Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul Lakra Etc. on 27 October, 2016
State Vs Rahul Lakra etc.
FIR no. 289/13
PS: Aman Vihar
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA:ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-II
(NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No.187/13
Unique Case ID: 02404R04R0303872013
State
Vs
1. Rahul Lakra
S/o. Sh. Rishi Lakra
R/o. D-87, Shivram Park,
Nangloi, Delhi
2. Ashish Gupta
S/o. Sh. Shatish Chander
R/o. A-23, Dena App.
Sector-13, Rohini,
Delhi
FIR No. : 289/13
Police Station: Aman Vihar
Under Section : 304/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 01.11.2013
Date on which judgment reserved : 22.10.2016
Date on which judgment pronounced : 22.10.2016
JUDGMENT
1. This is a case under section 304/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Case of the prosecution is that Sanjay Purohit (the deceased) was alcoholic and got admitted in the Drug De-addiction and Rehabilitation Centre, namely Nasha Mukti Kendra, NGO situated at the plot no. B/93, Lekhi Ram Park, Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the centre") for treatment on 27.06.2013. In the intervening night of 29.06.2013 and 30.06.2013, Rahul Lakra (the accused no.1) and Ashish Gupta (the accused no.2) who were already admitted in the centre Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar and were kept in the general ward, came to the special ward where the deceased along with other inmates was kept to control him and gave merciless beatings to the deceased. Resultantly, the deceased died and was removed to the SGM Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the "hospital") where he was declared brought dead. Dinesh Chander Lakhera made a complaint on 30.06.2013. Consequently, FIR was registered. On the basis of CCTV footage and other evidences, it was revealed that the accused no.1 and 2 were responsible for the death of the deceased.
3. Charge under section 304/34 IPC was settled against both the accused for causing death of Sanjay Purohit. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE
4. In order to discharge the onus, the prosecution has examined 27 witnesses.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
5. PW8 Poonam (wife of the deceased) deposed that she married Sanjay Purohit (the deceased). After 2/3 years of the marriage, the deceased started consuming liquor and became addicted to the alcohol. Rajesh Vij was running the centre and after getting the counseling from him, she got admitted the deceased in the centre on 27.06.2013 at about 1.30-2.00 p.m. She paid total Rs.30,000/- towards admission and medicine charges to Rajesh Vij who in turn issued the receipt to that effect. Rajesh Vij assured that no pressure or violence was used in the centre upon the patients; and CCTV cameras were installed all over the centre and they kept 24 hours watch on the patients. In the night of 27.06.2013, husband of her sister-in- law (Nanad) i.e. the complainant (PW16) made a call to Rajesh Vij and enquired about welfare of the deceased who stated that he was perfectly fine. Similar information was given on 28.06.2013 and 29.06.2013 also.
Page no.32 / 34State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar
6. PW8 also deposed that in the intervening night of 29.06.2013 and 30.06.2013, PW16 again contacted Rajesh Vij and was told that the deceased was sleeping after being given the medicine and was perfectly fine. At about 1.30 a.m., PW16 got a call from Rajesh Vij that the deceased was not well. Accordingly, PW16 called her and asked her to come to Delhi. She directly called Rajesh Vij and asked him about the problem who in turn informed that the deceased was no more. She along with her brother came to Delhi on 30.06.2013 and straightway reached at the hospital where she identified the body of the deceased vide memo Ex. PW8/A. After postmortem, dead body of the deceased was handed over vide memo Ex. PW7/A.
7. PW16 Dinesh Lakhera (the complainant) deposed the facts as to admission of the deceased in the centre on 27.06.2013 on the lines as deposed by PW8. He deposed that no certificate of the health of the deceased was taken from any doctor before his admission in the centre and he did not know about the condition of the deceased at the time of admission in the centre. He deposed that on 29.06.2013 at 1.00 p.m., he talked to Rajesh Vij who informed that the deceased had become abnormal but it was the normal abnormality during the initial stage of treatment and stated that they had their own doctor for treatment, if required. At 11.00-11.30 p.m., he was informed that the deceased was serious and were being taken to the hospital. He along with his wife, brother-in-law and sister reached at the hospital at 3.00 a.m. In the morning at 6.00 a.m., they reached at the centre and requested to show the CCTV footage. It was night vision camera. They found that at 7.00 p.m. on 29.06.2013, everything was normal and the deceased had taken the food. They also found that the beatings were given to the deceased and there was no attendant with him. Out of 9-10 persons, 4-5 were giving beatings to the deceased. Out of them, two were beating more than others and the persons were continuously smoking bidi, cigarette etc. He made a complaint Ex. PW16/A to the police. Video recorder box was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. He identified the dead body of the deceased and proved his statement to that effect Ex. PW16/B. After postmortem, the dead body was delivered vide receipt Ex. PW7/A. He relied upon photographs Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar Ex. PW15/A1 to PW15/A3 and proved the photographs Ex. PW16/C and PW16/D. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Rajesh Vij met him in the hospital at about 3.30 a.m. Police did not meet him in the hospital. He gave the statement Ex. PW16/A in the police station. One Vijay Anand or Vinay Anand, councilor in the centre told him that suddenly the condition of the deceased deteriorated due to which he was brought to the hospital, where he died. He denied the suggestion that the application Ex. PW16/A was made by him under sentiments. He deposed that he had grudge against the management of the centre, hence, he moved the application to take action against them.
8. PW15 Kishan Pal (the inmate) deposed that he used to take liquor and was admitted in the centre in the month of February last year i.e. 2013. He was in the special ward. In the said ward, other inmates were PW17, one Jain and Prateek and rest of the names, he did not know. Rajesh Vij was all in all in the centre and used to do whatever he wanted. He also deposed that a patient who was under treatment and was staying in another room, was brought to their room during night. Till then, he was alright but he was unable to walk and his condition was bad. That patient took some food with persuasion. After dinner, he picked up some spoons and persons from the centre slapped him. That was the only incident which took in his presence. He identified the photographs Ex. PW15/A1 to PW15/A3 where he was shown. PW15 identified himself in CD Ex. PW15/B containing CCTV visual and after seeing the visuals shown after 23:37:20 hours on 29.06.2013, he deposed that at that time, the deceased had become very restless and was experiencing withdrawal symptoms when he was being controlled by others in the room. He deposed that he himself had told the others not to hit the deceased and rubbed his hands and feet (maine unko kaha ki marna nahin, woh pehle hi bahut pitkar aaya tha aur humare room ka member nahin tha). In his cross-examination, he admitted that the patients were not put to care in the centre and the deceased was not given any treatment in his presence when he was feeling restless.
Page no.32 / 34State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar
9. PW17 K.M. Sundaram (the inmate) deposed that he was admitted in the centre on 10.03.2013 and was shifted to the special ward where Mohit Jain, Varun, Lalit, Sukhvinder Singh were also admitted. On 29.06.2013, the deceased came to their room at 11.00 p.m. The deceased was going out of control and they were not able to handle them, hence, both the accused were called to control the deceased. Both the accused had given him two slaps. Mohit Jain caught hold of his legs in order to control him and also hit him with something. The deceased became unconscious and fell down. Accordingly, they called the councilor from outside by calling from the window as the door was locked from outside. The councilor came and asked PW19 and Kamal to take the deceased to the hospital. He deposed that both the accused had given punch blows to the deceased. He did not remember if he told the IO that both the accused stated, "Yeh aise nahin maanega, isko control karne ka tarika to pitaai hi hai". He told IO that he told both the accused not to hit the deceased.
10. In his cross-examination, PW17 admitted one suggestion that both the accused were not in their room (the room where the incident took place) and were in the general ward; and that initially, the deceased was admitted in another special ward and thereafter was shifted to their room. When the deceased came to their room, he was in a very "girta-parta" condition. There were 7-8 persons in their ward who were trying to control the deceased. Mohit Jain fed him the dinner, though, the deceased had refused to it. Deceased took normal dinner. Thereafter, they went to attend the prayer in the adjoining room in the general ward. Soon they saw the serious condition of the deceased, they called the councilor. Both the accused were present in their room (the room where the incident took place) and they called the councilor through window. The councilor came to the room at about 12.00 or 12.05 a.m. Management of the centre did not take proper care of the patients admitted there.
Page no.32 / 34State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar
11. PW18 Ajay Anand @ Ajju Anand (the councilor) deposed that he was working as the councilor in the centre. In the intervening night of 29-30.06.2013 at about 12.15 a.m., the accused no.1, Mohit Jain, PW17 and other persons informed him that the condition of the deceased was serious. He found no movement in the body of the deceased. He arranged the vehicle and sent the deceased to the hospital along with PW19 who informed him from the hospital that the deceased was no more. Accordingly, he informed to Rajesh Vij and PW16. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Rajesh Vij had directly gone to the hospital. The doctor was not available for 24 hours in the centre. He denied the suggestion that the patients were not given proper care. He also deposed that no patient could take the alcohol in the centre; and no medicine like the triprolidine was available in the centre nor could be kept by any person. They kept the search to that effect also. He denied the suggestion that to save the centre, they had used the political and the financial influence.
12. PW19 Manish Sharma (the volunteer) deposed that in the intervening night, he was sleeping when the accused no.1 came to him and informed that the condition of the deceased was serious and he had to take him to the hospital. PW18 arranged the vehicle and asked him to take the deceased to the hospital where he was declared dead. Police recorded his statement Ex. PW19/A. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he was sleeping in the next room in the general ward where other patients were sleeping. There was only one general ward and he was awaken at 11.00 - 11.30 p.m. The general ward and the special ward were locked from outside every night. He was inside the room when lock of that room was got opened on the instruction of PW18. The room of the deceased was opened when he got up. No liquor, triprolidine or any such type of medicine containing triprolidine was available in the centre. He could not give any reason for finding of liquor or triprolidine in the stomach of the deceased. He deposed that the cough syrups were available in the centre but he did not remember the name. There were 4-3 servants Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar in the centre who also used to control the patients, when they became uncontrollable. Such persons were Kamal Kant, Devender Gupta and Surender, who also lived in the general room. They also went to the special ward as and when need arose. He denied the suggestion that since he was under the influence of liquor, hence, he took time to get senses and thereafter, he took the deceased to the hospital.
13. PW7 Rakesh Kumar proved the receipt of handing over of the dead body of the deceased Ex. PW7/A. POLICE WITNESSES
14. PW3 ASI Satbir Singh proved copy of DD no.29A Ex. PW3/A, copy of FIR Ex. PW3/B and endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW3/C.
15. PW4 Ct. Siya Ram proved the DD no.13B Ex. PW4/A.
16. PW5 ASI Ajit Singh proved the crime team report Ex. PW5/A.
17. PW6 HC Shiv Ram proved the photographs Ex. PW6/A1 to Ex. PW6/A4 and the negatives Ex. PW6/B.
18. PW1 HC Rajkumar proved the relevant entry in register no.19 Ex. PW1/A, register no.21 Ex. PW1/B, PW1/C and PW1/F. He also proved the FSL receipts Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/G.
19. PW20 Ct. Prahlad relied upon the relevant entry in register no.21 Ex. PW1/B, PW1/C and receipt Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E. Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar
20. PW2 Ct. Pawan proved the seizure of the video recorder box having CCTV footage Ex. PW2/A and seizure memo of exhibits of the deceased handed over by the Autopsy Surgeon after his postmortem Ex. PW2/B.
21. PW21 Ct. Shri Bhagwan deposed that on 18.07.2013, he joined the investigation and reached at the centre where the accused no.1 was arrested vide memo Ex. PW21/D and the accused no.2 was arrested vide memo Ex. PW21/A. He also proved their personal search memos Ex. PW21/B and Ex.PW21/E and their disclosure statements Ex. PW21/C and Ex. PW21/F.
22. PW22 Ct. Vinod deposed about the arrest of both the accused and proceedings related thereto as deposed by PW21.
23. PW23 SI Sandeep deposed that on 29.08.2013, he recorded the statement of PW8.
24. PW24 SI Ravinder Solanki deposed that on 30.06.2013, on receipt of DD no.13B, he along with Ct. Pawan reached at the hospital and collected MLC of the deceased. There was no apparent sign of injury on the body of the deceased. He met PW19 and made enquiries from him. Thereafter, they came to the centre and made enquiries from PW18 and other patients. He looked into the CCTV footage and took them in pen drive and seized video recorder box vide seizure memo Ex, PW2/A. Crime Team came to the centre and inspected the centre and took the photographs. He deposed about the identification of the dead body of the deceased and recording the statement of PW8. He got conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased vide application Ex. PW24/A and prepared form 25.35 Ex. PW24/B. The doctor handed over him the exhibits of the deceased which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B. On 13.07.2013, PW16 made the statement and he prepared rukka Ex. PW24/C and got registered the FIR Ex. PW3/B. On 18.07.2013, he joined the investigation with PW25. PW25 prepared the site plan at Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar the instance of PW15 Ex. PW24/B. Enquiry was made from the other inmates of the centre. He also deposed about the arrest and subsequent proceedings relating to both the accused as deposed by PW21.
25. In cross-examination, PW24 deposed that on 30.06.2013 at about 6.00 a.m., they reached at the centre, but did not find any evidence against the accused persons except CCTV Footage, which was taken into custody. No evidence was coming forwarded in the statement of the witnesses against both the accused about their taking part in causing injury to the deceased. He did not collect any record from the centre showing the history of the deceased. He admitted that during investigation, he came to know that both the accused were admitted and were kept in a separate room and that they were old patients and were staying in different rooms, but deposed that on the date of incident both had been entrusted the duties to control the deceased. He was told that the accused were not formally trained in controlling the aggressive patients but because of their experience, they had been put to control the deceased. He did not record the statement of any person in the centre to that effect nor took any duty roaster to that effect. He admitted that during investigation that he came to know during nights, all the rooms were locked so that patients did not get to other rooms. One councilor and one volunteer of the management stay overnight in the centre. PW18 and PW19 were informed by the accused persons about deteriorating condition of the deceased. He denied a suggestion that he implicated both the accused on the pressure of family of the deceased to work out a blind case.
26. PW25 Inspector Mahender Singh deposed about registration of the FIR and interrogation made from PW18 and PW19. He also deposed about preparation of the site plan, arrest of both the accused and proceedings related thereto. He deposed that on 12.08.2013, he got deposited the exhibits of the deceased with FSL, Rohini. On 13.09.2013, he sent the hard disc of CCTV camera to FSL Rohini. He proved the photographs Ex. PW25/A1 to PW25/A7. He deposed about obtaining the Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar subsequent opinion and filing of the supplementary challan. He prepared the age memo of the accused no.1 Ex. PW25/B. He also relied upon the photographs Ex. PW15/A1 to PW15/A3 and Ex. PW16/C and PW16/D.
27. In cross-examination, PW25 deposed that in the statements recorded by him on 13.07.2013, there was no allegation of 'maar pitaai' (the beating) against both the accused. He did not cite owner of the centre as a witness in the case as there were allegations against him and he appeared to be in the category of the accused. However, he did not cite him as an accused, since he did not find sufficient material against him. Court noted that separate proceedings were going on to that effect. He admitted that he tried to save Rajesh Viz in the present case. Again stated, he had not tried to save Rajesh Viz. He collected the documents relating to the history, admission and treatment of the deceased at the centre, but that were not the part of the charge-sheet. He deposed that the centre was registered, but he did not place those documents with the charge-sheet. He did not make any enquiry from GNCT of Delhi or Central Government as to establishment of the centre and its staff. He deposed that both the accused were councilors at the time of incident and being the old patients, they were experts in handling the patients. He denied a suggestion that all the rooms of the patients were locked during the night to prevent their movement from one room to another and deposed that doors were not locked. He denied a suggestion that both the accused were in a different room, when the incident took place. He inspected the premises and did not find any alcohol or drug for use as medical purpose. He did not record the said fact in the case diary. He could not tell the reason for delay in sending the hard disk to FSL. He denied a suggestion that signatures of the accused persons were obtained on blank papers, which were later on converted in various incriminating documents against them.
28. PW27 Inspector/SHO Rajender Prasad deposed that on 23.06.2016, he deputed Ct. Rajender to receive the CFSL result and the exhibits from CFSL, CBI. On 29.03.2016, he deposited the same in the Court.
Page no.32 / 34State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar MEDICAL EVIDENCE
29. PW11 Dr. Rajesh, CMO, SGM Hospital proved MLC of the deceased Ex. PW11/A and deposed that the deceased was brought dead.
30. PW12 Dr. Priyanka, Junior Resident, SGM Hospital also deposed on the lines of PW11.
31. PW9 Dr. Munish Wadhawan, Junior Specialist, SGM Hospital deposed that on 01.07.2013, he along with Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW10) conducted the postmortem on the body of Sanjay Purohit i.e. the deceased and proved the postmortem report Ex. PW9/A. He also deposed that IO moved an application seeking final report on cause of death. PW10 examined the FSL report and had given his opinion vide Ex. PW9/B which was filed via supplementary charge sheet.
32. PW10 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, Incharge Mortuary, SGM Hospital also deposed on the lines of PW9. He also deposed that the cause of death was due to shock as a result of esophageal verisal bleed under the influence of Triprolidine and Ethyl Alcohol. Time since death in this case was approximately 36 hours. Following external injuries were found on the body of the deceased:
1. Reddish bruise 3 x 2 cm on back of left elbow joint.
2. Reddish bruise 4.1 x 1.7 cm on back of right elbow joint.
3. Reddish bruise 5 x 3 cm on front of left abdomen.
4. Reddish bruise 6.2 x 3 cm on front of right abdomen.
5. Reddish bruise 7.1 x 2.8 cm on inner aspect of right thigh.Page no.32 / 34
State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar FORENSIC EVIDENCE
33. PW13 Jitender Kumar, Senior Scientific Assistant, FSL Rohini proved his report Ex. PW13/A and deposed that on chemical, Microscopic, TLC, GC-MS and GC-HS examination Exhibit 1A (stomach pieces of small intestine with contents kept in a jar), Exhibit 1B (pieces of liver, spleen and kidney kept in a jar) and exhibit 1C (blood sample, volume 02ml, approximately kept in a bottle) were found to contain Triprolidine and Ethyl Alcohol. Exhibit 1C (blood sample, volume 02ml, approximately kept in a bottle) was found to contain Ethyl Alcohol 10.7mg/100 ml of blood. In his cross examination, he deposed that the quantity of the Ethyl alcohol found in the blood was very less and there was a possibility of its being a content of some medicine given to the deceased. Triprolidine was an antihistamine which was commonly present in a cough syrup along with small quantities of alcohol. He did not quantify the extend of Triprolidine and therefore he could not tell its content per 100ml of blood.
34. PW14 Ms. Manisha Upadhyay, SSO, Biology, FSL Rohini, proved biological report Ex. PW14/A and serological report Ex. PW14/B and deposed that according to the serological examination blood of "B Group" was found on exhibit 1c ( track's suit, lower). She identified the T-shirt EX P-1, the baniyan EX P-2 and the track suit lower EX P-3.
35. PW26 P.K. Gottam, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-1 (photo), CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road, New Delhi deposed that DVR containing one hard disk of WD make 500 GB serial no. WMC 1U7725396 and another blank hard disk of 500 GB serial no. WCC2EWS31763 hard disk were sent to the computer forensic division through the internal forwarding note for examination. On examination, he found that there was no editing in the given hard disk, videos of Ex. 1 and all the videos were authenticated. Copy of the same was prepared which was image Ex. no.1. He proved his report Ex. PW26/A. He identified the image hard disk make WD of Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar capacity 500 GB serial no. WCC2EWS31763 Ex. PW-26/P1. He also identified DVR make Digitek containing original hard disk of make WD of capacity 500 GB serial no. WMC1U7725396 and deposed that he had examined the same and found original and proved the DVR Ex. PW-26/P2 and original hard disk Ex. PW-26/P3.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
36. After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of both the accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which the incriminating evidence/material was put to them and they have denied. Both the accused stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
37. The accused have not led any evidence in their defence despite given opportunity.
38. I have heard the ld. Addl. PP for the State and counsels for both the accused and have perused the material available on record including the written submissions.
39. Case of the prosecution is that Rajesh Vij was running the centre and PW18 and PW19 were the part of management of the centre. In the centre, there were two types of wards i.e. General Ward and Special Ward. At night, both kind of wards were kept locked from the outside so that no person could enter from one ward to another ward. Both the accused were admitted in the centre as the patients prior to admission of the deceased on 27.06.2013 and were kept in the General Ward. Both the accused, being the old patients, were helping the centre in managing and controlling the patients. The deceased was alcoholic and after admission in the centre, he was kept in the Special Ward. In the intervening night of 29.06.2013 and 30.06.2013, both the accused as part of the management of the centre came in the Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar special ward where the deceased was kept along with other patients including PW15 and PW17, to control him and gave merciless beatings to him which resulted in his death.
40. It is evident from the testimony of PW8 and PW16 that the deceased was addicted to alcohol and was got admitted in the centre on 27.06.2013 for treatment.
DENTITY OF BOTH THE ACCUSED
41. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that both the accused were admitted as the patient in the centre prior to 27.06.2013. Therefore, identity of both the accused stands proved.
CCTV FOOTAGE
42. In the present case, the prosecution, in addition to other evidences, relied upon the CCTV footage. Before proceeding further, I deem it appropriate to ascertain the authenticity of the Digital Video Recorded Box (DVR) containing the hard disk relied upon by the prosecution to prove the CCTV footage.
43. Ld. Addl. PP pleaded that CCTV camera was installed in the special ward where the incident took place. During the investigation, the DVR containing the hard disk was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A and was sent to CFSL, CBI for examination. PW26 proved his report Ex. PW26/A and deposed that no editing was found in the given hard disk Ex. no.1 (original hard disk) and all videos were authenticated. PW26 identified the image hard disk Ex. PW26/P-1, the DVR Ex. PW26/P-2 and the original hard disk Ex. PW26/P-3.
44. On the contrary, counsels for both the accused pleaded that the DVR containing the hard disk sent for examination was tampered with because the Investigating Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar Officer (IO) had delayed in sending the same to CFSL. Therefore, the report furnished on the basis of the same is not reliable in nature.
45. PW2 proved the seizure of the DVR containing the hard disk vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. In the seizure memo Ex. PW2/A, details of the DVR seized and the manner in which it was seized, was specifically mentioned. In his cross- examination, no suggestion was given by counsels for the accused that necessary precautions were not taken at the time of their seizure or the same were tampered with that time. No suggestion was given to PW2 that the seizure memo Ex.PW2/A was a fabricated document. PW24 corroborated the said testimony of PW2 to this effect. In his cross-examination, PW24 deposed that he took the CCTV in his custody on 30.06.2013. In his cross-examination, no suggestion was given to question the seizure of the DVR and the procedure adopted to that effect. In view of their testimony, it can be held that the DVR containing the hard disk was duly seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A following due process.
46. PW1 proved the entry in the register no.19 vide mud no.434/1 Ex. PW21/A, perusal of which reveals that the DVR seized on 30.06.2013 was deposited in the Malkhana in sealed condition that day itself. Entry in register no.21 vide RC no.196/21/13 Ex. PW1/F reveals that the said DVR was sent to FSL Rohini for examination on 13.09.2013 and the acknowledgement receipt Ex. PW1/G issued by FSL Rohini proves the deposit of the said DVR on 13.09.2013. No suggestion was given to PW1 that there any tampering with the DVR deposited in the Malkhana.
47. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that from 30.06.2013 till 13.09.2013, there was no tampering with the DVR.
48. It is evident from the record that the DVR was not examined by the FSL Rohini. In the meantime, the IO had not taken any step for examination of the DVR containing the hard disk. Later, in compliance of the court's order, PW26 examined Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar the said DVR along with the hard disk and furnished his report Ex.PW26/A.
49. In cross-examination of PW26, no suggestion was given by counsels for the accused that the said DVR and the hard disk were tampered with. PW26 in his cross-examination by counsel for the accused no.2 deposed that on examination, the hash value was found to be same in the DVR and that was also the basis of his report to state that it was not edited. He also specifically deposed that in his report at Para-7(3), he specifically mentioned that all the videos were checked and there was no tampering. No suggestion to the contrary was given. Further, both the accused in their statement u/s.313 CrPC, nowhere stated that DVR with hard disk was tampered with.
50. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that there is no substance in the plea raised by counsels for the accused that there was tampering with the DVR containing the hard disk. Further, since the DVR with the original hard disk was sent for examination, hence, there was no need for certificate u/s.65-B Indian Evidence Act in support thereof.
PRESENCE OF BOTH THE ACCUSED AT THE SCENE OF CRIME AND ITS CAUSE
51. In the site plan Ex. PW24/D, point 'A' is shown as the bed in the special ward where the incident took place. Both the accused have failed to challenge the authenticity of the said site plan. Hence, it can be held that the incident had taken place in the special ward on the bed 'A' as shown in the site plan Ex. PW24/D.
52. Ld. Addl. PP pleaded that in the centre, there were two kind of wards to keep the patients i.e. (i) General Ward and (ii) Special Ward. Both the accused were admitted in the centre prior to admission of the deceased and were kept in the general ward. Both the accused, being the old patients, used to help the Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar management of the centre in controlling the patients and were being treated as part of the management. Even on the date of incident, the said position existed. He also pleaded that the deceased was kept in the special ward. The doors of the general ward and the special ward were used to be locked from outside at night. As such, there was no possibility of moving one patient from one ward to another ward in the night at his own. However, on the fateful night, both the accused were found in the special ward where the deceased was kept. The reason was that both the accused, being the old patients in the centre and part of the management, entered the special ward to control the deceased.
53. On the contrary, counsels for the accused pleaded that both the accused were admitted in the centre for their treatment and always remained as the patient only. Both the accused were neither the part of the management nor were helping it in controlling the patients. Further, the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that the accused were helping the management in controlling the patients and were assigned any duty to that effect. They also pleaded that both the accused were in the general ward that night.
54. It is evident from the testimony of PW15, PW18 and PW19 that Rajesh Vij was running the centre. It is also evident that PW18 acted as the councilor and PW19 acted as the volunteer in the centre on the date of incident. As per site plan Ex. PW24/D, there was one general ward and four special wards. PW19 in his cross- examination deposed that there was only one general ward in the centre. It implies that there was one general ward and four special wards in the centre. As evident from the cross-examination of PW19, the general ward and the special wards were used to be locked from outside every night. It implies that at night, no person from the general ward could go to the special ward and vice versa without opening of the lock of the respective ward which was under the control of the persons who were the part of the management of the centre like PW18.
Page no.32 / 34State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar
55. It is evident from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that both the accused were admitted in the centre much prior to the admission of the deceased. PW15 was admitted in the centre in February, 2013 while PW17 was admitted in the centre on 10.03.2013. As such, PW15 and PW17 were also the old patients in the centre as compared to the deceased. PW15 and PW17 in their testimony deposed that they were in the special ward and in addition to them, one Mohit Jain, Prateek, Lalit, Varun, Sukhwinder Singh and others were also kept. However, they did not name both the accused as the patients kept in the special ward along with them.
56. PW17 in his testimony deposed that at about 11.00 p.m., the deceased came to their room and was going out of control and they were not able to handle them. Consequently, both the accused were called to control the deceased. PW17 in his cross-examination deposed that both the accused were present in the room when condition of the deceased became serious, but they called the councilor through window. No suggestions to the contrary were given by counsels for both the accused.
57. PW18 deposed that at about 12.15 am, the accused no. 1 informed him about serious condition of the deceased. No suggestion to the contrary was given. PW19 deposed that he was in the general ward which was locked from the outside and was got opened on the instructions of PW18 on the date of incident. The room of the deceased i.e. the special ward was also opened when he had got up. The accused no. 1 came to him and informed about the serious condition of the deceased.
58. According to PW17, both the accused were called in the special ward to control the deceased at night. This could have happened only when the lock of the special ward would have been opened by someone which made the access of both the accused in the special ward. Perusal of testimony of PW17 also reveals that when Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar the deceased became unconscious and fell, they called the councilor from outside through the window as the door was locked from outside. As held above, the general ward and the special ward remained locked at the night and both the accused were in the general ward and the deceased was in the special ward. The opening of the lock and closing of the lock of the special ward could not be possible unless and until the same was done by the person who was managing and controlling the centre. This implies that the entry of both the accused was allowed in the special ward not as an inmate or a patient but because that time, they being the old inmates, were helping the management in controlling the patients in the centre. Further, according to PW17, they called both the accused to control the deceased and their entry was allowed. He never stated that they called the management or any official of the management for the said purpose. It implies that the inmates including PW17, being the old patient, were aware of the fact that the management had authorised both the accused to handle the patients in such conditions and they used to control the patients on behalf of the management and therefore, their entry would be allowed in special ward for that purpose. If that was not the case, then the accused have failed to explain as to why they had gone to the special ward that night.
59. If the plea of both the accused that they were in the general ward that night, is believed to be correct for the sake of arguments only, then it implies that PW19 and both the accused were in the general ward which was locked from outside and was opened by PW18 and thereafter, lock of the special ward where the deceased was kept was opened. In that eventuality, there was no occasion for both the accused to inform PW19 about the condition of the deceased. On the contrary, according to PW19, it was the accused no. 1 who gave firsthand knowledge of the health of the deceased to him. This had happened despite the fact that PW18, the volunteer, was there. Not only that, according to PW19, the accused no. 1 told him that he had to take the deceased to the hospital. Further, according to PW17, they called the councilor for help through window. Hence, there was no occasion for both the Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar accused to know about the condition of the deceased. Further, PW24 in his cross- examination deposed that both the accused were admitted in the centre and were kept in a separate room and on the date of incident, both the accused had been entrusted with the duty to control the deceased; and that as informed, both the accused were not formally trained in controlling the aggressive patients, but because of their experience, they had been put to control the deceased. No suggestions to the contrary were given by counsels for the accused.
60. Further, perusal of the CCTV footage reveals that both the accused came in the special ward along with the deceased at about 10 pm on 29.06.2013 and remained there till 12.20 am on 30.06.2013. Hence, it can be held that both the accused remained in the said special ward along with the deceased for a considerable time. Initially, the deceased wanted to leave that room, but both the accused stopped him and persuaded him and then made him to stay in that room only. Other inmates were also there in the said room, but the conduct of both the accused and the manner in which they were dealing with the deceased reveal that their conduct was supervisory in nature and their objective was to manage and control the deceased.
61. The photographs Ex. PW15/A-1 and Ex. PW16/C are corroborated with the CCTV footage and show the presence of both the accused in the special ward that night.
62. Both the accused in their statement u/s 313 CrPC have not denied their presence in the special ward that night.
63. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that both the accused were being treated as part of the management and were helping the management in controlling the patients. These fact were well within the knowledge of other patients including PW17. Therefore, on the date of incident, both the accused entered the special ward with the permission and knowledge of the management of Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar the centre to control the deceased.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
64. PW9 and PW10 relied upon the postmortem report Ex. PW9/A and the opinion Ex. PW9/B and deposed that the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock as a result of esophageal verisal bleed under the influence of Triprolidine and Ethyl Alcohol. Time since death in this case was approximately 36 hours.
65. Counsels for the accused pleaded that according to the testimony of PW9 and PW10, the cause of external injuries no. 1 to 5 mentioned above was not sure i.e. whether it was due to fall or beatings. In fact, the deceased sustained injuries due to fall on surface and PW10 has also not ruled out the same. Nature of the external injuries no. 1 to 5 found on the body of deceased was simple. Therefore, there is no question that those injuries had resulted in death of the deceased. They also pleaded that according to PW8, some medicine was given to the deceased that night. However, IO had not made enquiry about the medicine given to the deceased. In fact, ethyl alcohol and triprolidine were given to the deceased and due to their combined effect, the deceased became restless and died.
66. Ld. Addl. PP pleaded that according to PW9 and PW10, the cause of death was due to shock as a result of esophageal verisal bleed. The presence of ethyl alcohol and triprolidine in the body of the deceased was due to intake of cough syrup which is substantiated from the testimony of PW19 who deposed that the cough syrup was easily available in the centre. Further, both the said components are commonly found in the cough syrups and are taken by a person without any harm. In addition, the internal injuries were also found on the body of the deceased which had the direct connection with the death of the deceased.
Page no.32 / 34State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar
67. According to PW13, a very less quantity of ethyl alcohol i.e. 10.7mg/100 ml of blood was found in the body of the deceased and that could be possible being the part of some medicine given to the deceased. According to PW13, triprolidine is an antihistamine which is commonly present in cough syrup with small quantity of alcohol. PW8 deposed that as per her information, some medicine was given to the deceased that night. PW19 in his cross-examination deposed that the cough syrup was easily available in the centre. In their cross examination, no suggestions to the contrary were given by counsels for the accused. Therefore, it can be held that both triprolidine and ethyl alcohol are commonly found in the cough syrup and the cough syrup was easily available in the centre. As held above, both the accused were old patients in the centre and were helping the management and were considered so also. Therefore, if the alcohol in any other form other than the cough syrup was made available to the patients including the deceased, then they could have very easily stated so. But their statement under section 313 CrPC is silent to that effect. Therefore, it can be inferred that the presence of very less quantity of ethyl alcohol along with triprolidine in the body of the deceased was the result of intake of the cough syrup.
68. In cross examination, PW9 and PW10 specifically deposed that possibility of precipitation of esophageal vericeal bleeding due to assault could not be ruled out and could be possible. In the present case, the deceased was having cirrhotic liver of which esophageal vericeal was a complication and any pressure or force for whatever reason either on account of fall or on account of assault could be fatal to such a patient and could precipitate the esophageal bleeding on account of rupture of its own.
69. According to PMR Ex. PW9/A, the cause of death was due to shock as a result of esophageal verisal bleed though it was mentioned that was under the influence of the triprolidine and ethyl alcohol. But it is nowhere mentioned that the presence of those contents have caused or contributed in causing the death of the deceased.
Page no.32 / 34State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar Further, the accused have failed to prove that due to combined effect of the ethyl alcohol and the triprolidine found present in the body of the deceased, the deceased became restless and died. Therefore, it can be held that the ethyl alcohol and the triprolidine had not caused of death of the deceased.
70. In the PMR Ex.PW9/A, following finding were given:
Lower 1/3rd of oesophagus shows dilated and ruptured blood vessels, patches of necrotic and ulcerated mucos along with hemorrhagic patches. Mucosa swollen and oedematous.
Abdomen Peritoneum, peritoneal cavity: about 750 ml of fluid and clotted blood in abdominal cavity.
Stomach and its contents: 100 ml reddish brownish fluid present. After examining the postmortem findings and FSL report, it can be held that the death of the deceased was caused due to shock as a result of ruptured esophageal varices leading to bleeding indicated by collection of about 100 ml blood in stomach and 750 ml of blood in the peritoreum. The rupture was caused by blunt force/surface impact to abdomen. Therefore, it were not only the external injuries no. 1 to 5 found on the body of the deceased resulted in death of the deceased.
71. Therefore, the connection between the injuries sustained by the deceased, their cause and cause of the death of the deceased stands proved.
72. Ld. Addl. PP pleaded that the fact that the deceased was alcoholic and was admitted for his treatment in the centre was very well known to both the accused and the said facts themselves implies that the deceased had the health issues related to consumption of the alcohol. Both the accused being the old patients were aware of the liquor consumption habit of the deceased and its effect on his health despite that they gave beatings to him. Therefore, merely the fact that no medical history of Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar the deceased has been proved on record or was given to the centre is of no consequence to say that both the accused had no knowledge about the health issues of the deceased. As per record, the deceased became restless after 11.30 pm due to the beating given by both the accused to him. Even at that stage, both the accused instead to call the management officials or the doctor, kept on beating him and used their own methods for a considerable period which proved fatal to the life of the deceased. This all happened despite the fact that both the accused were told by the inmates to stop the beatings but they continued with the same on the pretext of controlling the deceased.
73. On the contrary, counsels for the accused pleaded that both the accused were not in the special ward that night. Even otherwise, the medical history of the deceased was not provided to the centre. Therefore, the medical condition of the deceased was neither known to the centre nor to both the accused. More so, according to PW17, once the deceased came to their room, he was in very 'girta padta' condition. Therefore, both the accused cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased.
CONDITION OF THE DECEASED WHEN HE CAME IN THE SPECIAL WARD
74. According to PW15 and PW17, on 29.06.2013, the deceased came to their room i.e. the special ward, at 11.00 p.m. PW15 deposed that that time the deceased was alright but was unable to walk. Thereafter, the deceased took some food once persuaded to take it. PW17 in his cross-examination corroborated the testimony of PW15 to that effect. He also deposed that once the deceased came to their room, he was in very 'Girta Padta condition' and that Manoj Jain fed him food and the deceased took normal dinner.
Page no.32 / 34State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar
75. From the CCTV footage, it is revealed that the deceased along with the accused entered the special ward at about 10 pm and was able to walk at his own. Even thereafter till 11.30 pm, the deceased was able to move and walk at his own. As such, the testimony of PW15 and PW17 to the effect that the deceased came to the room at 11 pm in 'girta parta' condition is not reliable.
76. During the said period, the deceased had many times tried to go out of the said special ward, but both the accused did not allow him to go out and forcibly stopped him all the time and made him to sit on the bed.
77. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that the deceased came in the special ward at about 10.00 pm and was able to walk and move at his own; and the said condition continued upto 11.30 pm. TIME WHEN THE DECEASED STARTED FEELING RESTLESS
78. PW15 in his cross-examination deposed that after 23:37:20 hours on 29.06.2013, the deceased became very restless and was experiencing withdrawal symptoms. The accused no.1 in reply to the question no.34 and 51 of his statement u/s.313 Cr.P.C. stated that at about 11.00-11.30 p.m., there was a commotion; he was awaken; and he asked PW19 to help in the matter. From the said statement, it is apparent that the problem started at around 11.30 p.m. and the same corroborates the testimony of PW15 that the deceased started feeling restless about that time. This fact is further corroborated by the CCTV footage which reveals that thereafter, the deceased was not able to even move and sit properly at his own. Therefore, it can be held that from 23.37:20 hours, the health of the deceased started deteriorating.
Page no.32 / 34State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar ACTS OF BOTH THE ACCUSED
79. Now the question arises as to what happened to the deceased 11.30 pm onward and who was responsible for the same.
80. According to PW17, they called both the accused to handle the deceased. Both the accused gave two slaps and punch blows to the deceased. He told both the accused not to hit the accused. In his cross-examination, not a suggestion to the contrary was given by counsels for the accused. \
81. To this effect, PW15 deposed that after dinner, persons from the centre slapped the deceased and that he himself told others not to hit the deceased. Counsel for the accused pleaded that since PW15 had not specifically named both the accused, but stated that it were the persons from the centre who slapped the deceased, hence, they were not the accused persons.
82. As held above, at that particular time, no person from the management like PW18 or PW19 were present in the special ward nor it is the case of any of the accused. As held above, both the accused were being treated as part of the management and were present in the said special ward. Therefore, the persons referred by PW15 in his statement who slapped and hit the deceased and to whom he stated not to hit, were none other than both the accused and the said fact is further corroborated by the testimony of PW17.
83. Further, the CCTV footage reveals that at about 11.30 pm, the accused no.2 slapped the deceased many times. The accused no.1 caught hold of the deceased. The accused no.2 continued with the same. Then, both the accused along with three more persons overpowered the deceased and laid-down him on the bed. Thereafter, both the accused caught hold of the deceased and beaten him. They also gave elbow blow and continuous punches on the upper body part of the deceased Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar including the face several times. Consequently, the deceased was not able to stand at his own from the bed and had difficulty in moving and caught hold of his stomach with his hands. The deceased was removed to the washroom by the accused no.1 & 2 with the help of other inmates. The accused no.2 brought a cloth and with the help of the accused no.1 and two more persons tied both legs of the deceased very firmly. The accused no.2 also tied both hands of the deceased at his back and the accused no.1 was actively involved and helped the accused no.2 in doing the same. The deceased tried to crawl as he was feeling very uneasy, but both the accused did not allow him to do so. At about 12:18 am, the accused no.2 checked the deceased but he did not respond and then two persons removed the clothes from his legs and the hands, but there was no movement on his body.
84. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that both the accused gave beating to the deceased on his vital parts and did not stop despite asking of PW15 and PW17.
85. At one or two places, both the accused were helped by other inmates in overpowering the deceased but the role of both the accused was very active and prominent as compared to role of others.
86. Therefore, it can be held that the internal injuries sustained by the deceased which resulted in the death of the deceased were attributable to both the accused.
87. Counsels for the accused pleaded that according to PW18, he was informed about the serious condition of the deceased at about 12.15 a.m. and he found no movement in the body of the deceased. He procured the vehicle and sent the deceased along with PW19 to SGM Hospital. According to the MLC Ex. PW11/A, the deceased was brought to the hospital at 2.26 a.m. According to PW18, the distance between the centre and the hospital was ten minutes by a vehicle. To this effect, PW19 deposed that he along with the deceased left for the hospital at about Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar 12.00-12.30 a.m. and reached the hospital at 12.00-12.30 a.m. He did not remember the exact time, when he left for the hospital. As such, the prosecution has failed to explain as to what happened to the deceased between 12.15 a.m. and 2.26 a.m. Therefore, both the accused cannot be held liable for the death of the deceased.
88. According to PMR Ex.PW9/A, the time since death was 36 hours. The postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted at 11.00 a.m. on 01.07.2013. As held above, the health of the deceased started deteriorating from 11.37 pm on 29.06.2013 and he became motionless at about 12.18 am. Hence, it can be held that the death of the deceased took place around 12.18 am. Therefore, the delay in removing the deceased to the hospital has not contributed in death of the deceased.
ARREST
89. Case of the prosecution is that the accused no.1 was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW21/D and the accused no.2 was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW21/A on 18.07.2013. In cross-examination, PW24 & PW25 also deposed to that effect and corroborated the testimony of PW20. Both the accused in their statement u/s.313 Cr.P.C. stated that they were called in the police station and then were arrested. As such, arrest of both the accused stands proved.
90. Counsels for both the accused pleaded that Rajesh Vij was illegally running the centre. In fact, it was he who was irresponsible and negligent in discharge of his duty. Despite that, the IO has not implicated him in the present case and rather saved him from the criminal action. Rajesh Vij was not even made a witness in the present case. He also pleaded that according to PW16, 7-8 persons were seen involved in the incident. However, the prosecution has not taken any action against those persons, including Manoj Jain. Instead, the IO has falsely implicated both the accused in the present case despite the fact that in the FIR dated 13.07.2013, name Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar of both the accused was not mentioned; and from the date of incident till 18.07.2013, no incriminating evidence was found against them.
91. In the present case, the issue is whether both the accused committed the offence they are charged with? Whether Rajesh Vij was running the centre legally or illegally is not the subject matter of the present case. It is the prerogative of the prosecution to decide to whom to examine as a prosecution witness. Further, PW25 explained that he had not cited Rajesh Vij as a witness since there were allegations against him. At the same time, he deposed that he was not made an accused or witness as there was no material found against him. His testimony reveals that separate proceeding for further investigation against PW18 and Rajesh Vij is already pending before the concerned MM.
92. Further, as held above, both the accused played an active and prominent role in the incident and their acts resulted into the deterioration of the condition of the deceased. CCTV footage was seized at the earliest and FIR was lodged and the investigation started. Since no person came forward to depose about the acts of both the accused at the fateful night, hence, there was no occasion for the IO to arrest both the accused. Once, after going through the CCTV footage, the role of both the accused was ascertained, they were arrested and charge-sheeted. As such, it is not the case where IO deliberate delayed in proceeding against both the accused.
93. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that the presence of both the accused at the scene of crime and its purpose, on the given date and time stands proved. It is also proved that both the accused gave beating to the accused on his vital parts. Both the accused aided each other in commission of the offence. As such, the active participation of both the accused in the incident stands proved. Therefore, it can be held that both the accused shared the common intention to beat the deceased and in furtherance of their common intention, they had beaten the Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar deceased and inflicted injuries on him. Hence, the injuries sustained by the deceased were attributable to the accused persons. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble supreme court in case titled as "Virendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh", in reported in (2010) 8 SCC 407.
94. In the present case, admittedly, there was no enmity between the deceased and both the accused. There was no pre-meditation on the part of the accused. Therefore, it can be held that there was no intention on the part of both the accused to kill or of causing such bodily injuries as is likely to cause death. But at the same time, the knowledge can be attributed to the accused. Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Hence, both the accused are held guilty u/s 304 Part (II)/34 IPC.
95. In the present case, on 16.10.2013, the charge-sheet was filed by Inspector Mahender Singh (since retired). In the charge-sheet, it was specifically mentioned that the DVR/hard disk from which CD and the photographs were prepared had been sent to FSL Rohini for examination and the result was awaited and would be filed along with the supplementary charge-sheet. It is evident from the record that vide letter dated 31.03.2014, FSL Rohini returned the DVR with the hard disk unexamined. However, this court was not informed about the fate of the examination of DVR with the hard disk and steps taken to that effect. On 31.10.2015, once this fact came to notice of this court, this court called the explanation from the investigating agency and in the meantime, also directed to take steps for examination of DVR and the hard disk. As informed to this court, the hard disk was deposited with the CFSL (CBI), Lodhi Colony, New Delhi for examination on 07.05.2014 and in August 2014, Inspector Mahender Singh got retired from the services. Thereafter, Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh, the then SHO PS Aman Vihar (presently posted as SHO Dwarka-South) took over the charge. Accordingly, notice was sent to him to appear in the court and explain about the Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar steps taken by him for examination of hard disk by CFSL (CBI), Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. However, Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh neither appeared before this Court nor sent any explanation to that effect. Resultantly, Inspector Rajender Prasad, present SHO PS Aman Vihar took the steps for examination of the hard disk through CFSL (CBI), Lodhi Colony, New Delhi in terms of the order passed by this Court. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the opinion that there had been material lapses on the part of Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh for not taking steps to get the DVR and hard disk examined through CFSL (CBI), Lodhi Colony, New Delhi and to obtain the report and file the same in the court. Therefore, copy of this order be sent to the concerned DCP to initiate the Departmental Enquiry against Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh and to take appropriate action against him as per law. He is also directed to submit the report to this court accordingly.
96. Accordingly, both the accused are convicted for the offence under section 304 Part (II)34 IPC.
Announced in the open court on this 22nd day of October, 2016.
(Pankaj Gupta) ASJ-II, North-West Rohini: Delhi Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar IN THE COURT OF SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA:ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No.187/13 Unique Case ID: 02404R04R0303872013 State Vs
1. Rahul Lakra S/o. Sh. Rishi Lakra R/o. D-87, Shivram Park, Nangloi, Delhi
3. Ashish Gupta S/o. Sh. Shatish Chander R/o. A-23, Dena App.
Sector-13, Rohini,
Delhi
FIR No. : 289/13
Police Station: Aman Vihar
Under Section : 304/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 01.11.2013
Date on which judgment reserved : 22.10.2016
Date on which judgment pronounced : 22.10.2016
ORDER ON SENTENCE
27.10.2016
Present: Sh. Girish Giri, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Both the convicts produced from JC.
Sh. S.C. Buttan, counsel for the convict no.1.
Sh. Jitender Singh, counsel for the convict no.2.
1. Both the convicts are held guilty under sections 304 Part (II)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Page no.32 / 34State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar
2. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that the offence committed by the convicts was grave in nature. As such, the convicts do not deserve any leniency and maximum punishment may be awarded.
3. Counsel for the convict no. 1 submits that the convict no.1 is of young age and is elder son of his family. He has no previous criminal record. Therefore, it is prayed that the convict no.1 may be treated with leniency and may be sentenced for the period already undergone by him. In support his contention, counsel for the convict no.1 has relied upon the order dated 26.05.2016 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl.A. No.249/2015, titled as "Raju Vs. State".
4. In the above mentioned order relied upon by counsel for the convict no.1, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court considered that the deceased therein aggravated the verbal quarrel and reacted in rage, as a factor in reducing the sentence of the appellant therein. However, in the present case, the deceased was a helpless person and had not aggravated the situation. Further, each case is to be decided on its own facts. Therefore, the order relied upon by the counsel for the convict no.1 is of no help to the convict no.1.
5. Counsel for the convict no. 2 submits that the convict no.2 has old aged parents and two children. He is the sole bread earner of his family. He has no previous criminal record. Therefore, it is prayed that the convicts may be treated with leniency.
6. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and the mitigating circumstances as mentioned above, both the convicts are sentenced to: Page no.32 / 34 State Vs Rahul Lakra etc. FIR no. 289/13 PS: Aman Vihar "undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 08 years (each) and pay fine of Rs.25,000/ (each) in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 03 months (each) for the offence punishable u/s 304 Part (II)/34 IPC."
7. Once the fine imposed is realised, the same be paid to the widow of the deceased, namely Poonam, by way of compensation.
8. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to both the convicts.
9. Copy of this order and judgment be given to the convicts free of cost.
10. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on this 27th day of October, 2016.
(Pankaj Gupta) ASJ-II, North-West Rohini: Delhi Page no.32 / 34