Delhi District Court
State vs . 1). Ravi @ Paggal on 30 November, 2012
1 FIR No. 610/2008
PS Mangol Puri
IN THE COURT OF SH MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - IV (OUTER DISTRICT) :
ROHINI : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. : 122/09
Unique ID No. : 02404R0111282009
STATE Vs. 1). RAVI @ PAGGAL
S/O LATE SH. DEV RAJ
R/O K975, MANGOL PURI
DELHI.
2). GOVIND @ MANGU
S/O LATE SH. JAGDISH
R/O K923, MANGOL PURI
DELHI.
3). MADAN
S/O SH. JAGRAM
R/O L1292, MANGOL PURI
DELHI.
FIR No. : 610/2008
Police Station : MANGOL PURI
Under Sections : U/S 302/392/394/397/411/34 IPC
1 of 47
2 FIR No. 610/2008
PS Mangol Puri
Date of committal to session Court : 23/03/2009
Date on which judgment reserved : 24/11/2012
Date of which judgment announced : 30/11/2012
J U D G M E N T
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C is as under: On 05/12/2008 Duty Officer at PS Nangloi received an information that one dead body is lying at Fatak No. 4, Behind Police Booth. Which was recorded as DD No. 9B at 8.25 a.m. On this information Inspector Pawan Singh Rana alongwith Ct. Balbir reached in the open space at Fatak No. 4 Behind the Police Booth where a male dead body (deceased) having stab wounds on the body was found lying on the ground. Inspector Pawan Singh Rana made efforts for getting the dead identified. At about 10.30 AM complainant Sunil Chaudhary met Inspector Pawan Singh Rana and identified the dead body as that of his brotherinlaw (sala) Santosh Kumar and got recorded his statement, which is to the effect that, "I live at H2/129, Sultanpuri, Delhi alongwith my family and work at K65, Balaji 2 of 47 3 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri International Printer, Udyog Nagar, Nangloi. Santosh is my brotherinlaw (sala) and for the last six months he was staying with me in my house and was working at F17, Sriram Offset Printing Press, Udyog Nagar. Yesterday, on 04.12.2008 Santosh was on day duty and I was on night duty. At about 9:00 p.m., Santosh after finishing his work was going to Sultanpuri from his factory. He always used to come and go from this road. At about 9:15 a.m. in the morning Kaushal, who works with me in my factory informed me through phone that my brotherinlaw (sala) had been stabbed and had died, on which I have come here, where you have met. The dead body is of my brotherinlaw (sala) Santosh. In my knowledge Santosh was not having any enmity with anyone and he was a simple boy. I do not know how and who has committed this act. I have enquired from the factory that the payment was not made so far. Legal action be taken and the statement has been heard and is correct". The crime team was called and the spot was photographed. FSL team was called at the spot and the spot was inspected. The exhibits were lifted and the dead body was inspected by the FSL team. Rukka was prepared and the case u/s 302 IPC was got registered. Statements of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C were recorded. On 07/12/2008 the postmortem of the dead body was got conducted in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mortuary and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to the legal heirs of the 3 of 47 4 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri deceased. On 10/12/2008 Insp. Pawan Singh Rana being on leave, further investigation was carried out by Insp. Manoj Sharma. During the course of investigation Insp. Manoj Sharma arrested the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements. Pursuant to the disclosure statements and the pointing out memos the dagger and the robbed articles were recovered through seizure memos and the same were deposited in the malkhana. The accused persons were produced in the court and were sent to JC. Insp. Manoj Sharma recorded the statements of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Further investigation was taken by Inspector Pawan Singh Rana after returning from leave. During the course of further investigation Insp. Pawan Singh Rana got conducted the TIP proceedings of the case property. Scaled site plan was got prepared from draftsman SI Manohar Lal. Expert opinion on the dagger was obtained.
Upon completion of necessary further investigation challan was prepared against accused Ravi @ Paggal, Govind @ Mangu and Madan for the offences u/s 302/392/394/397/411/34 IPC and was sent to the court for trial.
4 of 47 5 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri
2. Since the offences u/s 302/397 IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, after compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the Court of Session u/s 209 Cr.P.C.
3. Upon committal of the case to the Court of Session, after hearing on charge prima facie a case u/s 411 IPC, u/s 302/397/34 IPC was made out against accused persons. Charges were framed accordingly which were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case prosecution has produced and examined 22 witnesses. PW1 Birbal Prasad, PW2 ASI Dharam Pal, PW3 Ct. Yogender Singh, PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, MOIC, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, New Delhi, PW5 Naresh Kumar, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Biology), FSL Rohini, Delhi, PW - 6 SI Manohar Lal, PW - 7 HC Virender Singh, PW 8 Sunil Choudhary, PW - 9 Sh. Kaushal Kumar, PW10 Satya Narain, PW11 Insp. Pawan Singh, PW - 12 SI Jiya Ram, PW - 13 HC Harphool Singh, PW - 14 Prabhu Dayal, PW - 15 Insp. Manoj Sharma, PW - 16 Ct. Ajay, PW17 HC Baljeet, PW18 Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, Delhi, PW19 SI Ajay Karan, PW20 5 of 47 6 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri Narender Kumar, Photographer, PW21 Dr. V.K. Jha, Medical Officer, BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and PW22 HC Raj Kumar.
5. In brief the witnessography of the prosecution witnesses is as under: PW1 Birbal Parsad is the coworker of Santosh Kumar (since deceased) at F17, Udyog Nagar, Nangloi, Paper Printing Factory and deposed that on 04/12/2008 Santosh Kumar was on duty from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and after that he left the factory to his house. He further deposed that on 05/12/2008 at about 9:00 a.m. his coworker Prabhu told him that the brother in law (sala) of Sunil namely Santosh Kumar was lying dead in the park near Fatak and he alongwith Prabhu visited the spot.
PW2 ASI Dharam Pal is the Duty Officer, who recorded the DD No. 9A dated 05/12/2008 Ext. PW2/A. PW3 Constable Yogender who deposed that he delivered the envelopes containing copy of FIR in the office of Joint CP Northern Range, at the office of DCP (O/D) and at the resident of Ilaka Magistrate.
6 of 47 7 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, MOIC, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, who gave opinion on the weapon of offence and deposed that he prepared the sketch of the weapon of offence Ext. PW4/A and proved his opinion Ext. PW4/B. PW5 Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology), FSL Rohini, Delhi, who proved the seizure memo of the lifting of blood on gauze clothes and of the lifting of blood stained soil and earth control from the spot Ext. PW5/A and also proved the biological and serological reports Ext. PW5/B & Ext. PW5/C respectively.
PW6 SI Manohar Lal is the Draftsman, who proved the scaled site plan Ext. PW6/A. PW7 HC Virender Singh is the Duty Officer, who proved the copy of the FIR Ext. PW7/A and his endorsement Ext. PW7/B on the original rukka.
7 of 47 8 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri PW8 Sunil Chaudhary is the brotherinlaw (jija) of Santosh (since deceased), who deposed that Santosh was residing with him for the last six months from the date of incident in his house and he was working at Sri Ram Offset Printing Press situated at F17, Nangloi and proved his statement made to the police Ext. PW8/A, the dead body identification statement Ext. PW8/B, dead body identification statement of PW10 Satya Narain, father of Santosh (since deceased) Ext. PW8/C, dead body handing over memo Ext. PW8/D and the TIP proceedings of the case property Ext. PW8/E and also proved the case property, purse Ext. P1 and the watch, make HMT Kohinoor Ext. P2.
PW9 Kaushal Kumar who identified the dead body of Santosh Kumar Near Fatak, Near Udyog Nagar where a crowd had gathered and gave information regarding identification of dead body to Sunil Chaudhary (PW8) from his mobile no. 9899287070.
PW10 Satya Narain, who is the father of deceased Santosh, who deposed that he identified the dead body of his son Santosh in the Mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and proved the dead body handing over memo Ext. PW8/D. 8 of 47 9 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri PW11 Insp. Pawan Singh Rana who investigated the case and deposed on the investigational aspects and besides proving the other memos also proved the seizure memo of the blood stained comb lying at the spot Ext. PW11/A, seizure of blood stained Rs. 20/ note, one blood stained paper piece mentioning the telephone number, one another piece of paper mentioning "ek minut ke liye" and two blood stained pieces of papers having some digits and only last digit 70 was visible, vide seizure memo Ext. PW11/B , his endorsement Ext. PW11/C on the statement of PW8 Sunil Chaudhary, statements of Birbal Prasad Singh (PW1) and Prabhu Dayal (PW14) regarding identification of dead body Ext. PW11/D & Ext. PW11/E (also Ext. PW14/A) and deposed that he prepared the inquest papers i.e brief facts Ext. PW11/F, form no. 25.35 (i) (B) Ext. PW11/G and the application with request to perform autopsy on the dead body of Santosh Kumar Ext. PW11/H and also proved the rough site plan Ext. PW11/I, note of Rs. 20/ and blood stained four pieces of papers Ext. P1 to Ext. P5 respectively, gauze pieces Ext. P6 and Ext. P7, yellow colour comb Ext. P8, blood soaked earth soil and earth control Ext. P9 and Ext. P10.
9 of 47 10 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri PW12 SI Jiya Ram who went to the spot where the dead body was lying on receipt of DD No. 9B Ext. PW12/A (also Ext. PW16/A).
PW13 HC Harphool who deposed that he went alongwith PW12 SI Jiya Ram to the spot where the dead body was lying and also proved the seizure memo Ext. PW13/A vide which the pullandas given by the doctor after the postmortem were taken into police possession.
PW14 Prabhu Dayal, who is the coworker of Santosh (since deceased) and identified the dead body in the crowd in a park adjoining to Udyog Nagar and informed about the lying of the dead body in the park to the relatives of deceased Santosh and proved his statement regarding identification of the dead body Ext. PW14/A (also Ext. PW11/E).
PW15 Insp. Manoj Sharma, who is also the Investigating Officer of this case, who deposed on the investigational aspects and besides proving the other memos also proved the seizure memo of the purse Ext. PW15/A, arrest memo of accused Govind @ Mangu Ext. PW15/B, his personal search memo Ext. PW15/C, his disclosure statement Ext. PW15/D, seizure memo of blood stained pant and TShirt of accused Govind @ Mangu 10 of 47 11 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri Ext. PW15/E and proved the purse red and brown colour containing one photograph of male and female and Rs. 27/ as Ext. P1 (collectively) and one pant of white colour and one Tshirt of red/orange colour collectively Ext. P11. He also proved the arrest memo of accused Ravi @ Paggal Ext. PW15/F, his personal search memo Ext. PW15/G, his disclosure statement Ext. PW15/H, the sketch of the dagger Ext. PW15/J, the seizure memo of the wrist watch, blood stained clothes and dagger Ext. PW15/K and proved (Q. 17). He also proved the arrest memo of accused Madan Ext. PW15/L, his personal search memo Ext. PW15/M, his disclosure statement Ext. PW15/N, seizure memo of rings, pen and blood stained clothes Ext. PW15/A and proved one pen and two rings collectively Ext. P13, one lower of cream colour, (be read as black colour) collectively Ext. P14.
PW16 Ct. Ajay Pal is the DD Writer who proved the copy of the DD No. 9B dated 05/12/2008 at 8:25 a.m. Ext. PW16/A (also Ext. PW12/A) and DD No. 10B dated 05/12/2008 at 8:50 a.m. Ext. PW16/B. PW17 HC Baljeet Singh, who joined the investigation with PW15 Inspector Manoj Sharma and deposed on the investigational aspects and proved the memos and the case property already proved in the testimony 11 of 47 12 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri of PW15 Insp. Manoj Sharma.
PW18 Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, Ld. MM who conducted and proved the Test Identification Parade (TIP) proceedings of the case property Ext. PW8/A (be read as Ex. PW8/E).
PW19 SI Ajay Karan Sharma who deposed that on 07/12/2008 he was posted at ICPP, SGM Hospital and deposed regarding the application Ext. PW11/H for autopsy of the dead body made to Incharge Deptt. of Forensic Medicines Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and deposed regarding the statements of identification of dead body by Satya Narain (PW10), father of the deceased and Sunil Chaudhary (PW8) brother in law of deceased Ext. PW8/C & Ext. PW8/B and deposed that after postmortem the dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased vide memo Ext. PW8/D and deposed regarding the seizure memo Ext. PW13/A vide which the clothes of the deceased, sample blood sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital Mortuary were taken into police possession.
PW20 Narender Kumar is the photographer of crime mobile team who proved the photographs of the spot and dead body Ext. PW20/A1 12 of 47 13 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri to A12 and negatives thereof Ext. PW20/B1 to B12.
PW21 Dr. V.K. Jha, Medical Officer, BJRM Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Santosh Kumar and proved the postmortem report Ext. PW21/A. PW22 HC Raj Kumar is the MHC(M) who proved the relevant entries of Register No. 19 Ext. PW22/A, Ext. PW22/B, Ext. PW22/C, Ext. PW22/D, copy of the RC No. 242/21/08 Ext. PW22/E and the copy of the acknowledgment of the pullandas in FSL Ext. PW22/F. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses shall be dealt with in detail during the course of appreciation of the evidence.
6. Statements of accused Ravi @ Paggal, Govind @ Mangu and Madan were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused Ravi @ Paggal and accused Madan opted to lead defence evidence while accused Govind @ Mangu opted not to lead any defence evidence. Accused Ravi @ Paggal and accused Madan in their defence examined four witnesses namely DW1 Smt. Suman, DW2 Sh.
13 of 47 14 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri Balwant, DW3 Sh. Rajender Singh & DW4 Sh. Digamber Singh.
DW1 Smt. Suman who deposed that she is the Mousi (mother's sister) of accused Madan. On 09.12.2008 at about 3.00 to 4.00 pm some police official came to her house alongwith Madan and she heard on mobile phone that they pressurized accused Madan to call Ravi @ Paggal and after some time accused Ravi @ Paggal came to her house and he was also taken into custody by the police officials and thereafter they took both accused persons from her house.
DW2 Sh. Balwant who deposed that Ravi @ Paggal is working with him since 5/6 years as Stage Dancer . He is running a dance academy and also performed orchestra program. On 09.12.2008 Ravi @ Paggal was at his (DW2) house since morning as they had done a night program on 08.12.2008 and were had to perform a night program on 09.12.2008 at Gaziabad, U.P. At about 2.00 pm when they started to proceed for the said program, he did not see him (Ravi @ Paggal) and thereafter he inquired from his wife when he did not find him (Ravi @ Paggal) . He further stated that he inquired from his (Ravi @ Paggal) friend namely Monty who told him that police officials have caught him (Ravi @ Paggal) and gave beatings to 14 of 47 15 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri him and later on he came to know that he (Ravi @ Paggal) has been falsely implicated in this case by police officials.
DW3 Sh. Rajender Singh who deposed that Madan worked with him for six days at Sangam Transport Company at Siyana, Bulandsher , U.P. as Helper. He (DW3) joined the Transport Company on 01/12/2008 as a Driver of vehicle TATA 407 bearing no. UP15E 7395 and the said vehicle was under repair for 02/12/2008 and 03/12/2008 and on 04/12/2008 at about 6.00 pm the said vehicle was hired for Kakrala, District Bidau, U.P. for taking Guavas. He alongwith helper Madan left with the said vehicle at about 6.00 pm and came back at Siyana on 06/12/2008 at about 5:00/6:00 a.m. DW4 Sh. Digambar Singh who deposed that he is the owner of Sangam Transport Company at Siyana, Bulandsher , U.P. and accused Madan was working as Helper in his company and he used to pay salary of Rs 1500/ per month alongwith diet. On 04/12/2008 he was sent on a TATA 407 bearing no. UP15E 7395 as a Helper alongwith Driver Rajender Singh (DW3) from Siyana to Kakrala, District Bidau, U.P for taking Guavas and proved the photocopy of Bilti Ex. DW4/A. He further deposed that the said 15 of 47 16 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri vehicle came back at Siyana on 06/12/2008 at about 5:00/6:00 a.m. The testimonies of the defence witnesses shall be dealt with in detail during the course of appreciation of the evidence.
7. Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that in the site plan Ex. PW11/I, Rs. 20 currency note, one piece of paper with phone number, one piece of paper "EK MINUTE KE LIYE" and comb have not been shown . Ld. Counsel for accused further submitted that in both DDs i.e. DD No. 9B dated 05/12/2008 and DD No. 10 B of the same date, one phone number 9891001858 is mentioned but he was not interrogated by the police agency while in DD No. 9A dated 05/12/2008, PS Nangloi, it has been recorded the name of one person namely 'HASIB'. Ld. Counsel for accused further submitted that in sketch of dagger Ext. PW15/O, the width of the blade of the dagger is shown 4.6 cm, alongwith handle and bottom with a line and screw and it has not been shown that there was blood stains on the front of blade of dagger, while in the report/opinion of Dr. Manoj Dhingra, Ex. PW4/B, the width of blade is shown 4.3 cm, and the handle of dagger is plane one without any screw and line and also in Ex PW4/B, no blood stain are shown on the blade of dagger. Ld. Counsel for accused further submitted that in Ex.
16 of 47 17 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri PW15/O i.e. seizure memo of rings and pen, it has not been shown from which hand and finger of the accused Madan the rings were recovered and further it has not been mentioned that lower of black colour and Tshirt were blood stained. Ld. Counsel for accused further submitted that PW8 Sunil Chaudhary who is the Jija of deceased in his examination in chief recorded on 03/06/2010 has stated that he did not notice if the wrist watch of HMT or two rings, purse containing the photograph of his (Santosh) sister i.e. his (PW8) wife and pen was there on his body or not which he usually worn at that time. During his further examinationinchief one parcel was opened and shown to him and two rings and one pen were taken out. The same were shown to the witness and he showed his inability to recognize the same and stated that the rings and pen do no belong to the deceased and thereafter, Ld. APP put question with the permission of the Court to the said witness and in the answer he stated that "it is correct that I had identified the rings and pen of Santosh voluntarily, I was pressurized by the IO to identify the same" and thereafter he was crossexamined and in his crossexamination, he stated "I do not remember the wearing apparels of Santosh. I do not remember about the wearing clothes and other articles of Santosh" and he also stated that " it is correct that the deceased Santosh was not used to wear rings and having pen". He also stated in his crossexamination that he did not disclose the 17 of 47 18 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri make and identification of the recovered articles to the IO. Ld. Counsel for accused further submitted that PW11 Inspector Pawan Singh Rana in his cross examination has stated that he has not mentioned in the memo about the squares which were engraved on the handle of the comb Ex. P8 as it was completely smeared with the blood. He has mentioned that the comb is blood stained only . He has also stated in his cross examination that he has not made his initial on the said note of Rs. 20/ because it was completely blood stained. He has further stated in his cross examination " The envelope bearing serial no. 1 i.e. Ex. PW11/DA was shown to the witness who submitted that the writing at point A was of different pen. Volt. the writing at point A was written at the time of sending the pulinda to FSL . The fact was not mentioned in CD or in my statement . Volt. It was the requirement of FSL officials at the time of receiving pulindas".
Ld. counsel for the accused further submitted that PW12 SI Jiya Ram in his cross examination stated that many persons were present at the spot but he had not served any notice to them. He has further deposed that "I have gone through Ex. PW12/A and the phone no. mentioned in DD No. 9B i.e. 9891001858 but I have not investigated the owner of the above phone". Ld. Counsel for accused further submitted that there are material 18 of 47 19 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on the aspect as to how and on what mode the police officials reached at the spot; on the aspect of investigation carried out at the spot; the presence of the street light in the park and on the aspect of the information of the arrest of the accused given to the family members of the accused. Ld. Counsel for accused further submitted that there was no motive nor any valuable articles were robbed and this case has been planted on the accused persons by taking false disclosure statements and case property was also planted upon them. Public persons were also not joined at the time of recovery. There is no evidence against the accused persons except the recovery which was planted upon them after their arrest and prayed that the accused persons be acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
8. While the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are cogent and consistent and further submitted that the contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out are minor and not the material one's and do not effect the credibility of the witnesses and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
19 of 47 20 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri
9. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Sh. Kashmir Singh, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and have also carefully perused the entire record.
10. The charge against the accused persons is that on the intervening night of 04/12/2008 and 05/12/2008 between 9:00 p.m. to 8:25 a.m. at open space CRPF Park at the back of police booth Industrial Area Phase1, Mangol Puri, Delhi, they all in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Santosh by stabbing him with dagger and on 10/12/2008 accused Ravi @ Pagal, Madan, Govind @ Mangu dishonestly received and retained wrist watch of make Kohinoor, two peetalnuma rings, purse containing Rs.127/ and two photographs of deceased Santosh knowing or having reason to believe that it was stolen property of deceased Santosh.
11. It is to be mentioned that as a matter of prudence, in order to avoid any little alteration in the spirit and essence of the depositions of the material witnesses, during the process of appreciation of evidence at some places their part of depositions have been reproduced, in the interest of justice.
20 of 47 21 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri INFORMATION OF CRIME :
12. PW16 Ct. Ajay Pal in his examinationinchief has deposed that on the intervening night of 0405/12/2008, he was working as DD Writer in PS Mangol Puri from 1:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. At about 8:25 a.m., he received a telephonic call that a dead body was lying near Mangol Puri railway phatak no. 4 on the back side of Police Booth. He recorded this information vide DD No.9B and the same was handed over to SI Jiya Ram who went to the spot alongwith Ct. Vinod. Ct. Harphool was also sent later on at the spot for relieving Ct. Vinod. The copy of DD entry is Ext. PW16/A. At about 8:50 a.m., he received a wireless message that a dead body was lying near Mangol Puri railway phatak no. 4 on the back side of Police Booth who was stabbed by knife. He recorded this information vide DD No. 10B and the same was informed to SI Jiya Ram on his mobile phone. The copy of DD entry no. 10B Ext. is PW16/B. PW12 SI Jiya Ram in his examinationinchief has deposed that on 05/12/2008 he was posted at PS Mangol Puri as SI. On that day, he was on emergency duty and his duty was from 8:00 a.m. To 8:00 p.m. On that 21 of 47 22 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri day after receiving DD No. 9 B in regard to recovery of a dead body at railway phatak near Police Booth No. 4, Mangol Puri, Delhi. He alongwith Constable Harphool went to the above said spot. Copy of DD No. 9B is Ext. PW12/A. At the spot, dead body was lying having wounds on the left side of chest and on thigh. Dead body was smeared with blood. In the meantime, Inspector Pawan Rana also reached at the spot. He inspected the spot and after about 1520 minutes, he was relived from the spot but Constable Harphool remained there.
PW13 HC Harphool in his examinationinchief has deposed that on 05/12/2008 he was posted at PS Mangol Puri as Constable. On that day, he was on emergency duty and his duty was from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. On that day after receiving DD No. 9B to SI Jiya Ram he alonwith SI Jiya Ram went near Railway Phatak No. 4, near police booth, Mangol Puri, Delhi. At the spot, a dead body was lying having wounds on the left side of chest and on thigh when they checked the same. Dead body was smeared with blood. In the meantime, Inspector Pawan Rana also reached at the spot. He inspected the spot. He called the crime team at the spot and he removed the dead body to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mortuary through him.
22 of 47 23 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri PW2 ASI Dharam Pal in his examinationinchief has deposed that on 05/12/2008, he was posted at PS Mangolpuri as ASI. On that day, he was working as Duty Officer from 1:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. On that day at about 8:30 am., he recorded DD No. 9A regarding departure of Inspector Pawan Singh Rana alongwith Ct. Balbir on Govt. motorcycle to attend the call vide DD No. 9B regarding dead body near Fatak No. 4, Police Booth, Mangolpuri, Delhi. Copy of DD No. 9A dated 05/12/2008 is Ext. PW2/A. There is nothing in the crossexamination of PW16 Constable Ajay Pal, PW12 SI Jiya Ram and PW13 HC Harphool so as to impeach their creditworthiness. Despite grant of opportunity PW2 ASI Dharam Pal was not crossexamined on behalf of accused.
In the circumstances, it stands established on the record that on 05/12/2008 at about 8:25 a.m. police received the telephonic information that a dead body was lying near Mangol Puri Railway Fatak No. 4 on the back side of Police Booth vide DD No. 9B Ext. PW16/A (also Ext. PW12/A) and at about 8:50 a.m. on 05/12/2008 through the wireless message vide DD No. 10B Ext. PW16/B. 23 of 47 24 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri IDENTIFICATION OF DEAD BODY :
13. PW9 Kaushal Kumar in his examinationinchief has deposed that on 05/12/2008 he was going at his place of work at K65 Balji Printer Udyog Nagar. On that way near Phatak near Udyog Nagar he noticed a crowd. He also joined the crowd where a dead body was lying and he identified that body and it was of Santosh Kumar who was residing in the same vicinity where he was residing. He identified him on the basis that he used to visit their place of work to meet Sunil Chaudhary. After identifying the dead body he informed Sunil Chaudhary from his mobile number 9899287070 on his mobile.
PW8 Sh. Sunil Chaudhary, is the brotherinlaw (jija) of Santosh (since deceased) who in his examinationinchief has deposed that on 04/12/2008, Santosh was on day duty and he was on night duty. At about 9:15 a.m., on 05/12/2008 he received a phone call from one Kaushal, who was his coworker, that Santosh had received stab injuries and he had expired. He immediately reached at the spot and there some police officials met him. He had identified the dead body of Santosh and further deposed 24 of 47 25 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri that on 07/12/2008 he identified the dead body of deceased Santosh at Mortuary, SGM Hospital and proved the dead body identification statement Ext. PW8/B signed by him at PointA. PW10 Satya Narain is the father of deceased who deposed that he had identified the dead body of his son Santosh in the mortuary of SGM Hospital and proved his statement in this regard Ext. PW8/C bearing his left thumb impression and also witnessed and signed by PW8 Sunil Chaudhary at Point 'A'. PW10 Satya Narain also deposed that after postmortem examination of Santosh his dead body was handed over to him vide dead body handing over memo Ext. PW8/D bearing his thumb impression at Point'B'.
PW14 Prabhu Dayal is the coworker of Santosh (since deceased) who in his examinationinchief has deposed that in the year 2008 he was working in factory no. F17 Udhyog Nagar, Shree Ram Offset Printing Press. On the intervening night of 0405/12/2008 he was on duty in the said printing press alongwith deceased Santosh. On next day, while he was going to his duty he noticed a crowd in a park adjoining to Udhyog Nagar, on curiosity he reached there and he noticed the body of Santosh and 25 of 47 26 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri he identified the same and told to the police who was present at the spot. He informed about the body lying in the park to the relative of deceased Santosh. His statement regarding identification of dead body was recorded. Same is Ext. PW14/A (also Ext. PW11/E) signed by him at PointA. There is nothing in the crossexamination of said PWs so as to impeach their creditworthiness.
In the circumstances, the identification of the dead body of deceased Santosh Kumar stands established on the record.
BIOLOGICAL AND SEROLOGICAL EVIDENCE:
14. PW5 Naveen Kumar, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Biology), FSL Rohini, Delhi has proved the biological and serological reports Ext. PW5/B and Ext. PW5/C respectively.
As per biological report Ext. PW5/B, the description of articles contained in parcel reads as under: 26 of 47 27 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN PARCEL Parcel'1' : One sealed envelope sealed with the seal of "PSR"
containing exhibits '1a' and '1b'.
Exhibit'1a' : One twenty rupee note having dark brown stains. No. J96979436.
Exhibit'1b' : Four pieces of paper having dark brown stains. Parcel'2' : One sealed envelope sealed with the seal of "PSR"
containing exhibits '2a' and '2b'.
Exhibit'2a' : Dark brown cloth piece described as 'blood gauze', kept in a brown envelope labelled as 'A'.
Exhibit'2b' : Dark brown gauze cloth piece kept in a brown envelope labelled as 'B'.
Parcel'3' : One sealed envelope sealed with the seal of "PSR"
containing exhibit '3'.
Exhibit'3' : Loose and lumps of earth described as 'blood soaked earth soil'.
Parcel'4' : One sealed envelope sealed with the seal of "PSR"
27 of 47 28 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri containing exhibit '4'.
Exhibit'4' : Loose and lumps of earth described as 'earth control'. Parcel'5' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "PSR"
containing exhibit '5'.
Exhibit'5' : One yellow comb having brown stains. Parcel'6' : One sealed polythene bag parcel sealed with the seal of "SGMH MORTUARY MANGOL PURI DELHI83"
containing exhibits '6a', '6b', '6c', '6d', '6e' and '6f' kept in a black polythene.
Exhibit'6a' : One shirt having dark brown stains. Exhibit'6b' : One banian having dark brown stains. Exhibit'6c' : One pants with belt having darker stains. Exhibit'6d' : One full sleeve greywhite sweater having dark brown stains.
Exhibit'6e' : One underwear having darker stains. Exhibit'6f' : One pair of chappals having dark brown stains. Parcel'7' : One sealed envelope sealed with the seal of "SGMH MORTUARY MANGOL PURI DELHI83" containing
28 of 47 29 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri exhibit '7' kept in a polythene.
Exhibit'7' : Dark brown gauze cloth piece described as 'blood gauze of deceased'.
Parcel'9' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "MS"
containing exhibits '9a' & '9b'.
Exhibit'9a' : One blue colour full sleeve Tshirt.
Exhibit'9b' : One jeans pants.
Parcel'10' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "MS"
containing exhibits '10a' & '10b'.
Exhibit'10a' : One orange colour full sleeve Tshirt.
Exhibit'10b' : One white jeans pants.
Parcel'11' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "SGMH
MORTUARY MANGOL PURI DELHI83" containing
exhibit '11'.
Exhibit'11' : One weapon of offence described as dagger.
Parcel'12' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "MS"
containing exhibits '12a' & '12b'.
Exhibit'12a' : One half sleeve Tshirt.
Exhibit'12b' : One black colour pyjama.
The results of the analysis reads as under:
29 of 47
30 FIR No. 610/2008
PS Mangol Puri
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
1 Blood was detected on exhibits '1a', '1b', '2a', '2b', '3', '5', '6a', '6b', '6c',
'6d', '6e', '6f', '7', '9a', '10a', '10b', '11', & '12a'. 2 Blood could not be detected on exhibits '4','9b', '12b'.
3. Report of serological analysis in original is attached herewith.
The Serology Report Ext. PW5/C reads as under: Exhibits Species of origin ABO Grouping/Remarks '1a' Twenty rupee note Human 'A' Group '1b' Paper pieces Human 'A' Group '2a' Blood stained gauze Human 'A' Group '2b' Blood stained gauze Human 'A' Group '3' Blood stained earth Human No reaction '4' Earth control Human '5' Comb Human No reaction '6a' Shirt Human 'A' Group '6b' Banian Human 'A' Group 30 of 47 31 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri '6c' Pants with belt Human 'A' Group '6d' Sweater Human No reaction '6e' underwear Human 'A' Group '6f' Pair of chappals Human No reaction '7' Blood stained gauze Human 'A' Group '9a' Tshirt Human 'A' Group '10a' Tshirt Human 'A' Group '10b' Jeans pants Human 'A' Group '11' Dagger Human No reaction '12a' Tshirt Human 'A' Group On careful perusal and analysis of the biological and serological evidence on record as reproduced hereinabove, it clearly indicates, blood could not be detected on exhibit 4 (earth control), exhibit 9b (one jeans pants, seized vide seizure memo Ext. PW15/K, allegedly belonging to accused Ravi @ Paggal), exhibit 12b (one black colour pyjama, seized vide seizure memo Ext. PW15/O allegedly belonging to accused Madan). Reading the results of analysis of biological report Ext. PW5/B on exhibit 31 of 47 32 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri 9b, exhibit 12b visavis the seizure memos Ext. PW15/K and Ext. PW15/O, it knocks out the bottom of the testimony of PW15 Insp. Manoj Sharma that the clothes, one jeans pants and one black colour pyjama were the blood stained clothes. Had these clothes been the blood stained clothes, then containing blood would have been detected on them. It creates doubt and suspicion in the prosecution case and does not rule out false plantation.
IDENTIFICATION OF CASE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE DECEASED:
15. PW18 Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, Ld. MM, who conducted the Test Identification Parade (TIP) proceedings of the articles i.e one purse, one watch, two rings and one pen and proved the TIP proceedings Ext. PW8/A (be read as Ext. PW8/E) signed by him at Point X3.
PW8 Sunil Chaudhary in his examinationinchief has deposed that he participated in the TIP proceedings of case property and proved the TIP proceedings Ext. PW8/E bearing his signatures at Point 'A' on page no. 1 and 3.
32 of 47 33 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant part of examinationin chief of PW8 Sunil Chaudhary which reads as under: "After receiving a notice I reached at Rohini Courts. The name of the Ld. MM, I do not remember but there, in the presence of Ld. MM, on 21/01/09, I had identified one purse of brown colour, one wrist watch make HMT Kohinoor, two rings (peetalnuma) on one of said ring logo of "OM" was engraved and on other ring some dots were there (bindu) and one pen of orange colour belonging to deceased Santosh and in TIP proceedings Ext. PW8/E bears my signatures at point 'A' on page nos. 1 and 3.
I can identify the belongings of deceased i.e his purse, watch, two rings and one pen if shown to me.
At this stage, a sealed parcel sealed with the seal of SK produced by the MHC(M). The parcel is opened and one purse is taken out. The same is shown to the witness which he correctly identifies as Ext. P1.
At this stage, another sealed parcel sealed with the seal of SK produced by the MHC(M). The parcel is opened and one watch make HMT Kohinoor is taken out. The same is shown to the witness which he correctly identifies as Ext. P2.
At this stage, another sealed parcel sealed with the seal of SK produced by the MHC(M). The parcel is opened and two rings and one pen are taken out. The same is shown to the witness and the witness shows his inability to recognize the same and stated that the rings and pen do not belong to the deceased.
33 of 47 34 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP seeks permission to ask a leading question from the witness.
Heard. Allowed.
Q. It is correct that you had identified two rings and one pen of deceased Santosh before the Ld. Magistrate during TIP apart from his purse and watch?
Ans. It is correct that I had identified the rings and pen of Santosh.
Vol. I was pressurized by the IO to identify the same. Q. When you took part in TIP proceedings of abovesaid three articles of deceased Santosh before Ld. Magistrate, whether IO of the present case was present at that time inside the Chamber or not?
Ans. When I took part in judicial TIP inside the chamber, IO was not present at that time but he was present outside. Q. Whether similar types of rings and pens were mixed with the rings and pen of Santosh?
Ans. Yes and after seeing the same I correctly identified his rings and pen."
From the aforesaid narration of PW8 Sunil Chaudhary it is 34 of 47 35 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri clearly indicated that he has identified, one purse Ext. P1 and one watch make HMT Kohinoor Ext. P2. He has not identified the two rings and pen.
During his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused PW8 Sunil Chaudhary has admitted it to be correct that deceased Santosh was not used to wear rings and having pen.
In the circumstances, it stands proved on record that purse Ext. P1 and watch make HMT Kohinoor Ext. P2 belonged to the deceased Santosh.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE:
16. PW21 Dr. V.K. Jha, Medical Officer, BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Santosh Kumar and proved the postmortem report Ext. PW21/A. The relevant part of examinationinchief of PW21 Dr. V.K. Jha reproduced and reads as under: 35 of 47 36 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri "I observed following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased.
1. Incised wound on front of chest left side 5 cm x 2 cm x chest cavity deep in sixth intercostal space.
2. Incised wound on front of right thigh upper part 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep.
3. Incised wound on front of chest left side just lateral to nipple, 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep.
On internal examination and dissection of injury no. 1, it has cut skin muscles, vessels and cut the upper surface left ventricle and made a laceration of size 1.5 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep. Chest cavity contained about 1.5 lt. of liquid and clotted blood.
After postmortem examination, I opined the cause of death as haemorrhagic shock as a result of laceration of heart consequent to stab injury inflicted by other party. Injury no. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time since death was approximately 60 hours. All injuries were antemortem in nature. Total number of inquest papers were 15 in numbers which were returned to the IO alongwith the postmortem report. Clothes, blood gauze piece were preserved and sealed with sample seal of mortuary. My detailed postmortem report is Ext. PW21/A, which bears my signatures at PointA."
There is nothing in his crossexamination so as to impeach his creditworthiness.
36 of 47 37 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri PW20 Narender Kumar is the Crime Mobile Photographer, who took 12 photographs of the spot and of dead body and proved the photographs Ext. PW20/A1 to A12 and negatives thereof as Ext. PW20/B1 to B12. The perusal of photographs Ext. PW20/A1 to A12 also shows the existence of the said injuries on the dead body of the deceased Santosh Kumar.
In view of above and in the circumstances, it stands proved on record that the death of deceased Santosh Kumar was homicidal in nature.
OPINION REGARDING WEAPON OF OFFENCE :
17. PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, MOIC, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, New Delhi in his examinationinchief has deposed that on 17/02/2009 he had received application of Investigating Officer Pawan Singh Rana for opinion of weapon as the same was marked to him by the then Medical Superintendent, SGM Hospital due to the transfer of Dr. V. K. Jha (who had conducted the postmortem). Received single edged knife with pointed tip and a wooden cylindrical handle sealed in a cloth with seal 37 of 47 38 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri of "MS". According to the postmortem report, he was of the opinion that the injuries described could be caused by the weapon produced in front of him. He had prepared sketch of the weapon and same is Ext. PW4/A and his opinion is Ext. PW4/B signed by him at Point A. The weapon was resealed with the seal of SGM Hospital, Mortuary.
During his crossexamination PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra has deposed that it is correct that the injuries in question could have been caused by any weapon similar to the weapon examined by him.
RECOVERIES AT THE INSTANCE OF ACCUSED:
18. PW15 Inspector Manoj Sharma proved the seizure memo Ext. PW15/E of blood stained pant of white colour and Tshirt (colly Ext. P11) recovered pursuant to disclosure of accused Govind @ Mangu Ext. PW15/D. Seizure memo Ext. PW15/K of blood stained jeans pant and Tshirt of blue colour (colly Ext. P12) and one blood stained dagger (Ext. P13) by a separate seizure memo dated 10/12/2008 and prepared its sketch Ext. PW15/J recovered pursuant to disclosure of accused Ravi @ Paggal Ext. PW15/H. Seizure memo Ext. PW15/O of blood stained one lower of black 38 of 47 39 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri colour and one Tshirt of cream colour (colly Ext. P14) recovered pursuant to disclosure of accused Madan Ext. PW15/N. The perusal of seizure memo Ext. PW15/K shows that pursuant to disclosure statement of accused Ravi @ Paggal, blood stained jeans pant, Tshirt of blue colour (colly Ext. P12), one blood stained dagger (Ext. P13) were recovered. The sketch of dagger (Ext. P13) Ext. PW15/J was prepared and the dagger (Ext. P13) was seized by a separate seizure memo dated 10/12/2008. The perusal of sketch of dagger (Ext. P13) Ext. PW15/J does not indicate the presence of any blood stains on it. If it was blood stained then why the blood stains have not been shown in the sketch Ex. PW15/J. Then how blood came to detected on it as per biological report Ex. PW5/B. From where blood came on it? How this magic has occurred? No explanation has been placed by the prosecution in this regard.
Moreover, as per the biological report Ext. PW5/B blood was detected on exhibit 11 (dagger) but as per serological report Ext. PW5/C, although, the 'species of origin' has been shown as 'Human' but under the ABO Grouping' it gave "No Reaction".
39 of 47 40 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri In the circumstances, no nexus is established on record of the use of dagger (Ext. P13) in the committal of the crime as it could not be proved that the blood detected on it was that of deceased Santosh, as under
the 'ABO Grouping' it gave 'No Reaction'.
It is well settled that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn are to be cogently and firmly established.
In view of above and in the circumstances, prosecution has failed to prove that dagger (Ext. P13) is the "Weapon of offence", allegedly recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Ravi @ Paggal Ext. PW15/H. It creates doubt and suspicion in the prosecution case and does not rule out false implication and plantation.
With regard to the recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused Govind @ Mangu, Ravi @ Paggal and Madan vide seizure memos Ext. PW15/E, Ext. PW15/K, Ext. PW15/O respectively pursuant to their disclosure statements Ext. PW15/D, Ext. PW15/H, Ext. PW15/N
40 of 47 41 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri respectively as discussed hereinabove. On careful perusal and analysis of evidence on record, it is found that except for the dislcosure statements of accused there is no other evidence showing that clothes allegedly recovered were belonging to the accused persons or that the same were worn by them at the time of commission of crime.
There is substance in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the accused that except for the disclosure statement of the accused persons, there is no other evidence showing that clothes allegedly recovered were belonging to the accused persons or that the same were worn by them at the time of commission of offence. He has referred to cases titled (1). Parmeshwari Vs. State CRI. CJ 2010 (1) 354 in which Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the disclosure statements of both the accused that they were wearing the respective clothes when the crime was committed would be inadmissible and has further held, the prosecution had to establish by independent evidence that the clothes and the articles recovered from accused persons were worn by them when they committed the crime. (2). Bablu @ Bulbul Vs. St. of Rajasthan 2002 (1) CCC 228 (Rajasthan High Court) wherein it was held that clothes recovered from the possession of accused found to contain blood of the same blood group as that of deceased - failure to prove that 41 of 47 42 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri clothes actually belonged to the accused - held, vital circumstances is missing.
Further, the incident is of the intervening night of 0405/12/2008 and the alleged recoveries of blood stained clothes has been made on 10/12/2008, it does not appeal to the reason that the accused persons would preserve them and to wait for the police, when they had enough opportunity to wash them or destroy them instead of preserving them. (Rel. Naveen Chauhan @ Chussi Vs. State 2011 (1) Crimes 529 (Delhi).
Once the recovery of blood stained clothes (colly. Ex. P12) and one blood stained dagger (Ex. P13) pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Ravi @ Paggal Ex. PW15/H and that of the recovery of blood stained clothes (colly Ex. P11) pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Govind @ Mangu Ex. PW15/D creates doubt and suspicion, the recovery of wrist watch (Ex. P2) vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/K at the instance of accused Ravi @ Paggal and that of the recovery of purse (Ex. P1) vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/A at the instance of accused Govind @ Mangu have also become questionable.
It does not appeal to the reason as to why accused Ravi @ Paggal and Govind @ Mangu will keep/retain such articles when they had 42 of 47 43 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri enough opportunity to dispose them of and for what purpose? To wait for the Police to come and to seize the same from their possession. It creates doubt and suspicion in the prosecution case and does not rule out false implication and plantation.
This gives credence to the statements of the accused persons recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they have pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They were illegally lifted and falsely implicated by the Police officials of the PS - Mangol Puri in this case. They have no concern with the alleged case. Nothing was recovered from their possession or at their instance. The recoveries shown from them are planted one. The theory of false implication pleaded by the accused persons has also been fortified by the defence evidence led by them by way of examination of DW1 Smt. Suman, DW2 Sh. Balwant, DW3 Sh. Rajender Singh & DW4 Sh. Digamber Singh.
There is nothing in the crossexamination of the said defence witnesses so as to impeach their creditworthiness. Their testimonies are natural, clear, cogent trustworthy and inspires confidence.
MOTIVE FOR CRIME: 43 of 47 44 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri
19. In case State of UP Vs. Babu Ram, 2000 III AD (SC) 319, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether based on the testimony of eye witnesses or circumstantial evidence. The question in this regard is whether the prosecution must fail because it failed to prove the motive or even whether inability to prove motive would weaken the prosecution to any perceptible limit. No doubt, if the prosecution prove the existence of a motive it would be well and good for it, particularly, in a case depending on circumstantial evidence, for such motive could than be counted as one of the circumstances. However, it is generally a difficult area for any prosecution to bring on record what was in the mind of the respondent."
PW8 Sunil Chaudhary in his examinationinchief has deposed that deceased Santosh was his brotherinlaw (sala) and he was not having enmity with any one.
The relevant part of examinationinchief of PW8 Sunil Chaudhary is reproduced and it reads as under: "I am residing at the above given address (H2/129, Sultanpuri, Delhi) of Delhi with my family and working in Balaji International Printers situated K65, Udhyog Nagar, Nangloi. Deceased Santosh was my brother 44 of 47 45 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri inlaw (Sala) and he was residing with me for last about six months from the date of incident in my said house and he was working at Sri Ram Offset Printing Press situated at F17, Udhyog Nagar, Nangloi.
On 04/12/08, Santosh was on day duty and I was on night duty. At about 9:15 a.m. I received a phone call from one Kaushal, who was my coworker, that Santosh had received stab injuries and he had expired. I immediately reached at the spot and there some Police officials met me. I had identified the dead body of Santosh. Santosh was not having any enmity with anyone. Santosh had left the factory after performing his duty between 9:009:30 p.m. On 04/12/2008 and was going to my said house situated at Sultan Puri. My statement/complaint made to the Police is Ext. PW8/A signed by me at point A".
There is no evidence on the record to indicate the motive for committal of crime by accused persons except for the alleged recovery of some articles on the basis of alleged disclosure statements which are readable only to the extent under section 27 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the evidence with regard to the alleged recovery has already been discussed and analyzed in detail hereinbefore.
20. In view of above and in the circumstances, prosecution has miserably failed to prove that on 10/12/2008 accused Ravi @ Paggal was found in possession of a wrist watch HMT Kohinoor (Ext. P2) and accused 45 of 47 46 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri Govind @ Mangu was found in possession of a purse (Ext. P1) and accused Madan was found in possession of two peetalnuma rings, belonging to deceased Santosh, which they dishonestly received or retained knowing or having reason to believe the same to be the stolen property or that in the night intervening of 0405/12/2008 between 9:00 p.m. to 8:25 a.m. at Open Space CRPF Park at the back of Police Booth Industrial Area Phase I, Mangolpuri, Delhi, accused Ravi @ Paggal, Govind @ Mangu and Madan, in furtherance of their common intention caused murder of Santosh by stabbing him with dagger (Ex. P13) and after committal of murder of Santosh robbed a wrist watch make Kohinoor (Ex. P2), two rings, a pen and a purse (Ex. P1) from the person of the deceased and used dagger (Ex. P13) at the time of committing of said robbery in order to rob Santosh.
21. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion as far as the involvement of accused Ravi @ Paggal, Govind @ Mangu and Madan in the commission of the offences u/s 302/397/34 IPC and u/s 411 IPC is concerned, the same has not been sufficiently established by the cogent and reliable evidence and there is a room for hypothesis, consistent with that of innocence of accused. I therefore, acquit accused Ravi @ Paggal, Govind @ Mangu and Madan for the offences punishable u/s 46 of 47 47 FIR No. 610/2008 PS Mangol Puri 302/397/34 IPC and u/s 411 IPC after giving them the benefit of doubt. Accused Ravi @ Pagal, Govind @ Mangu and Madan are running in JC. They be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case; however, on their release, accused Ravi @ Pagal, Govind @ Mangu and Madan shall appear in the Court and shall execute a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ each u/s 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in the open Court today (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) on the 30th day of November, 2012 Addl. Sessions Judge- IV/Outer Distt.
Rohini/Delhi 47 of 47