Delhi District Court
State vs . Amarjeet Singh Fir 211/2011 ... on 19 December, 2018
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH YADUVANSHI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 05: WEST : DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF
Case No. 56187/16
FIR No. 211/2011
PS Nihal Vihar
U/s 302 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
AMARJEET SINGH
S/O SH.SUNEHARA SINGH
R/O H.NO. 26P/45E, GALI NO.8,
INDIRA PARK, PALAM COLONY,
PS SAGARPUR, DELHI
Date of Institution : 22.10.2011
Date of Reserving Judgment : 03.12.2018
Date of Judgment : 15.12.2018
Offence Complained of : U/s 302 IPC
Result: Convicted Page 1 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Offence Charged with : U/s 302 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Amarjeet Singh has been facing trial for the offence
Punishable U/s 302 IPC.
PROSECUTION'S CASE :
2. It is alleged that on 21.07.2011, the accused Amarjeet Singh (a
Probationary SI in Delhi Police) fired two bullets on his Colleague
namely SI Kailash Chand Yadav at 05:15 PM inside the IO's room
no.3 situated in the building using Police Station Nihal Vihar.
Bullets were fired from Service Pistol issued to accused on same day.
While in the process of firing second bullet, eye witness SI Bhanwar
Singh (PW1) who was present in this room and speaking with
deceased, promptly snatched Fire Arm from accused and held him
captive while shouting for assistance. Various Police officials present
in the PS reached IO's room no.3. The Injured/Victim was
immediately removed in a Police vehicle by Police team comprising
of the eye witness PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh; PW2/Ct.Sukaram Pal
Result: Convicted Page 2 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
and others to Balaji Action hospital. Victim was found "brought
dead".
3. Investigation was entrusted to a Unit of DIU/West headed by IO/
Insp.Anand Lakra (since deceased) who arrived with his team. He
obtained necessary documents and recorded statements of the sole
eye witness in the hospital after having reached there from the
incident spot. He seized the Pistol given to him by eye witness (PW
1) in the hospital. Three live Bullets were also seized i.e. 02 from the
Magazine and 01 from Chamber of the Gun (Ex.P.2). A case U/s 302
IPC was got registered on a Tehrir sent at 08:30 PM through HC
Bhagirath (PW5). FIR was registered at 09:20 PM by DO
Subedeen.
4. The Duty Officer of PS Nihal Vihar had recorded DD no.34A at
05:25 PM after incident. Another DD was also recorded at
DIU/West being DD no.27 at 05:45 PM. The short summary of
statement (Ex.PW1/A) of eye witness PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh is of
being posted in concerned PS since May, 2010 where he started to
Result: Convicted Page 3 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
share Room no.3 with SI Ram Kishore (not cited). Deceased SI
Kailash Chand Yadav and accused who got posted 1½ months ago in
this PS after transfer from PS Ranhola and started sharing room no.3
in the PS. The deceased being Senior always guided PW1 and
accused in their work which accused took otherwise.
5. When both of them were talking on a matter at 05:15 PM on
21.07.2011 in Room No.3, accused Amarjeet Singh appeared on main
door of room no.3 while holding Pistol in both his hands and shot the
deceased in his Chest and abdomen below Navel. PW1 overpowered
the accused and snatched his Pistol. On his repeated shouts, "गगलल
ममर दल गगलल ममर दल", HC Bhagirath (PW5), Ct.Satenderjeet (PW15),
Ct.Sunil, Ct.Rajesh (PW4), Ct.Naresh Tyagi etc. came to room No.3.
Accused was handedover in custody of Ct.Mahavir Singh (PW20).
Victim, who was unconscious, was shifted in official vehicle WP57
to the hospital.
6. The motive as per the Prosecution behind this act of accused is said
to be irritation to accused due to persistent guidance by the deceased
Result: Convicted Page 4 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
and his alleged act of not appearing in the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi for assistance of deceased in response to a Criminal Writ
Petition no. 946/2011 titled as Rahul Malhotra and Anothers Vs.
the State and others (Mark PW14/A) that was listed for hearing on
07.07.2011. It is alleged that one of the Party to the Writ Petition had
made a corruption complaint against the accused and the accused
believed that it was at the instance of the deceased.
7. The Police made necessary search and seizures. Case properties
were deposited in the Police Malkhana and subsequently with FSL for
opinion. Chargesheet was filed.
CHARGE :
8. Charge against him U/s 302 IPC was framed on 02.06.2014
wherein accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. It is relevant to point out that the accused has history of taking
Psychiatric treatment and even before filing of the Chargesheet, he
attended Psychiatric OPD. Chargesheet was committed to the
Sessions on 22.10.2011 and on 17.11.2011, accused filed an
Result: Convicted Page 5 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
application U/s 330 Cr.P.C. through his father.
10. On 11.04.2012, the Court wanted to know as to how the accused
was sent to Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences,
Delhi (IHBAS) on medical prescription dt.01.10.2011, when the
Chargesheet itself was put in the Court of Ilaka MM on 03.10.2011.
The Medical Board opinion was sought for. It was clarified on
03.04.2012 that accused was produced before the IHBAS by Jail
Authorities.
11. Thereafter, the matter went upto the Hon'ble Apex Court on the
point as to whether the "accused is fit to stand trial" ? Eventually,
outcome of this litigation is culminated in the order of the Hon'ble
Apex Court dt. 12.10.2015 holding that Order of the Delhi High
Court dt. 04.09.2014 suspending the trial was not justified and the
Order of the Trial Court dt. 20.02.2014 affirming the "fitness of the
accused to face trial" was confirmed. Hence, trial continued.
12. The following are the Case Exhibits :
Result: Convicted Page 6 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
S.No. Documents/Articles Exhibits
01. Statement of SI Bhanwar Singh Ex.PW1/A
(proved by PW1/SI Bhanwar
Singh)
02. Seizure memo of Pistol and three Ex.PW1/B
live Cartridges alongwith the
Magazine
(proved by PW1/SI Bhanwar
Singh & PW28/SI Ram Khilari
03. Seizure memo of personal search Ex.PW1/C
items of SI Kailash Yadav
(deceased), handedover by the
doctor to the IO.
(proved by PW1/SI Bhanwar
Singh, PW9/Harish Chandra
Yadav, PW12/Jai Singh)
Result: Convicted Page 7 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
04. Seizure memo of wooden box, one Ex.PW1/D
plastic dibbi containing two bullets
recovered from the body of deceased
and one envelop containing blood
sample in gauze.
(proved by PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh
05. Seizure memo of Copy of Arms Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F
Distribution Register respectively
and
Seizure memo of Copies of
Distribution Register dt. 02.06.2011,
07.06.2011, 14.06.2011, 21.06.2011
and 21.07.2011
(proved by PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh
and Ex.PW1/E proved by PW
21/Ct.Kuljeet, who also identified his
signatures at Point B)
06. Case property i.e. Pistol and the Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 (colly.)
Ammunitions/Cartridges respectively.
(Identified by PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh
& PW28/SI Ram Khilari)
07. Photographs of the spot of incident and Ex.PW2/A.1 to Ex.PW
its Negatives 2/A.11 (Positives)
(proved by PW2/Ct.Sukaram Pal Ex.PW2/B.1 to Ex.PW
2/B.11 (Negatives)
Result: Convicted Page 8 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
08. Copies of DD no. 34A, 40A and 46A Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and
Ex.PW3/D respectively
(proved by PW3/SI Subey Deen)
09. Computerized Print out of FIR Ex.PW3/C
(proved by PW3/SI Subey Deen)
10. Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW3/E
(proved by PW3/SI Subey Deen)
11. Copy of DD no.7B Ex.PW3/F
(Proved by PW3/SI Subey Singh)
12. Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Ex.PW3/G
Evidence Act.
(proved by PW3/SI Subey Singh)
13. Copies of DD no. 17A and DD no.38 Ex.PW3/DA and Ex.PW
3/DB respectively
(exhibited in the crossexamination of
PW3/SI Subey Singh)
14. Seizure memo of Empty Shell Ex.PW5/A
(proved by PW5/HC Bhagirath &
PW28/SI Ram Khilari)
15. Seizure memo of shirt of PSI Amarjeet Ex.PW5/B
(PW5/HC Bhagirath identified his
signatures at Point A on the same &
PW28/SI Ram Khilari)
Result: Convicted Page 9 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
16. Sketch of two empty Shells Ex.PW5/C
(PW5/HC Bhagirath identified his
signatures at Point A on the same &
PW28/SI Ram Khilari)
17. Case property i.e. Shirt of PSI Ex.P.3
Amarjeet
(identified by PW5/HC Bhagirath &
PW28/SI Ram Khilari)
18. Case property i.e. two empty Shells Ex.P.4
(identified by PW5/HC Bhagirath &
PW23/Sh.V.R.Anand, Assistant
Director, Ballistics, FSL, Rohini &
PW28/SI Ram Khilari)
19. True Copy of DD no.9A Ex.PW6/A
(proved by PW6/HC Rajesh Kumar)
20. Postmortem report Ex.PW7/A
(proved by PW7/Dr.Manoj Dhingra)
21. 18 Inquest Papers Ex.PW7/A.1 to Ex.PW
7/A.18
(proved by PW7/Dr.Manoj Dhingra)
22. MLC of injured Kailash Chand Yadav Ex.PW7/A.10
(proved by PW8/Dr.Pareejat Saurabh)
Result: Convicted Page 10 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
23. Statement of PW9/Harish Chandra Ex.PW7/A.18
Yadav regarding identification of
deadbody of Kailash Chand Yadav
(proved by PW9/Harish Chandra
Yadav and also identified his
signatures at Point X on the same)
(PW15/Ct.Satender Jeet also
identified his signatures at point A)
24. Statement of PW10/Satya Pal Singh Ex.PW7/A.19
regarding identification of deadbody of
Kailash Chand Yadav
(proved by PW10/Satya Pal Singh
and also identified his signatures at
Point X on the same)
(PW15/Ct.Satender Jeet also
identified his signatures at point A)
25. Crime Report Ex.PW11/A
(proved by PW11/SI Kuldeep Singh)
26. Copy of Writ Petition bearing no. Mark PW12/DA and also
946/11 marked as Mark PW14/A
(Fact came in the crossexamination of
PW12 Jai Singh and also proved by
PW14/HC Deshraj & also proved by
PW28/SI Ram Khilari)
Result: Convicted Page 11 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
27. Scaled Site Plan Ex.PW13/A
(proved by PW13/Insp.Mahesh
Kumar)
28. Seizure memo of Writ Petition Ex.PW14/B
no.946/11 regarding handing over it to
Insp.Anand Lakra
(PW14/HC Deshraj identified his
signatures at Point A on the same &
PW28/SI Ram Khilari identified his
signatures at Point B)
29. Copies of acknowledgement of RC no. Mark PW17/A and Mark
131/21/11 and 132/21/11 PW17/B
(proved by PW17/Ct.Ravi Dutt)
30. Seizure memo of upper top of table of Ex.PW18/A
brown colour having scratches of
bullet
(proved by PW18/HC Mahipal Singh,
PW19/Retd.Ct.Chander Shekhar)
31. Arrest Memo and Personal Search Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW
Memo of accused 18/C respectively
(proved by PW18/HC Mahipal Singh,
PW19/Retd.Ct.Chander Shekhar)
32. Seizure memo of I.Card of Delhi Ex.PW18/D
Police of accused
(proved by PW18/HC Mahipal Singh,
PW19/Retd.Ct.Chander Shekhar)
Result: Convicted Page 12 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
33. I.Card of Delhi Police of accused Ex.PW18/E
(proved by PW18/HC Mahipal Singh)
34. Upper portion of Table Ex.P.5
(identified by PW18/HC Mahipal
Singh, PW19/Retd.Ct.Chander
Shekhar)
35. Original I.Card of the complainant Ex.P.6
36. Handwritten copy of DD no.56B Ex.PW21/A
(proved by PW21 Ct.Kuljeet)
37. Register pertaining to issue and deposit Mark A
of Arms and Ammunition by the
accused running in 5 sheets (proved by
PW21/Ct.Kuljeet)
38. FSL report Ex.PW22/A
(proved by PW22/Sh.S.Sudhakar,
SSO (Chemistry), CFSL, Kolkatta)
39. FSL report Ex.PW23/A
(Proved by PW23/Sh.V.R.Anand,
Assistant Director, Ballistics, FSL,
Rohini)
40. Case property i.e. two Bullets Ex.P.23/1 and Ex.P.23/2
(Identified by PW23/Sh.V.R.Anand,
Assistant Director, Ballistics, FSL,
Rohini)
Result: Convicted Page 13 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
41. Handwritten copy of DD no.15A & Ex.PW24/A & Ex.PW24/B
DD no.18A (proved by PW24/WSI respectively
Sharda)
42. Disclosure statement of accused Mark PW25/A
(proved by PW25 ASI Ram Tirath)
43. Entries at srl.nos.308 & 309 in register Ex.PW26/A &
no.19 regarding deposition of four Ex.PW26/B respectively
pullandas and three Pullandas
alongwith one table top with the
MHC(M)
(proved by PW26 HC Ram Avtar)
44. Photocopies of RC no. 131/21/11 and Ex.PW26/C and Ex.PW
its acknowledgement 26/D
(proved by PW26 HC Ram Avtar)
45. Photocopies of RC no. 132/21/11 and Ex.PW26/E and Ex.PW
its acknowledgement 26/F
(proved by PW26 HC Ram Avtar)
46. Photocopy of log book of Gypsy No. Mark PW27/A
DL1CM4043
(proved by PW27/Ct.Satvir Singh)
47. Seizure memo of Clothes of deceased Ex.PW28/A
(proved by PW28/SI Ram Khilari)
Result: Convicted Page 14 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
48. FSL reports prepared and proved by Ex.PW29/A and Ex.PW
PW29 Dr.V.Sankaranaryanan, SSO 29/B
(Biology), RFSL, Chankya Puri, Delhi
and he also identified his signatures at
points A.
49. Document/Order regarding posting Mark PW/ia
order of the accused, admitted by the
ld. Counsel for the accused
50. Application for obtaining specimen Ex.PW/ib
signature of the accused dt. 26.07.2011
and order dt. 26.07.2011 passed by
Ld.MM
51. Order of Ld.MM on Ex.PWi/b Ex.CWA
52. Specimen writings S.1 to S.4 Ex.CWB,C,D & E
53. Signatures at four places on Arms & Ex.CWF,G.H &I
Ammunition Distribution Register
Mark A1 (02.06.2011)
Mark A2 (07.06.2011)
Mark A3 (14.06.2011) & Mark A4
(21.06.2011)
54. Questioned signatures Mark Q.1 Ex.CWJ
(21.07.2011) on Arms & Ammunition
Distribution Register
55. FSL report No. FSL2011/D4748 dt. Ex.CWK
25.03.2011
Result: Convicted Page 15 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
13. Following is the short gists of version deposed by the Prosecution
witnesses : (29 witnesses examined, 03 witnesses admitted and 07
witnesses dropped including 03 admitted witnesses)
PW1/SI BHANWAR SINGH - An eye witness
14. He proves his statement recorded by the deceased IO/Insp.Anand
Lakra Ex.PW1/A and deposes accordingly. He has stood in the
witness box as per the expectations of the Prosecution. IO had seized
the Gun and the live Cartridges and Personal Search Articles of the
deceased. Site Plan was prepared by the IO at his instance on the
same night i.e. the night of incident. The IO also seized the Bullets
recovered from body of the deceased and other articles produced after
Postmortem on the deadbody. In the presence of this witness, on
25.07.2011, IO collected copy of Arms Distribution Register of
relevant dates including the date of incident. On 14.08.2011, Police
Draftsman SI Mahesh (PW13) took rough notes and measurements
Result: Convicted Page 16 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
of place of incident at his instance. Witness identified Pistol Ex.P.1
and Cartridges Ex.P.2.
PW2/ CT. SUKRAM PAL,
Member of Mobile Crime Team
15. At 06:00 PM with SI Kuldeep (I/C Crime team) and a Finger
Prints Expert, the spot of incident was photographed by this witness.
11 Photographs Ex.PW2/A.1 to Ex.PW2/A.11 were clicked. Their
Negatives are Ex.PW2/B.1 to Ex.PW2/B.11.
PW3/SI SUBE DEEN,
Duty Officer, PS Nihal Vihar on 21.07.2011.
16. Between 05:00 PM to 01:00 AM, the witness acted as Duty
officer. At 05:15 PM, he heard gun Shots and rushed to room no.3.
He saw the injured being shifted by PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh and
other staff in Govt. QRT Vehicle. He lodged DD no.34A Ex.PW
3/A at 05:25 PM and conveyed information to Senior officials. He
received rukka from HC Bhagirath (PW5) at 09:20 PM and lodged
DD no.40A Ex.PW3/B. He recorded the FIR Ex.PW3/C and
Result: Convicted Page 17 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
registered DD no.46A Ex.PW3/D. Investigation was assigned to
Insp.Arind Lakra to whom copy of FIR and rukka was sent through
HC Bhagirath. His endorsement on rukka is Ex.PW3/A. Ct.Rakesh
was sent on govt.motorcycle with Special report for delivering the
same to Superior Officers. He returned at 01:20 AM vide DD no.7B
Ex.PW3/F. Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is
Ex.PW3/G.
PW4/CT.RAJESH KUMAR
DUTY CONSTABLE ON 21.07.2011
17. He heard Gun shots and a cry that "SI Bhanwar Singh कग गगलल
ममर दल ". He rushed with others to Room No.3 and saw the Victim in
unconscious State on his Chair. PW1 was in room holding accused.
Leaving the accused in custody of Ct.Mahavir (now head constable
and PW20), the witness proceeded to hospital with PW1 where
victim was declared dead.
PW5/HC BHAGIRATH SINGH
Result: Convicted Page 18 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
18. According to him, he was alone in room no.1 adjacent to room
no.3, when he heard two Gun shots coming from Room No.3. He
heard SI Bhanwar Singh calling "गगलल ममर दल". He rushed to Room
No.3. Other witnesses also rushed towards it. He saw PW1 had
overpowered accused while Victim was unconscious on his Chair and
bleeding. He was shifted to the hospital and the accused was left in
custody of Ct.Mahavir. The witness reached hospital on his
Motorcycle. Witness was given rukka at 08:30 PM which he gave
to the duty officer at about 09:15 PM. Copy of FIR and original
rukka was given by him to the IO on the spot of incident in PS as he
had reached there. Two empty 9 mm Shells lying in Room No.3
were seized by the IO besides seizing uniform of accused and the
seizure memo of which the witness had signed being Ex.PW5/A and
Ex.PW5/B respectively. He signed on Sketches of empty Shells
Ex.PW5/C. At first, the witness could not identify the accused in
the Court but later identified him saying that accused was having thin
structured body at the time of incident and had gained wait by the
Result: Convicted Page 19 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
date of his deposition i.e.10.03.2016. He identified Shirt of accused
as Ex.P.3 and two empty Shells as Ex.P.4 (Colly.).
PW6/HC RAJESH KUMAR
DUTY OFFICER ON 29.06.2011
19. At 08:05 AM, he recorded DD no.9A Ex.PW6/A and marked it
to PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh. (It is regarding information of a quarrel
between a married couple in H.No.RZH231, Gali No.5, Pole No.11,
Nihal Vihar. Accused accompanied him to the spot.
PW6/DR.MANOJ DHINGRA
AUTOPSY DOCTOR
20. Autopsy was conducted vide report Ex.PW7/A on 22.07.2011 on
the deadbody of SI Kailash Chand Yadav. Deceased died due to
injuries no.1 & 2 which are antemortem in nature and sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Cause of death was
shock and hemorrhage consequent to these Firm Arm injuries. The
Inquest papers (18) are Ex.PW7/A.1 to Ex.PW7/A.18.
Result: Convicted Page 20 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
PW8/DR.PAREEJAT SAURABH
MO, DELHI GOVT.DISPENSARY,
SARAI KALE KHAN, NEW DELHI.
21. While working as MO, Casualty in Balaji Action Medical
Institute, injured Kailash Chand Yadav was brought before him on
21.07.2011 by PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh who was examined on MLC
Ex.PW7/A.10 and found 'dead'.
PW9/HARISH CHANDRA YADAV
(BROTHER OF ACCUSED)
22. He received information of Fire Arm injury on his brother SI
Kailash Chand Yadav on 21.07.2011 and he reached the hospital at
05:45 PM. His belongings were handedover to him by the IO. Next
day, he identified the deadbody of his brother in mortuary of SGM
hospital, where his statement Ex.PW7/A.18 was recorded.
PW10/SATYA PAL SINGH
(BROTHER IN LAW OF THE DECEASED)
23. On receipt of information of death of SI Kailash Chand Yadav,
the witness reached mortuary of SGM hospital where he identified the
Result: Convicted Page 21 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
deadbody of deceased and made statement to the IO Ex.PW7/A.19.
PW11/SI KULDEEP SINGH
INCHARGE, MOBILE CRIME TEAM
ON 21.07.2011
24. He received information to report at PS Nihal Vihar at 05:30 PM
where he reached with Ct.Sukram Pal (PW2) and Finger Prints
Expert at 05:50 PM. On instructions of the IO, he inspected Room
no.3 and found two empty Shells of 9 mm. He observed a Bullet
mark on the table. He remained at the spot till 11:30 PM and
prepared his report Ex.PW11/A.
PW12/JAI SINGH
(RETIRED INSPECTOR)
25. The witness was SHO of PS Nihal Vihar on 21.07.2011. ASI Sube
Deen (PW3) telephonically informed him of the incident details at
05:25 PM. At first, he could not identify the accused in court as he
was sitting on Chair but later identified him. At the relevant moment,
he was present else where. He was informed that Victim was shifted
Result: Convicted Page 22 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
to Balaji Action hospital and reached there where he met PW1/SI
Bhanwar Singh, PW5/HC Bhagirath, PW6/Ct.Rajesh, PW
15/Ct.Satender Jeet Singh and Ct.Sunil. He also inspected the
deadbody of the victim and shared information with the Sr.officers.
As per directions of his DCP, a DIU team was to investigate the case.
Dr.concerned gave him items found on the deadbody which he
handedover to Harsih Chand (PW9) vide memo Ex.PW1/C. He
received copy of DD no.34A Ex.PW3/A recorded by the duty
officer. Team from the DIU reached the hospital where the SHO
handedover copy of DD and the Handingover Memo to the case IO.
As per the witness, he had completed two years as SHO and well
aware of his subordinates. Room no.3 was in use by the deceased, SI
Ram Kishore, PW1 and the accused. While deceased was a mature
competent and noticeable officer, the other staff was regularly taking
his advise. The accused was undergoing 'Dcourse' and used to take
guidance from the deceased. A call regarding eve teasing was
received in PS Nihal Vihar on 29.06.2011 recorded as DD no.15A,
Result: Convicted Page 23 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Ex.PW24/A (at 12:07 PM, message was recorded from Caller that
10 to 12 boys entered his house no. K284/12, B.R.School, Nihal
Vihar and were misbehaving with his wife. Accused and Ct.Pawan
Kumar were entrusted with inquiry).
26. On 06.07.2011, information was received regarding hearing of
Criminal Writ Petition No.946/11 (copy Mark PW14/A) in the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 07.07.2011. It related to DD no.15A.
Accused was on leave for 09 days from 11th July, 2011 and
telephonically informed to appear in the matter which was looked
after by the deceased SI. He reached the Hon'ble High Court but
accused did not appear and made no arrangements for handingover
the relevant record/information to the deceased. Further, accused kept
DD no.15A pending. Deceased advised him when he returned from
leave to not to be careless. Resultingly, accused developed animosity
with deceased. He again proceeded on M.L. for 07 days from
11.07.2011.
27. As pert he witness, accused believed that the Writ was filed at the
Result: Convicted Page 24 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
instance of deceased. He joined duties on 19.07.2011. Deceased had
informed about behaviour of the accused and on his request, the SHO
separately advised the accused to perform duties sincerely.
PW13/INSP.MAHESH KUMAR
DRAFTSMAN
28. On 14.08.2012, on request of the IO, he reached the incident spot,
took rough notes/measurements at the instance of PW1. Later he
prepared scaled Site Plan on 25.08.2011, Ex.PW13/A and destroyed
rough Notes.
PW14/ HC DESH RAJ
READER TO THE SHO ON 26.07.2011
29. On 26.07.2011, IO inquired him about DD no.15A and the person
to whom it was marked. He told that it was marked to the deceased
and handedover its photocopy and copy of DD no.15A to the IO vide
handingover Memo Ex.PW14/B.
PW15/CT.SATENDER JEET
DUTY CONSTABLE ON 21.07.2011
30. He reached PS on 21.07.2011 when briefing was under way. He
Result: Convicted Page 25 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
heard two Gun Shots and call of SI Bhanwar Singh (PW1), "गगलल
ममर दल ". He with others reached Room No.3 and saw the Victim on
his Chair in unconscious state. PW1 was holding deceased. Leaving
the accused in custody of Ct.Mahipal, he and PW5 lifted the Victim
and took him to the hospital. He was given duty of supervising the
deadbody of deceased and shifted it to the mortuary of SGM
hospital. On the next day after postmortem, deadbody was
handedover to PW9 and PW10.
PW16/RAJ SINGH
RETIRED ACP
31. He was directed to send a team from DIU/West for investigating
the incident of firing about which he received message from his
superiors at 05:30 PM on 21.07.2011. Team of Insp.Hans Ram (not
examined), Insp.Anand Lakra (since deceased) and SI Ram Khilari
(PW28) left the DIU/West at 05:45 PM with this witness. Charge
sheet was submitted by the IO which the witness counter signed. He
also signed forwarding letters addressed to the FSL.
Result: Convicted Page 26 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
PW17/CT.RAVI DUTT
DUTY CONSTABLE ON 23.08.2011 (DIU/W)
32. He carried memo nos. 599 and 601 issued by ACP on 23.08.2011
and collected case exhibits from MHC(M) PS Nihal Vihar i.e.
Viscera sample in wooden box and 07 sealed Parcels including
Sample seal which he deposited in FSL Rohini vide RC nos.
131/21/11 and 132/21/11 in sealed condition. Acknowledgement for
the same are marked as Mark PW17/A and Mark PW17/B.
PW18/HC MAHIPAL SINGH
DUTY CONSTABLE ON 21/22.07.2011
(PS NIHAL VIHAR)
33. In his presence, IO took into possession Table top of Brown
colour table having Bullet scratch on it vide Memo Ex.PW18/A. On
22.07.2011 at 03:00 AM, accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW
18/B and his Personal search Memo was conducted vide memo
Ex.PW18/C. I/Card of accused was seized vide memo Ex.PW18/D.
He identified the I/Car as Ex.PW18/E and the Table Top as Ex.P.5.
Result: Convicted Page 27 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
PW19/CT.CHANDER SHEKHAR
(RETIRED)
DUTY CONSTABLE ON 21.07.2011
(PS NIHAL VIHAR)
34. After refreshing his memory, witness deposed that IO got the
Table top of the IO's table in Room no.3 unscrewed as it had a Bullet
mark. It was covered by a transparent tape and then seized vide
Memo Ex.PW18/A. Accused was arrested on 22.07.2011 vide
Memo in his presence and he witnessed proceedings of arrest and
seizure of I.Card. At 05:00 AM, he, IO and HC Mahipal went for
medical examination of the accused and then returned to the
DIU/West. He identified Table top Ex.P.5, I/Card Ex.P.6 and also the
accused.
PW20/HC MAHAVIR
CHITHA MUNSHI PS NIHAL VIHAR
ON 21.07.2011
35. In DO's room on 21.07.2011, he heard a Bullet shot at 05:15 PM
and call of PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh, "गगलल चल गई, गगलल चल गई". He
Result: Convicted Page 28 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
reached room no.3 and noticed PW1 holding accused. PW5/HC
Bhagirath was looking at the Victim who was lying on his Chair.
The custody of accused was handeodover to him. He took him in
Room No.9. later he handedover the custody of accused to the IO.
PW21/CT.KULJEET
DD WRITER PS NIHAL VIHAR
ON 29.06.2011
36. On 29.06.2011, the accused entered arrival vide DD entry no.56B,
Ex.PW21/A. On 25.07.2011, while working as MHC(M), case IO
collected Arms and Ammunition Register from him and seized the
same vide Memo Ex.PW1/E signed by this witness. Relevant entries
of Issues and Deposits of Arms/Ammunition to accused running in 05
sheets is Mark 'A'.
PW22/S.SUDHAKER,
SSO, FSL, ROHINI
37. A sealed Parcel was received on 23.08.2011 through Ct.Ravi Dutt
vide order of SHO of PS Nihal Vihar dt. 20.08.2011. The witness
examined its contents i.e. Viscera Samples of deceased SI Kailash
Result: Convicted Page 29 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Chand Yadav. No metallic Poisons etc. were found and the report of
witness is Ex.PW22/A.
PW23/SH.V.R.ANAND
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (BALLISTICS)
FSL, ROHINI, DELHI
38. As Ballistic Expert, he examined 07 sealed Parcels which were
received on 23.08.2011 through Ct.Ravi Dutt in sealed condition.
Three Parcels i.e. 2,7 & 8 were sent to Biological Division in sealed
condition and later returned with seal of VSN FSL, DELHI. Other
Parcels were sealed with the seal of AL.
39. Contents of the Parcels are :
(a) Two Bullets - Ex.EB1 and Ex.EB2
(b) Police Uniform Shirt with
02 Stars, Name Plate, Whistle
Cord and Lanyard _ Ex.C1
(c) Table Top _ Ex.T1
(d) Dent Mark _ Ex.D1
(e) Gun/Pistol no. 16102803 _ Ex.F1
Result: Convicted Page 30 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
(f) Three 9 mm Cartridges _ A.1 to A.3
(g) Two Cartridge cases
of 9 mm _ Ex.EC1 and Ex.EC2.
(h) One Uniform Shirt with
two Stars on shoulders,
Name Plate, Whistle Cord
& Lanyard _Ex.C2.
(i) First hole on Ex.C.2 _Ex.H1
(j) Second Hole on Ex.C.2 _Ex.H2
(k) One Baniyan with two
Holes _Ex.C.3
(l) First Hole on Ex.C.3 _ Ex.H3
(m) Second Hold on Ex.C.3 _ Ex.H4
(n) Uniform Trouser with Belt _ Ex.C4
(o) First Hole on Ex.C4 _ Ex.H5
(p) Second Hole on Ex.C4 _ Ex.H6
(q) One Underwear _ Ex.C5
40. Ex.F1 was in working Order. Cartridges A1 to A3 are live
Cartridges. Bullets Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are of 9mm. Ex.C1 and
Result: Convicted Page 31 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Ex.C2 were spent Cartridges.
41. As per result :
(a) Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 were fired from Ex.F1.
(b) No opinion could be rendered if Ex.B1 and Ex.B2
were fired from Ex.F1.
(c) No opinion could be rendered on holes on clothes as to
whether they resulted from Gun Shot for want of GSR.
(d) The report of the witness is Ex.PW23/A.
42. Witness identified Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 as Ex.PW23/1 and
Ex.PW23/2 (Bullets extracted from the deadbody). Witness
identified Pistol already Ex.P.1. He identified three used Shells and
three spent Bullets already Ex.P.2. He identified two empty
Cartridges already exhibited as Ex.P.4 which he marked PC1 and
PC2.
PW24/W/SI SHARDA
DUTY OFFICER ON 29.06.2011
(NIHAL VIHAR)
Result: Convicted Page 32 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
43. At 12:07 PM on 29.06.2011, she received PCR call and recorded
DD no.15A Ex.PW24/A. At 03:00 PM on the same day,
information from control room was received qua quarrel at F2,
Kanwar Singh Nagar regarding which DD no.18A Ex.PW24/B was
recorded and assigned to the accused.
PW25/ASI RAM TIRATH
DIU/WEST
44. On 24.07.2011, he and IO brought accused from lock up PS Kirti
Nagar to DIU/West where he made his disclosure statement Ex.PW
25/A.
PW26/HC RAM AVTAR
MHC (M)
45. On 21.07.2011, he deposited Pistol, two live Cartridges and empty
Shell in Pullanda sealed with the seal of AL. He also deposited three
more sealed Pullandas, one of which contained Service Uniform,
Whistle Cord etc. having seal of Balaji Action Hospital. He deposited
Pullanda sealed with the seal of AL containing two empty Shells.
Result: Convicted Page 33 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Uniform shirt of accused with Name Plate, Whistle Cord etc. was
deposited in fourth Pullanda sealed with the seal of AL. Seals were
intact. The above property was entered at Srl.No. 308 in register
no.19, Ex.PW26/A.
46. On 22.07.2011, IO deposited three sealed Pullandas and sample
Seal alongwith one Laptop. Pullandas were sealed with the seal of
SGM Mortuary and stated to contain Viscera and two Bullets
extracted from body of the deceased as well as blood on gauze. Seals
were intact. Entry was made at Srl.No. 309 in register no. 19,
Ex.PW26/B. By the same entry, Personal search articles of accused
were also deposited.
47. On 23.08.2011, all case property was sent to FSL, Rohini through
Ct.Ravi Dutt vide RC 131/21/2011, Ex.PW26/C and 132/21/2011,
Ex.PW26/E. Acknowledgement in respect of the first deposit is
Ex.PW26/D and the second deposit is Ex.PW26/F.
PW27/CT.SATVIR SINGH
DRIVER IN GOVT.GYPSY ON 21.07.2011
Result: Convicted Page 34 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
48. On 21.07.2011, this witness had taken the deceased SI Kailash
Chand Yadav in govt.Gypsy bearing no. DL1CM4043 to Balaji
Action hospital in injured condition. SI Bhanwar Singh, Ct.Rajesh
and other police officials had also accompanied him in the
govt.Gypsy. The doctor had declared SI Kailash Chand Yadav as
'brought dead'. He handedover the copy of Log book to the IO on
16.09.2011 which is Mark PW27/A.
PW28/RETIRED SI RAM KHILARI
49. The witness investigated the case with Insp.Anand Lakra (since
deceased). He was an SI in DIU/West and present in the office on
21.07.2011 when he was directed to report to PS Nihal Vihar with IO
and Insp.Hans Raj. He reached PS Nihal Vihar at 06:15 PM, where
they were informed of the incident. They reached Balaji Action
hospital in Govt.Gypsy and by that time, Crime team had already
reached the PS. Statement of PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh is recorded by
the IO. Insp.Hans Ram gave Pullanda sealed with the hospital seal to
the IO as it contained deceased's clothes which were seized vide
Result: Convicted Page 35 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
memo Ex.PW28/A, signed by this witness. Sample seal was also
handedover.
50. The team returned to incident spot before which PW1/SI
Bhanwar Singh had handedover loaded Service Pistol of accused
which was unloaded and three rounds and Pistol were seized vide
Ex.PW1/B signed by the witness at point B.
51. At PS Nihal Vihar, in room no.3, witness saw two Cartridge cases
lying outside room near the door. IO picked them, prepared Sketch
Ex.PW5/C, bearing signatures of this witness at Point B, kept them
in Plastic dibbi and after wrapping them in cloth Pullanda, seized
them vide memo Ex.PW5/A.
52. Accused was identified in the Court. He was present in PS. IO
seized his Uniform Shirt with Name Plate, Pistol Cord, Lanyard,
Stars and shoulder badge of DP, which were seized vide Ex.PW5/B,
signed by this witness. The team then proceeded to DIU/W office.
53. On 26.07.2011, this witness again reached PS Nihal Vihar with IO
and collected Photocopy of Criminal WP 946/2011 from HC Janak
Result: Convicted Page 36 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Raj which was seized vide memo Ex.PW14/B, signed by this
witness.
54. The witness identified the Pistol Ex.P.1 and Cartridges/Bullets
unloaded from the Pistol Ex.P.2 in the Court. He also identified
contents of Pullanda No.3 i.e. Uniform Shirt with Stars, Name Plate
of the accused, Pistol Cord and Lanyard as Ex.P.3. He identified the
Cartridge cases seals by the IO from the incident spot as Ex.P.4.
PW29/DR.V.SANKARA NARAYANAN
FSL EXPERT
55. Three sealed Parcels of this case were received in Biology
Division, FSL, Rohini on 04.01.2012 which were examined by the
witness as per his reports Ex.PW29/A and Ex.PW29/B
respectively.
56. Insp.Hans Ram was dropped by the Prosecution in view of
testimony of PW28 vide separate statement of the Ld.Prosecutor dt.
12.04.2018.
57. Ct.Sunil and Ct.Naresh Tyagi were dropped by the Prosecution in
Result: Convicted Page 37 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
view of testimony of PW4 vide separate statement of the
Ld.Prosecutor dt. 28.05.2016.
58. On 30.01.2017, defence admitted contents of Transfer/Posting
orders of the accused which is Mark PWia.
59. Admission/denial of documents was conducted on 05.08.2017
U/s 294 Cr.P.C wherein accused admitted the application of IO for
obtaining specimen signatures of the accused dt. 26.07.2011 and
order of the same date passed thereupon by the Ld.MM which is
Ex.PWi/b. Consequently, the Prosecution dropped witness
Sh.M.P.Singh, the then Ld.MM.
60. On 06.03.2018, Prosecution dropped PW/HC Ranbir Singh as not
a material witness to it.
61. Admission/denial of document was again conducted on
01.05.2018 wherein accused admitted the fact that he had received
supplementary Chargesheet comprising of handwriting Analysis
Expert report dt. 25.03.2014 which he was not disputing. He did not
also dispute his admitted writings at Points A.1 to A.4 on Arms and
Result: Convicted Page 38 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Ammunition Distribution register w.e.f. 01.06.2011. He also did not
dispute entry at Q.1 in the said register dt. 21.07.2011 and hence he
admitted following documents :
SNo. Nature of document No.of Admitted/ Remarks Exhibit
pages denied
01. Application by Case IO 01 Admitted To be read in Already
for obtaining permission evidence exhibited as
from concerned MM in
Ex.Pwi/b
respect of the specimen
writings Mark S.1 to S.4.
02. Order of Ld.M.M.on 01 Admitted To be read in In red encircled
Ex.PWi/b evidence portion now
Ex.CWA.
03. Specimen writings S.1 to 04 Admitted To be read in Ex.CWB,C,D &
S.4 evidence E.
04. Signatures at four places 04 Admitted To be read in Ex.CWF, G,H
on Arms & Ammunition evidence & I.
Distribution Register,
Mark A1 (02.06.2011)
Mark A2 (07.06.2011)
Mark A3 (14.06.2011)
& Mark A4
(21.06.2011)
05. Questioned signatures 01 Admitted To be read in Ex.CWJ
Mark Q.1 (21.07.2011) evidence
on Arms & Ammunition
Result: Convicted Page 39 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
SNo. Nature of document No.of Admitted/ Remarks Exhibit
pages denied
Distribution Register.
06. FSL Report No.FSL 01 Admitted To be read in Ex.CWK
2011/D4748 dt. (back evidence
25.03.2011 to
back)
Consequently, witnesses Dr.P.V.Jiji and ASI Hira Lal
have been dropped by the Ld.Prosecutor vide separate statement.
DEFENCE :
62. The incriminating circumstances produced by the Prosecution in
the testimonies of PW1 to PW29 were put to the accused in his
Statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the allegations put
against him. According to the accused, he was not keeping well
during those days and on the day of incident, SI Kailash Chand
Yadav and SI Bhanwar Singh were discussing something in high tone.
He kept his files and Pistol on the table and went to Urinal located
nearby the said room. When he was easing himself, he heard the noise
of fire from the side of room no.3. He rushed to room no.3 and saw
SI Kailash Chand Yadav lying on the Chair. He also saw SI Bhanwar
Result: Convicted Page 40 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Singh holding his Pistol. He raised the Voice "गगलल ममर दल". In the
meanwhile, SI Bhanwar Singh who is of heavy built than him,
grabbed him and started raising the voice that, "SI Kailash कग गगलल
ममर दल". The Police staff also reached there and SI Bhanwar Singh
made a false statement to them saying that he had fired.
He resisted his point but the staff did not hear him as he
was very new in the Police station and they were not knowing him.
Since his medical condition was not well and was very new,
Sr.officers did not believe him. He had also stated the said fact to the
IO but he did not pay any attention. SI Bhanwar Singh shouted only
after his arrival in the room no.3 and when he raised his voice, he
caught hold of him. The Pistol was kept by him on the table which
must have been used by him. He continuously kept the Pistol with
him as he never wanted to handover the Pistol to anyone to conceal
his Finger Prints over the Pistol. The deceased was taken to hospital
to show his false bonafide. The Pistol was handedover by PW1 after
removing his Finger Prints. The Seizure memo and rukka were
Result: Convicted Page 41 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
prepared in the PS. The place of recovery of those Cartridges may
have been changed. He did not know the other details as he was
made to sit in another room in the PS.
63. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He
was not physically and mentally fit during those days. SI Bhanwar
Singh took undue benefit of his medical condition. He has roped him
to save himself from the clutches of law. Nobody heard him as he
was the Probationary officer. The Pistol was used by SI Bhanwar
Singh only and he kept the Pistol to remove the Finger Prints. He
did not hand over the Pistol to any other Police official prior to
shifting the deceased to hospital. He (SI Bhanwar Singh) was not
feeling comfortable due to occupation and use of Room no.3 by him
(accused) and the deceased. His privacy had been compromised due
to use of room no.3 and almirah therein by the deceased and him
(accused). He and the deceased had very cordial relationship. The
deceased used to treat him like a Son and he used to treat him like a
father. He learnt a lot from him and they had very good times
Result: Convicted Page 42 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
together. He never knew that SI Bhanwar Singh will use him as an
easy prey to save himself. He has misused his position.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE :
64. The accused opted to lead Defence evidence i.e. DW1 HC
Sanjeev Kumar and DW2 Amarjeet Singh (accused himself) after
due permission.
65. DW1 HC Sanjeev Kumar was working as MHC (M) on the
relevant date. He brought the summoned record i.e. Duty Register dt.
21.07.2011 of PS Nihal Vihar. Copy of the same was taken on record
which is Ex.DW1/A.
66. He had also brought original DD no.34A dt. 21.07.2011 which
was taken on record and exhibited as Ex.DW1/B. He has also
brought the copy of Site Plan of Property no. RZF/A1, Nihal Vihar,
Nangloi, New Delhi. The same was taken on record and marked as
Mark DW1/C.
67. DW2 Amarjeet Singh is accused himself. On request of
ld.defence counsel, the witness was asked to reveal whether he is
Result: Convicted Page 43 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
under some medication and he submitted that he is under Psychiatry
treatment and has taken morning dose of medicine as prescribed by
the Jail Doctor. According to him, he was feeling little sleepy
however he was willing to stand in the witness box. In his
examinationinchief, he has deposed all the facts as stated by him in
his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
68. In response to leading question by the defence counsel, he stated
that he was having cordial and healthy relationship with deceased. In
response to another leading question, this witness stated that before a
Joint transfer order, transferring him, SI Kailash Chand and SI Ram
Kishore. All the three i.e. accused, SI Kailash Chand Yadav and SI
Ram Kishore started to share this room with SI Bhanwar Singh due to
which there was an issue regarding sharing of room as SI Bhanwar
Singh did not want his privacy to be disturbed.
69. For Prosecution, Ms.Nimmi Sisodia, has argued with the
assistance of Advocates of Complainant Mr.Rajeev Mohan and
Mr.Varun. For defence, case has been presented by his defence
Result: Convicted Page 44 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Counsel Mr.K.Singhal and Mr.Prasanna. Herein below is brief
summary what Prosecution argued in favour of its case.
ARGUMENTS BY LD.PROSECUTOR :
70. Star witness for Prosecution is SI Bhanwar Singh (PW1) and
Prosecution is heavily relying on his testimony. It is submitted that
no case of Prosecution can be flawless and so is this. With that frame
work, Prosecution urged before the Court to ignore minor
discrepancies amongst testimonies of supporting witness particularly
those who visited the incident spot soon after Gun Shots were fired.
It is highlighted that the first priority of the Police official was to shift
the injured to the hospital and thus, a delay in FIR, if any, should not
be permitted to defeat ends of Justice. Having said so, Prosecution
contends that there is no delay at all as Duty Officer/PW3 promptly
recorded the information in the DD Register at 05:25 PM as per DD
no.34A Ex.PW3/A which names the accused as a 'Shooter' and SI
Kailash Chand Yadav as the Victim of Shooter. It records that
Victim is being shifted to Balaji Action Hospital by PW1/SI
Result: Convicted Page 45 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Bhanwar Singh, PW5/HC Bhagirath, PW15/Ct.Satender Jeet,
Ct.Sunil and Ct.Naresh.
71. It is submitted that investigation was made by the IO, DIU/West
Team and they also recorded about the incident of Shooting in their
Daily Diary vide entry no. 27 at 05:45 PM. It is submitted that FIR
was registered promptly and also dispatched to Sr.officers with
promptness as evident from DD no.46A Ex.PW3/D. The recording
of the FIR was closed by the same entry. Regarding registration of
the FIR also, PW3/SI Sube Deen had recorded relevant DD no. 40A
Ex.PW3/B at 09:20 PM.
72. Prosecution then submits that incident admittedly took place in
Room no.3 and none of the witness of Prosecution has said that the
voice which he heard regarding the shoot out was of the accused
himself. It is submitted that no such question had been asked from
PW4/Ct.Rajesh Kumar, PW5/HC Bhagirath, PW15/Ct.Satender
Jeet and PW20/HC Mahavir. Likewise, it is submitted that no
witness was asked whether accused had gone to the Washroom as
Result: Convicted Page 46 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
claimed. It has submitted that merely because Chance Prints could
not be lifted from the place of incident, that Pistol Ex.P.1 was not
produced for lifting Chance Prints from it. It cannot be assumed that
the defence version to the effect that same was not done as PW1/SI
Bhanwar Singh wanted to remove his Finger Prints from it cannot be
sustained.
73. It is contended that only the accused was the person who was
issued Arms and Ammunition on the date of incident from amongst
the three persons present in IO's room no.3 PS Nihal Vihar. It is
submitted that being Police official, it was incumbent on accused to
keep Pistol in safe custody. He could have deposited it back in the
Armory or with the DO or could have kept it safely in the Almirah
which he used to keep his files in Room no.3 or better yet, carry the
same with him to the Wash Room particularly when his version is
that deceased and PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh were having hot
exchange of words when he arrived in Room no.3 at 05:15 PM.
Prosecution submits that defence version is highly improbable and
Result: Convicted Page 47 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
should be discarded immediately.
74. Prosecution further submits that there is no reason for PW1 to
have an intention to kill the deceased and no reason for it has been
propagated by the defence. It is contended that even if the Court were
to assume that PW1 is the person who killed SI Kailash Chand
Yadav in spur of the moment then, the Court or nobody else for that
matter, would comprehend that PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh had prior
knowledge that accused will come and keep his loaded weapon on the
table for his convenience. Arguing further, it is submitted that even if
PW1 is, for the sake of arguments, taken to be the person who shot
the deceased then also, he will never have prior knowledge that
accused will arrive at the right time so that he can overpower him and
then frame him falsely in this case.
75. The Prosecution has next argued about discrepancy on location of
Cartridges urging that only PW28/Retired SI Ram Khilari says that
the empty Cartridges were lying outside the gate of Room No.3 which
is a minor inconsistency as the other Pws have categorically deposed
Result: Convicted Page 48 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
that they saw the Cartridges lying in the room as soon as one enters, it
towards the right side. It is contended that Photographs depicting the
correct location have been proved.
76. The Prosecution then argues that presence of Injury No.3 on the
back in the form of fixed Swelling is unconsequential as it is not the
cause of death. It is submitted that such injury could have been
sustained in the process of shifting the Victim from the PS to the
hospital. It is urged that the Court may note that all the relevant
witnesses have described that the Victim was found sitting on his
Chair with his head down and bleeding from Chest.
77. It is submitted that the Court may ignore the fact that the Crime
Team Report does not mention of the FIR number though the team
was present till 11:00 PM and FIR was registered much prior at
09:20 PM. It is submitted that the team arrived at 06:00 PM and by
that time, matter was being investigated only on DD no.34A.
78. The Prosecution also submitted that in version of PW4, the
words, "SI Bhanwar Singh कग गगलल ममर दल" is merely a typing
Result: Convicted Page 49 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
mistake. It is submitted that defence never asked PW4/Ct.Rajesh
Kumar that the above words in the voice of the accused.
79. The Prosecution then also set out the motive behind the alleged
Act of the accused which is as per the facts given earlier in the
Judgment. Prosecution connects DD no.15A with the Criminal WP
Mark PW14/A. It is submitted that the SHO concerned has
categorically deposed besides PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh that accused
did not report from Medical Leave, for the hearing of the Petition on
07.07.2011 and subsequent complaint of deceased to the SHO/PW12
Jai Singh PS Nihal Vihar triggered the situation. The Prosecution as
well as the Complainant's Counsel also submitted that the accused is
trying to take a plea of alibi by saying that at the time of incident, he
was in the Washroom. It is submitted that burden of Proof remained
on accused U/s 101 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is contended that
he has not responded to Special facts and circumstances in his
knowledge and absence of which may be considered as an additional
incriminating circumstance against him by virtue of Section 106 of
Result: Convicted Page 50 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
the Indian Evidence Act. It is argued that accused claims that PW1
is better in Physique than him and since he had been on medical leave
for 07 days w.e.f. 11.07.2011 and thus, Weak is itself conceived as
PW12 categorically states that accused had submitted a Medical
Certificate of Fitness.
80. The Prosecution lastly argued that though it has proved motive for
accused to commit the alleged Act but fact remains that its case is
based on Eye witness Account and therefore, it is not required to
prove the Motive as it is otherwise not relevant. The Ld.Prosecutor
relies on the following Judgments :
(1) In Bipin Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal,
(2010) 12 SCC 91, it is held that :
"Ocular evidence supported by medical evidence - No material to show
that appellant was falsely implicated or that appellant's neighbours and
relatives deposing falsely against him - Motive is irrelevant when direct
evidence is available - Criminal Trial - conduct of accused, complainant,
witnesses,etc. Conduct/Reaction/behaviour of witness - conduct of minor
Son on murder of his mother and brother by his father - witnesses -
Child/Young witness.
21. The issue of motive becomes totally irrelevant when there is direct
evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding the commission of the crime.
Result: Convicted Page 51 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
In such a case, particularly when a Son and other closely related persons
depose against the appellant, the proof of motive by direct evidence loses
its relevance. In the instant case, the ocular evidence is supported by the
medical evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant
had received any grave or sudden provocation from the victims or that the
appellant had lost his power of selfcontrol from any action of either of the
victims.
Motive :
22. In fact, motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused
himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution to explain what
actually prompted or excited him to commit a particular crime.
23. In Shivji Genu Mohite V. State of Maharashtra, this Court held that in
case the prosecution is not able to discover an impelling motive, that
could not reflect upon the credibility of a witness proved to be a reliable
eyewitness. Evidence as to motive would, no doubt, go a long way in
cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would
form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a
case. But that would not be so in cases where there are eye witnesses of
credibility, though even in such cases if a motive is properly proved, such
proof would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its
ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean that if motive is not
established, the evidence of an eyewitness is rendered untrustworthy.
24. It is settled legal proposition that even if the absence of motive as
alleged is accepted that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance
when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is
direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence,
the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the
motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the
witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only by the reason
of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance".
Result: Convicted Page 52 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
(2) Shamim Vs. State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi)
2018 SCC Online SC 1559
"12. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be
whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole inspires confidence.
Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court
to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the
deficiences, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a
whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor
of the evidence and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is
shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial
matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by
taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence,
attaching importance to some technical error without going to the root of
the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a
whole. Minor omissions in the police statements are never considered to
be fatal. The statements given by the witnesses before the police are
meant to be brief statements and could not take place of evidence in the
Court. Small/Trivial omissions would not justify a finding by Court that
the witnesses concerned are liars. The prosecution evidence may suffer
from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a
shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be
seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or
pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence
may be justified in seeking advantage of incongruities obtaining in the
evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it".
(3) Jaleshwar Majhi Vs. State
2018 1 AD (Delhi) 641
Result: Convicted Page 53 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
17. As regards the argument of the defence that the motive was unable to
be proved, the trial court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in
Subedar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1989 SC 733 wherein it was held
that where the other circumstances were sufficient to point to the guilt of
the accused then the mere absence of proof of motive would not prove
fatal to the prosecution case.
25. ........................ The Appellant's denial of the fact that he stayed in any
room rented by Pws and his claim to the contrary that he was living in a
house owned by one Parmod at Shahbad, near the railway phatak was
unable to be substantiated by him by leading any evidence.
29. As rightly pointed out by the trial court, while the motive has not been
able to be proved, as long as the evidence on the record points unerringly
to the guilt of the accused, the failure to prove the motive for the crime
would not by itself be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
(4) Ashok Kumar Vs. State
2018 5 AD (Delhi) 247
"11. PW7 also confirmed in his crossexamination that the deceased was
stabbed by the accused thrice - once on the left chest and the other two
times on the arms. He further stated : "It is correct that Ashok was in a
drunken state at that time. He was fully drunk".
12. The above ocular evidence of Pws5 and 7 has been fully corroborated
by the medical evidence.......................:".
14. the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of the
injury to the internal organs. It was clear, therefore, that the stab would
on the chest was so deep and severe that it pierced the liver.
18. ......................... In State Vs.Saravanan, 2009 SC 152, the Supreme
Court held in the trial Court could overlook "minor discrepancies on
Result: Convicted Page 54 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
trivial matters "which does affect "the core of the prosecution case.
............".
20. The relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness.
Merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the
crime, he/she cannot be characterized as an "interested" postulates that
the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the
accused is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some
animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive." 30. It further
explained in Jayabalan V. Union Territory of Pondicherry (2010) 1 Scc
199 as under : "We are of the considered view that in cases where the
Court is called upon to deal with the, evidence of the interested witnesses,
the approach of the Court, while appreciating the evidence of such
witnesses must not be pedantic. The Court must be cautious in
appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses
but the Court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary
endeavour of the Court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a
witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the
mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim."
21. ".......................... Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching
the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out
of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some
technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root
of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a
whole. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the
opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given
by the witness, the appellate Court which had not this benefit will have to
attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and
unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to
reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the
matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in
some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation,
Result: Convicted Page 55 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
retention and reproduction differ with individuals".
23. In Rammi alias Rameshwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1999 VIII
AD (SC) 242 = AIR 1999 SC 256, it was observed :
"When eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to
make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from
making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well
tutored can successfully make his testimony totally nondiscrepant. But
courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the
evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his
version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too
serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of
an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between
two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial
scrutiny".
(5) Sachin Vs. State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi)
2018 5 AD (Delhi) 382
"13. On examination of these decisions, What emerges is that the case of
the prosecution in those cases did not fail merely on account of failure of
the prosecution to establish the motive. In all these cases, the prosecution
failed to establish other relevant circumstances. Thus, failure to prove the
motive acted as the last straw. In Ashok Kumar (supra), firstly, we may
notice that the evidence of "last seen" circumstance was not believed by
the Court. In this background, the Supreme Court observed that "It has
been held in some judgments that normally and circumstantial evidence
bases cases, the prosecution has to prove motive. The absence of motive
becomes material in such cases; correspondingly motive is not important
in the case of direct or ocular evidence".
17. So, there is no force in the contention of the counsel for the appellant
Result: Convicted Page 56 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
that nonproving of motive by the prosecution would be fatal to its case in
all circumstances. It would need examination whether all circumstances -
which complete the chain and point only to the guilt of the accused, has
been completed. If so, the lack of proof of motive would not result in
rejection of the case of the prosecution.
42. It is apparent that there are contradictions in the testimony of PW17
and PW22 regarding the time of search of the slipper. PW17 had stated
that the slipper was searched at about 03:30 p.m., Whereas the recovery
witness PW22 had stated that he was called by the IO at about 6.30 - 6.45
p.m. to search the slipper from the drain.
ARGUMENTS BY LD.DEFENCE COUNSEL :
81. Oral arguments have been advanced and written Synopsis is on
record. It revolves around :
(a) Doubtful conduct of PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh;
(b) Investigation not done with open mind; and
(c) Serious prejudice caused as IO died before the Court
examination.
82. Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate submitted that accused has been fair
throughout the trial and unlike usually accused of a heinous offence,
Result: Convicted Page 57 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
he displayed traits of complete truth and thus, never disputed that (a)
he was posted at PS Nihal Vihar; (b) he shared Room no.3 with
PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh, SI Ram Kishore and the deceased; (c) his
presence in the PS at the time of incident and (d) that Pistol Ex.P.1
and five Bullets were issued to him.
83. Mr.Singhal's arguments are that :
ANTEDATED AND ANTETIMED FIR - DELAY AND
NON COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 157 CR.P.C.
84. He draws attention of the Court to the fact that rukka was
prepared at 08:30 PM i.e. after 3½ hours of incident which is
pointed out as a "delay" considering that the incident has taken place
inside the PS and not at a remote place.
85. He urges that as per the Arrest memo, accused is shown to have
been arrested at 03:00 AM of 22.07.2011 showing that after
deliberations and discussions, real accused was let off and present
accused was victimized being a new Probationary SI who was
otherwise sick at the relevant time and under treatment.
Result: Convicted Page 58 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
86. Mr.Singhal, Advocate tried to demonstrate the same from the
testimony of PW11/SI Kuldeep Singh. He is Incharge of Mobile
Crime team and claims that he was only provided the DD number
which he mentioned in his report Ex.PW11/A despite the fact that he
remained on the spot with his team till 11:30 PM. He could have
mentioned the FIR number. Defence thus, argues that the FIR did not
exist even till 11:30 PM.
87. PW28/Retired SI Ram Khilari claimed regarding knowledge of
the incident and its details as told to him by the IO in Police vehicle
but the accused who was very much available in the Interrogation
Room was not examined by the DIU Team when they first arrived in
the PS. His testimony is stated to be highly improbable.
88. In the same context, defence argues that copy of FIR was not
forwarded to the Ilaka MM immediately which is violation of
Section 157 Cr.P.C. It was received by the Ld.MM on the next day
at 05:20 AM as per the endorsement of the Ilaka MM on the said
FIR, copy of which is on record but not proved. Reliance is placed
Result: Convicted Page 59 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
on :
(1) Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamilnadu
(1972) 3 SCC 393
"Section 154 - FIR - Importance of - Delay in lodging first
information report - Whether safe to rely on.
Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results
in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account
of delay the report not only gets benefits of the advantage of
spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured
version, exaggerated account or connected story as a result of
deliberation and consultation.
It is therefore essential that the delay in the lodging of the
first information report should be satisfactorily explained.
In the present case there was delay of more than 20 hours in
lodging the FIR though the police station was only at a distance of
two miles. Hence, the circumstance would raise considerable
doubt regarding the veracity of the case and it is not safe to base
conviction upon it".
(2) Appukuttan and Others Vs. The State.
Result: Convicted Page 60 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
1989 SCC Online Ker 513
(3) Arjun Marik and others Vs. State of Bihar
1994 Supp (2) SCC 372
"24. The matter does not stop here. There is yet another serious
infirmity which further deepens the suspicion and casts cloud on
the credibility of the entire prosecution story and which has also
been lost sight of by the trial court as well as the High Court and it
is with regard to the sending of occurrence report (FIR) to the
Magistrate concerned on 2271985 i.e. on the 3rd day of the
occurrence. Section 157 of the code of Criminal Procedure
mandates that if, from information received or otherwise, an
officer incharge of police station has rason to suspect the
commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section
156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to
the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon
a police report, Section 157, Cr.PC thus in other words directs the
sending of the report forthwith i.e. without any delay and
immediately. Further, Section 159 CrPC envisages that on
receiving such report, the Magistrate may direct an investigation
or, if he thinks fit, to proceed at once or depute any other
Result: Convicted Page 61 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed to hold a preliminary
inquiry into the case in the manner provided in the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The forwarding of the occurrence report is
indispensable and absolute and it has to be forwarded with earliest
dispatch which intention is implicit with the use of the word
"forthwith" occurring in Section 157, which means promptly and
without any undue delay. The purpose and object is so obvious
which is spelt out from the combined reading of Section 157 and
159 CrPC. It has the dual purpose, firstly to avoid the possibility
of improvement in the prosecution story and introduction of any
distorted version by deliberations and consultation and secondly to
enable the Magistrate concerned to have a watch on the progress
of the investigation.
89. It is argued that in DD no.27 (DIU/W) which is recorded at
05:45 PM, there is no mention of the name of Perpetrator of Crime
and the Victim of Crime. It is submitted that rough Site Plan (not
proved) does not name accused or the eye witness name. It is
submitted that Crime team report mentions Complainant as duty
Result: Convicted Page 62 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
officer instead of mentioning him as PW1. It is submitted that
Seizure memo of uniform Shirt of accused is silent about Gun holster
on the person of the accused. It is submitted that in the history
recorded on the MLC, SI Bhanwar Singh did not name accused as
'Assailant'.
90. It is submitted that PW1 was not possessing any weapon. He had
purchased an Almirah for his personal use. He was therefore irritated
that accused with others were sharing his room as well as the
Almirah. It is pointed out that as per DW2 (accused), the discussion
going on between the PW1 and the deceased was hot exchange of
words and not a mere discussion on a case as claimed by PW1 and
that is why PW1 could not remember as to which matter was being
discussed. Further, PW1 admitted that no quarrel or altercation took
place even between the deceased and the accused. Court is urged to
note admission of PW1 that he is stronger than accused and
therefore, he managed to overpower the accused who is otherwise
innocent. Court is urged to note that PW1 kept custody of Pistol for
Result: Convicted Page 63 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
two hours and that too, not in a preserved condition as he intended to
remove his Finger Prints. It is submitted that though he shared Room
with the accused but claimed that he had no knowledge that accused
was on 07 days Sick Leave two days prior to the incident which is
improbable.
91. Defence submits that PW3 admittedly did not go to Room no.3
though posted as Duty officer. The defence produced DD no.17A dt.
12.07.2011 (Ex.PW3/DA) and DD no.38 dt. 19.07.2011 (Ex.PW
3/DB) proving that accused left to take medicines on 12.07.2011 and
joined subsequently on 19.07.2011. Since he was sick, he could not
resist PW1.
92. It is urged for Court to note that PW4 /Ct.Rajesh Kumar claims
that the sound which he heard was "SI Bhanwar Singh Saheb कग
गगलल ममर दल". This is stated to have been misconstrued by the witness
in the sense the witness misconstrues the words "कग" as "नन". It is
urged that it is highly probable that PW4/Ct.Rajesh Kumar had heard
"Bhanwar Singh Saheb नन गगलल ममर दल ".
Result: Convicted Page 64 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
93. PW5/HC Bhagirath did not identify the accused at the first
instance showing that he was not knowing much about him. It had
been hardly 1½ months since the accused joined this PS. Moreover,
this witness also stated incorrect name of the accused as "SI
Paramjeet".
94. It is pointed out that the witness never saw PW1 snatching the
Pistol from the accused and that he did not notice presence of empty
Cartridges in Room no.3. He did not call Ambulance nor informed
any Senior officer. He did not even know as to where the Pistol
remained during the interregnum and that he never saw the Pistol
after the incident. Surprisingly, he claims that IO did not prepare any
document or made any Seizure in the hospital before preparing rukka
which is stated to be a major contradiction as Prosecution's case is
that the IO had prepared the Sketch of and seized the Pistol and
Cartridges in the hospital itself before preparing rukka.
95. It is submitted that the Doctor Manoj Dhingra/PW7 did not
respond to genuine questions of defence regarding possible distance
Result: Convicted Page 65 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
from which shots were fired and the angle of the shots fired while
taking excuses that they pertained to Ballistic Expert. He did not take
height of the deceased into consideration and did not explain anything
about injury no.3 i.e. fixed Swelling. It is urged that presence of
injury no.3 remains a mystery and it is highly probable that deceased
was not sitting when shots were fired upon him.
96. It is urged that they have not uttered a single word against this
accused although they are relatives of the deceased. It is submitted
that IO never investigated about the relations between the deceased
and the accused despite the fact that both of them were posted in the
same PS before their transfer to PS Ranhola. It is claimed that there
is serious prejudice caused to the accused as he could not put these
questions to the IO who died during trial.
97. Testimony of PW11/SI Kuldeep Singh is also attacked as he
claims that room was bolted and cordoned of but no photograph is
produced. According to him, the distance between the empty
Cartridges was about 01 Mtr. He had not seen the Pistol used in the
Result: Convicted Page 66 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
offence but he mentioned the number of Pistol in Crime Team Report.
He also stated that no Chance Prints could be found which is said to
be highly doubtful as they should have been found in view of fact that
as per own testimony of the witness, the room was secured.
98. Regarding PW15, defence claims that he is witness who is
planted. It is so as it is the only witness of the Prosecution who
claims that Additional SHO was taking briefing at 05:00 PM on the
date of incident whereas no other PW claims presence of Senior
Police Officers. Furthermore, PW15 also stated that Senior most
Inspector Mukesh was also present in the PS which is also not a fact
deposed by any other witness. He was not sure about voice which he
heard coming from IO's room and guessed that it is of PW1. The
witness neither saw any Pistol nor Cartridge at the spot. Defence
submits that according to the witness, the files were lying on both the
tables but no such files are mentioned in the crime team Report or by
other witnesses except PW20/HC Mahavir who also claims that
Various articles including files were lying in room no.3 in scattered
Result: Convicted Page 67 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
position.
99. Defence submits that PW20/HC Mahavir claimed that the Pistol
was with HC Bhagirath/PW5 and not the PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh as
per Prosecution's case. He failed to notice any Bullet in Room No.3.
100. On the strength of above analysis of evidence, defence claims
that testimony of PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh requires corroboration and
it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The witness is interested
witness. Reliance is placed on the following Judgments :
(1) Sudhakar @ Sudharshan Vs. State, (2018) 5 SCC 435,
represented by the Inspector of Police, Srirangam
Police Station, Trichy, Tamilnadu.
(2) Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State by Srirampur
Police Station and Anr.
(2012) 4 SCC 722, wherein it is held that :
"It cannot be stated as a rule that a police officer can or cannot be
Result: Convicted Page 68 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
a sole eye witness in a criminal case which will always depend
upon facts of a given case - If testimony of such a witness is
reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other
witnesses or admissible evidence, then statement of such witness
cannot be discarded only on ground that he is a police officer and
may have some interest in success of the case - Only when his
interest in success of case is motivated by overzealousness to an
extent of his involving innocent people, then, no credibility can be
attached to his statement - Presumption that a person acts
honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as in respect
of other persons and it is not proper to distrust and suspect him
without there being good grounds therefore".
USE OF PISTOL
101. Having tried to create confusion regarding location of empty
Cartridges as staff of PS Nihal Vihar deposed their location inside
Room No.3 whereas PW28/Retired SI Ram Khilari deposed that they
were outside the room near the door which is not Prosecution's case.
Defence also attacked Prosecution by pointing out and creating
confusion that the number of empty Cartridges as per the Seizure
Result: Convicted Page 69 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
memo is KF09 9mm ZZ but crime team report mentioned these
numbers as KF09 9mm ZZ and KF89 9mm. It is pointed out that
rough Site Plan is silent about empty Cartridges. It is submitted that
use of Pistol in the offence is not proven as the FSL report is in
conclusive to the effect that bullets recovered from the body of the
deceased were actually fired from the recovered Pistol Ex.P.1.
102. On the strength of above, defence contends that empty Cartridges
might have been planted. In the same context, defence tried to create
further confusion in the Prosecution's case with the help of Crime
Scene Photographs. It is contended that as per witness account and
the Scaled Site Plan, there are only two Almirahs in the room, both of
which are located behind the two tables lying in the room. The
location of empty Cartridges is shown at Points C & D. Location of
Victim is shown at Point A and PW1 at Point B. Almirahs are
towards the West end of the room. These are Photographs Ex.PW
2/A.1 to Ex.PW2/A.11 proved by PW2. Photograph PW2/A.7
shows position of a single bed behind the tables and an Almirah
Result: Convicted Page 70 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
facing in words. A wooden chair is lying toppled over between this
Almirah and the single bed. Presence of single bed is not shown in
Scaled Site Plan. This picture has been clicked from the door entry
side. As per Site Plan, the other Almirah should be located towards
the opposite of the Almirah in the picture which is not shown in any
of the Photographs. The defence then highlights from a close up view
of the same as seen shown in Photograph Ex.PW2/A.8. The defence
then finally urges the Court to examine photograph Ex.PW2/A.5
showing location of empty Cartridges. Here, defence points out to
the fact that the minute part of the Iron Almirah tip and one of the
leg of Wooden Chair and partial bottom of the adjoining Iron
Plastic mesh Chair can be seen thereby proving conclusively that
location of empty Cartridge in picture Ex.PW2/A.5 is not near entry
gate of IO's room but near the Almirah which is situated behind the
two tables. It is submitted that there is clear cut dressing up of the
crime scene. It is urged that considering the defence version that
shots were fired by PW1 from near the Chair located at Point B and
Result: Convicted Page 71 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
therefore, the empty cartridge ejected out of Pistol Ex.P.1 at the place
near the Almirah. Reliance is placed on the following Citations :
(1) Abdulwahab Abdulmajid Baloch Vs. State of
Gujrat, (2009) 11 SCC 625, wherein it is held
that :
"40. The learned Judge also, in our opinion, was incorrect
in drawing a presumption of commission of offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code by
applying the provisions of Section 114 of the Evidence Act
keeping in view the principle that the prosecution must
prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt".
(2) Mukesh Vs. State.
In Crl.A.No. 102/2013 before the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi, wherein it is held that :
"It is well settled that suspicion, howsoever grave, must not
be allowed to take the place of proof. In criminal trial,
there is no scope for applying the principle of moral
conviction or grave suspicion. In criminal cases where the
oral evidence adduced against an accused person is fully
unsatisfactory and prosecution seeks to rely upon their
testimonies, the presumption of innocence which is the
Result: Convicted Page 72 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
basis of criminal jurisprudence assist the accused and
compels the court to render the verdict that the charge is
not proved against him and so, he is entitled to the benefit
of doubt. That is precisely what has happened in these
appeals. We are of the considered view that the prosecution
has failed to establish the guilt of the appellants which
could link the appellants with the crime.
MOTIVE
103. According to the defence, it is the PW1 who had the motive to
take revenge from the deceased and accused had not such motive. IO
never investigated his relationship with the deceased when they were
posted together in PS Ranhola. On the contrary, PW1 was utterly
disturbed as three officials were sharing his room and his Almirah. As
per the accused as DW2, PW1 used to taunt him for the above.
104. It is urged that the Prosecution is alleging motive without any
basis. It is submitted that DD no.15A dt. 29.06.2011 was kept
pending. However, it was investigated by the accused and Ct.Pawan.
Result: Convicted Page 73 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
On the same day, DD no.18A was also investigated besides DD
no.20A by the accused. The SHO PW12/Jai Singh had denied that
any report was furnished by the accused qua above DDs but Ex.PW
21/A i.e. DD no.56B was lodged at 07:25 PM on the same day i.e.
29.06.2011 by the accused showing the action taken. It is urged that
all records of DD no.15A were submitted in the PS. It is urged that
accused had no such records in his possession as on 07.07.2011 and
therefore there is no question that he was to appear with such records
in the hearing of the Writ Petition for assistance of deceased. It is
urged that Prosecution does not connect DD no.15A at all with the
subject matter of the Writ Petition. It is submitted that testimony of
PW12 cannot be believed as he never made any complaint about the
alleged behaviour of the accused.
105. On the strength of the above, it is urged that Prosecution could
not prove motive at all. None of the family members deposed that
accused had illwill against the deceased. Even PW1/SI Bhanwar
Singh did not make specific allegation. PW12/Jai Singh is a non
Result: Convicted Page 74 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
reliable witness. He relied on DD no.56A i.e. Report of accused U/s
65 of D.P.Act in response to DDs investigated by him on 29.06.2011
including DD no.15A.
MOTIVATED INVESTIGATION :
106. It is urged that the entire investigation is done with a view to
saddle the accused with burden of Crime which he never committed.
Therefore, the IO ensured that no Chance prints are lifted from crime
scene or even the Pistol. FSL Experts was not called to examine
Room no.3. The IO allowed PW1/SI Bhanwar Singh to be the part
of the investigation. PW3/Sube Deen is claimed to be a false witness
as PW28/Retired SI Ram Khilari from DIU/W claimed that the duty
officer on the date of incident was one "Khan". It is urged that IO
never made efforts to prove any CCTV Footage.
107. The defence highlights that DW2/Amarjeet Singh is reliable
witness and Prosecution has not suggested him its case and not cross
examined him about his deposition of using Washroom, hearing the
gun Shot etc. It is pointed out that accused was on emergency duty
Result: Convicted Page 75 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
on QR Vehicle and hence, there was nothing wrong in keeping the
weapon issued to handle of any emergency situation. It is submitted
that defence witnesses are to be rated at Par with Prosecution
witnesses. Reliance is placed on the following Judgments :
(1) State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh,
(2002) 2 SCC 426
(2) Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(1981) 2 SCC 166
108. The defence further argued that the Prosecution is required to
travel the distance from "may be true" and "must be true". Seeking
acquittal of the accused on the above points, defence relied on ;
(1) Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab,
1957 SCR 953
(2) Mousam Singha Roy and Others. Vs. State of W.B.
(2003) 12 SCC 377
(3) Hallu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Result: Convicted Page 76 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
(1974) 4 SCC 300
(4) Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,
(1973) 2 SCC 808
(5) Harchand Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana,
(1974) 3 SCC 397
109. The arguments of complainant are also brushed aside by defence
submitting that question of application of Section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act does not arise as it is for the Prosecution to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the present case is
based on ocular evidence and the facts never shown that accused can
be attributed with knowledge of particular fact or circumstance which
he ought to have explained. Hence, it is urged that Section 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act is not applicable in this case.
110. Regarding arguments qua alibi, defence submits that he never
took such a plea which is otherwise a specific plea. Absence of 1 to 3
minutes which he spent in the Washroom cannot be equated with plea
of alibi.
Result: Convicted Page 77 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
111. In rebuttal, Ld.Prosecutor submits that there are two facets of this
case. First of the 'offence' and other is 'investigation'. It is pointed
out that Prosecution version is consistent. All the police officials
came to Room no.3 after hearing Gun Shot. They heard PW1 shout
"गगलल ममर दल ". None stated that he heard the voice of accused.
112. It is submitted that no further duty was assigned to the accused
when he returned to the PS but he did not deposit the Gun for safe
keeping. It is submitted that the entire arguments by defence are
nothing but after thought. It is submitted that the defence is absolutely
improbable. It is submitted that testimony of PW1 is absolutely
trustworthy, reliable and has not been impeached. It is again urged
that minor inconsistencies and discrepancies are not to come in the
way of throwing away meritorious Prosecution's case.
113. I shall take up the first point which entails the Commission of
Offence Punishable U/s 302 IPC.
114. The arguments of the Ld.Prosecutor on this aspect have been
clearly recorded in this Judgment in Preceding paragraphs of this
Result: Convicted Page 78 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Judgment. This argument categorically tentamounts to giving utmost
weightage to the testimony of star witness PW1 yet, in my view,
this Court has to analyse the entire evidence on all aspects including
this aspect.
115. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to mention here the
relevant Sections in this regard. Culpable homicide is defined under
Section 299 IPC which reads as under:
299. Culpable homicide. Whoever causes death
by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is
likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence
of culpable homicide.
Illustrations
(a) Always sticks and turf over a pit, with the
intention of thereby causing death, or with the
knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z
believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in
and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable
Result: Convicted Page 79 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know
it A, intending to cause, or with the knowing it to be
likely to cause Z's death, includes B to fire at the bush.
B fires and kills Z. here B may be guilty of no
offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable
homicide.
(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and
steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing
that he was there. Here, although A was doing an
unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide,
as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by
doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.
Explanation 1. - A person who causes bodily injury
to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease
or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death
of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his
death.
Explanation 2. - Where death is caused by bodily
injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall
Result: Convicted Page 80 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
be deemed to have caused the death, although by
resorting to proper remedies and skillful treatment the
death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3 - The causing of the death of child in
the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may
amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a
living child, if any part of that child has been brought
forth, though the child may not have breathed or been
completely born.
116. Culpable homicide is first kind of unlawful homicide.
It is causing of death by doing (i) an act with the intention
of causing death; (ii) an act with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; (iii) an act
with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death.
Proceeding further, Section 300 IPC is a species of
Section 299 and it defines murder. It is important to
mention here that the charge so framed against the
accused persons is a charge for murder which has been
defined under Section 300 IPC which reads as under:
Result: Convicted Page 81 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
300. Murder - Except the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death, or -
Secondly. - If it is done with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely
to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
cause, or -
Thirdly. - If it is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or -
Fourthly. - If the person committing the act knows
that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, and commits such act without
any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or
such injury as aforesaid.
Illustrations
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z
dies in consequence. A commits murder.
Result: Convicted Page 82 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a
disease that a blow is likely to caused his death,
strikes him with the intention of causing bodily
injury; Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty
of murder, although the blow might not have been
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if
A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease,
give him such a blow as would not in the ordinary
course of nature kill a person in a sound stated of
health, here A, although he may intend to cause
bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not
intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the
ordinary course of nature would cause death.
(c) A intentionally gives Z a swordcut or club
wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the
ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence.
Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have
intended to cause Z's death.
(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into
a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty
Result: Convicted Page 83 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
of murder, although he may not have had a
premeditated design to kill any particular individual.
117. Each of the four clauses as mentioned above, requires
that the act which causes death should be done
intentionally, or with the knowledge or means of
knowledge that death is a natural consequence of the act.
An intention to kill is not always necessary to make out a
case of murder. A knowledge that the natural and probable
consequence of an act would be death will suffice for a
conviction under Section 302 IPC. Reference may be had
to "Santosh, 1975 CrLJ. 602 (SC).
118. The mental element in culpable homicide i.e the
mental attitude of the agent towards consequences of his
conduct, is one of the intention or knowledge. Motive is
immaterial so far as offence is concerned, and need not be
established. There are three species of mens rea in
culpable homicide:
1. an intention to cause death;
Result: Convicted Page 84 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
2. an intention to cause a dangerous injury;
3. knowledge that death is likely to happen
119. The intention or knowledge necessary in order to render killing
culpable homicide must be clearly prove by the prosecution which
can usually be done by proof of the circumstances which prove the
act of omission in question for the presumption is that a man knows
the probable result of his conduct.
120. Before proceeding even further, it is submitted in brief that there
is a difference between culpable homicide and murder. All murders
are culpable homicide, however, all culpable homicide may not be
murder as defined under Section 300 IPC and punishable under
Section 302 IPC. The distinction between these two offences is very
ably set forth by Melveill, J. in Govinda's case [(1876) 1 Bombay
342] and Sarkariya J in Punnayya's case [State of AP Vs. R.
Punnayya AIR 1977 SC 45].
The facts which reduce murder to culpable homicide are:
(a) It should have been committed without pre
meditation;
Result: Convicted Page 85 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
(b) It should have been committed upon a sudden
quarrel;
(c) It should have been commission in the heat of
passion;
(d) It should have been committed without the offenders having
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner;
121. In the instant case, the following factors are very important to
note which are also crucial Points for determination in Section 354(1)
(B) Cr.P.C.
122. Though the defence has admitted certain facts but the
Prosecution has discharged initial burden in accordance to Section
101 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove these facts by cogent
evidence. These facts are :
(A) Admission of being present on the day of incident
inside the PS;
(B) Admission of being issued with Service PistolEx.P.1
on the date of incident;
(C) Admission of his physical possession with recovered
Result: Convicted Page 86 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Bullet and the spent Bullets to the extent of 23 minutes
prior to the incident of firing;
(D) Admission of being present in Room no.3 i.e. firing
spot though just after the incident;
(E) Admission of being in the clutches of PW1 when
the other police officials responded to the incident.
(F) Admission of Service Uniform shirt with Name
Plate of accused Ex.P.3;
(G) Admission of Lanyard Ex.P.3;
(H) Admission of presence of two Almirahs in IO's
Room no.3.
123. Before I proceed further, I must say that there is also admission
of death of a person namely Kailash Chand Yadav who was posted as
SI in PS Nihal Vihar and was on duty on the date of incident and
being present on IO's Chair at the time he was last seen by none other
than the accused.
Result: Convicted Page 87 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
124. The crucial facts for determination is whether the two Bullets
were fired by none other than the accused on the deceased with the
requisite intention and or knowledge of committing culpable
homicide amounting to murder ?
125. Issue is important as it gathers around the complete defence that
these gun Shots were not fired by him but were fired by none other
than PW1 although he did not see him firing the same from his own
Service Pistol Ex.P.1. Here the issue that the Ballistic Report could
not connect the recovered Bullets as the Bullets which were actually
fired from Service Pistol Ex.P.1 became of some relevance.
Nevertheless, there is absolutely no unclarity or doubt over the fact
that two Gun Shots were fired upon the deceased and the two Bullets
fired upon were recovered from his deadbody but there is dispute
regarding place of presence of empty Shells of these two Cartridges
when found in the IO's room No.3. No specific dispute is created by
the defence that the shells were not of 9 mm Pistol which in this case
is Ex.P.1.
Result: Convicted Page 88 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
126. With that matter of evidence already on record and on
examination of two Particular documents i.e. MLC Ex.PW7/A.10
and Autopsy Report Ex.PW7/A, it can be concluded that the male
deadbody identified as Kailash Chand Yadav was brought at 05:50
PM on 21.07.2011 in Casualty of Action Medical Institute. The
maker of document Ex.PW7/A.10 is Dr.Parijaat Saurabh (PW8).
He examined the Victim on this MLC and at Point B. His report
concludes that Victim was declared "brought dead". It concludes
contents of sealed bag handed to the IO by the SHO/PW12. Its
contents further proved two fire arm wounds and the location of the
same on body.
127. It also described presence of fixed Swelling of 1 x 1 cm on right
side of back, about 1 cm. on the right side of his Spine at the region
of D12/L1 Vertebrate. He was declared "brought dead" at 05:55
PM. His Delhi Police I/Card is one of the articles seized affirming
his identity besides the person who brought him to the Casualty as SI
Bhanwar Singh. History as of Gun Shot injury at PS Nihal Vihar at
Result: Convicted Page 89 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
around 05:15 PM as told by SI Bhanwar Singh. PW1/SI Bhanwar
Singh has affirmed these facts on oath.
128. Postmortem examination itself is based on Inquest Papers also
being Ex.PW7/A.1 to Ex.PW7/A.19. Out of these documents, the
deadbody identification witnesses have been examined namely Satya
Pal Singh (PW10) and Harish Chandra Yadav (PW9).
129. Their statements are Ex.PW7/A.18 and Ex.PW7/A.19
respectively. Postmortem report also consists of unnatural death
report by Violence Ex.PW7/A.4 prepared by the IO (since
deceased). Autopsy was conducted on application Ex.PW7/A.1
prepared by IO (since deceased). This document is affirmed by
Dr.Manoj Dhingra (PW7). Postmortem was conducted by him
jointly with Dr.Deepak Sharma who is not examined. The report
Ex.PW7/A is however duly proved. Dr.Manoj Dhingra identified
his signatures at Point A and Dr.Deepak Sharma at Point B on each
pages respectively. Examination commenced at 09:30 AM on the
same deadbody on 22.07.2011 in Forensic Medicine Department of
Result: Convicted Page 90 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
SGM hospital. Body was identified by none other than PW9 and
PW10. Time since death is not provided but is not difficult as it
could be gathered from document which would be 28 hours 15
minutes. External examination of the deadbody revealed that :
1. Firearm entry wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm with abrasion collar
around it present over right side of chest 1.5 cm right to
midline and 13 cm below and medial to right nipple. The
wound is directed anterior and posterior, from right to left
and above to downwards, piercing underlying abdominal
muscles and abdominal viscera going abdominal cavity deep,
bullet found in posterior part of abdominal cavity.
2. Firearm entry wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm with abrasion collar
around it present over right side of abdomen 8 cm right to
midline and below umbilus. The wound is directed anterior
to posterior, from right to left and above to downwards,
piercing underlying abdominal muscles and abdominal
Result: Convicted Page 91 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
viscera including underlying intestines, mesentery and blood
vessels going abdominal cavity deep, bullet found in posterior
part of abdominal cavity near spinal cord.
3. Swelling 1 x 1 cm bluish colour over back of abdomen 1.5
cm right to midline in lumbar region.
130. Internal Examination of Stomach and Bowls correspond to
blood Effusion and Clots. Opinion as brought in the report as "Death
is due to shock and haemorrhage consequent upon firearm injuries
number one and two. Firearm injuries number one and two are
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature".
131.Amongst samples preserved are blood, blood in gauze and two
Bullets duly sealed with the sample seal of the hospital. PW28 is the
relevant witness who signed on Ex.PW28/A at the time of seizure of
Personal Articles from deadbody of deceased Kailash Chand Yadav.
Concerned MHC(M) with whom the Pullandas and Articles were
deposited is PW26. In the interregnum, the deadbody was kept
preserved in Mortuary, Incharge of SGM hospital as per Ex.PW
Result: Convicted Page 92 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
7/A.2 prepared by the deceased IO. In the hospital, the deadbody was
in the custody of PW15/Ct.Satender Jeet Prior to it, the deadbody
remained in custody of PW1 and his companions namely PW
15/Ct.Satender Jeet, Ct.Rajesh (PW4), Ct.Sunil (unexamined) and
Ct.Naresh Tyagi (unexamined).
132. Manner of death is not specifically recorded in Ex.PW7/A but it
is indisputable that the same is however Homicidal. Section 300
IPC is the species of Section 299 IPC which have been illustrated in
previous Paragraphs having reference in Judgment titled as Santosh's
case, supra, Govinda's case and Punnya's case, supra.
133. As per Prosecution, the murderer is the present accused.
134. After having concluded that culpable homicide amounting to
death has been proven by the Prosecution, I now take up as to
whether the Culprit is indubitably proven by the prosecution as the
accused or not ?
135. In Para 122 of this Judgment, I have pointed to admissions by
the accused.
Result: Convicted Page 93 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
136. Nevertheless, that the accused was on duty stands proven by the
document itself which is transfer Order as Mark PWia. This fact is
also proven by PW1 and PW5 specifically. Reference that accused
was seen inside the IO's room at the time of incident is also present in
testimony of PW4 as well as PW15. Even accused as DW2 does
not disprove of this fact.
137. That accused was issued the Service Pistol Ex.P.1 and five
Cartridges on the date of incident stands proved from copies of Arms
and Ammunition Distribution Register of various dates Mark A.1,
A.2, A.3 and particularly Mark A.4 is proven by the document
Ex.CWF, G,H and I. That signatures on Arms Distribution Register
of these dates particularly dt.21.11.2011 (Ex.CWJ) tallied with
admitted writings and signatures of accused Ex.CWE obtained on
admitted application of IO Ex.PW1/B is proven by FSL report
Ex.CWK, prepared by Dr.Jiju P.V. (admitted).
138. The Pistol was not deposited back in the PS is also proven fact
and thus, it is proven that accused was in physical possession of the
Result: Convicted Page 94 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Service Pistol Ex.P.1 and Cartridges Ex.P.2.
139. That accused was present in the IO's room no.3 just before
incident of firing is deposed by PW1 himself and even DW2
(accused) does not dispute this fact as it is in his deposition that he
arrived in the PS just prior to the incident and he came back at 05:00
PM from his duty and arrived in IO's Room no.3. In his cross
examination by Ld.Addl.P.P, he does not remember the timings of
his duty hours and does not produce any defence evidence on this
aspect. But he admits that his duty timings was still not over. He
admits that before going to IO's room no.3, he first went to the Desk
of the DO. Other material Pws including PW1 and PW5, PW15
and PW4 also affirmed on oath that they saw the accused in IO's
room no.3 just after hearing gun shots. They consistently say that
PW1 was holding the accused in the IO's room.
140. No witness states that accused was in Uniform but its seizure is
proven and no dispute is created that IO seized the Uniform shirt of
the accused with Name Plate, Whistle cord and Lanyard as well as
Result: Convicted Page 95 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Stars.
141. Prosecution witnesses are proven presence of two Almirahs in
the IO's room no.3. One of which is claimed by PW1 as the same as
his personal article. Even the Scaled Site Plan shows so.
142. Thus, despite the admissions of the accused as in Para 122
above, it is not the case that Prosecution has not independently
proven the above facts and discharged burden U/s 101 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
PREJUDICE DUE TO NON EXAMINATION OF THE IO
143. I shall be taking up this point here itself as without a verdict on
it, the Judgment cannot proceed.
144. As per defence, the entire investigation is motivated with the sole
objective of protecting PW1 by putting the entire blame of the
alleged act on the accused. IO concealed the material facts and
defence got prejudiced in not be able to put him his case as above.
The first point taken in this regard is the relatives of the deceased i.e.
PW9 and PW10 have not stated anything about the accused
Result: Convicted Page 96 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
including any hearsay version and thus, prejudice is caused as the IO
could have been in a position to answer certain questions with respect
to information furnished to the relatives. It is claimed that prejudice is
caused as no Sr.Officer other than PW1 was present on the spot but
PW15 claims otherwise mentioning presence of Addl. SHO and
Senior most Inspector Mukesh present in the PS. It is also claimed
that IO withheld the Status report and ordersheets passed in the Writ
Petition though Marked PW14/A i.e. copy of the Petition shows that
it was disposed of on 24.10.2011 and not on 07.07.2011 as per PW
12/SHO Insp.Jai Singh. This witness denied that DD no.15A was
responded to and report as per DD no.56B was filed on the same day
i.e. 29.06.2011 in the PS and therefore, there was no question of
accused to furnish its records in the Writ Petition hearing on
07.07.2011 as claimed. Thus, it is claimed that Prejudice is claimed to
have been caused. It is further claimed to have been caused that PW
12 admitted that he being SHO of the PS was also senior to the IO
and possible influence of the SHO over the investigation could not be
Result: Convicted Page 97 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
probed from the IO.
145. In my considered view, all the above objections are merely paper
objections worth no substance. That the investigation is motivated is
something that cannot be understood. The defence tries to build up a
Motive on the part of PW1 behind alleged murder. I have discussed
this matter at length in previous paragraphs. It cannot be understood
without appreciating the fact that if the Motive attributed by the
defence be a true version of this case then, the murder of PW1 will
not be preplanned but in the spur of moment only. Then, it will have
to be appreciated that during the hot exchange of words which is
alleged by DW2 (accused), the sudden presence of Pistol Ex.P.1 of
DW2 on the spot led the impulse of PW1 to such a high level that
without second thought about possible results of his Acts, he picked it
up and shot the deceased.
146. But then, what would have been his next action? A man of
ordinary prudence would flee and not wait for somebody to arrive at
the Crime scene with an intention to frame that individual for the act
Result: Convicted Page 98 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
committed by him. There is a possibility that more than one police
official might have arrived after hearing the gun shot together. But,
unfortunately it is the accused who arrived first. This cannot be
understood. The defence attributes a very very weak motive. If it
infuriated PW1 that none should use his room and his Almirah apart
from him then, would he subject himself to such peril (as herein) by
shooting down each of them starting from the deceased ?
147. Such weired situation cannot be perceived. That too, of a police
man.
148. Nevertheless, I failed to understand as to how prejudice would be
caused to the accused by non examination of IO as a Police official of
equal responsibility that the IO took, has been examined in this case
as PW28. The kind of questions that the defence might have asked
regarding prejudice to him on all the points as above, could have been
put to PW28, if not others. These would have been basically
suggestions which a police official would have probably denied as
none would admit any misconduct or false approach made by him in
Result: Convicted Page 99 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
investigating the case. The defence too, has to be consistent. It could
have put such questions (as above), to PW1, PW4, PW15 , PW12,
PW20 and PW28 and then finally grilled the IO on them too.
149. But then, there are no such questions. The defence had best shot
at grilling PW9 and PW10 regarding their concern but it never did.
Nevertheless, none of such document is on record except the rough
Site Plan which has not been produced by the Prosecution to some
witness or the other. All documents prepared by the IO, except rough
Site Plan have been put to their signatories who signed it as witnesses
and all such witnesses have been examined.
150. I would conclude this point by saying that if the Prosecution had
waited to get a particular document proven from the IO and would
have dropped the connecting witnesses then, in such a situation, even
the prosecution could have felt prejudiced on account of sudden
demise of IO during trial. Same is not the case.
151. I conclude that there is no prejudice which has been caused
to defence by nonexamination of the IO.
Result: Convicted Page 100 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
DELAY IN FIR
152. Arguments on this aspect stands recorded earlier in the
Judgment.
153. I am actually amused by noting the fact that the defence is more
interested in telling the Court that the duty officer/PW3 (who was
confused as Khan) by one of the witness (PW28), did not record the
names of the individuals in the daily diary register and neither did the
officials of DIU/West. But DD no. 34A Ex.PW3/A clearly records
that the Duty officer heard Gun shot firing in PS at 05:15 PM and on
inquiry learnt that PSI Amarjeet Singh had shot SI Kailash Chand
Yadav. Both names are recorded in this DD at 05:25 PM. Time of
incident is not in dispute even by the defence. The DO as PW3 has
also claimed that on hearing the Gun shots, he had seen SI Kailash
Chand Yadav in injured condition being shifted by PW1, PW5 and
other staff in Govt.Vehicle and it came to his notice that SI Kailash
Chand Yadav was shot by PSI Amarjeet from his Service Pistol. He
then lodged DD no. 34A. It is in his crossexamination that he did
Result: Convicted Page 101 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
not go to Room no.3 of the PS. So, after hearing the gun Shot what
he noticed next was the process of shifting of Victim to the hospital in
QRT vehicle, driver of whom has been produced as PW27. There is
no delay in recording the information. It has been recorded within 10
minutes of the incident.
154. DIU/West was decided as the Investigating Agency and
accordingly informed to send a Team to the PS. The Duty officer
there, recorded DD no. 27. Non recording of names of the Victim
and the offender in this DD is inconsequential. In response to his DD,
the IO proceeded with two of his staff, one of them is PW28. He
categorically states that after reaching PS Nihal Vihar, the team was
informed that SI Kailash Chand Yadav was shot by PSI Amarjeet
Singh and injured had been shifted to Balaji Action Hospital. The
three officials including PW28, deceased SI and unexamined
Insp.Has Ram went in the govt.vehicle. Before they left, members of
Crime team had arrived in the PS. It clarifies that the police team
investigating the case had the only information regarding an incident
Result: Convicted Page 102 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
of shooting which took place in PS Nihal Vihar. It would be also
clear that when the team arrived at the PS, Duty officer met the IO
informing the details of incident and from there the team directly
went to Balaji Action Hospital. He also clarifies that he saw the
accused who was made to sit in the interrogation Room adjacent to
DO's room. He clarifies that IO did not make any inquiry from him
before leaving for hospital. He clarifies that they reached the hospital
in 10 to 15 minutes.
155. PW12 clarifies that he received information about the incident
at 05:25 PM from PW3 (DO) over telephone when he was outside
the PS at Black Rose Scheme point. He also reached the hospital
soon thereafter.
156. Evidence clarifies that in the hospital, PW12 met PW1, PW5,
Ct.Rajesh, Ct.Satenderjeet and Ct.Sunil. The DCP informed that the
case investigation will be made by Team of DIU/West. In the
hospital, he saw the Victim in dead condition and doctor gave him
personal articles of deceased. By that time, deceased's brother Harish
Result: Convicted Page 103 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Chandra (PW9) had reached which even this witness affirms. These
articles were handedover to Harish Chandra vide memo Ex.PW1/C.
DO had sent copy of DD no.34A. The DIU/West team then arrived.
He handedover copy of DD with Ex.PW1/C to the IO.
157. PW1 affirms that he reached in the hospital with the Victim
who was in unconscious state alongwith Ct.Satender Jeet, Ct.Rajesh
and Ct.Sunil and Ct.Naresh Tyagi.
158. It is in evidence that SHO had met PW1 who informed of
incident to him and disclosed the fact that the Gun which he took
from possession of accused was in his possession. PW12 affirms
that he was told so and he did not took over the custody of Gun.
159. Here, nothing wrong is seen of the above action as the case was
to be investigated by the DIU/West. Non deposit of gun with other
officials at the PS is also well explained as PW1. He was in hurry
(like everyone else who spotted the Victim's condition) to shift him to
the hospital at the earliest. There is nothing wrong in taking the
Victim to a better hospital than a govt. hospital. There is explanation
Result: Convicted Page 104 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
on record that the team considered Balaji Action Hospital as a better
hospital.
160. The IO then conducted his real investigation. PW5 clarifies that
his statement was recorded by the IO which is Ex.PW1/A. Then he
handedover the Pistol of the accused to the IO. The IO checked it.
Two live Cartridges in Magazine and one live Cartridge was found in
Chamber. IO prepared its sketch of Cartridges. They were sealed in
a cloth Parcel vide memo Ex.PW1/B on which PW1 was made to
sign. IO seized them in his possession vide Ex.PW1/C which he also
signed. Then IO, prepared his rukka and sent it to PS Nihal Vihar
with HC Bhagirath (PW5). Rest of investigation was conducted in
the PS. This testimony found support from the testimony of PW4
who accompanied the Victim to the hospital and was spared of
extensive Crossexamination by the defence.
161. The sequence is also established by PW5. He followed the
Victim on his own motorcycle to the hospital. He affirms the above
facts including the fact that IO gave him rukka and he left with it for
Result: Convicted Page 105 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
the hospital at 08:30 PM and handedover same to DO at 09:15 PM.
DO affirms this fact.
162. The above sequence is also explained in the testimony of PW15
who also accompanied the Victim to the hospital. He was having
supervision over the deadbody.
163. Finally, PW28 has affirmed all the facts as above in cumulative
order. He also clarifies that before PW5 had left the hospital for PS,
Ex.PW1/A was recorded in the hospital in his presence. He affirms
that Insp.Hans Ram handedover a sealed Pullanda containing clothes
of deceased to the IO who seized the same vide Memo Ex.PW28/A
signed by the witness at Point A. Sample seal was also given. He
affirms that PW5 handedover loaded Service Pistol of accused to the
IO who unloaded it and found the Cartridges as described by PW5.
These were sealed and seized vide memos Ex.PW1/B on which the
witness signed.
164. The DIU/West team also left for the PS after conducting the
above investigation.
Result: Convicted Page 106 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
165. Back at the PS, the DO completed entire formality of recording
the FIR vide DD no.40A at 09:20 PM. DD no.46 Ex.PW3/D
records that till 10:25 PM, the FIR has been recorded in a computer
and a copy of it has been given to HC Bhagirath for handing over to
Insp.Anand Lakra who is investigating the case. Same DD also
records that Spl.Messanger Ct.Rakesh (not examined) is leaving on
Motorcycle DL1SS2508 for handing over copies of FIR to Joint
CP/SR, DCP (W), ACP (Nangloi) and Ilaka MM. As a matter of
fact, subsequent DD at Srl.no.7 made at 01:20 AM on 22.07.2011
records return of Ct.Rakesh to PS. It is Ex.PW3/F.
166. PW28 affirms that the original rukka and copy of FIR was
received by them in PS. PW5 also affirms that he handedover the
same to the IO at the spot i.e. in the PS who had reached there.
167. Again, consistency is found in the above testimonies.
168. Claim of defence is that FIR Registration is delayed by as much
as 3½ hours despite the fact that the incident took place in the PS
itself and not a remote place. Arrest of accused at 03:00 AM of
Result: Convicted Page 107 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
22.07.2011 showing deliberations. It is inconsequential in view of
thee above consistent evidence. Defence tries to couple it with the
fact that report of Mobile Crime team Ex.PW11/A does not reflect
the FIR number even though the team's visit is between 06:00 PM to
11:30 PM of 21.07.2011. This is true but then, defence has asked no
question to PW11 except the question that PW1 was only claiming
that he was provided just a DD number which he mentioned in his
report. Coincidentally, the exact time when the crime team report
was prepared is never provided to the Court. As per PW11, they
reached and inspected the Crime scene. He mentions of no delay in
examining the place of incident. He claims to have reached at 05:50
PM and claims that on directions of the IO "and other police
officials", he visited Room no.3 which he inspected.
There is nothing wrong here also. The IO was assigned
of this case at 05:45 PM itself. He reaches the PS by 06:15 PM and
leaves for hospital after meeting the DO. This fact is affirmed by
PW28. Further, PW11 claims to have started inspection on
Result: Convicted Page 108 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
directions of IO and other police officials. Defence asks no specific
questions about the 'other police officials' who gave him instructions
or as to how IO gave him instructions when he was not present at the
spot. Defence cannot gain out of it.
169. Next, he claims that Ct.Sukram Pal (PW2) was instructed to take
photographs of Crime Scene. He then prepared the Crime Scene
report and gave it to the IO. He affirms that IO recorded his statement
on 22.07.2011. What is clarified from the above is that the spot was
photographed and inspected the moment of crime team arrived at the
spot. It has to be soon after arrival. FIR was registered between 09:25
PM and its recording was closed at 10:40 PM. The natural time that
the operator will take to feed information in the rukka on Computer is
to be taken into consideration. In all eventuality, Crime team report
had been prepared by then. Thus, the issue that FIR number is not
mentioned on it and name of complainant is mentioned as the DO
looses all its strength and significance.
170. The argument that PW28 was told about incident by the IO in
Result: Convicted Page 109 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Police vehicle but accused who was available in the interrogation
room was not examined by the DIU team when they first arrived in
the PS is improbable has no force in it as I have already pointed out
that the intimation conveyed in DIU/W was only regarding an
incident of firing in PS Nihal Vihar and PW28 claimed that the IO
was informed of the incident by the DO on arrival. He denies the
suggestion that status of place of incident was not assessed by the IO
or him before leaving for hospital. He also clarified that when they
remained in the PS for first time, none from crime team met IO to
inform him about the incident. He clarifies further that version to the
effect that accused shot deceased was stated to him by IO and this fact
was told to him in the Police Gypsy. It can be observed in statement
dt. 12.04.2018 that on this point, the witness clarified that he himself
had not spoken to the DO as the IO was briefed by him further
clarifying that he had over heard the briefing given to the IO by the
DO. The only difference is that the witness could provide the
physical description of the DO but added that the DO was referred to
Result: Convicted Page 110 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
by local staff as 'Khan'. This could be due to lapse of time as the
Prosecution proves that the DO at the relevant time was PW3/SI
Subedeen.
171. The argument of the defence regarding non compliance of
Section 157 Cr.P.C. is also not impressive. I have already considered
this aspect in some detail in preceding paras. This argument cropped
up in view of the fact the copy of FIR was not immediately forwarded
to the Ilaka MM coupled with a further endorsement of Ld.MM on the
copy of FIR to the effect that, "received at 05:26 AM at house on
22.07.2011 through Ct.Rakesh No. 2288".
172. This document has not been proven but is part of record. The
official namely Ct.Rakesh has not been examined however, name of
Ct.Rakesh stands recorded in DD no.46 Ex.PW3/D as a Spl.
Messenger. Same official returned to the PS alongwith Delhi Home
Guard Constable on official motorcycle DL1SS2908 at 01:20 AM
as per DD no.7 dt. 22.07.2011 Ex.PW3/F. Question arises that if
Ct.Rakesh had returned to the PS after delivering copy of FIR to all
Result: Convicted Page 111 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
officials including the Ilaka MM at 01:20 AM then, the Ilaka MM
could not have received the same at 05:26 AM. However, name of
Ct.Rakesh is recorded with his belt number in the above endorsement
which is undoubtedly of the Ld.MM. It is a possibility that the
Ld.MM might have seen it at 05:26 AM. Here, not only the
Prosecution defaulted in not examining Ct.Rakesh but the defence
also faltered equally by not trying to call him as a defence witness.
Thus, this Court will fall back upon the proven documents which are
the above noted DDs Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/F. Therefore, no
non compliance of Section 157 Cr.P.C. is seen in order to give rise to
a suspicion that the FIR is antetimed or antedated. No such
conclusion can be drawn merely because the accused was arrested
after several hours of the incident i.e. at 03:00 AM. I must point out
here that FIR recording was closed at 10:40 PM. Thus, copy of it
with original rukka would have been given to the IO in the PS after
10:40 PM. He was then declared formal investigating officer. At the
PS, the IO is shown to have reached the room no.3 where he prepared
Result: Convicted Page 112 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
rough Site Plan at the instance of PW5 but does not obtain his
signatures thereupon. He further seized the empty Cartridges vide
memo Ex.PW5/A in the presence of PW5 and PW28. He had also
prepared sketches of empty Cartridges in presence of same set of
witnesses i.e. Ex.PW5/C. He seizes the Uniform Shirt etc. of the
accused vide Ex.PW5/B in presence of same set of witnesses.
173. The date in the intervening night changes to 22.07.2011 when he
seized I/Card of the accused vide Ex.PW18/D but in the presence of
different set of witnesses i.e. Ct.Mahipal (PW18) and Ct.Chander
Shekhar (PW19). He further seizes the Table Top vide Ex.PW
18/A in the presence of same set of witnesses. He thereafter, makes
formal arrest of accused vide Ex.PW18/B at 03:00 AM in the
presence of same set of witnesses and also prepared Personal Search
Memo Ex.PW18/C. Arrest memo also bears signatures of father of
accused Sh.Sunhera Singh. Place of arrest is PS Nihal Vihar.
174. After having conducted the same, the accused was then taken to
the hospital for his medical checkup, after which he was taken to the
Result: Convicted Page 113 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
office of DIU/West and locked up.
175. The above, on the contrary, shows that the DIU officials wanted
to conduct a proper and fair investigation and were taking time in
whatever proceedings they were drawing. This can by no means, be
said to be a motivated or prejudicial conduct. It is not seen as an
Arrest made after deliberations of superior officers. I am not inclined
to accept the above argument.
176. The Judgments in Thulia Kali (supra); Appu Kuttan (supra)
and Arjun Marik (supra) have no applications to the facts before me.
PW1/SI BHANWAR SINGH
AN INTERESTED WITNESS AND
REAL CULPRIT
177. Para 89 to 94 of the Judgment comprises of arguments in this
regard. Some part of it has been already touched upon me in the
preceding paragraphs where I laid down that the motive that the
defence attributes on the PW1 is very unlikely. I have also pointed
out that the first DD records name of the assailant and Victim.
Defence contends that seizure memo of Shirt of accused is silent
Result: Convicted Page 114 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
about the Gun holster on person of the accused. Facts cannot be
assumed in evidence. Even DW2 never stated that he had Gun
holster on his person. On the contrary, PW1 states on oath that he
reached to the accused who was in process of discharging second shot
and grabbed him. By that time, he had fired the second shot and was
in process of firing the third, while holding the Pistol in his both
hands. PW1 pushed both hands away from the Victim, grabbed the
Gun after unhooked it from the Pistol Cord. This is more plausible
explanation. Moreover, it does not stand to reason, in the absence of
plausible explanation by accused, as to how he would leave a gun like
object in loaded condition unattended in IO's room no.3 when he
himself deposes in witness box that the atmosphere in the room was
not cordial in the sense that PW1 and deceased were talking in loud
voice. Still, he felt it comfortable to leave his file (about which he
gives no details in witness box) alongwith his loaded Pistol and be
content by merely requesting the deceased to take care of his weapon.
He then proceeds to the Washroom without indicating at all as to
Result: Convicted Page 115 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
what was the need to get rid of the Pistol as it could have been kept
anywhere on his person. Same may not be a correct with the
investigation file. I shall touch upon this aspect again a little later.
Suffice is to say that there is no evidence of presence of gun holster
on the person of accused.
178. Equally ineffective is the argument that SI Bhanwar Singh did
not prefer to record the name of accused as the assailant in the MLC.
There is no straight jacketed practice adopted in recording the brief
history columns. Sometimes, they may be even found "blank". On
the contrary, if PW1 had already successfully raised a pointing
finger at the accused in the PS itself and held him captive under the
custody of Junior Police Man, it was expected of him to give a
detailed brief history and ensure that the doctor records it with more
particulars then just the name of the Assailant. This argument cannot
be acceptable.
179. The heitherto below part of the Judgment would be considering
the testimony of the witnesses which are assailed including the
Result: Convicted Page 116 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
arguments on "use of Pistol", "location of Cartridges", "Motive"
and "Motivative investigation".
180. This court has already observed in the Judgment that there are
certain discrepancies amongst statements of the witnesses.
181. In this context i t is held in (1) State of UP Vs. Naresh (2011)
4 SCC 324 that :
"Discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of witness
due to normal error of observation, error of memory, due to
lapse of time or due to mental condition such as shock and
horror at the time of occurrence".
(2) In 1983 Crl.L.J.1096 (SC), it is held that :
"Much importance should not be given to minor discrepancies.
They can overlooked unless discrepancies go to the root of the
matter to impeach basic version".
(3) In 1980 Crl.L.J. 958, it is held that :
"Improvement of the story at the trial in one material
particular. Entire evidence cannot be rejected".
Reliance can also be placed in this regard in the Judgment
titled as
Result: Convicted Page 117 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
(4) Inder Singh Vs. State (1978) 4 SCC 161, wherein it is held
that :
"Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline and guilty
man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some
infirmity when projected through human processes".
182. I shall be guided by the above law on subject.
183. Defence has rated PW1 as in "Interested witness". That is why
he is alleged to have firstly killed the Victim, secondly, framed the
accused falsely, thirdly, kept the Pistol with himself for removing his
finger Prints and fourthly, testify falsely against the accused. Besides
the above, it is an allegation on the part of deceased IO that he
committed grave irregularity in joining the PW1 in the investigation.
184. As explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jaya
Balan Vs. U.T of Pondicherry (2010) 1 SCC 199, where a Court is
called upon to deal with the evidence of interested witnesses, its
approach must not be pedantic, "the Court must be cautious in
appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested
Result: Convicted Page 118 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
witnesses but the Court must not be suspicious of such evidence.
The primary endeavor of the Court must be to look for
'consistency".
185. In Oliver Kujur and Anr., Kuljeet Singh @ Prince Vs. State
of Delhi, 1 (2015) DLT (CRL) 607 (DB), on the aspect that
recoveries of blood stained cloths and weapon of offence at the
instance of accused has been held to be very weak evidence. It is also
in order to highlight that there may be an element of truth in the
version of the prosecution against accused and considering as a
whole, the prosecution's story may be true; but between "may be
true" and "must be true", there is inevitably a long distance to travel
and the whole of this distance, must be covered by legal, reliable and
unimpeachable evidence before the accused can be convicted. It was
further observed that degree of agony and frustration may be caused
to the families of the victim by the fact that heinous crime may go
unpunished but then the law does not permit the Courts to punish the
accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The
Result: Convicted Page 119 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
burden of proof in criminal trial never shifts and it is always the
burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
on the basis of acceptable evidence and in case of doubt, accused is
entitled to get benefit of the same.
186. This Court has earlier observed in Para 118 that motive is
immaterial so far as the offence is concerned and need not be
established. The Prosecution has otherwise cited from Vipin Kumar
(supra), Shamim Vs. State (supra), Jaleshwar Majji (supra) and
Sachin Vs. State (supra) in this context. Regarding credibility of
related witnesses and on minor discrepancies on trivial matters, the
Prosecution has cited from Ashok Kumar Vs. State (supra). Suffice is
to say that the facts may be different in which the observations are
picked up from. Nevertheless, what follows is that motive may not be
established in cases of direct evidence such as an eye witness and
presence of Motive in such a case will add to reliability of the case.
What also follows is discrepancies in testimonies of witnesses on
trivial matters may be overlooked. What further follows is the fact
Result: Convicted Page 120 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
that human memory is subject to fallibility due to passage of time.
The Court must find out if he speaks on a figment of imagination or
on the basis of partially faded memory of true facts.
187. PW1 is direct evidence being an eye witness. At the same time,
he is heavily targeted by the defence. To add to it, the IO did some
blunders during investigation. Since he is not examined, it cannot be
commented whether such blunders were pure and simple
investigational blunders or a deliberate approach. However, the facts
coming on record do not have established so far that there was any
deliberate or predetermined approach. The blunders which have
been committed are :
(1) Non lifting of GSR traces from the hands of PW1
as well as accused;
(2) Not sending the Pistol Ex.P.1 for Forensic
examination;
(3) Not accounting for the presence of the files and
other articles including the Bed in the rough Site Plan
Result: Convicted Page 121 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
and even the Scaled one ;
(4) Leaving the case open to doubt regarding
authenticity of the location of articles shown in the
photographs Ex.PW2/A.1 to Ex.PW2/A.11.
(5) Non examining the past conduct of the three
officials transferred to PS Nihal Vihar particularly
when two of them i.e. accused and deceased were
transferred from the same PS;
(6) Non joining of the relevant party from the Writ
Petition who is alleged to have made over a complaint
to Superiors against the accused regarding corruption;
(7) Non examination of relatives of the deceased about
whether they had anything to say about the behaviour
of the Victim towards the accused.
188. These blunders cannot be changed now. If GSR Samples were
lifted from the hands of accused and PW1, the matter would have
been settled on Scientific evidence if presence of Gun Shot Residue
Result: Convicted Page 122 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
was found on the hands of either one. Nevertheless, IO proceeded on
basis of eye witness account supported by the other police officials
who arrived on the spot soon after hearing the Gun shots.
189. In this Context, I must point out the ratio of Judgment in case
titled as State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Others
etc., Crl.A.Nos. 785 of 1991 with Crl.Appeal Nos. 786, 787, 788,
789/91 and 638645/2000 in which it has been held that :
"Learned Judges of the Division Bench did not make any
reference to any particular omission or lacuna in the investigation.
Castigation of investigation unfortunately seems to be a regular
practice when the trial Courts acquit accused in criminal cases. In
our perception it is almost impossible to come across a single case
wherein the investigation was conducted completely flawless or
absolutely foolproof. The function of the criminal Courts should
not be wasted in picking out the lapses in investigation and by
expressing unsavory criticism against investigating officers. If
offenders are acquitted only on account of flaws or defects in
investigation, the cause of criminal justice becomes the victim.
Effort should be made by the courts to see that criminal justice is
Result: Convicted Page 123 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
salvaged despite such defects in investigation. Courts should bear
in mind the time constraints of the police officers in the present
system, the illequipped machinery they have to cope with, and the
traditional apathy of respectable persons to come forward for
giving evidence in criminal cases which are realities the police
force have to confront with while conducting investigation in
almost every case. Before an investigating officer is imputed with
castigating remarks the courts should not overlook the fact that
usually such an officer is not heard in respect of such remarks
made against them. In our view the court need make such
deprecatory remarks only when it is absolutely necessary in a
particular case, and that too by keeping in mind the broad realities
indicated above.
190. In case titled as "Bhagwan Dass Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi" Criminal
Appeal No. 1117 of 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1208
of 2011) decided on 09.05.2011, it has been held that:
191."...... thus it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff, and
the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India vide
Nisar Alli vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0032/1957: AIR 1957 SC
366.
Result: Convicted Page 124 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
192. It would be trite to also quote from Judgment titled as State of
Karnataka Vs. K.Yarappa Reddy, AIR 2000 SC 185, it has been held
that :
193.".......investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal
trial, the conclusion of the Court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely
on the probity of investigation it is well nigh settled that even if the investigation
is illegal or even suspicious the rest of evidence must be scrutinized independently
of the impact of it. Otherwise criminal trial will plummet to that level of the
investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have predominance and
preeminence in criminal trials over the action taken by investigating officers.
Criminal justice should not be made the casualty for the wrongs committed by the
investigating officers in the case.
194. Thus, this Court shall have predominance and preeminance
over the action taken by the Investigating officer. The Forensic
Analysis report is useful only on the aspect that the Cartridges lifted
from scene of incident were the one which have been fired from
Pistol Ex.P.1. However, rest of the opinion are not in 'negative'.
They could not be deduced due to "Insufficient Data".
Result: Convicted Page 125 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
195. As said earlier, use of Pistol is not in dispute. Even though the
Bullets recovered from the deadbody could not be compared with gun
Ex.P.1 for "Insufficient Data", the opinion of PW11 as reflected
from his report that the Table top revealed presence of Bullet grazing
mark still cannot be ignored even though GSR could not be detected
on it due to "Insufficient Data".
196. The Crime scene was not inspected by Forensic Experts. The
Medical Expert has provided trajectory of the Bullets from the point
of entry till the point of their lodgment in the deadbody of deceased
indicating that both Bullets travelled upwards to downwards and their
trajectory is from right to left. Both wounds were directed from
anterior to posterior. The entry wound no.1 is present over right side
of Chest 1.5 cm right to mid line and 13 cm.below and medial to
right nipple. The second entry wound is 1.5 cm X 1 cm over right
side of abdomen 8 cm right to middle line and below Umbilus.
197. When compared in the light of the Forensic opinion Ex.PW
23/A, it was observed that the uniform trouser alongwith Belt of the
Result: Convicted Page 126 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
deceased had two holes i.e. H5 on front upper middle portion and
H6 on front upper right portion. To clear the issue as to how there
were two holes on the Trouser, the case property was called during
final arguments. Its inspection reveal that there was a dent on the belt
and the second Bullet entered the abdomen after piercing the Shirt
underneath and the Trouser Buckle.
198. Issue was created that shot fired from front would have been
obstructed by the Table and therefore, it is unlikely to hit in the
abdomen below Umbilus. This would be a mere possibility in the
light of facts. Regard has to be had that the deceased, as per Autopsy
report, was a stout male and as per record, his height was 6.1 Feet.
199. Another issue was sought to be created by the prosecution to note
that the entry wounds are towards the front side on left of the body
which is possible as PW1 has testified that the deceased and him
were talking after having drawn and adjusted their respective Chairs
towards each other. They were not facing diagonally opposite to each
other. The defence tried to otherwise build up a scenario that it is very
Result: Convicted Page 127 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
much possible to shoot the Victim in such manner as PW1 would
have had to cross the table to pick the Gun and he would then be
standing in the same direction in which the accused was i.e. towards
the gate.
200. This argument is apparently built up on the strength of the
allegations regarding actual location of one of the Cartridge which, as
per defence is near the Almirah which is towards right side of the
entrance door and behind the table. Regarding it, Photograph
Ex.PW2/A.5 has been highlighted.
201. This argument is absolutely misconceived as in the considered
view of this Court, the location of one of the Almirah shown in the
Site map is not where it was at the time of incident. The rough Site
Plan does not show their locations. The Scaled map does.
202. Photograph Ex.PW2/A.6 shows location of both the Cartridges.
The Court can see presence of Plastic Chair in between the two
Cartridges. The Iron Chair frame is also visible. According to eye
witness account, the Cartridges were lying just after entering the door
Result: Convicted Page 128 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
of IO's room No.3 towards its right. There are minor discrepancies
amongst witness's account about distance between the two Cartridges.
Account given by PW28 does not match the account given by others
and in any case, when pictorial evidence is present coupled with a
majority of consistent statements regarding location of the Cartridges,
one out of context statement i.e. of PW28, can be discarded.
203. Photograph Ex.PW2/A.7 is indisputably taken from the entry
door. It depicts two tables out of which one table has been moved
from its location while the other is as it is. This Picture also depicts
the Single bed, an Iron Almirah, a Wiremesh Chair with Helmet on it
and a Chair which is lying on the floor. It also depicts Police
Uniform, another Helmet on one of the table, few files on one table
with a Polybag. The Court observes that it is taken from front of the
room as both tables and the Posterior Wall of the room is visible in it.
204. Ex.PW2/A.2 is indisputably a photograph which is taken while
inside the room and it shows the front angle of both the tables. In all
circumstances, it was clicked while standing near the single Bed. The
Result: Convicted Page 129 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
entry door would be therefore, towards front of this picture. Why this
Picture is important is the reason that the Second Almirah kept in the
IO's room is visible in this Picture. Its location is therefore towards
the right of the entrance gate of the IO's room and not as depicted in
the Site Map. This situation might have occurred as the site was
inspected by PW13 on 14.08.2011 i.e. several days after the
incident. However, it is not in dispute that PW3 clicked these
Pictures between 06:00 to 11:30 PM on the date of incident. The
Table has been perhaps moved to gain entry or for convenience.
Regardless of it, it establishes that the second Almirah is located as
above. There is a Plastic Chair besides it.
205. Comparing the other Pictures with the Picture disputed by
defence i.e. Ex.PW3/A.5, it will be clear that the location of the
Cartridge shown in this Picture is along side the above Almirah. The
Tip of the Almirah leg has to be of this Almirah which is situated
towards right of the entry gate. It being so, there is no force in the
contention that there has been either tampering with the Crime scene
Result: Convicted Page 130 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
or that the Bullets were fired not from the side of Iron door but inside
the room. This explains the anomaly in the statement of PW15 who
submitted that PW1 was catching hold of accused and standing at
left side of Kailash Chand Yadav and that the distance between PW1
and the Victim was about 2 to 3 Feet.
206. So far as the dispute creating regarding the make and number on
the Cartridges is concerned, this court has observed that the number
on all the five Cartridges is the same i.e. KF092Z 9 MM. Ex.PW
5/A establishes it. There appears to be two different numbers in
Mobile Crime Team report Ex.PW11/A wherein 09 can be read as
89. These Cartridges were also called in the Court during final
arguments and it was observed that one of the digit is not clearly
readable due to firing Pin mark over it. There is no force in this
contention.
207. Another factor which this court has to consider in the line of
argument pertaining to Motive on the part of accused is whether there
is actual connection between DD no.15A and Writ Petition Mark
Result: Convicted Page 131 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
PW14/A. On 19.06.2011, three Calls were marked to the accused for
inquiry. These are DD no.9A, DD no.15A and DD no.18A.
Regarding all these calls, the accused furnished response by DD
no.56B Ex. PW21/A. Though the PW12 denied having knowledge
of same but fact remains that DD no.56B has been proven by the
Prosecution itself. As per the same, DD no.15A did not pertain to eve
teasing but complaint of Lalita that her Son Harsh has been taken by
UP Police. He acted upon it and kept the Call as 'Pending'.
208. It is in evidence that subsequently, notice was received regarding
pendency of Writ Petition to be taken up on 07.07.2011. There is
evidence on record that on this day, the accused was on medical
Leave. There is no documentary evidence on record that the accused
was to be called from Medical Leave and assist the Victim during the
hearing. Only oral testimony of PW12 is present which is supported
by testimony of PW1. Nevertheless, the point of defence that the
DD no.15A did not pertain to the Writ Petition is found to be
incorrect. The address of the Caller in DD no.15A is K2/84, Nihal
Result: Convicted Page 132 of 142
State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
Vihar. Perusal of Mark PW14/A reveals that one of the Petitioner
Rahul Mittal - a permanent resident of Sikanderabad, Bulland
Shahar, U.P. is a temporary resident of the same address i.e. K2/84,
Nihal Vihar, nangloi, Delhi. SHO of PS Nihal Vihar is Respondent
no.2 while Commissioner of Police, Delhi is arrayed as Respondent no.3. Therefore, there is apparent connection between the two. It being so, question arises if the investigation conducted by accused qua this DD became a bone of contention between the deceased and accused? However, there is no reliable evidence on this aspect.
209. The only reliable evidence which comes somewhere close to presence of Motive on part of the accused is the testimony of witnesses that the accused used to be guided by the deceased and he never liked it. This appears to be a very weak Motive but a Motive indeed, given the presence of other proven facts including the fact that a Gun was issued to the accused on the day of incident. Here, the testimony of accused become of relevance. In his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused deposes that he directly came to Room no.3 at Result: Convicted Page 133 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) 05:00 PM whereas in his sworn testimony, he claimed in the cross examination that he had first gone to the DO.
210. In his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that he kept in hand files on one of the table with his Service Pistol as usual. He does not say that he requested anyone to take care of his Pistol. In his sworn testimony, he claims that he requested SI Kailash Chand Yadav to 'kindly take care of his weapon'.
211. As per his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., when he was easing himself in the Urinal, he heard noise of fire from side of Room no.3. he rushed and saw Victim lying on Chair and PW1 holding his Pistol. He raised voice "goli maar di". PW1, heavier in built than him, grabbed him and started shouting "SI Kailash ko goli maar di". He also states that PW1 shouted only after his arrival in room no.3 and when he raised his own voice then only he grabbed him. In his sworn testimony, he states that when he was in the Toilet, he heard a Gun Shot and tried to find out from where it came. He came out of the toilet. After walking 23 steps, he heard sound of another gun shot Result: Convicted Page 134 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) and it occurred to him that the Gun shot had come from Room no.3. He then rushes to his room and sees that Victim was in seated position on the Chair in an unconscious state. PW1 who was standing, was having a Pistol in his right hand and had an expression of grimace. (हडबडडहट). He immediately started to shout "Goli chal gai". He then overpowered the accused and some more staff came.
212. The statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against the accused. Here, it explains the broad difference between what he meant in his defence and what the actually produces in his defence.
213. He is more elaborate in his defence with marked improvements.
Scaled Site Plan would show the location of the Toilets and the IO's room. Nearest to the IO's Room no.3 is IO Room 1 where the PW5 was present. As per own version of DW2, he was in the Urinal. He heard one gun shot. He tried to find out from where it came. He then left the bathroom and after taking 23 steps, he heard another gun shot. What is improbable here is that many officials were present at Point B shown in the Scaled Site Plan. PW5 himself was present Result: Convicted Page 135 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) much nearer than the accused himself when the first gun shot came, if he is to be believed. Everybody rushed toward Room no.3 after hearing gun shots. It is surprising that there is no witness who states that the accused was still in the Gallary when second Gun shot was yet to be fired. There is an open space between open area at Point B and the Varanda leading from the toilet to the IO's room no.3. Someone might have seen the accused running towards his room if his version is to be accepted. None did.
214. On the contrary, there are consistent statements of PW4, PW5 and PW15 that they saw PW1 grabbing hold of the accused inside the room no.3 soon after they reached there after hearing gun shots. Victim was in seated position on his Chair and bleeding from Chest. These consistent statements cannot be ignored merely because there are discrepancies amongst their statements which are trivial in nature. Their stand to the effect that accused was over powered by PW1 is consistent. Whether or not a witness saw gun in the hand of PW1 or not is not material as PW1 cannot be disbelieved on this version.
Result: Convicted Page 136 of 142State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) For the same reason, it is immaterial whether PW20 failed to notice any Bullet in room no.3. Likewise, it is also immaterial that PW20 found files lying in Room no.3 in scattered position as the consistency of other statements cannot be ignored. I have already observed that Pictures do depict presence of files but this aspect was not investigated. Moreover, that is not the factinissue.
215. In the same context, it has to be also kept in mind that PW1 never issued instructions for preserving the crime scene as he and others were in hurry to shift the Victim to hospital, who according to them, was in unconscious state. Their endeavor was to save him. Who then preserved the Crime scene to remain in original condition has not been put forth by the Prosecution. The IO could not have done that. The SHO was not in the PS. No other witness claims presence of Sr.police officials except PW15. According to him as many as Two Inspectors were present. Simply because he says that these inspectors were present in the PS, it cannot be said that the witness cannot be relied. This witness was present in Central ground of the Result: Convicted Page 137 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) PS while PW1 was present far away from it in IO's room no.3. Insp.Mukesh might be present in the PS and Addl.SHO might have been taking briefing. Either of the versions cannot be disbelieved. The IO is not present to clarify it and the defence did not try to take advantage of the above by producing evidence to show that the above Inspectors were present in order to belie the testimony of PW1 that no senior Sub Inspector or Sr.Officer was present. Moreover, PW4 was put similar question regarding presence of Senior officer but he claimed that he was not attentive towards the fact whether any officer of Inspector rank was present when the Victim was being shifted to the hospital. PW5 also did not remember if any of the Inspector was present when he heard the gun shot.
216. PW2 does not say as to whether the Crime scene was in preserved condition. None of the witness states that the Crime scene was preserved. However, this aspect has been clarified by PW11 who categorically states that Room no.3 was bolted from outside and cordonedoff with the Police tape. He agreed that Pictures of the same Result: Convicted Page 138 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) were not taken. However, his entire testimony cannot be shaken merely because he says that the door was cordonedoff and bolted from outside as one of the Picture Ex.PW2/A.1 shows the said door which is in bolted condition from outside. Accordingly, even the arguments on this aspect are not appreciable.
217. So far as the complainant's point that the accused has not proven defence of alibi is concerned, suffice is to say that alibi is a specific defence and accused has never taken this plea. He has merely claimed absence from the IO's room for a brief period of 23 minutes. Therefore, the question that adverse inference should be drawn against him U/s 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not arise at all. If defence is to be believed, then there is no fact specific to the knowledge of the accused which he failed to explain. It is otherwise, proven that accused cannot be believed and his defence is sham. So far as injury no.3 is concerned, no evidence has come on record of any scuffle. This injury might have been sustained by the Victim when he was unconscious and in the process of shifting to the Result: Convicted Page 139 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) hospital in the QRT Vehicle. Non explanation on it is therefore, not fatal to the Prosecution. Also, PW1 did not require to wipe his Finger Prints from Ex.P.1 as he himself snatched it from accused thereby super imposing his own prints over the accuseds'.
218. The conduct of the accused is also necessary to be looked into. As DW2, he claims that he had tried to prove his innocence by telling it to everyone including the case IO however, no one believed him. It is however surprising that the same accused who, through his father, had filed and contested application U/s 330 Cr.P.C. soon after filing of the Charge sheet till the Apex Court level failed to otherwise seek legal recourse for redressal of his plea of false implication. Therefore, it appears that the plea of defence that the murder of Victim is a handi work of PW1 is an after thought one.
219. The plea of defence that there is inconsistency in version of Pws regarding the shouts which emerged from IO's room no.3 is also not impressive. The witnesses have consistently stated that they heard the sound "goli chal gayi". There is one witness who has stated otherwise being PW
4. Reference may be made to contents of Para 78 of this Judgment. The Result: Convicted Page 140 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) defence has tried to pass over the words "SI Bhanwar Singh ko goli maar di" as words "SI Bhanwar Singh ne goli maar di".
220. The Prosecution never reexamined this witness for clarification as to what words he heard. Nevertheless, even if there is no typing error in recording the above, then also it does not stand to reason as to how he would hear the words as above as same is contrary to facts. Either PW1 would have shouted some words or, if believed, the accused would have shouted some words. Here, the accused wants the Court to believe that it is he who shouted these words as "SI Bhanwar Singh ne goli maar di". Same cannot be believed in view of the discussion already made. Moreover, PW 4 Ct.Rajesh Kumar was present inside the boundary of the PS. He was present at the place where abandoned vehicles are parked in the open space. He further made a clarification that, "the persons present were saying so that Bhanwar Singh Saheb to goli maar di". No such persons have appeared before the Court who had heard the above. On the contrary, the Prosecution witnesses other than PW4 have clearly stated to have heard "Goli chal gayi". The open area which is mentioned by PW4 is shown in the Site Plan and its distance is much more than the distance from Room Result: Convicted Page 141 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) no.1. Room no.1 was in occupation of PW5. As per PW5, he had heard voice of SI Bhanwar Singh "Goli maar di". Even after DW2 i.e. the accused, the PW1 had shouted only when the accused arrived in the room after having heard the gun shots. The accused then shouted the above words but none of the witness has said that the voice he heard was that of the accused. Thus, the Court sees no force in this submission.
221. As a result, I hold that PW1 is not an interested witness and his testimony is flawless. There is no reason to discard his testimony. His testimony has also found clear support on material particulars from the testimony of other Prosecution witnesses as stated above. There is no reason to believe that any witness has been planted in the present case. I have already held that no prejudice has been caused to the accused. The accused has presented defence but the defence is not found to be acceptable.
222. Consequently, the court finds that the Charge against the accused of having murdered the Victim Kailash Chand Yadav in the manner stated in the Charge has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts establishing the commission of offence Punishable U/s 302 IPC. He be heard on the point of Sentence.
Result: Convicted Page 142 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) Announced in open Court (Manish Yaduvanshi) on 15.12.2018 ASJ05(W)/THC,Delhi (P) Result: Convicted Page 143 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH YADUVANSHI,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF Case No. 56187/16 FIR No. 211/2011 PS Nihal Vihar U/s 302 IPC STATE VERSUS AMARJEET SINGH S/O SH.SUNEHARA SINGH R/O H.NO. 26P/45E, GALI NO.8, INDIRA PARK, PALAM COLONY, PS SAGARPUR, DELHI Result: Convicted Page 144 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) ORDER ON SENTENCE :
19.12.2018 :
Present : Ms.Nimmi Sisodia, Ld. Addl.P.P.for the State.
Convict is in J.C. Sh.K.Singhal and Sh.Prasanna, ld.Counsels for the accused.
Fatherinlaw of the deceased in person
1. Arguments on the point of Sentence have been advanced.
2. Record perused.
3. Sh.K.Singhal, ld. counsel for the Convict Amarjeet prays for leniency in sentencing on the ground that the age of Convict is 32 years. He is unmarried. He is having old aged Parents who are also dependent upon him. At the time of incident, he was 25 years old. He also submits that this case is not amongst rarest of rare case. It is submitted that the convict has never misbehaved with anyone during the entire investigation and trial. It is submitted that no adverse entry Result: Convicted Page 145 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) has been made against him in his Jail records or by this Court during trial. It is submitted that he has cooperated in the entire trial despite the fact that he is on continuous medication for Psychiatric illness. It is submitted that so far the Convict was suspended from his Parent department i.e. Delhi Police where he was posted as Probationary Sub Inspector at the time of incident when he was only 25 years old. It is submitted that he is unmarried and has a good chance to seek redressal of his defence in a possible Appeal against the Judgment on Conviction.
4. Ms.Nimmi Sisodia, Ld.Prosecutor assisted by Sh.Rajeev Mohan, ld. Counsel for the complainant has, at the outset, not pressed for any Sentence of "Death" to the Convict. But has pressed for "Life Imprisonment" for remainder life of the convict submitting that allegations against the convict are grave and serious in nature and he had committed the murder of his Senior Police Officer which is now proven in view of the Judgment. The Prosecution has also submitted that heavy Fine may be imposed upon the Convict. It is further Result: Convicted Page 146 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) submitted that at the time of offence, the Victim's family comprised of his father (now deceased) old aged mother, a home maker wife and two children. Sh.Rajeev Mohan, ld. Counsel for the Complainant submits that the deceased died at young age. At the time of incident, the age of his Children were 10 years old (boy) and 04 years old (girl) respectively. Presently, the boy is 17 years old and the girl is 11 years old and both are studying. Deceased was sole bread earner in his family. At the time of incident, Father of the deceased was also old age, though at present, he is no more alive. The wife of the deceased was living with her Parents alongwith her children. It is also informed that the wife of the deceased has been provided Compassionate Appointment as Head Constable, Ministerial position (Clerk Grade) in Delhi Police which is the sole source of earning as of now. It is contended that the future of both the children as well as wife of the Victim is not secured. Plea is therefore made that this is an apt matter for referral to Delhi State Legal Cell Authority for awarding Compensation to the LRS of the Victim Result: Convicted Page 147 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) family under the Victim Protection Scheme, 2015.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. Convict Amarjeet Singh has been convicted for the offence U/s 302 IPC.
8.Considering the fact that in the instant case, there is no occasion for the collective conscience of society to be so chocked that it will expect infliction of death penalty, I agree with Ld.Addl.P.P. that this case does not fall in the category of "rarest of rare cases".
09.Turning back to the case on hand, the Court finds that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances could be stated to be as under :
Amarjeet Singh S.No. Mitigating Factors Aggravating Factors Circumstances personal to the offender Result: Convicted Page 148 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) 01 At present, accused is 32 years old Convict and deceased were and at the time of commission of known to each other. The offence, he was 25 years old. motive as per the Accused is unmarried and having Prosecution behind this act old aged Parents. He was a young of accused is said to be Probationary Officer in Delhi irritation to accused due to Police. History of taking persistent guidance by the Psychiatric treatment. Allegations deceased and his alleged act that he did not like to bear of not appearing in the interference of Superior in his Hon'ble High Court of Delhi work. He was younger most SI for assistance of deceased in posted in PS Nihal Vihar. response to a Criminal Writ Petition no. 946/2011 titled as Rahul Malhotra and Anothers Vs. the State and others (Mark PW14/A).
It is alleged that one of the Party to the Writ Petition had made a corruption complaint against the accused and the accused believed that it was at the instance of the deceased. On the day of incident, Convict fired two gun shots upon the deceased.
Result: Convicted Page 149 of 142State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
02. No previous involvement. The act of murder and the manner in which it is done as by its very nature in itself Antisocial/Socially Abhorrent more so as it was directed against the office colleague committed in such circumstances which arouse social wreath. The offence is of such a diabolic nature so as to shake the conscious and confidence of people.
PreOffence Conduct of the Offender and in Particular the Motive.
Result: Convicted Page 150 of 142State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
04. Nil Giving rise to impression that offence was premeditated. The accused got issued a Gun and Bullets on the date of incident and waited for arrival of the Victim in the PS. He himself went away on QRT Vehicle to cool him down and soon after arrival in the PS between 05:00 to 05:15 PM, he shoots the Victim without uttering a word while standing in full view of PW1. Evidence proves that he was in process of discharging third bullet when apprehended. (For motive refer to previous Section).
Result: Convicted Page 151 of 142State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) Contemporaneous Conduct of the Offender while committing the Offence
05. Nil Evidence suggests that accused is firm in what he did and conscientious of his surroundings.
He has a loaded Pistol. He arrives to IO's room no.3 after speaking with the duty officer. He spots the Victim sitting with PW1. He then whips out his Pistol which he had already cocked. He fires first Bullet on the defenceless Victim which hits on his Chest and without waiting to see its consequences, he fires second bullet upon him in his lower abdominal region.
06. Nil Evidence Suggests that his Pistol is cocked, he has not resigned from his act but is in process of firing third Bullet from the same Pistol when PW1 push both his hands away from the Victim, unhooks the Pistol Cord and grab his weapon.
Result: Convicted Page 152 of 142State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
07. Nil Evidence revealed that Victim had returned two days back from one Week's medical leave. Previously, also he was on medical leave in the month of July, 2011. He is taking Psychiatric treatment but is found fit to stand trial by a judicial verdict.
Post offence Conduct of the Offender
08. Nil Evidence does not suggest that he made any preparation to abscond.
Evidence shows that the Convict was apprehended immediately after the incident by PW1 who was superior in Physique than the accused.
09. Nil No lack of remorse.
Role of the Victim in commission of the Crime Result: Convicted Page 153 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16)
10. Nil The Victim, as per evidence was sitting in IO's room no.3 and speaking with PW1 over some police matter. Evidence revealed that the Victim did not get a chance to save himself and became unconscious in the sitting posture on the IO's Chair.
Result: Convicted Page 154 of 142State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) Nature of the Evidence
11. Nil Eye witness account in testimony of PW1 available. It has been believed by the Court to be a true version of the Incident.
11. Nil Attempt of defence to pass off the act as a Handiwork of PW1 which has been dis believed by this Court.
12. Nil Recovery of fire Arm loaded with one Bullet in Chamber and two remaining in its Magazine.
10. From the comparative analysis of the Aggravating and Mitigating circumstances, it is reflected that present case is peculiar from the point of defence that the accused took in the Court. The Aggravating circumstances are outweighing the Mitigating circumstances.
11. This court had called for Nominal Roll of the Convict and the same has been received from the Supdt.Jail No.4, Tihar, New Delhi wherein it is mentioned that the Convict is in J.C. for the last about 06 years 11 months and 17 days. His Jail conduct for last one year is satisfactory and his overall Jail Conduct is also satisfactory. There is Result: Convicted Page 155 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) no Punishment awarded to him by the Jail Authority. There is no other case regarding his conviction except the present case.
12. His Medical status report has also been received wherein it is mentioned that the Convict is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and under regular treatment from Jail duty doctors, Jail visiting specialists and Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences (IHBAS). At present, the general condition of the Convict is stable.
13. I, therefore, sentence the convict namely Amarjeet Singh to undergo Rigorous Life Imprisonment U/s 302 IPC.
14. So far as whether the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. to be given to the convict is concerned, same is not permitted in view of the following extracts of the Judgment in case titled as Kartar Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1439 (1), wherein it is held that :
"In the first place a perusal of several sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as Criminal Procedure Code will show that both the Codes make and maintain a clear distinction between Result: Convicted Page 156 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) imprisonment for life and imprisonment for a term, in fact, the two expressions 'imprisonment for life, and 'imprisonment for a term' have been used in contradistinction with each other, in one and' the same section, where the former, must mean imprisonment, for the remainder of the natural life of the convict (vide: definition of 'life' in S.45 IPC) and the latter must mean imprisonment for a definite or fixed period. For instance, Sec.304 IPC provides that punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be 'imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years': Section 305 provides that punishment for abetment of a suicide of a child or insane person shall be 'death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years'; Section 367provides that punishment for an attempt to commit murder accompanied by actual hurt shall be imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years: so also, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery is punishable under Sec.394 with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. Sec.55. I.P.C. uses the two expressions in contradistinction with each other Result: Convicted Page 157 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) and says that an appropriate Government may in every case in which sentence of imprisonment for life shall heave been passed commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years, similarly S.433(b)Cr.P.C. used the two expressions in contradistinction with one another. Having regard to such distinction which is being maintained in both the Codes it will be difficult to slur over the distinction on the basis that life convicts should be regarded as having been sentenced to lifeterm or to say that the two could be understood as interchangeable, expressions because basically the life term of any accused is uncertain. Further, Sec.57 I.P.C. or the Remission Rules contained in jail Manuals (e.g.Para 516 B of Punjab/Haryana Jail Manual) are irrelevant in that imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years for the specific purpose mentioned therein, namely, for the purpose of calculating fractions of terms of punishment and not for all purposes; similarly Remissions Rules contained in Jail Manuals cannot override statutory provisions contained in the penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life will have to be regarded as a sentence for the remainder of the natural life of the Result: Convicted Page 158 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) convict. The Privy Council in Kishori Lal's case AIR 1945 PC 64 and this Court in Gopal Godse's case AIR 1961 SC 600: (1961) 3 SCR 440 have settled this position once and for all by taking the view that a sentence for transportation for life or imprisonment for life must be treated as transportation or imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person's natural life. This view has been confirmed and followed by this Court in two subsequent decisions in Ratan Singh's case 1976 (Suppl.) SCR 552: (AIR 1976 SC 1552) and Maru Ram's case (AIR 1980 SC 2147) (supra). In this view of the matter life convicts would not fall within the purview of Sec.428, Cr.P.C".
Thus, no benefit U/s 428 Cr.P.C. is accorded to the Convict.
The Convict is also liable to Fine.
15. The Prosecution has prayed for examplary Fine over the Convict besides recommendation U/s 357A Cr.P.C. The family circumstances of the Convict and the persons dependent upon him have already set out in this Order. The Victim was aged only 41 years old at the time of his death. He had a whole carrier ahead of him which would have Result: Convicted Page 159 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) reflected on the educational background and subsequent quality of life that his Children might have led. However, the life of the Victim was taken away by the Convict. His father has already died. The Wife of the Victim has been offered Service on Compassionate Grounds. Undoubtedly there has been huge monetory loss of the family besides their physical loss.
16.The Quantum of fine is not defined U/s 302 IPC and where no such Quantum is defined, the amount of fine to which the offender is liable is unlimited, but shall not be excessive as per Section 63 of the IPC.
17.In my considered view, appropriate fine has to be imposed upon the Convict and some part of it is required to be utilised to defray towards payment to the wife of the Victim as Compensation for the loss suffered by her particularly when such Compensation is, in the opinion of this Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Suit. I therefore, Sentence the Convict to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac, out of which a sum of Rs.50,000/ shall be payable to the Victim's wife Result: Convicted Page 160 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) namely Archana U/s 357 (1) (b) Cr.P.C.
18. It is ordered that in default of payment of fine, the Convict shall undergo further RI for a period of One Year and in default of payment of Compensation also, he shall further undergo RI for a period of One year. The amount of compensation shall be recoverable as per the Provisions of Cr.P.C. Compensation to be paid in a month of this Orders.
19. This Court further finds that the Victim's family equates with the family of Victim of Crime by State. Every Victim of Crime undergo immense physically, emotionally and mentally trauma apart from Economic Losses.
20. In the considered view of this Court, the dependents of the Victim of Crime namely SI Kailash Chand Yadav have suffered loss and injury as a result of the proven crime and they are requiring rehabilitation. This Court is further of the view that Compensation awarded by it U/s 357 Cr.P.C. (as above) would not be adequate for such rehabilitation and therefore, this Court finds it a fit case for Result: Convicted Page 161 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) the recommendation by this Court to the State Govt. through the Delhi Legal Aid Services Authority in accordance to Section 357 (A) of Cr.P.C. to determine appropriate Compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased SI Kailash Chand Yadav under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015 notifying in Delhi Gazette vide Notification of Delhi Govt. dt. 23.12.2015.
21. Ordered accordingly.
22. Copy of the Judgment (running into 142 pages) has already been supplied to the ld. Counsel for the accused on 15.12.2018 against receipt.
23.Copy of Order on Sentence be given to the convict free of cost.
24.Copy of this order and Judgment be also sent to Ld.Secretary, West District Legal Service Authority, Tis Hazari Courts, for necessary compliance. Ahlmad is also directed to mention the address of the Wife of the deceased on a paper and sent alongwith the Judgment and order to the Ld.Secretary, West District DLSA, Result: Convicted Page 162 of 142 State Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIR 211/2011 (56187/16) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (MANISH YADUVANSHI) COURT ON: 19.12.2018 ASJ05 (West), THC, Delhi. Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADUVANSHI YADUVANSHI Date: 2018.12.20 13:39:49 +0530 Result: Convicted Page 163 of 142