Delhi District Court
Judgment Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In ... vs . Kishanbhai, on 16 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03(NE), ROOM NO.53,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SC No. 12/13
Unique case ID no. 02402R0067592013.
FIR No. 24/12
PS Seelampur
U/s 304 IPC
State
Versus
Asgar Ali,
S/o Mohd. Mustakeem,
R/o A82/28, Buland Masjid,
Shastri Park, Delhi. .... Accused.
Date of Committal : 12.04.2013.
Date of Arguments : 16.04.2015.
Date of Pronouncement : 16.04.2015.
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is, that on FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 1 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 22.01.2012 at around 12 or 1 noon near Shastri Park Red Light, Delhi, a quarrel/verbal exchange had taken place between Mohd. Rizwan @ Rizvi and accused Asgar Ali. During that quarrel, accused Asgar Ali hit the head of deceased Mohd. Rizvi with a stick (danda) which resulted in injuries to the head of Rizvi and bleeding from the wounds. PW1 Naushad, who was brother of the deceased, on coming to know about the incident, reached that place and informed the PCR. The information of this quarrel was recorded in P.S. Seelampur vide DD No.33B (Ex.PW9/A). In the meantime, the PCR van reached at the spot and Mohd. Rizwan was removed to GTB Hospital where his MLC Ex.PW6/A was prepared. Rizwan, after his treatment, came back home. On the next day, PW1 went to P.S. Seelampur and gave his statement which is Ex.PW1/A and on the basis of that statement, SI Mukesh Kumar prepared a rukka which is Ex.PW14/1, and produced it for registration of FIR. On the basis of the rukka, PW9 SI L/SI Mary Rose recorded the FIR which is Ex.PW9/B. However, on 23.01.2012,the condition of Rizwan deteriorated and PW1 Naushad summoned a doctor named Dr. Ansari. On examining Rizwan, Dr. Ansari informed PW1 Naushad, that Rizwan had expired and this information was then communicated by PW1 to the police. Police then removed the dead body of Rizwan to GTB Hospital. On 24.01.2012, PW3 Dr. Neha Gupta, conducted FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 2 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 the autopsy on dead body of Rizwan and submitted her report Ex.PW3/A. She however, did not give any opinion regarding the cause of death and decided to wait for chemical analysis of viscera. On 03.02.2012, after receiving the chemical analysis report of viscera, PW3 Dr. Neha Gupta, vide her subsequent opinion which is Ex.PW3/C dated 17.09.2012, opined the cause of death to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem aspiration consequent upon injury to the head produced by blunt force impact. She also opined that the deceased had consumed alcohol before his death.
2. In the meantime, on 24.01.2012, the accused had been arrested from near Shastri Park Red Light, Bulland Masjid, Delhi and had made a disclosure statement which is Ex.PW1/F. Pursuant to this disclosure, at the instance of the accused, from NorthEast corner of DDA Park of Shastri Park, one bamboo/danda (stick) was recovered. Vide opinion dated 03.02.2012 which is Ex.PW3/B, PW3 Dr. Neha Gupta, had opined that the injuries no.1 and 2 as mentioned in P.M. report which is Ex.PW3/A, were produced by blunt force impact and could have been caused by the danda recovered at the instance of accused or any other weapon of similar nature.
3. After completion of investigation, the accused was chargesheeted in this case and on 01.06.2013, charge u/s 304 IPC was FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 3 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, rectified charge was again framed u/s 304 IPC by Ld. Predecessor on 24.10.2013 to which the accused again pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During trial, the prosecution led its evidence and examined 14 witnesses.
5. PW1 is Naushad . He is the complainant. His testimony will be discussed at later stage.
6. PW2 is Mohd. Guddu, who is eye witness. His testimony shall be discussed at later stage as and when required.
7. PW3 is Dr. Neha Gupta . She deposed that on 24.01.2012, she was posted as Senior Demonstrator in the department of Forensic Medicine, UCMS & GTB Hospital, Delhi. On that day, she conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mohd. Rizwan @ Rizvi s/o Moheeb Alam, 27 years old male who was brought with the alleged history of physical assault. Her detailed postmortem report is Ex.PW3/A. She further deposed that on 03.02.2012, application of SI Mukesh Kumar of P.S. Seelampur alongwith one sealed parcel duly sealed with seal of MK was produced before her for opinion in the matter and after opening the parcel FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 4 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 and examining the content of it, she gave the subsequent opinion which is Ex.PW3/B. She further deposed that on 17.09.2012, SI Mukesh Kumar presented the FSL report No.2012/C1055 dated 30.08.2012 alongwith the postmortem report of Mohd. Rizwan for opinion in the matter. She considered the documents and opined that the cause of death of Mohd. Rizwan @ Rizvi was asphyxia as a result of antemortem aspiration consequent upon injury to head produced by blunt force impact. The deceased had consumed alcohol before his death. Her opinion to this effect is Ex.PW3/C.
8.
PW4 is Haider
. He turned hostile and did not support the
case of the prosecution.
9.
PW5 is Mohd Alam . He deposed that on 22.10.2012, when he returned back to his house at night, he came to know that a quarrel had taken place with his son Rizwan @ Rizvi. At around 11.30 p.m., his son returned home and he had suffered injures on his head. Next day at around 7.30/8 a.m., his son had expired. Somebody informed the police. The police came to his house and took away the dead body of his son. On 24.01.2012, he identified the dead body of his son and identified his thumb impression at point A on document Ex.PW1/C. After postmortem, the dead body of his FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 5 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 son was handed over to him.
10. PW6 is Dr. Munesh Kumar Gaur . He deposed that on 22.01.2012, he was working as Jr. Resident in Casualty of GTB Hospital. On that day at around 1.45 p.m., injured Mohd. Rizwan s/o Mohd. Alam, male, aged about 27 years was brought by PCR van with alleged history of physical assault. He medically examined the injured and prepared the MLC which is Ex.PW6/A.
11. PW7 is Mohd Rihan . He turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. He only identified the accused as his neighbour.
12. PW8 is Shahid . This witness also turned hostile and despite cross examination by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, nothing could be retrieved from his testimony.
13. PW9 is W/ASI Mary Rose . She deposed that on 22.01.2012, being posted as DO in P.S. Seelampur from 8 a.m to 4 p.m, on the basis of the information received from control room, she recorded DD no.33B which is Ex.PW9/A. She further deposed that on 23.01.2012, being posted as Duty Officer in P.S. Seelampur from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., she registered FIR which is Ex.PW9/B. After registration of FIR, she handed over copy of FIR and original tehrir to Ct. Prem Pal for handing over the same to SI Mukesh FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 6 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 Kumar.
14. PW10 is Ct. Anil Kumar . He deposed that on 23.01.2012, he was posted at P.S. Seelampur. On that day, he was in the area alongwith SI Arun Kumar on emergency duty. SI Arvind received DD no.25B which is Mark D1 through Ct. Shoeb and SI Arvind handed over the said DD to him for delivering the same to SI Mukesh. He delivered the said DD to SI Mukesh near Shastri Park Red Light, Buland Masjid, Pushta Road. Then, he alongwith SI Mukesh went to the house of Rizwan where they took over the dead body of Rizwan and he deposited the dead body in mortuary. On 24.01.2012, after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased and IO seized a pulinda which was sealed with the seal of hospital and was handed over to the IO by GTB mortuary. The seizure memo of the pulinda is Ex.PW10/B. Then, he alongwith IO went in search of the accused and at old G.T. Road, they met Naushad and involved him in the investigation. On the information of Naushad, accused Asgar Ali was apprehended near Red Light, Buland Masjid. After interrogation, IO arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW1/D, having his signatures at point B. Personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/E having the signatures of PW10 at point B. He also deposed that accused had made FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 7 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 disclosure statement which is Ex.PW1/F having his signatures at point B. The accused then took them to DDA Park, Shastri Park and then got recovered one cane danda which was lying in the corner of the park. IO seized that danda after converting it into a cloth pulinda and sealing it with seal of MK. The seizure memo of the danda was Ex.PW1/G having his signatures at point B. Site plan of recovery was prepared by the IO which is Ex.PW1/H having his signatures at point B. On 03.02.2012, he obtained the sealed pulinda containing the said danda vide RC No.152/21 and deposited it with the head of the department of Forensic Science, GTB Hospital. On 14.02.2012, from the hospital, he obtained the sealed pulinda stated to be containing the danda and the report in sealed envelope. He handed over the danda and report to the MHC(M). During the testimony of this witness, the MHC(M) had produced a sealed parcel stated to be containing a danda. The witness identified this danda and it was exhibited as Ex.P1.
15. PW11 is HC Narayan Singh . He deposed that on 24.01.2012, he was posted at P.S. Seelampur as HC. IO of this case handed over him a sealed pulinda with the seal of MK stated to be containing danda, sealed pulinda stated to be containing viscera peti with the seal of NG and sealed pulinda stated to be containing the clothes of deceased with the seal of NG, FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 8 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 sample seal and a sealed pulinda stated to be containing blood gauze with the seal of NG and he deposited all these vide sr. No.3398 Ex.PW11/A of register no.19. On 03.02.2012, as per instructions of IO, he handed over the sealed pulinda sealed with seal of MK stated to be containing danda to Ct. Anil Kumar vide RC no.152/21 and he made entry of the same at Sr.No.3398 encircled in red ink at point B on Ex.PW11/A. On 14.02.2012, the sealed opinion relating to the said danda was received through Ct. Anil Kumar which was acknowledged by him vide entry at Sr.No.3398 at point C on Ex.PW11/A. On 28.02.2012, as per instructions of IO, he handed over the three sealed pulindas sealed with seal of NG to Ct. Anil Kumar for depositing with FSL, Rohini vide entry no.3398 at point D encircled with red ink. On 15.02.2012, as per instructions of IO, he handed over one sealed pulinda sealed with seal of NG stated to be containing viscera of deceased to Ct. Jagbir Singh for depositing with FSL Rohini vide entry at Sr.No.3398 at point E encircled with red ink on Ex.PW11/A. On 04.06.2012, three sealed opinions were received through Ct. Ganga Ram which he acknowledged vide entry at Sr. No.3398 at point F which is encircled in red ink on Ex.PW11/A. On 12.09.2012, one sealed report stated to be relating to viscera box was received through Ct. Pardeep which he acknowledged vide entry at Sr.No.3398 at point G which is encircled with FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 9 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 red ink on Ex.PW11/A. Copy of RC No.152/21 and 155/21 are Mark PW11/B1 and Mark PW11/B2. Copy of acknowledgment by FSL are mark PW11/C1 and PW11/C2.
16. PW12 is Ct. Vinod . He deposed that on 22.01.2012, he was posted in PCR Bhajanpura Zone. On that day, he was on duty on PCR van Baker 26 from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. At around 1.05 p.m, he received information from PCR control room that a quarrel had taken place at Shastri Park, near Rashidgee Masjid, Murga Market, Main Road. After receipt of information, he alongwith HC Krishan Chand immediately reached the spot with his PCR van. He found one person namely Rizwan in injured condition and blood was oozing out from his head. He took the injured to GTB Hospital and the injured was admitted for medical examination. Thereafter, he returned to his duty place.
17. PW13 is Ct. Jagbir Singh. He deposed that on 15.02.2012, he was posted at P.S. Seelampur. On that day, MHC(M) handed over one pulinda of viscera in sealed condition with seal of NG alongwith sample seal to him vide RC No.155/21. He was to deposit them in FSL Rohini Delhi. He deposited these in FSL Rohini and handed over the receipt to MHC(M). The seal was intact and case property was not tampered with so FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 10 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 long as it remained in his custody. Copy of RC is Mark PW11/B1 and the copy of the FSL receipt is Mark PW11/C2.
18. PW14 is SI Mukesh Kumar . He is the IO of the case. His testimony will be considered at later stage.
19. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded on 13.02.2015 and he preferred to lead evidence in his defence. However, on 09.03.2015, the accused gave a statement that he did not want to lead any evidence and thus, defence evidence was closed.
20. I have heard Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State as well as Ld. counsel for the accused. I have also perused the record very carefully.
21. The prosecution had put the chargesheet seeking to prove its case against the accused on the basis of the oral testimonies of witnesses, who were examined as PW1 Naushad, PW2 Guddu, PW4 Haider, PW 7 Md. Rihan and PW8 Shahid and; recovery of alleged weapon of offence i.e. danda (stick) at the instance of accused Asgar Ali.
22. As far as oral evidence of the prosecution is concerned, except PW1 Naushad and PW2 Guddu, all other witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
23. Thus, the case of the prosecution now rests on the testimonies FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 11 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 of PW1 and PW2 and the alleged recovery of danda (stick) at the instance of the accused.
24. The star witness which the prosecution had sought to bring before the court was the complainant Naushad, who had not only made the complaint but had stated in the complaint that he had witnessed the incident. It was he at whose instance, the site plan Ex.PW1/H was prepared. It was in his presence that accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/E. It was he, who was the witness to the alleged recovery of danda (stick) from DDA Park, Shastri Park, Delhi.
25. However, when he appeared as PW1, he established before the court that he was not an eye witness to the incident. He deposed that on the date of incident, he was at his shop and somebody informed him that a quarrel was going on between deceased Mohd. Rizwan @ Rizwi and Asgar Ali and his (Asgar Ali's) sons in DDA Park, near red light. When he rushed to the spot, he saw his brother having injury on his head and he was smeared with blood. By that time, the accused Asgar Ali and his sons had escaped from the spot. He inquired from his brother as to what had happened and his brother had informed, that a quarrel had taken place FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 12 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 between him (the deceased) and Asgar Ali and Asgar Ali had assaulted him with danda and bat.
26. Now this part of the testimony of this witness clearly implies that PW1, who had claimed in complaint Ex.PW1/A that he had seen the incident with his own eyes and seen Asgar Ali assaulting his brother i.e. deceased Mohd. Rizwan on his head with a danda, was not an eye witness to the incident and had not seen the assault upon the deceased.
27. This fact was further reinforced in his examination in chief when in response to a leading question of the learned Addl. PP, he stated that he had not seen accused Asgar Ali assaulting his brother with danda and if this fact was mentioned in statement Ex.PW1/A, it may not be correct. Even in his cross examination, PW1 admitted that he had not seen anybody assaulting his brother.
28. Therefore, one fact which has been proved by this stage is, that PW1 was not an eye witness to the incident.
29. The role of PW1 next comes in preparation of site plan. During his examination in chief, PW1 deposed that he had shown the place of occurrence to the police and the site plan Ex.PW1/H was prepared by the police at his instance. However, surprisingly Ex.PW1/H is the site plan of FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 13 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 the alleged place of recovery of alleged weapon of offence at the instance of accused Asgar Ali. Therefore, this witness, during his examination in chief, did not even point to the site plan which was prepared at his instance.
30. The site plan of the place on incident was deposed about by IO SI Mukesh Kumar, who appeared as PW14 and deposed that after the dead body of the deceased was shifted to mortuary, he alongwith Naushad (PW1) reached the spot and prepared site plan at the instance of PW1. He identified this site plan as Ex.PW14/2 and admitted his signature at point A on it. However, I find that this site plan, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be the correct site plan depicting the place where the incident had happened. I say so because this site plan was allegedly prepared at the instance of PW1 who was not an eye witness to the incident. This witness could not have pointed to the place where the incident had happened but could have only pointed to the place where after the incident, he had found his brother in injured condition.
31. The next role of this witness was in the arrest of the accused and the alleged recovery of danda at the instance of accused Asgar Ali.
32. As per the case of the prosecution, it was deposed about by IO/PW14 SI Mukesh Kumar that on 24.01.2012, he with Ct. Anil went Shastri Park and met PW1 Naushad and at the instance of Naushad, accused FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 14 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 Asgar Ali was arrested from Shastri Park Red light vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/E. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded by him vide Ex.PW1/F and at the instance of the accused, one bamboo danda was recovered from northeast corner of DDA Park, Shastri Park. After taking measurements, he kept this danda in a cloth pulinda, sealed it with the seal of MK and seized it vide memo Ex.PW1/G.
33. The other witness PW1 had deposed that Asgar Ali was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E. In his presence, disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide Ex.PW1/F. He further deposed that he was shown a danda by the police in police station. Seizure memo of the danda was prepared by the police which is Ex.PW1/G and it has his signatures at point A. When the sealed parcel of the danda was opened, he identified the danda Ex.P1 to the same which was shown to him by the police in police station and seized in his presence.
34. During his cross examination, he admitted that accused Asgar Ali was present in the police station when he (the accused) was arrested in this case. He admitted that recovery of danda was not effected in his presence and deposed, that the police had shown him the danda and told FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 15 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 him that the danda would be produced in the court and it was kept in police station. He further deposed that pool of blood was lying at the spot and no other material was lying at the spot while leaving for hospital. The danda and bat were not lying at the spot while leaving for the hospital.
35. This witness thus falsifies the entire story of the prosecution regarding the arrest of accused Asgar Ali and recovery of alleged weapon of offence at his instance. Not only does this witness falsify the story of the prosecution regarding arrest of accused but he brings before the court, that the weapon of offence was in fact planted upon the accused. This fact becomes more probable from the cross examination of PW2, stated to be an eye witness, where he stated that the PCR officials had taken the danda with them. Therefore, the testimony of this witness does not bring out anything incriminating against the accused and destroys one piece of evidence upon which the prosecution was relying to prove its case i.e. the danda.
36. It is also to be noticed that the accused had been shown to be arrested from a place near the spot. In the personal search memo Ex.PW1/E, it is mentioned that nothing was recovered from the personal search of the accused. Had that been the case, then it is not possible that the accused FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 16 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 might have been arrested from a public place and not having anything on his person. Therefore, it stands established that the accused was arrested in police station and was wrongly shown to be arrested from Shastri Park red light.
37. We now left with the testimony of PW2 Guddu.
38. PW2 Guddu deposed that he was a tailor by profession. On 12.01.2012 at about 12 noon or 1 p.m., he was present near Shastri Park red light and was watching cricket match which was being played in the ground. On that day, a quarrel had taken place between Rizvi and Asgar Ali in Shastri Park playground. Asgar Ali gave danda blow on the head of Rizvi due to which blood started oozing out from the head of Rizvi. He telephonically informed about the incident to Nawab, brother of deceased who reached there within 1015 minutes. PCR officials reached there and removed Rizvi to the hospital.
39. This witness was cross examined by learned Addl. PP and during his cross examination, he admitted that the incident had occurred on 22.01.2012 and he had mistakenly narrated the date of incident as 12.01.2012.
40. During his cross examination, PW2 deposed that his weekend was on Sunday. On 22.01.2012, it was a Sunday and he was off duty. There FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 17 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 were 4050 persons in the park who were watching the match. Rizvi was also present in the park. Rizvi was gambling in the park and three more persons were gambling with him. He did not know the other persons who were gambling. He was at a distance of about 50 feet from the place where those persons were gambling. At around 11 - 11.30 a.m., he reached the place where cricket match was being played. At that time, no quarrel was going on. He had gone near the accused prior to incident. Incident occurred between 12 noon to 1.00 p.m. He could not tell the exact time of incident. He heard noise of quarrel which was going on between Asgar Ali and Rizvi and then he proceeded towards them. Asgar Ali and Rizvi were grappling (Hatha pai ho rahi thi). He separated them. After separation, accused ran towards the road and returned to the spot with a danda and hit Rizvi on his head. When accused ran from the spot for taking danda. He did not try to overpower the accused as there was no occasion for him to do so. He remained there till Asgar Ali again reached the spot with danda and assaulted Rizvi. He had seen Asgar Ali carrying danda from very near distance but not tried to apprehend Asgar Ali. No other person tried to apprehend Asgar Ali when he was coming at the spot with danda and volunteered, that Asgar Ali immediately attacked with the danda. At that FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 18 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 time, he was having mobile number 9560833020 from which he had dialed number 9891159976. He did not inform PCR. He did not take the injured to the hospital. PCR officials had lifted danda in his presence. PCR officials had taken danda with them and had not handed over it to anyone in his presence. He further deposed that deceased Rizvi was the son of his mausi. After the departure of PCR, he went to his residence and then never met the police again. He denied that he was not present at the spot or had not seen the incident with his own eyes, or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of his brother Nawab.
41. On the face of it, this testimony of the witness sounds very credible. The witness gives a valid explanation of his presence at the place of incident. However, the question which arises is, that why the FIR was not recorded on the basis of the statement of this witness despite this witness being an eye witness and complainant PW1 Naushad knowing that Guddu was eye witness to the incident? The prosecution has failed to put forward any explanation to this.
42. It is also to be noticed that according to PW2 Guddu, he had never met the police, but on record is a statement of this witness u/s 161 Cr.P.C recorded by the IO on 23.01.2012. If this witness had never met the FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 19 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 police then how his examination in chief can be almost completely on the lines of his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., is beyond explanation. When the police was well aware and the complainant was also well aware that this person i.e. PW2, was an eye witness to the incident, why the site plan was not prepared at the instance of this witness, has nowhere been explained.
43. These circumstances coupled with the fact that all other public witnesses have turned hostile, create two possibilities. One is that this witness being the relative of the deceased was introduced at a later stage as there was no other eye witness and; the other is that this witness and PW1 are in fact telling true story but the IO had botched up the investigation. In both these situations, the discrepancies of the prosecution which have been discussed above fail the cardinal test that the prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
44. In the present case, lodging of FIR by the complainant claiming himself to be an eye witness despite him not being an eye witness; the preparation of site plan at the instance of a person who had no idea where the incident might have happened; and the planting of weapon of offence upon the accused raise serious doubts about the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution. I accordingly give benefit of doubt to the accused. The accused is accordingly acquitted of the charges framed against him. His FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 20 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 bail bond stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged.
45. Before parting, I find it necessary that a finding regarding the conduct of investigation needs to be given in this case in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai, etc. 2014(1) SCALE 177 wherein it is held that:
''21. On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the concerned investigating/prosecuting official(s) responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called for. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the concerned official may be withdrawn from investigative responsibilities, permanently or temporarily, depending purely on his culpability....''
46. In the present case, I have observed that the investigation done by the investigating officer SI Mukesh Kumar was not only poor but was completely unfair and manipulated as the IO had planted the weapon of offence i.e. danda upon the accused and had falsely shown it to be recovered at the instance of accused. The discussion in the judgment clearly shows other acts by which the IO had botched up or manipulated the investigation.
47. In view of my observation, into the conduct of the IO in the present case, I direct learned Commissioner of Police, Delhi to initiate an FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 21 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015 inquiry against the IO for his failure to discharge his duty and file an action taken report in this court within one month. I further recommend that till the pendency of that inquiry, this IO should not be given the charge of any criminal investigation. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open court (Parveen Singh) today on 16.04.2015 Additional Sessions Judge03 (This judgment contains 22 pages (NE): Karkardooma Courts, and each page bears my signatures.) Delhi. FIR No. 24/12 (Parveen Singh)) PS Seelampur 22 of 22 ASJ03/NE/Delhi: 16.04.2015