Delhi District Court
-1- State vs . Samunder Etc. on 25 February, 2010
-1- State Vs. Samunder etc.
FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE( WEST-04) , DELHI.
SC NO. 111/1/08
State
Versus
1- Samunder S/o Bali Ram Rai,
2- Deepak S/o Ragunth Rai,
3- Riken @ Diken S/o Ragunath Rai
All R/o Jeev Rakhen Tola Goraya Sthan,
P.S. Manir, Distt Patna,
Bihar.
(i)Case arising out of FIR No. 36/2004
U/S: 302/201/34 IPC
P.S. Railway Sarai
Rohilla
(ii) Date of FIR 12/06/04
(iii) Date of Institution 04/10/04
(iv) Date of Final Arguments 17/02/10
(v) Judgment reserved on 17/02/10
(iv) Date of judgment 19/02/10
JUDGMENT
This judgment shall dispose of case pertaining to FIR No. 36/2004 u/s 302/201/34 IPC of P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla titled as State Vs. Samunder and others.
Factual Matrix The brief facts as germain from the prosecution story are that on receipt of a telephonic message from Sub Station Shakur Basti that a male Contd..........
-2- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla dead body lying on railway track and the said information was endorsed vide and DD No. 6 dated 7.6.2004, ASI Sarbjeet Singh of GRP P.S. Sarai Rohilla, alongwith other police officials reached at Pole No. 7/29 near Rampura platform No. 5 where dead body of a male aged about 30 to 35 years , hight 5.6" , wheatist complexion, found face, four buries was found on the up track. The dead body having injuries on head above right ear , multiple injuries on head, right shoulder was broken black spots were also around the neck. The deceased was wearing light blue short , white vest, light chocolate colour pent affixed particular marka " Prince Tailors , Singh Market Maner", brown Amul Gold '90' number underwear. Photographs of the body was taken . Form No. 25.35 filled up and other senior police official were also reached at the spot. Blood stained stones and earth control stones from where the head and feet were lying were taken into possession and deposited in the Malkhana after sealing with the seal of SS. Statement of Badri, Abdul Hussain, Jugal Kumar Rai and Jitender Rai were recorded. Passersby were also interrogated but the identify of dead body could not be established. There was clay and blood stains on the shirt due to rain and reason of death yet to be established. The dead body was kept in P.P. Kishan Ganj for identification. Later on shifted to the Subzi Mandi Mortuary Contd..........
-3- State Vs. Samunder etc.
FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla
through HC Hawa Singh and Ct. Sukhram. The SSP, Patna , Bihar and
SHO P.S. Maner were being contacted through wireless for his identification and other authorities were also informed through PCR.
Later on the brother of the deceased, Jitender Rai was also contacted and his statement was recorded on 11.6.2004, The accused Deepak, Samunder and Riken were arrested on 12.6.2004 they were interrogated and their disclosure statement was also recorded.
PW8 Jitender Rai brother of the deceased was examined as PW8 and deposed that he went to Ambala with the father of the diary owner on 12.6.04 and came back from Ambala to Delhi on 9.6.04. Then he made telephone to his village Jurakhand Tola at his house. On the telephone his family members informed him that some police officer of Delhi police came to village and they were showing the photographs of his elder brother Ramesh Rai and they also informed him to go to P.S.Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. On that day, he remained at the house of his uncle Vijay at Vijay Vihar. On the next day, he went to his cousin Dinesh at Pritam Pura and told about the information received by him and he also told him that police came to his residence and shown a pant of his brother Ramesh Rai. He asked his cousin Dinesh to accompany with him to P.S. Then Contd..........
-4- State Vs. Samunder etc.
FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla
Dinesh told him that police directed him to come to P.S on 11.6.04.
Thereafter, on 11.6.2004, SI Jitender Rai, Dinesh and younger brother Tarkeshwar came to P.S. Sarai Rohilla.
Then ASI Sarabjit Singh shown him a photograph and got identified the dead body of his brother Ramesh Rai. Then police took them to mortuary Subzi Mandi and shown them one dead body and they all identified the said dead body being the brother of Jitender Rai. SI Sarabijit told them that said dead body was found at the railway track near Ram Pura Railway crossing/Phatak. He told the police official that they have enmity with Deepak, Riken @ Dikan and their uncle Samunder and Shailesh. The quarrel also took place with them even in their village several times and thereafter about two years back from the date of incident a quarrel took place with Deepak at Rohini and Deepak caused brick injury on the nose of the deceased brother Ramesh Rai to which a case was registered against him at P.S. Rohini. Deepak was arrested in this case.
Thereafter, his deceased brother Ramesh Rai went to h is native village on the occasion of Holi festival and later on he came to know that his brother was badly beaten even in the village by Samunder, Riken @ Dikan, Deepak and their brother residing in the village. Thereafter a panchayat was Contd..........
-5- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla held in the village and a fine was imposed by the Panchayat on Deepak ad he pleaded guilty. Thereafter his deceased brother Ramesh Rai and all the accused persons came back to Delhi and Samunder and Deepak, Rikan @ Dikan uttered the words to him and his brother Tarkeshwar that they have felt so much disrespect in the village and they have tied Kafan on their heads now they will not spare Ramesh by stated that " Gaon mey hamari Bahut Bezti ho gai hey or ab hamney kafan ban liya hey or ab hum Ramesh ko chodengay nahi ". Thereafter they murdered his brother Ramesh Rai and he have full confidence that all the three accused persons have murdered his brother to take the revenge of inimical relation. After the post mortem the dead body of Ramesh Rai was handed over to his brother Jitender Rai and his statement Ex. PW4/M was recorded, who performed his last rites at Rohini Cremation ground.
ASI Sarabjit Singh (PW14) testified the investigation as carried on by him and also lifted the blood smeared stones and earth control stone from the spot and taken into custody after sealing the same with the seal of SS and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW14/B. He has also seized the hair from the brown colour underwear make Amul Gold and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW14/C. Dead body was sent to Subzi mandi Contd..........
-6- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla Mortuary through HC Hawa Singh and Ct. Sukhram. HC Hawa Singh was sent to Muner, Bihar with the pant of the deceased for the identification of the dead body where the pant was identified by the village people who stated that the pant was of deceased Ramesh who is working in some dairy alongwith his brother and the HC Hawa Singh came back on 10.6.2004 vide DD entry No 20 in Delhi. Form No. 25.35 Ex. PW14/J and brief fact Ex.PW14/K also prepared. The investigation was handed over to Insp. Om Parkash Sharma , (Additional SHO P.S. Sarai Rohilla GRP). Therir was got registered and a case vide DD No. 6 dated 12.6.2004 was prepared. During the investigation Additional SHO, Insp. Om Prakash Sharma prepared site plan on railway track where the dead body was lying. Lalit Kumar @ Bindu Pehalwan and his wife Shashi Bala met and were interrogated and their statement was recorded. During the interrogation, it has came to know that deceased Ramesh was having enmity with Deepak, Samunder and Ricken. Thereafter they went to Naharpur in the search of the accused persons where one boy named Deepak met them in the dairy of Nahar Singh and Deepak was arrested vide memo Ex. PW13/A and his personal search memo Ex. PW13/B. Thereafter, they reached near Britania Chowk, Ring Road in the search of other accused persons from where Contd..........
-7- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla accused Samunder and Riken were arrested vide memo Ex. PW13/D and E and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW13/G and F. Thereafter, the accused persons took the police party at Golden Park at H.No. WZ14, Golden Park, Punjabi Bagh where the property owner Ch. Ranjit Singh was called and the lock of the said house was got opened and Insp. Om Parkash called videographer and photographer there and from there the blood smeared soil and earth control was lifted alongwith the other material like blood smeared brick affixed with hairs and piece of the blood stained floor and other earth control , blood smeared rope were lifted and seized from the way goes to the railway track where the dead body of Ramesh Rai was lying. The blood smeared soil and earth control were also lifted from the railway track. The accused persons also took the police party to the Horse Shed/Tabela and got recovered one red colour T-Shirt and one shirt by accused Deepak and Samunder and same were seized. IO Insp. Om Parkash Sharma prepared the site plan of each place. One shirt got recovered by accused Smanunder is Ex. PC. One red colour T-shirt got recovered by accused Deepak is Ex. PD. One Rassi/rope got recovered from Jangli Kikar tree is Ex. PB. One blood Contd..........
-8- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla stained brick with pasting of some h air is Ex. PA and one pant of brown having sticker of 'Prince Tailor 'is Ex. PE. After completion of investigation challan was filed.
After completion of committal proceeding charge was framed as prima facie case has been made out, as such vide dated 23.3.2005charge u/s 302/201/34 IPC was framed against the accused Samunder, Deepak and Rikan. For which they pleaded not guilty and wanted to contest the case.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses in its support, out of them nine witnesses are public witnesses, they are PW3 Dinesh Rai, PW4 Lalit Kumar, PW5 Smt. Shashi Sharma, PW7 Ranjeet Singh, PW8 Jitender Rai, PW9 Vinod Rai, PW12 Shivaji Rai, PW15 Kailash Singh and PW16 Jitender Kumar. The remaining witnesses are PW2 Dr. K.Goel ,PW11 is D.S. Meena the Superintendent Railway station Shakur Basti and the other witnesses are police officials who joined the investigation for the one reason or the other. Let analysis the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
PW1 HC Savita is the Duty Officer on 12.6.2004 at P.S. Sarai Rohilla and and got registered the FIR at Sr. No. 36 for the offence u/s 302/201 IPC. Copy of the same is ex. PW1/A. She made endorsement about Contd..........
-9- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla the registration of the case on the rukka vide Ex. PW1/B. She also brought the original DD register No. 12/B regarding registration of the case. Factum of enmity:
PW3 Dinesh Rai deposed regarding the enmity of the accused Deepak as he had earlier attacked deceased Ramesh Rai at village and Delhi both are hailing from same village in Bihar. Panchayat had earlier fined Rs. 1,000/- on Deepak. The case was registered at PS Rohini Sector-8 on the complaint of Ramesh Rai deceased. He identified the deceased Ramesh initially from his pant thereafter at Subzi Mandi Mortuary. He suspected the hands of all the three accused persons in the murder of Ramesh as they earlier threatened Ramesh to kill him since he was made to pay a fine by the Panchayat.
PW8 Jitender Rai identified the dead body of deceased from showing photographs showed on 9.6.2004 when he came to Delhi from Ambala. Thereafter on 11.6.2004 he alongwith his cousin Dinesh and younger brother Tarkeshwar got identified the deceased at Subzi Mandi Mortuary and also told to the police that Deepak, Riken @ Dikan and their uncles Samunder and Shailesh having enmity with the deceased and quarrel Contd..........
-10- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla took place with them even in their village several times and thereafter about two years back from the date of incident, a quarrel took place with Deepak at Rohini and Deepak caused brick injuries on the nose of his deceased brother Ramesh Rai to which a case was registered against him at P.S. Rohini. Deepak was arrested in this case. Thereafter, the deceased brother Ramesh Rai went to his native Village on the occasion of Holi festival and later on came to know that his brother Ramesh deceased was badly beaten in the village by Samunder, Riken @ Dikan, Deepak and their brother residing in the village. Thereafter a Panchyat was organized in the village and Deepak pleaded guilty a fine was imposed by the Panchyat on Deepak. Thereafter his deceased brother Ramesh Rai and all the accused persons came back to Delhi and at Delhi Samunder and Deepak uttered the words to him and his brother Tarkeshwar that they have felt so much disrespect in the village and they have tide Kafan on their heads now they will not spare Ramesh " Gaon mey hamari bahut besti ho gai hey or ab hamney kafan tan liya hey or ab hum Ramesh ko choodeny gey nahi" Thereafter they murdered his brother Ramesh Rai and he has full confidence that all the three accused persons have murdered his brother to take the revenge of enmity.
Contd..........
-11- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla Pw9 Vinod Rai also corroborated the version of PW3 Dinesh Rai and PW8 Jitender Rai by deposing that on 17.3.2002 a panchayat was held in village Jivrakhan Tola in the matter of Deepak , Samunder, Riken and deceased Ramesh as they all working in Delhi and quarrel took place between deceased Ramesh one side and Deepak, Samunder and Riken from other side at Delhi. Thereafter, they went back to the village Jivrakha Tola. A panchyat was held at the house of Mukhia Kailash Singh and he was the headed the said Panchayat as Panch. He was also one of the member of the panch besides him, there was Shivji Rai, Kalshwar Singh, Loknath Rai and Ramesh Rai. In the Panchyat, the grievance of both the parties were heard and thereafter the Panchyat imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000/- on Deepak and Rs. 50/- on deceased Ramesh. Both deposited the fine with the Panchyat. It was also settled in the said Panchayat that a case which was registered at P.S. Rohini on the complaint of deceased Ramesh against Deepak and others that had to be compromised in the Delhi Court and expenses incurred on the compromise shall be born by Deepak and his associates. On 19.7.2004 , one SI of Delhi Police along with two officials reached at their village and they were called at the PS Manir. He told he facts of the Panchayat stated above and handed over the Panch Faisla to the police Contd..........
-12- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla office which was taken into seized vide memo Ex. PW9/A. The Panch Faisla is ex. PW9/B bears his name at point A. PW12 Shivji Rai is also the member of the Panchyat and reproduced the deposition of PW9 Vinod Rai and identified his thumb impression on Ex. PW9/B. PW15 Kailash Singh being the Pradhan of the village also headed the Panchyat as Panch on 17.3.02, wherein he decided the issue of quarrel between deceased Ramesh Rai and Deepak by imposing fine of Rs. 1000/- on Deepak and Rs. 51/- on deceased Ramesh Rai. The Panch Faisla was reduced in writing and handed over to police vide Ex.
PW9/B, which bears his signatures at point C. It was also settled in the said Panchyat that a case which was pending in Delhi court be also compromised and withdrawn on the expenses of Deepak.
Medical and Scientific Evidence.
PW2 Dr. K. Goel got conducted the post mortem on the body of Ramesh S/o Mala Rai on request of ASI Sarabjeet Singh with alleged history of found dead on 7.6.2004 and opined the cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon ligature strangulation. Injuries No.1 to 5 were ante mortem. Injuries NO. 1 to 4 were caused by blunt force impact. Ligature marks i.e. injury No. 5 was caused by some hard flexible material . Injuries Contd..........
-13- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla No. 6 was postmortem in nature and was consistent with pressure over wrist who fasten them. Ligature pressure over neck was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Mode of death was homicide. Time since death was about four and half days.
The result of FSL was received and are Ex. PW27/G,H, I and J. The sealed parcel remained in the custody of MHC(M). PW21 HC Devender Kumar testified that the parcel remained in his custody and in intact condition without any tempering by any one before and after receiving from the FSL Rohini and parcel sent through Ct. Ranbir PW25 and case property remained intact during the transit. The FSL report revealed the human blood on blood stained pieces of stone, piece of brick, blood stained cement material, piece of jute rope, shirt. The pants, shirt, blood stained pieces of stone and teethes are of blood group 'B' as examined by Biological Department of Forensic Science Lab. The Physics department of FSL opined that the similar physical characteristics on physical and in examination further on chemical examination of stomach and piece of smell intestine and unidentified tissues found positive tests for the presence of ethyl alcohol but the quantity of the ethyl alcohol was not given as the blood sample was not provided to the Chemistry Department of FSL. Contd..........
-14- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla It is further testified from the deposition of PW2 that a Ligature mark present around the neck was caused as ligature injury by some ligature material. Blunt force injury means the injury caused by such weapon of surface which is having no sharp edges. Injury number 5 mentioned in PMR Ex. PW2/A was caused by some hard flexible material, which means the material like rope, some electric wire and other soft material, the things may be clothes. The skull bones were intact but there was one lacerated wounds for right temporal region. This was caused by blunt force impact. Semi digested food can not be described. Alcohol like smell was coming from the stomach. Strangulation is not possible by poisoning. He did not have any doubt over the opinion over the cause of death.
Last Seen Evidence :
PW4 Lalit Kumar @ Bindu Pehalwan deposed that the deceased Rmaesh Rai was working at his dairy about 2-3 days prior to his death, who had told his wife that he was going to take meal at some place. Thereafter, the deceased did not return to his work. Later on he came to know that the boy had died. He was declared hostile by Public Prosecutor and in cross examination of APP he denied that deceased Ramesh might have gone to the house of Shambhu for attending the party or on the next Contd..........
-15- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla day, he came to know that Ramesh has been murdered and his dead body has been found near the Ram Pura Railway crossing.
PW5 Smt. Shashi Sharma is the wife of PW4 Lalit Kumar and also deposed that on 6.6.2004 at about 8-8.30 pm Ramesh, had told her that he was going to Rampura, to attend a party. Thereafter, Ramesh never returned to the house and on 12.6.2004, she came to know that Ramesh had died. No other persons of the name of Samunder, had come to their house to meet Ramesh on 6.6.2004.
Police witnesses:
PW6 HC Inderjeet Singh deposed about preparing of videography in a CD of the places pointed out by the IO and proved the original CD vide Ex. P-2. In cross examination PW6 Inderjeet Singh stated that the witness Ranjeet Singh is seen while opening the shutter, leading the police party inside and he is also seen talking with the police party inside. The clipping does not show witness Ranjeet Singh, bringing a hammer and polythene envelope Chairs and Charpai. Further it is filmed that the accused leading the police party to a place where bushes are found and shown the ground where blood was filled over and the same being collected by the police officials and putting it into a polythene bag. Again the accused led Contd..........
-16- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla the police party where accused with a red shirt pointing out by a hand to a place near the bushes and he also picks up a shirt from the bushes which is supported by a paper with writing rope for the purpose of identification. Again the accused led the police party to the railway tracks and all the three are pointed out a place by their fingers. He did not film the collection of blood samples being lifted from the shop and t he further sealing of it. He did not film further breaking of a flooring by a hammer, The videography shows the bricks but does not show the collection of it. The charpai and the chair were not sealed in his present. He did not film the aspect of recoveries except the above noted depiction in the video. The collection of blood samples from the railway track was not filmed. The entire video does not depict filming of sealing of the parcels. The Crime team proceeds to a place after receiving a call by making a rojnamcha entry. It is correct that the sounds are not audible.
PW10 Ct . Sunder Lal alongwith HC Inderjeet Singh reached at the spot at Golden Park, Rampura , Delhi where all the three accused are along with police officials and accused persons pointed out the place of incident. At the instance of IO Insp. Om Paraksh , he took eight photographs of the place of incident as the accused persons also disclosed Contd..........
-17- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla the manner of committing murder and the weapon used for the offence. He also proved the negatives of the photographs vide Ex. PW10A1 to A8 and print photographs vide Ex. PW10/A9 to PW10/A16.
PW12 D.S. Meena, Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Shakur Basti has deposed that on 7.6.2004 the passenger train, Delhi Firozpur 341 which used to go from Old Delhi Railway station to Firoz Pur via Shakur Basti Railway Station. On that day at about 7.25 am the driver of the said train informed him that a dead body is lying near railway crossing Rampur. 7/29km of up track. He immediately informed to HC Rajmal ( In Charge of P.P. Kishan Ganj) GRP at about 7.30 am.
PW13 Ct, Daya Ram also joined the investigation along with Insp. Om Parkash, ASI Sarabjeet Singh, HC Hawa Singh and Ct. Ranbir Singh and they visited to pole No. KM 7/29, near Rampura Railway crossing where at the instance of ASI Sarbjeet, Insp. Om Parkash prepared a site plan and thereafter they went to the diary of Bindu Pehlwan. Where Ms. Shashi Sharma wife of Bindu Pehlwan @ Lalit Kumar met there. They were interrogated regarding the case and their statements were recorded. Thereafter they all went to the diary of Ranjit Singh, Pitampura, Delhi. There one person Dinesh met them and he was also interrogated and then he joined Contd..........
-18- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla the investigation. Thereafter, they went to Naharpur in Nahar Singh ki dairy. From where the accused Deepak present in the court today was arrested vide memo Ex. PW13/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW13/B. He was interrogated by the IO and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW13/C. Thereafter at the instance of accused Deepak they reached Chowk Britania Ring Road where two persons were standing at the Ring Road towards JJ Colony, Shakur Pur, they were pointed out by the accused Deepak towards Samunder and Riken @ Dikan . Accused Samunder was arrested vide memo Ex. PW13/D and accused Riken was arrested vide memo Ex. PW13/E. The personal search of accused Riken was conducted vide memo PW13/F and of accused Samunder vide Ex. PW13/G. They were also interrogated by the IO and their disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW13/H and J. Thereafter they all went to WZ-14 Golden Park, Rampura, Delhi, where they disclosed that in the night of 6.6.04 they all the three in furtherance of their common intention with Shambhu had committed the murder of Ramesh who is also resident of their native village. The landlord of that house Ranjit Singh Khari was also present over there and he has also jointed the investigation. Photographer Ct. Sunder Lal and Videographer HC Inderjeet were called at the spot on the direction of Investigating Officer Insp. Om Parkash Sharma.
Contd..........
-19- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla All the three accused persons pointed out the place of incident and pointing out memo was prepared on their instance vide Ex. PW13/K. On the direction of the IO the photographer and videography of the place of incident was done. From the spot IO lifted blood stained soil and earth control sample and same w ere sealed with the seal of OPS in the pullanda and taken into custody vide memo Ex. PW7/A. On the instance of Deepak, one brick having blood stains as well as having some hairs were affixed on it alongwith blood stained as well as piece of the earth and earth control sample were lifted and sealed in pullanda with the seal of OPS and seized vide memo Ex. PW7/B. Thereafter, all the three accused took the police party to the railway track near small way called Pagdandi and accused persons disclosed that they kept a dead body there for a while. So, IO lifted the blood smeared soil and seized vide memo Ex. PW7/A. When they go forward only up to 15 paces by the side of railway track there was a kiker tree at the spot, accused Riken pointed out one rassi/rope which was hanging on the said tree and same was seized vide memo Ex. PW7/B. Thereafter accused persons took them to the place where they thrown the dead body near a pole KM7/29 with the help of Shambu in the night of 6.6.04. The pointing out memo was prepared by the IO and same is Ex. PW13/L. Thereafter Contd..........
-20- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla they against came behind the house WZ-14, Golden Park, Rampura, Delhi at the instance of all the three accused persons from where accused Samunder and Deepak handed over one polythene bag containing one dirty shirt and red colour. T. Shirt having blood stained to the place after taking out the same from Maizezine/parchati from the pashuo ka Tabela ( the place where the animal used to be kept and same were sealed in pullanda with the seal of OPS and taken into possession vide memo ex. PW13/M. The pointing out memo was prepared where the dead body was kept for a while and the same is ex. PW13/N and pointing out memo of kiker wala tree is vide Ex. PW13/P. The seal after use was given o Choudhary Ranjit Singh Khari and they all came back to Police Station. The case property was correctly identified.
The deposition of PW13 Ct. Daya Ram have corroborated in the deposition of PW14 ASI Sarabjit Singh, PW20 Ct. Sukhram, , PW24 HC Hawa Singh, PW25 Ct. Ranbir Singh and PW27 Insp. O.P.Sharma and all of them have also proved the document prepared during the course of investigation.
PW17 Ct. Jaivir Singh is Special Messenger, deliver the copy of the FIR to Ld. Ilka Magistrate and Senior Officers.
Contd..........
-21- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla PW18 Inspector Davidner Singh proved the scaled site plan of both the sites vide Ex. PW18/A. PW19 SI Ajay Kumar, stated that on receiving the information he reached at railway track near railway crossing Rampura and found one dead body on the railway tack having multiple injuries. He prepared his report and one copy was handed over the IO Insp. Om Parkash Sharma.
PW21 HC Devender Kumar being MHC(M) deposed that on 7.6.2004 ASI Sarabjit Singh deposited two sealed parcels containing hairs, earth control and blood stained stones and soil and he made entry in register No. 19 of Malkhana at Sl. No. 272 vide Ex. PW21/A. On 10.6.2004 HC Hawa Singh deposited one pullanda containing one pant of deceased in the Malkhana and made the entry at Sl No. 273 the copy of same vide Ex.
PW21/B.. PW21 further deposed that on 11.6.2004 ASI Sarabjit again deposited one sealed parcel with the seal of hospital alongwith sample seal belonging to the deceased alongwith visra box and he made entry at Sl No. 274 and the copy of same Ex. PW21/C. On 12.6.2004 Inspt. Om Paraksh deposited five sealed parcels in the Malkhana alongwith personal search of the accused persons. He made the entry in this respect at Sl. No. 275 and photocopy of the same is Ex. PW21/D. The case property were sent to FSL Contd..........
-22- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla Rohini on 14.7.2004 and the remaining one pullanda sent on 19.7.04 vide RC No. 49/21 and 55/21 respectively. The RC register and photocopy of the road certificate No. 49/21 is ex. PW21/E containing four pages.
PW22 HC Rajmal Singh was posted as Daily Dairy writer on 7.6.2004 at P.P. Kishanganj and he deposed that at about 7.30 am, D.S. Meena informed that the driver of train NO. 341 Passenger , Delhi to Ferozpur informed about the dead body lying at Pole KM7/29 and the information was recorded vide DD No. 6 and the copy of the said DD was entrusted to ASI Sarabjeet Singh who alongwith HC Hawa Singh and Ct. Sukhram went to the spot. On 10.6.2004 when he was doing the duty of DD writer at the said PP. Investigating Officer seized one pant of the deceased against the seizure memo ex. PW22/A The said pullanda was later on deposited in the Malkhana and copy of DD entry vide Ex. PW14/D. PW23 Ct. Gangabir Singh deposed that on 12.6.2004 at about 3 pm Duty Officer WHC Savita handed over to him the copy of FIR No. 36/04 alongwith the tehrir which he handed over to the Addl. SHO O.P. Sharma of P.S. Sarai Rohilla at about 3.20 pm at railway track near KM pole No. 7/29 Rampura Phatak where Insp. O.P. Sharma was already present Contd..........
-23- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla alongwith ASI Sarabjet, HC Hawa Singh, Ct. Ranbir and Ct. Daya Ram.
PW26 Ct. Vijay Singh proved the copy of the FIR No. 32/02 P.S. Rohini dated 17.1.02 u/s 341/323/34 IPC on the instruction of MHC(R)vide copy of FIR Ex. PW26/A. Wherein accused persons are Deepak S/o unknown and Mannu S/o unknown R/o both unknown. The complainant is Ramesh S/o Mala Ram R/o P.S. Manir, Patna, Bihar and the complainant working as labour at dairy of Nahar Singh, Deepak assaulted him with brick and Mannu caught hold him.
After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C recorded and all incriminating evidence led by prosecution were put to accused persons one after the other. The accused persons denied the incriminating evidence as false and incorrect or do not know anything of this case with the contention that all the witnesses has made false statement . Accused Riken @ Dikan has stated that all the witnesses had given false statement at the instance of Investigating Officer and they are interested witnesses in this case. He is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. All the proceeding of the case has been conducted in police station by Investigating Officer and all documents were manipulated by Investigating Officer and no recovery was effected from him. IO has registered false case against them and they Contd..........
-24- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla refused to lead evidence in their defence. Accused Deepak and Samunder are also deposed in the similar manner.
I have heard the submission of Ld. Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused persons and carefully gone through the material on record.
Ld. Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution has examined all the material witnesses who completed the chain of evidence in all respect. The public witnesses Dinesh Rai, Jitender Rai, Shivji Rai and Kailash Singh have proved that there was a strong enmity between the accused persons and deceased. A fine was imposed upon the accused Deepak. A case against Deepak and his associates was lodged in the P.S. Rohini where as he assaulted the deceased Ramesh Rai. All the accused persons have pointed out the places of incident place of recovery and the places from where the dead body was recovered as well as the incriminating material. PW2 Dr. Kulbhushan Goal conducted the post mortem and opined the cause of death asphyxia consequent upon ligature strangulation. Injuries NO. 1 to 5 were ante mortem. Injuries NO. 1 to 4 were caused by blunt force impact. Ligature marks i.e. injury No. 5 was caused by some hard flexible material. Injuries no. 6 was postmortem in nature and was consistent with pressure over wrist who fasten them. Ligature pressure over neck was sufficient to Contd..........
-25- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla cause death in ordinary course of nature. Mode of death was homicidal. PW5 Ms. Shashi Sharma is the wife of Lalit Kumar where the deceased Ramesh was employed with her husband also testified that deceased Ramesh has told her that on 6.6.04 he was going to Rampur to attend a party. Thereafter Ramesh never returned to the house and on 12.6.2004, she came to know that Ramesh was died. All the witnesses deposed that the accused persons bearing grudge against the deceased Ramesh and also assaulted upon the deceased in Jan. 2002 at Naharpur, Sector 7, Rohini and in village at the occasion of Holi. The Panchayat was organized in the village headed by Kailash Singh PW15 for the issue of quarrel between deceased Ramesh and Deepak. In the Panchyat Penalty was imposed on Deepak of a sum of Rs. 1000/- . The Panch Faisla is Ex. PW9/B. It is further contended that the accused persons felt so much disrespect in the village and they tied Kafan on their heads to take the revenge from the deceased Ramesh and they will not spare him. Apart from the deposition of the public witnesses there are medical and scientific evidence which led the accused persons towards their guilt. The testimony of all the prosecution witnesses are corroborative, believable and trustworthy. The oral and documentary Contd..........
-26- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla evidence as brought on record and proved during the course of trial and deposition of the prosecution witnesses also inspired confidence and on the other hand there is no evidence whatsoever to disprove the allegation and the charges made against the accused persons. The accused persons deposed that witnesses have given false statement at the instance of the Investigating Officer and they are interested witnesses. There is no motive to falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case by the police official. Nor any such rebuttal made by the accused persons as to why the public witnesses have been deposed against them. All the events as alleged against the accused persons have been proved by the prosecution witnesses by oral and documentary evidence. Under these circumstance accused persons are liable to be convicted as per the charges framed against them.
Per contra Ld. Counsel for accused Samunder reagitated the deposition made by the accused persons in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C and also submitted that as per the prosecution case the rope was used in strangulating the deceased and the same was recovered at the instance of the accused persons which was used for committing the murder but no rope was shown to the PW2 Dr. K. Goel nor any opinion was sought by the Contd..........
-27- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla Investigating Officer from Dr. Kulbhushan Goel who conducted the post mortem, as to whether the injuries caused upon the persons of deceased can be caused with the said rope. It is further argued that PW3 Dinesh Rai in his examination in chief has stated that on 10.6.2006 police had shown him one blood stained pant and he identified the pant having belonged to Ramesh his cousin. But this witness has not stated whether he saw that particular place and further stated that he has suspected the hands of all the three accused persons as they earlier threatened Ramesh to kill him since he was made to pay the fine imposed by the Panchyat. He has not given the date, month or year when such threats were extended by the accused nor he has stated that exact words of the alleged threats nor he has stated that these threats were extended in his presence by any accused person. In his cross examination this witness has admitted that he was in Pancha Faisla but his signatures were not obtained in the Panchayat and he has further stated that the accused has given threats to him that all his five brothers would be finished even after a decision by the Panchayat. He also admitted that he did not complaint about the threat to the police thinking that good sense will prevail same time or thinking that he Contd..........
-28- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla can again complaint to the Panchayat, which clearly show that this witness being interested in giving a deposition in rage and to take revenge to implicate the accused by hook and crook in the present case. It is further admitted that in cross examination that he did not remember the date when police came to him. He was also unable to tell the colour of cloth. He has further stated that he did not remember as to how many papers, his thumb impression was obtained, which were written. They were not read over to him prior to taking his thumb impression. This witness has also stated that it was because of the quarrel between accused Deepak and on their side his uncle, deceased Ramesh and his brother etc. this witness has not levelled any allegation against the accused Samunder.
It is further submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW4 Lalit Kumar @ Bindu Pehalwan not supported the case of the prosecution and denied that Ramesh had told his wife Shashi that he was going to Rampura to attend a party and he would do the work on the next date. It is also denied by PW5 Smt. Shashi Sharma on being cross examined by Ld. APP that on 6.6.04 accused Samunder had come to meet Ramesh, in the day time. The deposition of this witness clearly shows that the chain of the prosecution case is totally broken. The prosecution has admitted the Contd..........
-29- State Vs. Samunder etc.
FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla
absence of the accused Samunder on 6.6.2004 at the dairy of Bindu
Pehalwan.
Further submitted that the PW6 HC Inderjeet Singh stated that on 12.6.2004 he along with Ct. Sunder Lal Photographer had gone to Golden Park, Rampura, Delhi IO was also present there. Accused was also with the IO, he has pointed out the place of occurrence and he did the videography and prepared the CD which was handed over to the IO. This witness has not identified any accused nor named any accused. Moreover no such questions were put by the Ld. APP which of the accused has gone to the place of occurrence when videography was done. During his cross examination he admitted that the clipping does not show witness Ranjeet Singh bringing a hammer and the polythene envelope, chair or charpai. Nor this witness has stated anything against the accused persons. It has also admitted that he did not film the collection of blood samples being lifted from the shop and further sealing of it. He did not film further breaking of the flooring by a hammer. The Charpai and the chair were not sealed in his presence. This witness also admitted that he did not film the aspect of recoveries.
Contd..........
-30- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla It is further contended that PW8 Jitender Rai is the younger brother of the deceased stated that they have enmity with Deepak, Riken, Rinkoo and their uncles Samunder and Shailesh. The quarrel took place with them even in their village several times and thereafter about two y ears back from the date of incident, a quarrel took place with Deepak at Rohini. The accused Deepak caused brick injury on the nose of h is deceased brother. This witness has also stated that the accused persons threatened the deceased at Delhi, but th is witness has not started as to where he accompanied the deceased in Delhi.
It is further contended that PW9 Vinod Rai is one of the member of the Panchayat beside Shivji Rai, Kaleshwar Singh, Loknath Rai and Ramesh Rai. PW10 Ct. Sunder Lal has not stated that on 12.6.2004 where the videography of the spot was done, however in his presence the accused has pointed toward the place of incident. PW13 Ct. Daya Ram has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard t hat the landlord Ranjit Singh was also present over there and he joined the investigation and also also stated that there was a kiker tree, at that time accused Riken pointed out one rassi/rope which was hanging on the said tree. It is also further stated that at the instance of accused Deepak and Samunder handed over one Contd..........
-31- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla polythene bag containing one dirty shirt and red colour T-shirt having blood stained to the place after taking out the same from parchati from the Pashuo ka tabela. PW13 Ct. Daya Ram in his cross examination has stated that he cannot say if there was a constructed room and signed all the four papers prepared by IO before meeting Deepak and till preparation of documents no public witness joined by IO despite requested them. IO asked 3-4 pubic persons to join the investigation. No notice was served upon said public persons. The witness has further stated that even on Britannia Chowk, no public witness was joined in the investigation. Further that PW24 HC Hawa Singh who was sent to the village of deceased for identification of dead body has not stated that the pant of the deceased was identified by any of the relatives of the deceased. Moreover he has not recorded the statement of Chand Singh nor to the public witnesses and this fact clearly shows that the chain of prosecution evidence is breaking. This witness further stated that on 12.6.2004 he joined the investigation and when they reached near to the dairy of Nahar Singh at Naharpur, the accused Deepak started running from the diary. He has further stated that all the accused confessed to having killed deceased Ramesh. He has further stared that rope got recovered by accused Riken from kiker tree. The Contd..........
-32- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla rope was having some blood stains. Du ring the cross examination this witness has admitted that he did not record the statement of either tailor or stitcher. He also admitted that he did not record the statement of the parents of the deceased and signed all the documents on 12.6.2004 prepared by IO but he cannot give the total number of documents prepared on that day.
It is further contended that PW25 Ct. Ranbir Singh has stated that the accused lead the police party to the bushes near railway track and produced one rope after taking it out from the bushes. No blood was found on the rope. It is clear from the deposition of this witness that the earlier witness stated that the rope was recovered from the keekar tree, having blood stains, while other witness says that the rope was recovered from the bushes near railway track. PW27 Insp. Om Paraksh has stated about preparation of the rukka and registration of the FIR in the present case but has not stated that any blood stained rope was recovered in this case. Hence in nutshell it is very much clear from the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, there is no specific allegations against the accused Samunder nor there is any allegations against him that what specific threat were ever extended to the deceased by him and in whose presence and when. The entire case of the prosecution is totally based on circumstantial evidence and Contd..........
-33- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla it is the settled law that the chain must be completed and if the chain is broken the prosecution would fail to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. It is also well settled law that suspicion cannot take place of proof and all public witnesses who are relatives of the deceased never raising suspicion. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon a case titled Bhagat Bahadur Vs. State 1996 (2) , it has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court that "
when there is a serious crime, the court has to be more careful while passing the order." In another case titled Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki & Ors. AIR 1981 SC 1390, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that " the evidence of interested witness should be valued very cautiously." It is therefore, requested that there is no clear , cogent and consistent evidence against the accused persons and as such the accused persons may liable to be acquitted.
The counsel for the accused Deepak and Riken @ Dikan also submitted the same arguments as advanced on behalf of accused Samunder and has made similar submission as made on behalf of accused Samunder. Apart from it is also contended that accused Deepak was arrested from Nahar Singh Dairy and made disclosure and on his disclosure statement the other accused persons were arrested and pointing out memo was prepared. It Contd..........
-34- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla is also submitted that there was a old enmity between the deceased Ramesh and accused Deepak and . PW3 Dinesh Rai, PW8 Jitender Rai deposed to the effect. PW4 Lalit Kumar @ Bindu Pehalwan denied that Ramesh had gone to the house of Shambhu for attending party. Shambhu is a material witness but he is not being examined during the course of the investigation nor any explanation has been given by the IO as to why Shambu was neither cited as a witness so as to prove that the deceased has claimed to attend the party and the other accused person were also present there. Dr. K.Goel proved the post mortem report of the deceased Ramesh stated in cross examination that alcohol like smell was coming from the stomach. Statement of PW8 Jitender Rai is hit by section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. He neither eyewitness nor witness of the circumstances. He has not heard about the incident from the deceased or any other persons as such the witness of hearsay evidence which is inadmissible in law. PW8 Jitender Rai is a planted witness of the case against the accused Deepak and Rikan due to the enmity. However, there is no case is made out against the accused persons . Ex. PW9/B is the Panchyat Fiasala which is against the accused Deepak only. The accused Samunder and Rikan is not named anywhere in any manner either in the Panchayat Contd..........
-35- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla Faisala or to the alleged conspiracy to kill the deceased Ramesh. There was no threat whatsoever from the accused Samunder and Riken @ Dikan nor any of the witnesses has stated so except the disclosure statement of accused persons.
It is also contended that PW9 Vinod Rai, PW10 Shivji Rai, PW15 Kailash Singh has deposed that they are the member of the Panchayat and there was a quarrel between deceased Ramesh and Deepak and both of them were held guilty and fined by Panchyat The Panch has imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/- on Deepak and Rs. 51/- upon the deceased Ramesh. It is also settled that case pending at Delhi will also compromise and the expenses will be borne by accused Deepak. Panchayat Faisala Ex. PW9/B is hit by section 90 of the Evidence Act. It has not been proved that who has executed this document and in whose handwriting this document was prepared. Nor the threat as alleged was mentioned in the said document. Further the accused persons as alleged have strangulated the victim with the help of rope but there are contradiction between the deposition of prosecution witnesses to this effect and there are flaw and material defect in the investigation which goes to the root of the matter and hamper the prosecution story. Therefore, the circumstances and the Contd..........
-36- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla deposition of the witnesses do not inspire confidence to brought home the guilt of the accused persons. As such accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
Having heard the submission of Ld. Public Prosecutor and Ld. Defence Counsel as well as perused the material placed on record.
The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence:-
1- the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely may be fully established, 2- the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, 3- the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, 4- they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and Contd..........
-37- State Vs. Samunder etc.
FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla
5- there must be chain of evidence so complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
The prosecution has tried to lead circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the commission of the murder of Ramesh. The entire case of the prosecution is hinge on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has examined 27 witnesses in all but none of them is eyewitness of the occurrence. The prosecution has set its case to be founded on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The accused Deepak having inimical terms with the family of the deceased and case against the Deepak and Manu has also been registered in Delhi vide FIR No. 32/02 u/s 341/323/34 IPC of P.S. Rohini, wherein the accused Deepak and Mannu has assaulted upon deceased Ramesh with brick. Thereafter the accused Deepak alongwith Rikan and his uncle Samunder also fought with the deceased and injured him in village at the occasion of Holi. Panchayat was organized. PW9, PW12, PW15 are member of the Panchayat. PW15 Kailash Singh is the Mukhia/Head of the Panchayat and the issue of fight has been dissolved Contd..........
-38- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla by imposing a penalty of Rs. 1000/- upon the accused Deepak and Rs. 51/- to the deceased Ramesh. The said panchyat faisla Ex. PW9/B was executed on 17.3.2002. The accused Deepak was met at dairy of Nahar Singh at Naharpur, he was arrested and on the interrogation the other accused Samunder and Rikan @ Dikan was also arrested. The disclosure statement of accused Samunder and Rikan @ Dikan was recorded on 12.6.2004 vide Ex. PW13/H and Ex. PW13/J. Thereafter, the accused persons took the police party to Golden Park at House No. WZ-14, where the blood sample, blood smeared soil and earth control alongwith blood smeared brick and piece of the blood stained floor . The earth control and one blood smeared rope were lifted and seized from a jungle near kiker tree the way goes the place of incident to railway track. The blood smeared soil and earth control were also lifted from where the dead body was kept for a while by the accused person before thrown on the railway track and the accused persons pointed out the place of incident etc and pointing out memo were prepared in the respect. Thereafter the accused persons took the police party to the horse shed/Tabela and from where one red colour T shirt and one shirt were got recovered by accused Deepak and Samunder and same were also seized with the seal of OPS and taken into possession. One Shirt (Checkdar) got Contd..........
-39- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla recovered from accused Samunder is Ex. PC. One red colour T-Shirt got recovered from accused Deepak is ex. PD. One Rassi/Rope ( one big and one small) is Ex. PB. One blood stained brick affixed with some hair is Ex. PA. One pant of brown having sticker of Prince Tailor which was put off from the dead body is Ex. PE. All the accused persons are correctly identified by their name and faces. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and prosecution have to fulfilled the aforesaid condition. Before the case against the accused persons can be said to be established beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of circumstantial evidence, let we now examined the various circumstances applying the above principle of law to the prosecution case. It is pertinent to note that the alleged case of the prosecution is rested upon the testimonies and issue involved with respect to the enmity of the accused Deepak with the deceased Ramesh and his family and thereafter lead to the railway track where the dead body was lying and to the house NO. WZ14 of Golden Park where the blood stained brick etc were recovered. The accused persons also got recovered the blood stained shirt and T. Shirts. The accused persons did not raise any objection that shirt and T-shirt are not belonging to them or the pant labeled 'Prince Tailor' is not belonging to deceased Ramesh. PW4 Lalit Contd..........
-40- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla Kumar @ Bindu Pehalwan and his wife Smt. Shahsi( PW5) proved the employment of the deceased at their dairy. PW5 Shashi has also stated that "on 6.6.2004 at about 8/8.30 pm Ramesh, had told her that he was going to Rampura, to attend a party. Thereafter, Ramesh never returned to the house and on 12.6.2004, he came to know that Ramesh died. No other persons of the name of Samunder, had come to their house to meet Ramesh on 6.6.2004." The FSL report Ex. PW27/I&Jis also proved in the evidence of PW27 Insp. O.P. Sharma and all the exhibits are opined to be similar physical character. It has been contended by the defence counsel during the course of argument that the Shambhu organized the function at his residence and deceased was invited there but the Shambhu is not interrogated nor made as witness. PW4 to Lalit Kumar @ Bindu Pehalwan and PW5 Shashi this effect has categorically stated that Ramesh might have gone to the house for attending the party. None of the other witness have been named the Shambhu in any respect. Therefore the question of joining him during the investigation does not hamper the prosecution story.
Further PW7 Ranjeet Singh has denied that he has not given any room on rent to Shambhu at his house No. WZ 14, Golden Park, Contd..........
-41- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla Rampura, Delhi. He has given his milk dairy to Shambu on contract basis. On 14.6.2004 he called the police at his house at Golden Park, Delhi and all the accused persons alongwith the police party were also present there. He opened the lock of the shutter and in his presence, police had lifted blood from near the water tank, blood stained plaster, earth control from the spot was taken into possession against the seizure memo vide Ex. PW7/A. One blood stained pieces of floor, earth control were also lifted from near the wall of water meter vide Ex. PW7/B. T hereafter, the accused have also taken them near the railway track from where the blood stained earth and blood were also lifted and one rope was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/C. The accused has also got recovered one blood stained shirt and one T-shirt from a chhapar and same was taken into possession vide memo ex. PW7/D. Earth control blood was also lifted from near the TV Tower Polls near the Haryana Power House vide memo Ex. PW7/E. Rope, brick and the blood stained clothes were correctly identified by PW7 Ranjeet Singh. PW7 Ranjeet Singh is the witness of recovery of aforesaid incriminating articles which completed the chain of evidence, lead towards the guilt of the accused persons to prove the charge. Ranjeet Singh is an independent witness and joined in the investigation to corroborate the Contd..........
-42- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla deposition of PW13 Ct. Daya Ram regarding the recovery of articles during the investigation. PW14 ASI Sarabjit Singh, PW24 HC Hawa Singh, PW25 Ct. Ranbir Singh and PW27 Insp. Om Parkash , who have deposed regarding recovery of article on the instance of accused persons. that accused persons who led the police party at the place of occurrence ie WZ-14, Golden Park where initially they have beaten and murdered the deceased Ramesh. All the aforesaid witnesses have consistent in their deposition regarding the place of incident and got recovered the blood stained earth control and blood stained affixed with hairs and one rope. The shirt belonging to accused Samunder and red coloured T-shirt of Deepak was also got recovered at their instance. Ld. Defence Counsel has also contended that there are contradiction among the deposition of prosecution witnesses and there is some defects in the investigation.
In the criminal trial, the prosecution is duty bound to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Before recording the guilt of the accused, the court is required to satisfy itself that the possibility of the innocence of the accused is ruled out. The evidence produced on the record must convince the mind of the court beyond all reasonable doubt. The golden thread running into the web of criminal justice system has laid down the rule of prudence that the court must insist higher degree of proof in criminal cases as compared to civil cases. The court cannot record the Contd..........
-43- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla conviction on suspicion or conjecture. There is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and therefore, the burden of proving the charge is on the prosecution. Reference can be made to the State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh. (1974) 3 SCC, 277. In the above noted case the apex court inter alia held as under:
" A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to ie flight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty for the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.
There cannot be any specific formula for the appreciation of evidence. Law is a science and the application of the same is an art. The provisions of the statute are to be interpreted keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Each case presents its own features. The evidence on record is to be considered as a whole irrespective of the fact that it has been led by the prosecution or accused. Ld. Counsel for the Contd..........
-44- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla accused has assailed the case of the prosecution on several grounds. I propose to take the issue raised by the defence as follows.
Ld. Counsel for accused has pointed out several lacuna in the investigation and has submitted that the case of prosecution cannot be accepted as it is culmination of tainted investigation. It has been submitted that there are several lacunae in the investigation and the Investigation Officer failed to carry out the investigation on the expected lines. Investigation is the main component of the Criminal Justice systems. Fair investigation is the right of the accused and tainted investigation is bound to prejudice the accused. It is also a matter of common knowledge that investigating agency sometime fails to carry out the investigation as per norms. The investigation part in the Criminal Justice system requires lot of improvement. The Scientific investigation is also the need of the hour. In the present case also there are certain lacuna in the investigation but no further investigation was carried out in this regard. However, rejecting the case of the prosecution merely on the basis of defective investigation would amount to paying the premium for the faults of an Investigating Officer. It would also amount to playing into the hands of Investigation Officer. Reference can be made to Karnal Singh Vs. State of M.P. (1995) 5 SCC Contd..........
-45- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla
518. In this case the apex court inter alia held as under:-
" Notwithstanding our unhappiness regarding the nature of investigation, we have to consider whether the evidence on record, even on strict scrutiny, establishes the guilt. In cases of defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused persons solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the Investigating Officer, if the investigation is designedly defective"
It has also been held time and again by the superior courts that in the case of defective investigation the case of the prosecution should be examined dehors such omissions otherwise the mischief done deliberately would be perpetuated and justice could be denied to the complainant party. Reference can be made to Ram Bihar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (1994) 4 SCC.517. In Dhanaj Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2004 SC 1920, the apex court dealt with plea of tainted investigation and inter alia held as under:-
" In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the Investigating Officer if the investigation is designedly defective."
Contd..........
-46- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla In Paras Yadav and others Vs. State of Bihar (1999 (2) SCC
126) it was held that " if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency, the prosecutions evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of evaluating the evidence by the Courts; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice could be denied to the complainant party."
It was also observed in Ram Bihari Yadava Vs. State of Bihar and others( 1998 (4) SCC 517) that " if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice"
It is contended by Defence Counsel that the PWs are in close relation of the deceased. Their testimony are not consistent and improbable. It is being suggested in the cross examination of PWs that they have deposed at the instance of police.
Contd..........
-47- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla I am not convinced with the defence of Ld. Defence Counsel that the witnesses are interested witnesses but their testimony in a serious type of case like murder cannot be possibly a ground to reject the evidence on record. The test of creditworthiness or acceptability ought to be the guiding factor and if so, question of raising an eyebrow on the reliability of witness being an interested witness would be futile in the evidence the evidence is otherwise acceptable, there ought not be any hindrance in the matter of prosecutor's success. The evidence must inspire confidence and in the event of unshaken credibility, there is no justifiable reason to reject the same as observed in a case titled as Alamgir V State ( NCT of Delhi) AIR 2003 SC 282 . Hence, I am also not convinced with the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that relative of the deceased have any motive to implicated the accused persons in the present case.
Even though existence of motive loses significance when there is reliable ocular testimony in a case where the ocular testimony appears to b e suspect, the existence or absence of motive acquires some significance regarding the probability of the prosecution case. When motive is proved, it affords added support to the finding to the guilt of the accused. When the offence of fight and murder is proved by evidence of eye-witnesses and the Contd..........
-48- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla circumstantial evidence as well as medical evidence, the question of motive becomes insignificant.
The defence Counsel while cross examined the witnesses and statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C have give different two stories, one story by cross examining the witnesses suggested that the witnesses as deposed are interested witnesses and their depositing are made at the instance of police. On the other hand while recording the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, it has been suggested that the accused persons are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is unsustainable that if the person like accused involved in the murder case of his associate friend are innocent and why they have been implicated falsely. There is no specific explanation given by defence counsel of their involvement in this case. If there is anything in the mind of the Defence counsel he should brought the same on record. NO doubt the essential burden of proving the case is upon the prosecution. But the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that act shall lie on any particular person. As defined in section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Contd..........
-49- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla In Dalip Singh and Ors. V The State of Punjab (AIR 1953 SC
364), The apex court while lying down the principle for appreciation of evidence of a witness, interalia held as under:-
" A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to which to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty , but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to comb at what is so often put forwards n cases before us as a general rule of Contd..........
-50- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to be governed by its own facts.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the same principle in Gull Chand and Ors. V. State of Rajasthan (1974 (3) SCC 698) in which Vadivelu Thevar V. State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614) was also relied upon. In the present case the defence has not been able to bring any material on the record that the witnesses were interested to deposed against all the accused persons or they were having any enmity with the accused. The source of these witnesses also does not seem to be tainted at all.
I had the privilege to go through all the citations produced by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, I must record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered to this court by the Ld. Counsel for the accused person. However, the authorities cited by the Ld. Counsel for accused person are respectfully distinguished on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In the present case the deceased Ramesh Rai was working at the dairy of Lalit Kumar @ Bindu Pehalwan (PW4) and on 6.6.2004 at about 8/8.30 p.m deceased Ramesh Kumar had left the diary of Bindu Pehalwan and never returned to the house . On 12.6.2004 this fact even confirmed by PW4 Lalit Kumar and PW5 Smt. Shashi. PW8 Jitender proved the enmity Contd..........
-51- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla of the accused Deepak with the deceased Ramesh Rai since 2002 . This deposition have been corroborated in the the testimony of PW3 Dinesh Rai, PW9 Vinod Rai, PW15 Kailash Singh and PW12 Shivji Rai.
Further to prove the enmity, the Panch Faisla Ex. PW9/B and copy of the FIR NO. 32/2002, P.S. Rohini is placed on record and prosecution witnesses have also deposed with respect of the proving of this document. The dead body of the deceased was lying with injury mark in the injured condition with blood stained body at railway track near Rampura. The injuries near the left ear with lacerated marks on the neck of the dead body black coloured and the dead body was identified by sticker of Prince Tailor affixed on the brown coloured pant of Singh Market, 'Maneer'. The dead body was identified from a sticker affixed on the pant when it was shown in the village through HC Hawa Singh(PW24) to the villagers and relatives of the deceased. T he relatives of the deceased and the villager have also deposed with respect to the identification of the dead body and inimical terms.
The disclosure of the accused persons led the police official to the room at WZ-14 Golden Park where the alleged crime has been committed and accused persons had led the police party and PW7 Ranjeet Singh to the Paireri at HT Tower where the dead body kept for a while, Contd..........
-52- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla Jangal kikar tree where rope/rassi at Pasui Ka Tabela , railway track where the dead body was lying. The accused has also got recovered one blood stained shirt and one blood stained T-shirt from Pashu Ka Tabela. The blood stained shirt, T-shirt of accused Samunder and Deepak were seized.
PW2 Dr. K. Goel has proved the external and internal injuries on the person of deceased Ramesh Rai and also opined that the cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon ligature strangulation . Injuries No. 1 to 5 were ante mortem. Injuries NO. 1 to 4 were caused by blunt force impact. Ligature marks i.e. injury No. 5 was caused by some hard flexible material . Injuries No. 6 was postmortem in nature and was consistent with pressure over wrists who fasten them. Ligature pressure over neck was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Mode of death was homicide. Time since death was about four and half days. Ligature mark present around the neck was caused as ligature injury by some ligature material. Blunt force injury means the injury caused by such weapon of surface which is having no sharp edges. Injury number 5 mentioned in PMR Ex. PW2/A was caused by some hard flexible material, which means Contd..........
-53- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla the material like rope, some electric wire and other soft material the things may be clothes. The skull bones were intact but there was one lacerated wounds for right temporal region. This was caused by blunt force impact. Semi digested food can not be described. Alcohol like smell was coming from the stomach. Strangulation is not possible by poisoning. The opinion over the cause of death given by PW2 Dr. K. Goel is consistent and firm with co-relate with the deposition of the prosecution witnesses against the accused.
All the three accused person were arrested and on disclosure statement rope, blood stained stone, earth controlled soil blood stained shirt and T shirt were discovered and examined in the FSL and found same trace of blood and Dr. Kulbhushan have performed the post mortem opined that the strangulation was possible with some soft material like rope and strangulation is not possible by poisoning.
The finding of Panchayat also goes against the accused Deepak by holding him guilty of the offence. The Panchnama was mentioned the admission of the accused Deepak while admitting his guilt. The accused Samunder is real uncle of the accused Deepak and Rikan @ Dikan is the real Contd..........
-54- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla brother of Deepak and all of them in the pre planned manner committed the murder of Ramesh Rai. The ocular statement of the prosecution witnesses are credible and trustworthy with respect to the proof of motive and animus of the accused persons. The accused persons also has made confessional statement and accused Deepak too before the Panchayat and he has duly signed on the Panchnama. All the accused persons have also assaulted deceased Ramesh on the occasion of Holi in the village. PW Ranjit Singh an independent witness stated that at the instance of accused persons blood stained shirt, T-shirt, blood stained brick affixed with hair, rope etc were recovered. The recovery of said articles connecting the accused persons with the crime and proving the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. There are sufficient evidence that the deceased left the diary of Bindu Pehalwan and gone to attend the party on 6.6.2004 and thereafter did not come back. The case of the prosecution is truthful beyond realm of doubt, its has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts that nobody else have committed murder except the accused persons. There are positive evidence against the accused persons which brought the inference that the proposed accused are the only perporaters of crime and they have committed the murder of deceased Ramesh Rai with the ulterior motive to take the revenge.
Contd..........
-55- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla The testimony of the prosecution witnesses are trustworthy, believable and corroborative. The oral and documentary evidence led by prosecution with respect to the charges levelled against the accused Samunder, Deepak and Riken @ Dikan are proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses has inspired confidence and there is no iota of evidence to disbelieve them. The prosecution succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt, all the circumstantial evidence completed the unbroken chain and linked the accused persons directly from the commission of the offence alleged against them. Accordingly I hereby convict the accused Samunder S/o Bali Ram Rai, Deepak S/o Ragunth Rai, Riken @ Diken S/o Ragunath Rai for offence punishable u/s 302/201/34 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 19.02.2010
(SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(WEST-04)
DELHI
-56- State Vs. Samunder etc.
FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE( WEST-04) , DELHI.
SC NO. 111/1/08
State
Versus
1- Samunder S/o Bali Ram Rai,
2- Deepak S/o Ragunth Rai,
3- Riken @ Diken S/o Ragunath Rai
All R/o Jeev Rakhen Tola Goraya Sthan,
P.S. Manir, Distt Patna, Bihar.
FIR No. 36/2004
U/S: 302/201/34 IPC
P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Present: Sh. Mukul Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State.
All the accused persons/Convicted produced from J/C with their respective counsel .
All the accused persons/convicted have been convicted for offence punishable u/s 302/201/34 IPC vide separate detailed judgment dated 19.2.2010.
I have heard submission of Ld. APP for State and counsel for all the accused persons on the point of sentence and carefully gone through the material on record.
Ld. APP for State submitted that it was a gruesome murder committed by the accused persons, who committed the murder of their Contd..........
-57- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla co villager with the motive to taken the revenge out of vengeance in the pre planned manner without any provocation and it needed a deterrent punishment, it has been submitted that present case is rare of the rarest case in which only sentence of death would meet the ends of justice. In support of his contention Ld. Public Prosecutor had relied upon Prajeet Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar 2008 III AD (Cr.) (S.C) 41. In this case, the Apex Court upheld the capital punishment of an accused holding that the case fell in the category of rare of the rarest cases.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that the present case does not fall in the rare of the rarest case. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has relied upon Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898 and Machi Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC
957. It has been submitted that Apex court has held that capital punishment can be awarded only in the rare of the rarest case, and the present case does not fall within he category of rare of the rarest cases.
I have considered the submissions. No doubt , it was a ghastly murder and it deserves all condemnations. The accused persons sacred and pious relation of friendship being habitant of same village. A young boy namely Ramesh Rai aged about 25-26 years was kill in a cold blooded manner. However, it has to be seen whether this case falls within the Contd..........
-58- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla category of definition of rare of the rarest case or not. For this we have to revert back to the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in land mark cases of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Machi Singh s. State of Punjab ( Supra). In Bachan Singh Case ( Supra), the apex court interalia held as under:
" The provision of death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder in section 302, Penal Code is not unreasonable and it is in the public interest. Therefore, it can be held that the impugned in S.302 violates neither the letter or the ethos of Art. 19 of the Constitution. The Penal Code Particularly those of its provisions which cannot be justified on the grounds of reasonableness with reference to any of the specified heads such as " public order" in Cls. (2), (3) and (4) is not a law imposing restrictions on any of the rights conferred by Art. 19 (1). There are several offences under the Penal Code such as theft, cheating, ordinary assault, which do not violate or affect 'public order'. These offences injure only specific individuals as distinguished from the public at large. It is by now settled that ' public order' means 'even tempo of the life of the community' that being so, even all murders do not disturb or affect ' public order'. Some murders may be of purely private significance and the injury or harm resulting therefrom affects only specific individuals, and, consequently, such murders may not be covered by " public order" within the contemplation of Cls. (2). (3) and (4) of Art. 19. Such murders do not lead to public disorder but to disorder simpliciter. Yet, no rational being can say that punishment of such murderers is not in the general public interest. It may be noted that general public interest is not specified as a head in Cls. (2) to (4) on which restriction on the rights mentioned in Cl. (1) of the Article may be justified. The real distinction between the areas of ' law and order' and 'public order' lies not merely in the nature of quality Contd..........
-59- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla of the act, but in the degree and extent. Violent crimes similar in nature but committed in different contexts and circumstances might cause different reactions. A murder committed in given circumstances may cause only a slight tremor, the wave length of which does not extend beyond the parameters of law and order. Another murder committed in different context and circumstances may unleash a tidal wave of such intensity, gravity and magnitude, that its impact throws out of gear the even flow of life. Nonetheless the fact remains that for such murders which do not affect " public order", even the provision for life imprisonment in Section 302, Indian Penal Code, as an alternative punishment, would not be justifiable under Cls. (2), (3) and (4) as a reasonable restriction in the interest of ' public order'. Such a construction must, therefore, be avoided."
Similarly , in Machi Singh Vs. State of Punjab ( Supra), It was interalia held as under:-
" The extreme penalty fo death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the ' Offender' also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the 'crime'. Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided , the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life can not be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances. A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the opinion is exercised. In order to apply these guidelines inter alia the following Contd..........
-60- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla questions may be asked and answered: (a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence ? (b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?
In State of Punjab Vs. Gurmej Singh 2002 CRI.L.J. 3741. it was interalia held as under:-
" A number of factors, which are to be taken into account while imposing penalty of death, for illustration are the motive of the crime, the manner of the assault, the impact of the crime on the society as a whole, the personality of the accused, circumstances and facts of the case as to whether the crime committed is for satisfying any kind of lust, greed or in pursuance of any organised anti social activity or by way of organised crime drug trafficking or that like or the chances of inflicting the society with a similar criminal act that is to say vulnerability of the members of the society at the hands of the accused in future or commission of murder which may be shocking to the conscience."
I agree with the contention of the Ld. Public Prosecutor that such cases needs deterrent punishment and message should go to the society at large. While awarding sentence, the court should be cautious of the fact that the society looks upon the court and the guilty should be given appropriate punishment so that it may work as deterrent for other people. However, at Contd..........
-61- State Vs. Samunder etc. FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla the same time, where question of life or death is involved, the court has to be very cautious. While awarding punishment in such cases, the emotions cannot be allowed to be taken over the law laid down by the Apex court. Imprisonment for life is normally to be awarded in murder cases. Penalty of death sentence is awarded only in exceptional cases. In the case of Machi Singh ( Supra), the Apex Court observed that extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. I feel that keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present case does not fall in any of such category. The authority cited by Ld. Counsel for the complainant is respectfully distinguished on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
I feel that the facts and circumstances of this case, do not falling any of such category or that like as indicated above. It is no doubt true that the incident is ghastly and deserves all condemnation, but looking to the principle laid down in numerous decisions of the apex court, referred to above this case does not fall in the category of rare of the rarest cases to award extreme penalty of death.
Contd..........
-62- State Vs. Samunder etc.
FIR No. 36/2004, P.S. Railway Sarai Rohilla
In the facts and circumstances, the accused persons namely
Samunder S/o Bali Ram Rai, Deepak S/o Ragunth Rai, Riken @ Diken S/o Ragunath Rai are sentenced with imprisonment for life and they are also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine , all the accused persons shall also undergo SI for six months u/s 302/201/34 IPC. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C is also awarded to all the accused persons.
Copy of this order as well as of judgment be given to each of the accused free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 25.2.2010 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(WEST-04) DELHI