This fact has been denied by Kiran (PW-7) wife of deceased as well as Surender Kumar Sharma (PW-8).
24. Prosecution version that Santosh Kumar (deceased) was first identified on 24.08.2008 by Dharam Singh Yadav (PW-5) is not reliable. As per, IO/SI M. S Poonia (PW-18) himself, he had knowledge of entire incident on 10.08.2008. Despite this, delay in lodging FIR on 25.08.2008 raises doubt on the story of prosecution. Smt. Babita Gupta (PW-2) changed entire version of prosecution by implicating Manjeet Singh @ Montu (PW-3) as culprit. There are material contradictions in material particulars and the testimonies of projected eye witnesses Manjeet Singh @ Montu (PW-3) and Yash Kumar Tamta @ Yash Singh (PW-4) do not appear to be credit-worthy.
25. To conclude, on considering the broader probabilities and aforesaid discussion of evidence, this Court finds that prosecution has failed to establish its case against accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Consequently, accused Paramveer Sahu is hereby acquitted. Accused is directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in like amount as required u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Record Room and same be revived as and when other co accused persons are arrested.
announced in the
open court on (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
05th April, 2014 Additional Sessions Judge-04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS)
South East, New Delhi
State Vs.Paramveer Sahu - SC No. 80 of 2012 16/16