Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Pal Singh on 14 March, 2018
FIR No.1078/15
State Vs. Ram Pal Singh
Police Station : Aman Vihar
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG:ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
II (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No.84/15
CNR No. DLNW010002412016
State
Vs
1. Rampal Singh
S/o Sh. Virender Singh
R/o. H.No. A35, Gali no. 1,
Near Duga Mandir, Agar Nagar
Prem Nagar, Delhi
FIR No. : 1078/15
Police Station : Aman Vihar
Under Section : 302 IPC
Date of Institution in Sessions Court : 07.12.2015
Date when judgment reserved : 05.02.2018
Date when judgment pronounced : 14.03.2018
JUDGMENT
1. This is the case under section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 1/9/2015, SI Page No. 1 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar Praveen Attri, on the receipt of DD No. 59 PP, at about 11:20 PM, reached at SGM Hopsital, Mangol Puri, Delhi alongwith Ct. Om Prakash and Ct. Madan Pal where they found one Aman admitted in the hospital with alleged history of physical assault and the doctors had declared him brought dead. IO met Sh. Sonu, nephew of the deceased in the hospital and recorded his statement in which he alleged that Ram Pal was having suspicion that Aman was having illicit affair with his wife and on that day there was altercation between them when they were present on the terrace of the house of Ram Pal and he tried to pacify them but Ram Pal pushed his uncle Aman from the terrace resulting in his death and due to loss of balance he also fell down on the terrace of the adjoining house. On the basis of his statement, FIR was registered. Investigation was conducted by the police. Post mortem of deceased was got conducted. Accused was also medically examined in the hospital. Crime team was called and the spot was photographed. During further investigation exhibits were lifted. During investigation accused Rampal Singh was interrogated and arrested. After completion of investigations the charge sheet was filed in the Court.
3. On compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the chargesheet was committed to this Court by the Court of Ld. MM.
Page No. 2 of 23 FIR No.1078/15State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar
4. Charge under Sections 302 IPC was framed against the accused by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 11/1/2016, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined in total 22 witnesses.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
6. Sh. Sonu, Sh. Kamal Singh and Smt. Sudha have been examined as PW12, PW11 and PW16 respectively. The testimony of these witnesses shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
POLICE WITNESSES
7. PW2 SI Gayetri had issued certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 regarding the printed information in FormI of PCR calls which are ExPW2/A and ExPW2/B. She has proved certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as ExPW2/C.
8. PW3 Ct. Krishan Kumar had taken 8 sealed pullandas along with sample seal from MHCM and deposited the same in FSL Rohini, Delhi vide RC no. 202/21/15 and after depositing the same, he obtained receipt from FSL and handed over the Page No. 3 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar same to the MHCM.
9. PW4 Insp. Mahesh Kumar is the draftsman who visited the scene of crime situated at A35, Gali no. 1 near Durga Mandir, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar III, Delhi at the request of IO Insp. Rakesh Kumar and at the instance of IO, he prepared the scaled site plan ExPW4/A.
10. PW5 Ct. Madan accompanied SI Praveen Attri during the investigation of the case. After post mortem of the deceased, the concerned doctor handed over to him two sealed pullandas, one containing the cloth of deceased and the other containing blood gauze piece and sample seal which he handed over to IO Insp. Rakesh Kumar who seized the same vide seizure memo ExPW5/A.
11. PW6 Ct. Om Prakash also accompanied SI Praveen Attri during investigation of the case and he took the rukka to the PS and got the FIR registered.
12. PW7 SI Ajit Singh is incharge Crime Team, who visited the scene of crime on 2/9/2015. On inspection, he found blood on the roof and one blood stained stick at the spot. He proved his crime team report as ExPW7/A. Page No. 4 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar
13. PW8 Ct. Mahesh Kumar, Photographer, Mobile Crime Team visited the spot and took photographs of the scene of crime from different angles and he deposed that the said photographs could not be developed due to technical faults in the camera as the negatives in the camera were found blank.
14. PW9 HC Parmanand has deposed in sync with Insp. Rakesh (PW21) and SI Praveen Attri (PW22) with whom he remained in the investigation.
15. PW13 ASI Bharat Lal is the Duty Officer, who proved the copy of FIR, endorsement on rukka, Roznamcha A at sl. no. 3 and 4 and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as ExPW13/A to ExPW13/D.
16. PW14 HC Vijay Mohan is the MHCM. He proved entries made by him in register no. 19 as ExPW14/A regarding deposit of case property and RC vide which the case property was sent to the FSL and the copy of the same is ExPW14/B.
17. PW17 Ct. Jitender was working as DD writer at PP Prem Nagar on 1/9/2015. AT about 10:03 pm. an information was received regarding a quarrel at E block, Durga Mandir Wali Gali and he Page No. 5 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar reduced this information in daily diary register vide DD no. 54 PP Prem Nagar and the attested copy of the said DD entry has been proved as ExPW9/A. At about 11:17 p.m. he received information that the person in respect of whom the previous call was received had been declared brought dead in the hospital and this information was reduced into writing as DD no. 59 PP Prem Nagar and the copy of the said DD entry has been proved as ExPW17/A.
18. PW18 Ct. Sandeep Singh is the DD writer had reduced into writing DD no. 76B and 83B and the same had been proved as ExPW18/A and ExPW18/B respectively.
19. PW22 SI Praveen Attri has deposed that on 01.09.2015, on the receipt of DD No. 59 PP, at about 11:20 PM, he alongwith Ct. Om Prakash and Ct. Madan Pal reached at SGM Hopsital, Mangol Puri, Delhi and found one Aman admitted in the hospital vide MLC No. 16438 with alleged history of physical assault and doctors declared him brought dead. He recorded statement of eye witness Sonu Ex. PW12/A and got deposited the dead body of the deceased in mortuary of SGM Hospital through Ct. Madan Pal. On the basis of statement of complainant, he prepared the tehrir Ex. PW22/A and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant reached at the spot i.e. A35, Gali No.1, Page No. 6 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar, Delhi where Inspector Rakesh Kumar alongwith with Ct. Om Prakash reached there. Thereafter this witness has deposed in sync with IO/Insp. Rakesh (PW21) with whom he remained in the investigation.
20. PW21 Insp. Rakesh Kumar is the IO of the case. He has deposed that on the intervening night of 1/2 September, 2015 he together with Ct. OM Prakash reached at the spot i.e. A35, Gali no. 1, Prem Nagar III, Aman Vihar, Delhi where he met SI Praveen along with staff who were already present there. Crime team was also present there. He got the spot inspected through the Crime Team and the spot was photographed. Thereafter, he prepared site plan ExPW12/B at the instance of complainant Sonu and lifted the blood from three places with the help of cotton and blood gauze and put them in different plastic containers. He also lifted the earth control and put it in a plastic container and a wooden danda measuring about 3 feet having orange string was also seized from the spot vide seizure memo ExPW12/C. He got the post mortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased, Aman. Inquest papers were also prepared. After post mortem, the doctor concerned handed over one sample seal and two sealed pullandas to him out of which one was containing the clothes of the deceased and the other was containing blood gauge of deceased which were seized vide Page No. 7 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar seizure memo ExPW5/A. The dead body was handed over to his nephew Kamal Singh vide handing over memo ExPW11/B. On the same day, accused Rampal was arrested. His arrest memo and personal search memo are ExPW9/B and ExPW9/C respectively. He further deposed that the accused Rampal led the police party to the spot and he pointed out the spot where the offence was committed and the pointing out memo is ExPW9/E. The blood stained clothes of accused were taken into possession vide seizure memo ExPW9/F. Case property was deposited in the malkhana. He collected two PCR forms ExPW2/A and ExPW2/B and got the scaled site plan prepared through Insp. Mahesh Kumar ExPW4/A and the relevant exhibits were got deposited in FSL for the Forensic Examination. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Ld. MM.
FORMAL WITNESSES
21. PW15 Ram Vijay Mishra has deposed that he is the owner of house no. A35, Gali no. 1, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar 3 Delhi and on 1/3/2015 he had let out the first floor of the said house to accused Rampal on monthly rental of Rs.1500/.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
22. PW1 Dr. Munish Wadhawan, Specialist in Department of Page No. 8 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar Forensic Medicine, SGM Hospital had conducted postmortem on the dead body of Aman aged about 40 years and has proved PM report as ExPW1/A. On external examination of the dead body there were following external injuries:
1. Lacerated wound 3X2 cm xbone deep on the left forehead.
2. Lacerated wound, 4 x 1.5 cm x muscle deep on great toe of right foot
3. Reddish abrasion, 2x2 cm on posterior aspect of left shoulder joint.
4. Reddish abrasion 4x2.1 cm on left face
5. Reddish abrasion 3x2 cm on left chin
6. Reddish abrasion 5x1.7 cm on left neck
7. Right Black eye On internal examination of the dead body there were following internal injuries:
Scalp: Subscalp bruising in left frontaoparietal region Skull: Fracture of left frontal bone.
Brain: Brain matter is congested and edematous. Diffuse thin film of subdural hemorrhage over both cerebral hemisphere. As per his opinion the cause of death was craniocerebral damage as a result of blunt force /object impact upon head and all the injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature.Page No. 9 of 23 FIR No.1078/15
State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar
23. PW10 Dr. Rohit Kumar, CMO, SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri had medically examined injured Rampal on 3/9/2015 and he proved the MLC as ExPW10/ A. It came during his examination that on the date of the incident ie. on 1/9/2015 injured/patient Ram Pal was examined in hospital vide his MLC number 16092.
24. PW19 Dr. Rajesh Dalal CMO SGM Hospital had examined Aman Singh who was brought to the casualty by his nephew Sonu on 1/9/2015 at about 10:40 p.m. He was brought in unconscious state and after examination the said patient was declared brought dead. He proved the MLC ExPW19/A. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
25. PW20 Ms. Monika Chakravarty, Senior Scientific Officer, Biology FSL Rohini Delhi had conducted forensic examination on the exhibits and proved her worksheets, DNA analysis report and the allelic data analysis report as ExPW20/A to ExPW20/C. She came to the conclusion that the alleles from gauze cloth piece from the spot Ex1 and gauze cloth piece of deceased ie.Ex6 have been found in the mixed DNA profile from Ex7A I.e.the shirt of the accused meaning thereby that the blood on the shirt of the accused having DNA profiles of both matching to that gauze Page No. 10 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar lifted from the spot and that of the gauze of the deceased.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
26. After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, in which all the incriminatory facts and circumstances appearing in evidence was put to him, which have been denied by him in toto. The accused stated that he used to collect rent from Aman and hand over the same to the landlord. On the date of the incident while they both were present on the terrace of their house, he demanded rent from Aman and on this issue he started quarreling with him and in the scuffle, they both fell down from the terrace, on the terrace of the adjoining house and both of them received injuries. He further stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused has not examined any witness in his defence.
ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES
27. I have heard the Sh. Rajat Kalra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ms. Sunita Tiwari, Ld. Amicus Curie for the accused and have perused the entire material available on record.
Page No. 11 of 23 FIR No.1078/15State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar
28. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the defence that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is stated that there are contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and the entire case is highly doubtful. She has further pointed out other discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses to stress upon the point that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case.
29. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt. Reliance is placed on testimonies of PW11 Sh. Kamal Singh, PW12 Sh.Sonu Singh and PW16 Smt. Sudha and it is contended that having regard to their testimony, whose testimonies are truthful and reliable and are of sterling quality coupled with the other evidence on record in the form of investigation conducted by the police, the prosecution has been able to prove its case.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
30. The accused is facing trial for the offence u/s 302 IPC for the murder of Aman Singh s/o Shri Prahlad Singh for causing fatal injuries by pushing him from the terrace of his house with the intention of causing his death. Hence, the persecution must Page No. 12 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar prove the ingredients of section 302 IPC to prove its case against the accused.
DEATH OF AMAN SINGH
31. It has been deposed by PW22 SI Praveen Attri that on 01/09/2015 at about 11:20 p.m, he received DD No. 59 PP which was to the effect that the person who had received injuries in the quarrel at house no. 162, Agar Nagar and who was admitted in SGM hospital had been declared dead by the doctors and after receiving this information, he along with Ct. Om Prakash and Ct. Madan Pal reached at SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi where they found Aman admitted in the hospital vide MCL no. 16348 with alleged history of physical assault and the doctors had declared him brought dead. He met HC Parmanand in the hospital. He apparently found injury on the head and right thumb of its foot. The said Aman was examined in the casualty of SGM hospital by PW19 Dr. Rajesh Dalal, CMO and after examination, he declared the patient as brought dead and he prepared his MLC which is ExPW19/A.
32. Postmortem was conducted by PW1 Dr. Munish Wadhawan, Specialist SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi on the body of deceased and on external examination, the dead body was found Page No. 13 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar containing several injuries as mentioned in the postmortem report 816/15 ExPW1/A. The cause of death was opined to be craniocereberal damage as a result of blunt force/object impact upon head. All the injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature.
33. The dead body of deceased Aman Singh was identified by his elder brother i.e. PW11 Sh. Kamal Singh.
34. In view of the above, it is proved that deceased Aman Singh had suffered injuries, which resulted in his death.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN OFFENCE OF MURDER AND OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER
35. In the scheme of the Penal Code, 'culpable homice' is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicde' but not vice versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of murder', is 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, culpable homicide of the first degree. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide which is defined in Section Page No. 14 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar 300 as 'murder'. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'. This is punishable under the 1 st part of Section 304. Then, there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree.' This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304.
36. The conceptual distinction between the offence of 'murder' punishable unde Section 302 IPC and the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC was explained in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as State of AP v. R. Punnayya AIR 1977 SC 45. The decision guides that when a Court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', on the facts of the case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he was caused the death of another. Proof of such casual connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether the act of the accused amounts to 'culpable homicide' as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is, prima facie, found in the affirmative, Page No. 15 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, of Penal Code is reached. This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of 'murder' contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative, the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or third clauses of section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the Exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' punishable under the First Part of Section 304 of the Penal Code.
37. The above are only broad guidelines and not cast iron imperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate the task of the court. But sometimes the facts are so inter twined and the second and the third stages so telescoped into each other, that it may not be convenient to give a separate treatment to the matters involved in the second and third stages.
FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE Page No. 16 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar
38. Now let us consider the problem before us in the light of the above enunciation.
39. In the present case, as per the case of the prosecution, accused Rampal was having suspicion that Aman was having illicit affair with his wife. In order to prove this fact prosecution has examined PW11 Sh. Kamal Singh, brother of deceased and PW12 Sh. Sonu, nephew of the deceased. They have deposed that accused Rampal and deceased Aman were residing as tenants in the same house i.e. H.No. A35, Gali no. 1, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar, Delhi. Rampal was residing on the ground floor and Aman was residing on the first floor of the said premises. Both of them have deposed that Rampal was having suspicion that Aman was having illicit affairs with Asha, wife of accused Rampal and on this issue Rampal used to fight with Aman a number of times. Both the witnesses have been cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defence but there is nothing to rebut their testimony in this regard.
40. Regarding the incident of 1/9/2015 PW12 Sh. Sonu has deposed that on that day at about 9:30 p.m. while he was going to meet his uncle Aman and when he was on the stairs of his house he heard the voice of quarrel between Rampal and his Page No. 17 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar uncle Aman and the sound was coming from the terrace of the top floor and accused Rampal was saying that"yadi tune asha ki taraf buri nazar dali to anjam accha nahi hoga"and on this Aman told him "woh mere pass khud aati hai" and on hearing this reply Rampal got irritated and retorted "mai abhi tera kaam tamam kar deta hoon". Meanwhile he reached at the terrace of the top floor where he saw that Rampal and Aman were quarreling and Rampal was having a wooden stick. He tried to pacify them and come down to the room and talked there but Rampal did not agree and started abusing and told "yeh sala bada mard banta hai, aaj hi faisla kar deta hoon" and while saying so Rampal pushed Aman from the roof of the top floor as a result of which Aman fell down on the terrace of the adjoining house. He further deposed that when Rampal trying to beat Aman with danda he lost his balance and he also fell down on the terrace of the adjoining house where Aman had fallen. One of the neighbour had dialed at 100 number and he brought his uncle Aman with the help of his neighbour to SDM hospital where the doctor declared him dead.
41. It is relevant here to state that there is one more eye witness to the incident and she is PW16 Smt. Sudha who is the neighbour of the parties. She has deposed that on the fateful day at about 9:0010:00 p.m when she was at the terrace of her Page No. 18 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar house, she saw that two persons, who were residing on rent in her neighbourhood, were fighting on the terrace of their house and in the fight, both of them almost simultaneously fell on the terrace of the adjoining house. Both of them went unconscious and were bleeding. She called the daughter of accused Rampal at the spot and urged her to call a doctor. A doctor from nearby came but on seeing their condition, he refused to treat and as nobody was willing to take them up, she informed the PCR at 100 number, in pursuance to which police officials came at the spot. This witness has been cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which she denied having told the police that it was Rampal who had pushed Aman down. She volunteered by saying that firstly the person with lean stature had pushed the accused and the accused caught hold of him through neck and both of them came rolling down from the terrace of the second floor and fell on the terrace of the adjoining house.
42. It is relevant here to state that PW12 Sonu Singh has been cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel in which he stated that he heard the quarrel between the two when he was in gali and after about 2 - 4 minutes of hearing the quarrel, he reached at the spot. Here there is contradictions in the statement of Sonu as to what he deposed in his examination in chief and in cross examination. In his examination in chief he has stated that he Page No. 19 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar heard the quarrel while he was on the stairs of the house in question but in his cross examination he said that he had heard the quarrel while he was in gali. Moreover, even if he had heard the quarrel in the stairs, it is not possible that he would be able to hear the conversation taking place between accused and the victim at the terrace of the second floor. The deceased was the maternal uncle of PW12 Sonu Singh and the chance of building case against the accused cannot be ruled out by exaggerating the entire thing.
43. The testimony of PW16 Smt. Sudha who is also an eye witness and independent person inspires more confidence. She has categorically deposed that while the both were fighting on the terrace which was without any boundary wall, both of them almost simultaneously fell on the terrace of the adjoining house and both of them become unconscious and were bleeding. In the cross examination she rather stated that it was the person with lean stature (it is victim because the accused is a fat man) who had pushed the accused and in order to save himself, he caught hold of the other person and both of them fell on the terrace of the adjoining house.
44. If it is so, it cannot be said that the death of Aman had taken place due to any Act attributable to the accused. Even if it Page No. 20 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar is believed that both of them had fallen down together in the quarrel, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the accused to cause death or to cause any bodily injury which is likely to cause death or knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death. It is established that both victim and deceased were quarreling on the terrace of their house which was without any boundary wall and during the quarrel, both of them fell down on the terrace of the adjoining house. There is nothing to infer malafide in the intention of the accused because he himself also fell down. Accused is a fat man by stature and there was a chance of his dying in the incident. He has also received injury on the forehead which are clear from his MLC and the same could have proved fatal. Deliberately, he would not jump along with the other person knowing the consequences of the same. Resultingly, it appears that the fall of both of them from the terrace was by chance or by slip and it cannot be said that he did an act by doing of which he has caused the death of Aman and hence it would not have fall under any of the category of culpable homicide as defined in Section 299 IPC. Although the death of Aman is very unfortunate but at the same time, it is not out of place here to mention that just because someone has died in the incident, the court should not look for an excuse to hold the other man guilty.
Page No. 21 of 23 FIR No.1078/15State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar
45. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a 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. It is settled law that the burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. It has been so held in Paramjeet Singh vs. State. Of Uttrakhand AIR 2011 Supreme Court 200.
46. In case titled Sohan and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2001) 3 SCC 620 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"An accused is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty. The burden of proof that he is guilty, is on the prosecution and that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In other words, the innocence of an accused can be dispelled by the prosecution only on establishing his guilt beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of evidence".
47. In view of the above discussion, in the opinion of this court, it can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its Page No. 22 of 23 FIR No.1078/15 State Vs. Ram Pal Singh Police Station : Aman Vihar case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is acquitted from the charges framed against him. His bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged.
48. Accused Rampal Singh is directed to furnish the bail bond u/s 437A CrPC in the sum of RS.10,000/ with one surety of the like amount. He seeks time to file surety bond u/s 437A CrPC.
49. The matter be kept on 24/3/2018 for the compliance of the same.
Announced in the open court
th
on this 14 day of March, 2018.
(DEEPAK GARG)
ASJII, NORTHWEST
ROHINI: DELHI
Page No. 23 of 23