Delhi District Court
State vs . Padam Thapa Etc. on 2 September, 2011
1
State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc.
FIR No. 530/05
IN THE COURT OF MS. BARKHA GUPTA : ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - IV (OUTER): ROHINI : DELHI
Sessions Case No. : 21/08
FIR No. : 530/05
Police Station : Prashant Vihar
Under Section : 307/34 IPC
State Versus 1. Padam Thapa, (Proclaimed Offender)
S/o Sh. Nand Bahadur Thapa,
R/o D10, New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
2. Paramjeet Singh ,
S/o Late Sh. Jasbir Singh,
R/o F2/102, Sector16,
Rohini, Delhi.
Other details (a) Date of Committal 23.3.2006
(b) Date of Institution
before this Court 01.4.2006
(c) Date on which reserved
for Judgment 30.8.2011
(d) Date of Judgment 02.09.2011
(e) Final Order Convicted
for committing the
offence as punishable under
section 307/34 IPC
1/38
2
State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc.
FIR No. 530/05
J U D G M E N T
1(a) The police officials of PS Prashant Vihar has filed the charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the accused persons namely Padam Thapa (Since Proclaimed Offender) S/o Sh. Nand Bahadur Thapa and Paramjeet Singh S/o late Sh. Jasbir Singh on the allegations of their committing offence as punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.
(b) The case of prosecution as revealed from the record is that, on 14.06.05 at about 11.00 pm, the complainant Baldev Singh was working in shop no. LS 9/10, DDA Market, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi where the liquor was sold and at about 5.00 pm, one person came who asked for one quarter bottle of liquor which was delivered by Murari Lal (injured) who was working as helper in the said shop, however that person asked for another quarter bottle whereupon a verbal quarrel ensued between him and Murali Lal, on which the complainant intervened and gave another quarter of liquor to that person but he was not satisfied and extended threats whereupon Sh. B. Somanna who was staff incharge intervened and settled the matter.
(c) It is further the case of prosecution that the said liquor shop used to be closed at about 10.00 pm after which, the employees would checkup 2/38 3 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 the transactions done during the course of day by which time, it would be around 11.00 pm after which they would lock the shop and would leave to their house. It is further alleged that on that day when the complainant Baldev etc. were standing outside the shop after finishing the work and after locking the shop at about 11.00 pm, the said person had brought another person with him who was armed with chhura and they extended threats to Murari Lal on which, Murari Lal ran and they followed him and they caught hold of Murari Lal after about 2530 steps and stabbed him in the stomach on the right side as well as caused injuries on his person by laath/ghunsas.
(d) It is further the case of prosecution that both the said persons had tried to murder Murari Lal but his colleagues staff also ran after them and when they reached at the spot, both the said accused persons namely Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) and Paramjeet Singh escaped, however PCR was immediately informed whereupon police officials reached and shifted Murari Lal to hospital with the help of Satish Kumar who was also working in the said shop.
(e) It is further the case of prosecution that since it took time, hence the FIR was accordingly got registered on 15.06.05 at about 4.00 am in the morning and investigation commenced during which, despite best efforts, the accused persons could not be apprehended on that day, who were apprehended on 27.12.05 and their disclosures statements were also recorded 3/38 4 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 in which they had confessed to have committed the alleged offences and also got the said chhura/knife recovered. The investigating officer had conducted other necessary proceedings and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed in the Court of Ld. concerned MM who after compliance of necessary provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C, had committed the case to the court of Sessions.
2. In the present case, after hearing arguments, my Ld. Predecessor, vide order dated 06.05.06 had served the charge for committing offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC on both the accused persons to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, however during the course of trial, the accused Padam Thapa absconded who after following due procedure, was declared Proclaimed Offender.
3(a). In the present case, the prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused Paramjeet Singh has examined fifteen witnesses in all namely Murari Lal (Injured) as PW1, Baldev Singh (complainant) as PW2, Satish Kumar as PW3, Dr. Bhawna Jain (CMO, BSA Hospital) as PW4, B. Somanna as PW5, Dr. N.K. Singh (CMO, BSA Hospital) as PW6, HC Braham Prakash as PW7, HC Rishi Prakash as PW8, ASI Bal 4/38 5 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 Kishan (First Investigating Officer) as PW9, Dr. Jitender Kumar as PW10, Sh. Jagdish Chand as PW11, Ct. Suraj Vir as PW12, Ct. Om Prakash as PW13, Inspector Sunil Kumar (Second Investigating Officer) as PW14 and Ct. Virender as PW15
(b) Thereafter, statement of the accused Paramjeet Singh was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further contended that he was not present at the spot at the relevant and was going from Azadpur Mandi to his house at sector16, Rohini, Delhi by foot as he did not get any bus and when he reached near Prashant Vihar, Ringh Road at about 11.30/11.40 pm, two police officials met him on a motorcycle who made him sit on it by saying that they would leave him after few minutes after some verification but instead, they falsely implicated him in this case. The accused Paramjeet Singh has preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence.
4. I have heard the final arguments as advanced by Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, Ld. APP for State and advocate Sh. R.K. Verma , Ld. Counsel for the accused Paramjeet Singh and have given my thoughtful consideration to rival submissions made by them and have also carefully scrutinized the material 5/38 6 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 as placed on record.
5. (a). Ld. APP has vehemently argued that the injured Murari Lal (PW1) has been examined who had clearly identified the accused Paramjeet Singh to be the same who alongwith the coaccused Padam Thapa (proclaimed Offender) had come on 14.06.05 at about 11.00 pm at the spot while they had closed the liquor shop and were preparing to go to their houses who has also narrated the manner in which both the accused persons had not only chased him but also inflicted injuries on his person and has further contended that when Murari Lal (PW1) ran to save himself, both the accused persons followed him at which point of time the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed Offender) was armed with knife and the accused Paramjeet Singh was having a rope with which he caused injuries on the face of Murari Lal (PW1) and also put it around his neck and thereafter both the said accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention had not only given beatings to him but also inflicted injuries on the right side of abdomen by knife.
(b) Ld. APP has further submitted that the testimony of Murari Lal (PW1) has been corroborated by other prosecution witnesses namely Baldev Singh (PW2), Satish Kumar (PW3) and B. Somanna (PW5) on material aspects who were present with the Murari Lal at the relevant time and when 6/38 7 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 Murari Lal on seeing the accused persons ran away, they had reached at the spot as they also ran after Murari Lal (PW1) and the accused persons and when they reached at petrol pump, the accused persons had inflicted injuries on the person of Murari Lal (PW1) which took hardly only a few minutes and the said witnesses also reached and on seem them, both the accused persons fled away from the spot and Murari Lal (PW1) was admitted in the hospital by his colleagues and the said persons had also witnessed the occurrence.
(c) He has also contended that the matter was immediately reported to the police officials who reached at the spot without day but since the injured was already shifted to the hospital by his colleagues, hence the investigating officer ASI Bal Kishan (PW9) also reached to the hospital, where he recorded the statement of Baldev Singh (PW2), prepared rukka and got the FIR promptly registered .
(d) Ld. APP has also averred that despite best efforts, the accused persons could not be arrested on the same day and rather they were arrested on 27.12.05 on the basis of secret information as received by SI Sunil Kumar (PW14) and there is nothing to show that accused Paramjeet Singh was not arrested in the said manner or that he has been falsely implicated.
(e) Ld. APP has also submitted that ASI Bal Kishan (PW9) the accompanying Ct. Om Prakash (PW13), SI Sunil Kumar (PW14), the 7/38 8 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 accompanying Ct. Suraj Vir (PW12) and Ct. Virender (PW15) have also been examined who have narrated at length the detailed investigation conducted in the present case and the manner in which, both the accused persons including accused Paramjeet Singh was arrested.
(f) He has also argued that the blood stained shirt of Murari Lal (PW1) was recovered and though the rope was not recovered from the possession of accused Paramjeet Singh , yet that does not absolve him from committing the present offence on the person of Murari Lal as he has also been clearly identified by the prosecution witnesses to be one of the assailants.
(g) He has also submitted that there is no motive at all as to why the prosecution witnesses more particularly Murari Lal and other public witnesses who witnessed the occurrence would falsely implicate the accused Paramjeet Singh in commission of said offence and has prayed that since the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of accused Paramjeet Singh on record beyond reasonable doubt, hence he must be convicted for committing offence as punishable under section 307/34 IPC.
6.(a) Ld. Defence counsel for the accused Paramjeet Singh has vehemently rebutted the same contended that Murari Lal (PW1) has falsely implicated the said accused as on that day, he had an altercation with the 8/38 9 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 other accused Padam Thapa who is a Proclaimed offender regarding exchange of bottle of wine and when the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) told him something bad, Murari Lal (PW1) and his colleagues namely Baldev Singh (PW2), Satish Kumar (PW3) who were present with him at the relevant time, had developed a grudge against him and have falsely implicated not only the accused Padam Thapa (Proclaimed offender) but even the accused Paramjeet Singh who has nothing to do with the case and accused Paramjit Singh does not even know the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender).
(b) He has also submitted that there is no independent evidence on record against the accused Paramjeet Singh and all witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses as Murari Lal is the injured and others are his friends and colleagues, hence their testimonies must be outrightly discarded.
(c) Ld. Defence Counsel had contended that other witnesses examined by prosecution are police officials whose testimonies could not be relied up being interested. He has also submitted that the investigation was not conducted in the manner as it is shown and the accused Paramjeet Singh was lifted while he was coming back to his house at the relevant time as two police officials had met him on the way who asked him to accompany them as they wanted some information from him but instead, they falsely 9/38 10 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 implicated him in the present case. He has prayed that since the accused Paramjeet Singh is innocent, hence he must be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
7. In the present case, considering the nature of allegations against the accused Paramjit Singh, the most material witnesses as examined by the prosecution are the injured Murari Lal (PW1), Baldev Singh (PW2complainant), Satish Kumar (PW3) and B. Somanna (PW5), hence their testimonies are discussed at the outset. 8(a). Sh. Murari Lal (PW1) who is injured has testified that on 14.06.05 at about 11.0 pm, he was present at the liquor shop where he was working as a salesman alongwith other persons namely Baldev Singh (PW2), Satish Kumar (PW3) and B. Somanna (PW5) at which point of time, the accused namely Padam Thapa (Proclaimed Offender) came alongwith the accused Paramjeet Singh @ Goldy (who is correctly identified) who were armed with dagger/knife and inflicted injuries on his person. He has also deposed that he tried to pacify them as earlier in the day also, the accused Padam Thapa (Proclaimed Offender) had also come to their shop who took one quarter bottle of whisky and gave Rs. 25/ and wanted glass bottle of liquor instead plastic bottle after which, he left but he again came back with 10/38 11 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 the bottle at which point of time, the seal of the bottle was broken and asked him to exchange it but he refused, as the seal was already broken, however on the intervention of other employees, he exchanged the quarter bottle of whisky after which, the accused Padam Thapa (Proclaimed Offender) has left. He has further testified that the accused Paramjeet Singh was also having one plastic rope with him and he put it around his neck and the accused Padam Thapa (Proclaimed Offender) had hit him in his abdomen and in stomach also with the knife and it was Baldev Singh (PW2), who took him to hospital where he was got medically examined. He has further deposed that his blood stained shirt Ex P1 was also seized by the police officials.
(b) During cross examination on behalf of the accused Paramjeet Singh, he has interalia stated that when in the day time, the accused Padam Thapa (Proclaimed Offender) had come, he was alone whereas, when at the time of occurrence in the night, he standing outside the liquor shop, he came alongwith the accused Paramjeet Singh. He has also stated that when the accused Padam Thapa (Proclaimed Offender) tried to injure him with the dagger, he tried to catch hold of the dagger but sustained injuries in his head as the accused had taken the dagger back from him. He has also stated that his other colleagues had also intervened by pushing the accused persons a 11/38 12 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 little bit and it was the accused Paramjit who had firstly hit him with the plastic rope on his face and then he had also put it around his neck, but he could not recollect if signs or impressions of the rope came on his neck or not. He has also stated that the other employees of the liquor shop had raised alarm who also tried to save him but none of them had sustained any injuries. He has also stated that there was corresponding cut mark on his shirt on the place where he had received injuries and has also stated that regained conscious only after about 23 days. He has also stated that his shirt was taken out while he was lying in the stretcher in the hospital and had told to the doctor also that he had sustained injuries with the dagger. He has also stated that the length of the dagger was about one feet and the handle was of brass style material and its blade was straight. He has denied if no such offence was committed by the accused persons and has further stated that after the incident, he was called in Central Jail to identify the accused but the accused had refused.
9(a). Sh. Baldev Singh (PW2) has testified that on 14.06.05 at about 5.00 pm, he was in the liquor shop at Sector16, Rohini, Delhi where he was working as a salesman and one person came who brought one quarter bottle of whisky from Murari Lal (PW1) who was also working as a salesman and that person wanted to exchange it as the seal of said bottle was broken, but 12/38 13 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 Murari Lal (PW1) refused, whereupon hot words were exchanged between them and due to intervention of Sh. B. Somanna (PW5) Inchage, Murari Lal (PW1) gave him another quarter bottle and thereafter he left. He has also deposed that on the same day itself, he alongwith Murari Lal (PW1) and other employees came out of the liquor shop after it was closed and saw that the person who had come earlier had come again who was armed with a knife and expressed his inability to say as to which of the persons had hit Murari Lal (PW1) and with which weapon. He has also deposed that none of the said persons are present in the court. He has further testified that he alongwith Satish Kumar (PW3) took Murari Lal (PW1) to BSA Hospital where police officials also came and recorded his statement which is Ex. PW2/A.
(b) During cross examination by Ld. APP for the state, he has stated that the accused Paramjeet Singh who was present in the court is the same person who on 14.06.05 had firstly hit Murari Lal (PW1) with rope and also put it around his neck. He has also explained that he could not identify him earlier as at that time, he was having beard and also stated that the other person had hit Murari Lal with knife in his abdomen.
(c) During cross examination on behalf of accused Paramjeet Singh , he has interalia stated that he alongwith the Incharge Sh. B. Somanna (PW5), Satish Kumar (PW3) and Murari Lal (PW1) was standing outside the 13/38 14 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 shop after closing it and both the accused persons had come together who also ran after Murari Lal (PW1) for about 1 km before inflicting injuries on his person near the petrol pump. He has also stated that he also followed them but at the time, he could reach near them the accused had fled away. He has also stated that Murari Lal (PW1) had told him that the other person who was having a knife had caused injuries to him. He has also denied if the accused Paramjeet Singh did not come there with accused Padam Thapa or that did not cause any injury to Murari Lal (PW1) or that he was not having any rope in his hand. He has also stated that when the injured was taken to the hospital, he was not conscious where shirt was torn on the front portion. He has also stated that the staff members were present in the hospital but their statements were not recorded by the police officials.
10.(a) Satish Kumar (PW3) has deposed that he was working in the said liquor shop at sector16 and at about 10.00 pm, he alongwith other staff members came out of his shop after closing it when the accused Paramjeet Singh @ Goldy and accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) came and it was the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) who was having a knife in his hand whereas the accused Paramjeet Singh was having a rubber pipe of about two feet long, who grappled with Murari Lal (PW1) who was working as salesman in the shop and the accused accused Padam Thapa 14/38 15 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 (proclaimed offender) gave knife blow in the stomach of Murari Lal (PW1) and the accused persons also hit him with arms and legs but they saved him after which he alongwith Baldev took him to Hospital. He has also deposed that the accused attacked Murari Lal on the same day earlier also as the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) had come for exchange of quarter bottle of liquor as its lid was loose.
(b) During cross examination by Ld. APP, he has stated that the said incident took place on 14.06.05 at which point of time, Sh. B. Somanna (PW5) was also present. He has also stated that the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) had quarrelled earlier on the same day with Murari Lal (PW1) who also extended threats to him also and it was due to intervention of Sh. B. Somanna (PW5), that the quarter bottle of the accused Padam Thapa was exchanged. He has also stated that when during night, Murari Lal (PW1) started his scooter to leave the accused Padam Thapa grappled with him and threatened him to teach a lesson and also gave beatings to him with fists and legs and stated that he could not tell the said details due to lapse of time. He has identified the shirt of Murari Lal (PW1) and knife with which the accused injured him as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 respectively.
(c) During cross examination on behalf of the accused Paramjeet Singh , he has interalia stated that he had been working in the said shop 15/38 16 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 since 11.09.04 and Sh. B. Somanna (PW5) came there in 2005 and all the employees used to supply liquor on the counter turn by turn. He has also stated that the petrol pump was at a distance at about 150 yards and when the accused Padam Thapa had come in the morning, at that time, there were about 20 or 30 customers were present whose names he did not know. He has also stated that the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) had also come earlier on that day at about 5.00/6.00 pm and matter at that time was not reported to the police officials. He has also stated that the other members were having their separate scooters who were about to leave in the night and he also to leave and did not ask for lift from anyone and he had gone only about 10/20 yards when Murari Lal (PW1) was attacked. He has also stated that when Murari Lal (WP1) had started his scooter, the accused persons came immediately by which time, the other employees had not yet started their scooters who was standing close to each other and he had seen the accused persons when they near to him. He has also stated that the accused Paramjeet Singh was just by the side of accused Padam Thapa and when Murari Lal (PW1) ran, the accused persons chased him and they also ran after them. He has also stated that the accused persons had attacked Murari Lal near petrol pump with knife who fell down on earth during grappling and then the accused Padam Thapa also gave blow knife in his stomach on the right side. He has denied if the accused Paramjeet Singh was not present at 16/38 17 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 the spot or that he did not hit Murari Lal (PW1) and has stated that the employees of petrol pump did not come to save Murari Lal (PW1). He has also stated that the police officials had also recorded his statement in the hospital.
11.(a) Sh. B. Somanna (PW5) has deposed that on 14.06.05, he was working under DSCSC Govt. Undertaking as staff incharge in a wine and liquor shop at DDA Market, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi and at about 5.00 pm, one person namely Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) came who purchased NIP (quarter bottle) from the counter who after some time came back as he wanted to exchange it but Murari Lal (PW1) who was sitting on counter had refused as the seal of the bottle was broken whereupon hot words were exchanged between Murari Lal (PW1) and the accused Padam Thapa whereupon, he intervened and asked other staff member namely Baldev Singh (PW2) to exchange it and accordingly the matter was settled, however while leaving, the accused Padam Thapa had told something to Murari Lal (PW1) and Murari Lal (PW1) also stated something to him to which they did not take seriously as it used to generally happen in the wine shop in a routine manner. He has also deposed that on that day at about 11.00 pm, while they were about to leave from the shop to their house, the accused Padam Thapa alongwith the coaccused Paramjeet Singh (witness has correctly identified 17/38 18 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 him) came who started arguing with Murari Lal (PW1) and others at which point of time, the accused Padam Thapa was equipped with a knife, on seeing which, Murari Lal (PW1) got scared who ran away, but both the accused persons chased him till petrol pump where they gave beatings to Murari Lal (PW1) and also stabbed him and by that time, they also reached there and both the accused persons fled away from there. He has further deposed that Murari Lal (PW1) had sustained injuries on the right side of his abdomen to whom Baldev Singh (PW2) has shifted to BSA Hospital on his scooter and he informed the police officials. He has also deposed that the police officials had also recorded his statement.
(b) During cross examination on behalf of the accused Paramjeet Singh , he has interalia stated that the matter and the quarrel over exchange of bottle of liquor which happened earlier was not reported to the police and had clearly identified the accused Paramjeet Singh to be one of the accused persons who had committed the said offences on the person of Murari Lal. He has also stated that during night on that day, the accused met them in the parking of market and it was Baldev Singh (PW2) who had called the police at 100 number. He has denied if he had not seen the occurrence or was not present at the spot or that the accused Paramjeet Singh did not inflict any injuries on the person of Murari Lal (PW1).
18/38 19
State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 12(a). Dr. Bhawana Jain (PW4 CMO, BSA Hospital Delhi) has proved on record the MLC of Murari Lal (PW1) as Ex. PW4/A who was examined in BSA Hospital on 14.06.05 at about 10.30 pm.
(b) During cross examination on behalf of the accused Paramjeet Singh , she has stated that the police officials did not show her any weapon and after initial treatment, the patient was referred for senior resident surgery for further opinion and management.
13.(a) Dr. N.K. Singh (PW6 CMO, BSA Hospital) has deposed that on 22.02.06, Murari Lal was brought by SI Sunil Kumar (PW14) who was examined vide MLC No. 878/06 which is Ex. PW6/A and thereafter he also took his blood sample, sealed it and handed it over to the investigating officer SI Sunil Kumar.
(b) No cross examination was offered to this witness by or on behalf of accused Paramjeet Singh despite opportunity given. 14(a). Dr. Jitender Kumar (PW10 Sr. Medical Officer, Surgery, BSA Hospital) had seen the notes of Dr. O.P. Gupta on the MLC of Murari Lal (PW1) which he has proved as Ex. PW10/A and has deposed that on 11.08.05, Dr. O.P. Gupta had opined the nature of injury on the person of Murari Lal (PW1) as grevious vide MLC Ex. PW4/A.
(b) No cross examination was offered to Dr. Jitender Kumar by or on 19/38 20 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 behalf of accused Paramjeet Singh on any aspect despite opportunity given. 16(a) In the present case HC Braham Prakash (PW7) had recorded the initinal information given to the police officials who has deposed that on 14.06.05 at about 11.25 pm, he received a message on wireless set from Omega 50 regarding stabbing of a person at a wine shop who was taken to the hospital whereupon he recorded the said information in DD register at Sl. No. 46 and handed over its copy to Ct. Om Prakash for further handing it over to ASI Bal Kishan (PW9) for necessary action and has proved on record, the copy of said DD as Ex. PW7/A.
(b) During cross examination on behalf of accused Paramjeet Singh , he has stated that the said message was received from one Baldev Singh.
17(a). ASI Bal Kishan (PW9) is the first investigating officer who had conducted initial investigation in the case who has deposed that on 14.06.05, on receiving DD No. 46, he alongwith Ct. Om Prakash (PW13) went to the shop No. 9/10, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi near petrol pump and came to know that the injured was taken to BSA Hospital by his colleagues, so he left Ct. Om Prakash at the shop and himlself went to the hospital from where he 20/38 21 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 collected the MLC of Murari Lal (PW1) who was in operation theater where his associate Baldev Singh (PW2) met him whose statement was recorded by him after which, he prepared rukka Ex. PW9/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Om Prakash (PW13) who came back and handed him over copy of FIR and original rukka. He has further deposed that he found one shirt near petrol pump and Baldev Singh (PW2) told him that it was of the injured which he seized vide memo Ex. PW9/B after converting it into pullanda and sealed it with the seal of BKA. He has also deposed that he recorded the statement of one worker of petrol pump and also recorded the statement of Satish Kumar (PW3) and Sh. B. Somanna (PW2) and after inspecting the site, he prepared site plan Ex. PW9/C at the instance of Baldev Singh (PW2) and thereafter investigation was handed over to SI Sunil Kumar (PW14). He has also identified the shirt of Murari Lal (PW1) as Ex. P1.
(b) During cross examination on behalf of accused Paramjeet Singh , he has interalia stated that he reached at the spot at about 12.00 in the night and remained there for about half an hour during which he also made requisite enquiry. He has also stated that he did not notice any blood stains at the spot and never moved any application before the doctor for recording the statement of Murari Lal (PW1) as he was in operation theatre. He has also stated that apart from Baldev Singh (PW2), Satish Kumar (PW3) was also present in the hospital and statement of Satish Kumar (PW2) was 21/38 22 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 recorded after registration of FIR and from the hospital, he came back to the spot again at about 3.40 am . He has also stated that the rukka was handed over to Ct. Om Prakash (PW13) at the spot but he did not get the spot photographed. He has also stated that there were blood stains and cut marks on the shirt Ex. P1 of Murari Lal (PW1).
18 (a). Ct. Om Prakash (PW13) has deposed that on 14.06.05, on receiving DD No. 46, he alongwith the investigating officer ASI Bal Kishan (PW9) had reached at the spot and came to know that the injured was already shifted to BSA hospital on which the investigating officer ASI Bal Kishan (PW9) left him at the spot and himself went to the hospital. He has further testified that at about 3.00 am on that day, the investigating officer ASI Bal Kishan came back at the spot alongwith Baldev Singh (PW2) who has shown them the blood stained shirt of Murari Lal (PW1) which was lying at the spot which he converted into pullanda and sealed it with the seal of BKA and thereafter seal was handed over to him and the investigating officer ASI Bal Kishan (PW9) has also seized the said pullanda vide memo Ex. PW9/B. He has also stated that the investigating officer ASI Bal Kishan (PW9) had prepared the rukka and handed it over to him for registration of case after which, he came back to the spot and handed him over the copy of FIR and original rukka and also identified the shirt of injured as Ex. P1.
(b) During cross examination on behalf of accused Paramjeet Singh , 22/38 23 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 he has interalia stated that they reached at petrol pump at about 12.00 in the night and he had left with the rukka at about 3.40 am (night) and had finally left the spot at about 8.00/8.30 am. He has also stated the investigating officer ASI Bal Kishan (PW9) had also deposited the said pullanda in malkhana.
19(a). HC Rishi Pal (PW8) has testified that on 15.06.05 at about 4.00 am in the morning, he had received a rukka as sent by ASI Bal Kishan (PW9) through Ct. Om Prakash (PW13) on the basis of which, he registered the present FIR and has proved its copy as Ex. PW8/A after which he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Om Prakash (PW13) to handover it over to ASI Bal Kishan (PW9).
(b) No cross examination was offered to this witness by or on behalf of accused Paramjeet Singh despite opportunity given. 18(a). Inspector Sunil Kumar (PW14the other investigating officer) has testified that on 10.08.05, investigation of the present case was handed over to him. He has also deposed that on 27.12.05, he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Virender and when they reached at G6 Block, Sector16, he received a secret information that the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed Offender) was standing at bus stand of divider road of sector 16 & 17 and so he alongwith accompanying Ct. Virender and secret informer reached at the 23/38 24 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 said bus stop from where on the pointing out of secret informer, the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed Offender)was apprehended from whose personal search, one gararidaar knife was recovered from the left inner pocket of his jacket in which regard, he prepared its sketch which is Ex. PW14/A, converted into pullanda sealed it with the seal of SK and handed over the seal to Ct. Virender and seized the said pullanda vide memo Ex. PW14/B. He has also proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed Offender) as Ex. PW14/C and Ex. PW14/D respectively whose disclosure statement was also recorded vide Ex. PW14/E after which the said pullanda was deposited in the malkhana. He has also deposed that on the same day in the evening, when he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Suraj Vir (PW12) near the wine shop at G6 Block, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi, he received an information regarding the accused Paramjeet Singh that he was seen roaming near his house No. F2/102, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi and so, he alongwith Ct. Suraj Vir (PW12) alongwith the secret informer reached there where the accused Paramjeet Singh was found present and on seeing them, he tried to escape but he was apprehended who was arrested and his personal search was also conducted vide memos Ex. PW12/B and Ex. PW12/C respectively and his disclosure statement is Ex. PW12/A was also recorded and thereafter statement of Ct. Suraj Vir (PW12) was also recorded him. He has also deposed that during 24/38 25 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 the judicial TIP to be conducted on 03.02.06, both the accused persons had refused to join, however on 08.02.06, Murari Lal (PW1) had duly identified both the accused persons outside Rohini Court Complex and he recorded the statement of Murari Lal (PW1) in this regard and after completion of investigation, he handed over the file to SHO. He has identified the knife recovered from the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed Offender) as Ex. P2.
(b) During cross examination on behalf of the accused Paramjeet Singh , he interalia stated that he had never visited the spot as he was the second investigating officer and has fairly admitted that nothing was recovered by him at the instance of accused Paramjeet Singh . He has also stated that the knife and blood sample of injured were never sent to the office of FSL.
19(a). Ct. Suraj Vir (PW12) has deposed that on 27.12.05, he was on patrolling duty alongwith SI Sunil Kumar (PW12) and at about 9.00 pm, they reached at the liquor shop at G6 Block, where SI Sunil Kumar (PW14) received a secret information that the accused Paramjeet Singh @ Goldy was found roaming near his house and then they went to F2/102, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi where the accused Paramjeet Singh was found present who on seeing them, tried to escape but he was apprehended and his disclosure statement Ex. PW12/A was recorded and he was arrested vide memo Ex. 25/38 26
State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 PW12/B and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW12/C.
(b) During cross examination on behalf of accused Paramjeet Singh , he has stated that the accused was in the gali at the relevant time and has denied if he was not arrested in the manner as deposed by him. 20(a). Ct. Virender (PW15) has deposed on the lines of SI Sunil Kumar (PW14), hence his examination in chief is not repeated for the sake of brevity.
(b) It would be pertinent to mention that the accused Paramjeet Singh has not offered any cross examination to him on any count whatsoever despite opportunity given and has accordingly admitted his version in totality.
21(a) Sh.Jagish Chand (PW11) has deposed that he was working in petrol pump which was in the name of Jagdish Filling Sation, Rohini Delhi, and had never witnessed the occurance.
(b) During cross examination by Ld. APP,he has stated that in the present case, on 14.6.2005 at about 11.00 p.m, all the workers of the petrol pump were taking dinner when they heard the noise of bachaobachao and saw that one person, who was working in the liquor shop whose name was 26/38 27 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 later on revealed as Murari Lal (PW1), was running who was chased by two persons. He has denied if any of the accused persons was having any knifeor if those boys had inflicted any injuries on the person of Murari Lal (PW1). He has also stated that other workers from the liquor shop had also reached there who took Murari Lal (PW1) to the hospital in a scooter. He has also stated that he did not remember whether the accused Paramjeet Singh had inflicted injuries on the person of Murari Lal with the help of rope or whether he was also chasing Murari Lal (PW1). He has also stated that due to lapse of time, he could not recognize the accused Paramjeet Singh.
(c) No cross examination was offered to this witness by or on behalf of accused Paramjeet Singh despite opportunity given. 22 In the present case, before proceeding any further, it would be appropriate to discuss the relevant provisions of Sections 307/34 IPC which are as under:
(a) As per provisions of Section 307 IPC: Attempt to murder "Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment 27/38 28 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned".
(b) As per provisions of Section 34 IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
23. In the present case, though, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses namely Maruri Lal (PW1), Baldev Singh (PW2), Satish Kumar (PW3) and B. Somanna (PW5) are already discussed at length, yet in order to appreciate the material on record against the accused Paramjeet Singh, the relevant portions of their versions have been discussed again even at the cost of repetition.
24(a) In the present case, Murari Lal (PW1) who is the injured has very categorically deposed (as already discussed at length) about the scuffle which took place between him and the accused Padam Thapa (since 28/38 29 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 Proclaimed Offender) during the day time of 14.06.05 regarding exchange of bottle of liquor, however the same was pacified with the intervention of other staff members namely Baldev Singh (PW2), B. Somanna (PW5) etc. and he has also very categorically deposed that thereafter, during the night time, when they had closed the liquor shop and were about to go to their houses, the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) alongwith the coaccused Paramjeet Singh had come there, whom he has very clearly identified and has also tetified that, the accused Paramjeet Singh was having a plastic rope with him with which he had caused injuries on his face and also put it around his neck and thereafter, the accused Padam Thapa (Proclaimed Offender) had hit him in the abdomen with the dagger and since Baldev Singh his other colleagues had come to his rescue, the accused persons fled away and they shifted him to BSA Hospital where he was got medically examined.
(b) It would be pertinent to mention that during his cross examination on behalf of accused Paramjit Singh, it is nowhere shown if at the relevant time, the accused Paramjeet Singh did not come alongwith the accused Padam Thapa (since proclaimed offender) or at that time, the accused Paramjeet Singh was not having the said plastic rope with him or that he did not put it around his neck and caused injuries on the person of Murari Lal or that at the relevant time, the accused Padam Thapa was not having a 29/38 30 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 dagger/knife with him or that both the accused persons did not come together well armed or that the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) had not caused injuries on his person after the accused Paramjeet had put the rope around his neck.
During further cross examination on behalf of the accused Paramjeet Singh, he has very categorically stated that the accused Paramjeet Singh had firstly hit him with the plastic rope on his face and then also put it around his neck at which point of time, the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) had caused injuries in his abdomen with the dagger/knife which he was possessing and both the said accused had come together at the relevant time.
(c) From the above, the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn in these circumstances, is that not only both the accused persons namely Paramjeet Singh and Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) had come together at the relevant time but they even had the commons intention to cause injuries on the person of Murari Lal (PW1) to take revenge over the dispute/scuffle that Murari Lal had with the accused Padam Thapa (since Proclaimed Offender) during the day time and infact, the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) was having a knife with him and the accused Paramjeet Singh was having a plastic rope and as per record, the identity of accused Paramjeet Singh has not only been clearly established and proved on 30/38 31 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 record but even his actus reus, that he had put that rope around the neck of Murari Lal and thereafter, the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) had inflicted injuries in his abdomen is not shown to be not truthful. It is nowhere disputed that it was not the accused Paramjeet Singh who was having the plastic rope or that he had not tied it around the neck of Murari Lal and infact, it is shown on record that rather proved, that he had facilitated the coaccused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) to stab Murari Lal in the abdomen at the relevant time. To bring home the guilt of accused under the alleged sections, it is not necessary that both the accused persons must have actually inflicted injuries and it is rather sufficient if they had a common intention to commit the said offence on the person of Murari Lal and from the above discussion, common intention on the part of accused Paramjeet Singh is also proved on record though he actually had not stabbed Murari Lal in the stomach but he had facilitated him in stabbing Murari Lal as revealed from the record.
25 (a) It would also be pertinent to mention here that Satish (PW3) and B. Somanna (PW5) have very categorically deposed before the court regarding the said occurrence and the manner in which the said injuries were inflicted on the person of Murari Lal (PW1) and they have also stated that the accused had done so in order to take revenge from Murari Lal due to 31/38 32 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 scuffle that had taken place between him and the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) earlier on the same day itself over exchange of bottle of liquor and have clearly identified the accused Paramjeet Singh to be one of the assailants and though Murari Lal (PW1), Satish (PW3) and B. Somanna (PW5) have been cross examined at length on behalf of the accused Paramjit Singh, yet it is nowhere shown if the accused Paramjeet Singh was not present at the spot at the relevant date, time and place or that he did not assist or did not had the common intention alongwith the co accused Padam Thapa (PO) to cause injuries on the person of Murari Lal (PW1) or that at the relevant time, the accused Paramjeet Singh was not having plastic rope or that he did not inflict injuries with it on the face of Murari Lal or that he did not tie it around his neck or that the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) was not equipped with knife and when the accused Paramjeet Singh tied the rope around the neck of Murari Lal (PW1), then he, undoubtedly had common intention with accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) to cause injuries on the person of Murari Lal (PW1) at which point of time, he knew very well that accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) was having a knife/dagger with him and accordingly, he facilitated him to cause such injuries on the person of Murari Lal (PW1).
Murari Lal (PW1), Satish (PW3) and B. Somanna (PW5) were cross examined at length on behalf of the accused Paramjeet Singh, yet it is 32/38 33 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 nowhere shown if their testimonies are not reliable or that they are not deposing about the true narration regarding the occurrence. In fact, they have stood in the test of cross examination well and it is nowhere shown if evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses have suffered from any material contradictions which go to the root of the matter and shake their basic versions. It is settled law that minor discrepancies here and their are bound to occur with passage of time and do not collapse or adversely effect the case of prosecution. It is also settled law that when the witnesses have deposed before the court after lapse of considerable time, then certain minor variations are bound to occur as memory is treacherous and fades with passage of time and no two witnesses can be reasonably expected to depose regarding a particular incident or occurrence identically and in fact, certain minor variations here and there, rather indicate that the witnesses are not tutored and have deposed before the court truthfully. It would also be appropriate to mention that simply because, they are colleagues of Murari Lal, no conclusion as such can be drawn that they have deposed falsely. After careful scrutiny of their depositions, court is of the considered opinion that their versions contain ring of truth.
(b) In the present case, it would be also appropriate to mention that Baldev Singh (PW2) though has not identified the accused, however it is not 33/38 34 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 out of place to mention here that he has narrated about the whole occurrence at length as other witnesses as already discussed and has corroborated the versions of other prosecution witnesses so far the scuffle between the accused persons with Murari Lal is concerned and in these circumstances, though he has not identified the accused Paramjeet Singh, yet it does not collapse the case of the prosecution as it cannot be lost sight off that it is well settled law that it is not unnatural that sometime some public witness for various reasons may turn hostile and do not identify the accused.
Moreover, after going through the entire testimony of Baldev Singh (PW2), it is revealed that he has deposed about the occurrence the way other prosecution witnesses have and has also stated that Murari Lal (PW1) was stabbed also and simply his not identifying the accused Paramjit Singh does not adversely affect the case of the prosecution as other prosecution witnesses as earlier discussed have very clearly and categorically identified the accused Paramjeet Singh to be one of the assailants and there is no reason to disbelieve their versions.
(c) Further, as per record, the injured Murari Lal (PW1) was immediately shifted to the hospital without any delay by his colleagues where he was promptly treated and information was also immediately 34/38 35 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 communicated to the police officials who reached to the spot without loss of time and commenced the investigation without any delay and accordingly, nothing is shown on record if there was ever any manipulation or fabrication or delay either in medical examination of the injured or in reporting the matter to the police official or in registration of FIR. It is shown on record that when Murari Lal (PW1) was taken to hospital, he was injured and was not in a condition to make a statement and accordingly, the investigating officer had recorded the statement of Baldev Singh (PW2) who shifted him to the hospital who has also conceded to the said fact. The investigation as conducted by investigating officers has already been discussed at length earlier and it is nowhere shown if the accused Paramjeet Singh has been falsely implicated or that that the investigation was not fairly conducted or that at the relevant time and place the accused Paramjeet Singh did not accompany the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) and committed the alleged offence.
26 It would also be pertinent to mention here that the accused Paramjeet Singh has taken the defence that in fact he had not committed the said offence and was not even present at the spot at the relevant time and contended that he was coming from Azadpur Mandi to his house at Sector16, Rohini, Delhi by foot at about 11.30/11.40 pm, since he could not 35/38 36 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 get any bus and on the way, he met with the police officials who were on motorcycle who took him to the Police Station on the pretext that they needed to verify something from him and instead, they falsely implicated him in this case. It is also important to note that the said defence was nowhere raised during cross examinations of Murari Lal, Baldev Singh or Satish or other witnesses and infact the identity and the presence of the accused Paramjeet Singh at the spot at the relevant time has been duly established on record and the said contention of the accused Paramjeet Singh that he was not present at the spot seems only an afterthought. In fact, it seems that the accused Paramjeet Singh is trying to take the defence of plea of alibi and once, he has stated so that he was not present at the spot at the relevant time and was at some other place, then onus to prove that he was present at said other place is upon him and he must prove his presence there, however the accused Paramjeet Singh has miserably failed to show his presence at any other place except at the spot at the relevant time and it is admitted case of the prosecution that the accused Paramjit Singh was not arrested on the same day but after few days. In the present case, though the plastic rope has not been recovered but the dagger/knife with which Murari Lal was stabbed was recovered which has also been duly identified by the prosecution witnesses and the accused Paramjit Singh has miserably failed to show if the witnesses have falsely identified the said knife to be the weapon 36/38 37 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 of offence or it was not the same with which Murari Lal was stabbed.
27. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of material as shown, placed and proved on record and in view of above discussion, court is of the considered opinion that the witnesses as examined by the prosecution are cogent, convincing and inspire confidence of the court in so far as they have come forward with true picture of the occurrence and no artificiality or exaggeration is shown in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Oral testimonies of prosecution witnesses have been sufficiently corroborated by documentary evidence and the presence of accused person Paramjeet Singh as well as that of the complainant, injured and other independent witnesses have also been duly proved on record. The prosecution has also succeeded in proving the motive regarding commission of offence as the accused Paramjeet Singh was the friend of accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) and since Murari Lal and the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) had a scuffle earlier on that day regarding exchange of bottle of liquor, hence he, alongwith the accused Paramjeet Singh, came at the said shop in furtherance of common intention, at the relevant time and they had also inflicted injuries on the person of Murari Lal in furtherance of their common intention which were so grave that had Murari Lal died, the accused Paramjeet Singh would have been guilty of 37/38 38 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 murder amounting to culpable homicide. In these circumstances, since prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of accused Paramjeet Singh beyond reasonable doubt regarding commission of aforesaid offence under section 307 IPC, hence he is convicted for committing offence as punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. Let he be heard on point of sentence.
Announced in the open Court (BARKHA GUPTA)
on this 2nd day of September 2011 Additional Sessions Judge - IV
Outer District
Rohini District Courts
Delhi
38/38