49. In The Matter Of Harender Singh vs State Of Delhi On 29 on 3 April, 2019

[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

49. In The Matter Of Harender Singh vs State Of Delhi On 29 on 3 April, 2019

                IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
                 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE06:SOUTH EAST
                       SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI

SC No.2151/2016
FIR No.102/2012
PS : Pul Prahlad Pur

State                    Versus
                             Gopal Singh
                             S/o Sh. Inder Singh,
                             R/o Village Nakhuna,
                             P.S. Gangoli Hut,
                             Distt. Pithaura Garh,
                             Uttarakhand.
____________________________________________________
Date of Institution          :      13.08.2012
Date of transfer of the case
to this court                :      06.11.2017
Date of arguments            :      22.03.2019
Date of judgment             :      03.04.2019

JUDGMENT

1. As per case of prosecution, on 20.04.2012 at about 5:30 AM, a PCR call was received in Police Station Pul Prahlad Pur vide DD No.38A regarding stabbing at Okhla Mor. The same was entrusted to ASI Jasbir Singh for enquiry. He alongwith Ct. Ram Singh reached at the spot and found that injured had already been taken to AIIMS Truama Centre by PCR Van (K22). At about 5:40 AM, ASI Jagbir Singh informed the IO about the incident and got lodged an information in Police Station vide DD No.39A that two persons namely Ravi and Gulshan had sufferd stab injuries who had already SC No.2151/16 Page 1 of 43 been taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre by PCR van and Ravi was serious. On receiving information, IO alongwith SI Dharam Pal, ASI Ashok Kumar, HC Naim Ahmed, HC Sarwan Kumar, Ct. Parveen, Ct. Manish and Ct. Sataish (driver) reached at the place of occurrence i.e. Admec Logistic Container Yard, M.B. Road near Okhla Mor, New Delhi by government gypsy bearing No. DL1CJ3895. Scene of crime was formally searched by the IO alongwith ASI Jagbir. Some blood stains were found on the footpath on the right side of entry of Admec Logistic Container Yard and thereafter, entering the yard, there was a way on the right side between the containers which was leading to the place of occurrence and blood spots were present on a few places up to the place of occurrence and Truck Troll No.HR55P 5136, HR38J3337, HR38P9416 and HR55P5543 were present parked in a queue in sequence before the loading uploading crane No.HR744492 and Truck Troll No.HR55K5619 was parked ahead from crane after being loaded. Crime team was also called at the spot. IO tried to trace the eyewitness but no one was found.

2. As soon as the crime team reached at the spot, duty officer informed IO that Ravi Rana was admitted in the hospital as brought dead and Gulshan was in injured condition at Trauma Centre, AIIMS. IO left ASI Jagbir Singh and Ct. Ram Singh on the spot for preserving the scene of crime and also directed to get the scene of crime inspected from the crime team and IO left the spot for Trauma Centre. IO reached at Trauma Centre and collected the MLCs of Ravi SC No.2151/16 Page 2 of 43 Rana and Gulshan Rana. After treatment, injured Gulshan Kumar was discharged from the hospital. IO came back at the spot alongwith injured Gulshan Kumar, where ASI Jagbir Singh handed over the report of crime team to IO. IO recorded the statement of injured Gulshan Rana who has stated that at about 3:35 AM, quarrel has been taken place between Gopal Singh and him and his friends Ravi and accused Gopal Singh stabbed them with knife and fled away.

3. After inspection of scene of crime, MLCs, bodies of deceased Ravi Rana and injured Gulshan Rana and from the statement of complainant, and the case got registered by the IO and accused Gopal Singh was apprehended.

4. Accused Gopal Singh found involved in the commission of offence in the case and he was chargesheeted to face trial for committing the offence punishable under section 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC").

5. Accused on his appearance, before the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, was supplied copy of chargesheet and complete set of documents and thus, compliance of section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") was made.

6. As the offence under section 302/307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the case was committed to the SC No.2151/16 Page 3 of 43 Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law.

7. Prima facie, sufficient material was found to frame charge against accused for offences punishable under section 302 & 307 IPC. Therefore, charge for the said offences was framed against accused on 14.09.2012, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. In order to bring home the guilt against accused, prosecution has examined as many as 40 witnesses in all. The details of which are given as under :

(a) PW1 HC Sunder Singh, duty officer, is a formal witness of the prosecution. He has proved on record the FIR Ex. PW1/A and his endorsement vide Ex. PW1/B.

(b) PW2 Ct. Puneet is the photographer of the crime team. He has proved on record the photographs vide Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW 2/40 & negatives vide Ex. PW2/1A to Ex. PW2/40A.

(c) PW3 Sanjeev Kumar is formal witness of the prosecution. He has identified the dead body of deceased Ravi Rana vide Ex. PW 3/A.

(d) PW4 Mehar Singh is also formal witness of the prosecution.

SC No.2151/16 Page 4 of 43

He has identified the dead body of deceased Ravi Rana vide Ex. PW 4/A and receipt Ex. PW4/B.

(e) PW5 Shri Puneet is formal witness of the prosecution. He has deposed that he gave a truck bearing No. HR38J3337 to accused Gopal Singh for plying. He has proved on record RC of the vehicle vide Ex. PW5/A and his driving license vide Ex. PW5/B.

(f) PW6 Ram Ratan Thakur is independent public witness of the prosecution. He has deposed that on 20.04.2014, he was deputed as driver on a crane, registration of which he does not remember and the same was owned by Admic Logistics Company. He has deposed that in a dispute between the drivers, one of them died and he came to know about the said dispute later on. No qurrel arose before him. He cannot say that offender or victim of that incident is present in the court on the date of his deposition i.e. 19.01.13. He turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. He was cross examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, but despite cross examination by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, he has not supported the prosecution case.

(g) PW7 Vijay Kumar Mishra is another public witness of the prosecution. He has deposed that he was working with ADMEC Logistics Limited as Supervisor and about 67 months back, police came and seized the entry pads vide Ex. PW7/A. He also turned SC No.2151/16 Page 5 of 43 hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. He was cross examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, but despite crossexamination by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, he has not supported the prosecution case.

(h) PW8 Rakesh is another independent public witness of the prosecution. He has deposed that he had employed a driver to drive the Trolla No. HR38P9416 and about 2 to 2 ½ years back, police seized the documents vide Ex. PW8/A to Ex. PW8/E. He also turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. He was cross examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, but despite crossexamination by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, he has not supported the prosecution case.

(i) PW9 Shri Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Limited and a formal witness of the prosecution. He has proved on record the copy of CDRs of mobile phone No.8130685602 vide Ex. PW9/A, certificate vide Ex. PW9/B, details of its subscriber vide Ex. PW9/C, customer application form Ex. PW9/D and document of the subscriber Ex. PW9/E.

(j) PW10 Inspector Manoj Kumar has joined the investigation of this case and has proved on record his application Ex. PW10/A for seeking postmortem on the dead body of deceased Ex. PW10/B. SC No.2151/16 Page 6 of 43

(k) PW11 Shri Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Limited and a formal witness of the prosecution. He has proved on record the copy of application form Ex. PW11/A relating to mobile No.981128551 in the name of accused Gopal Singh, copy of driving license of customer vide Ex. PW11/B, its CDR vide Ex. PW11/C and certificate vide Ex. PW11/D.

(l) PW12 SI Sanjay Kumar is InCharge of Mobile Crime Team. He has proved on record his report vide Ex. PW12/A.

(m) PW13 Retired SI Dharampal has joined the investigation with IO Inspector Dharam Dev alongwith other police officials. He has proved on record the seizure memo of blood stained earth, earth control, blood lying on the concrete and earth sample vide Ex. PW 13/A to Ex. PW13/D, seizure memo of sandals vide Ex. PW13/E and seizure memo of blood stained clothes of complainant vide Ex. PW13/F. He has also proved on record the Sandal Ex. P1 (collectively), Shirt Ex. P2 and Pant Ex. P3.

(n) PW14 Dr. Ravinder Shukla has proved on record the MLC of injured Ravi Rana vide Ex. PW14/A. He has deposed that the patient was already dead.

(o) PW15 Inspector Mahesh, Draftsman, is a formal witness of the prosecution. He has proved on record the scaled site plan vide SC No.2151/16 Page 7 of 43 Ex. PW15/A.

(p) PW16 ASI Beg Raj, DD writer, is a formal witness of the prosecution. He has proved on record the DD No.38A, 39A and 40 A vide Ex. PW16/A to Ex. PW16/C respectively.

(q) PW17 Shri Anmol Verma is an independent witness of the prosecution. He has deposed that police has seized documents of his vehicles vide Ex. PW17/A, Ex. PW17/C to Ex. PW17/E and his reply to notice given by the police Ex. PW17/B.

(r) PW18 Dr. Sanjay Kumar has proved on record his postmortem report of deceased Ravi Rana vide Ex. PW18/A.

(s) PW19 Gulshan Rana, complainant and PW20 Anil Kumar are material witnesses of the prosecution.

(t) PW21 ASI Rajender Singh has joined the investigation of this case. He has deposed that on the intervening night of 19/20.04.2012, he was posted at his PCR Van Kite 22 having base at Okhla Morh. At 5:29 AM, on receipt of an information from PS Pul Prahlad Pur, he alongwith Ct. Adit and Gunman left for spot i.e. near Okhla Morh near container depot. In between, he receiving information about same incident from police control room also. They brought the injured Ravi Rana and Gulshan Rana to their vehicle to SC No.2151/16 Page 8 of 43 Trauma Centre, AIIMS and got admitted there. Injured Ravi Rana was declared brought dead and they returned to their base.

(u) PW22 HC Ram Singh has joined the investigation of this case and got the FIR registered on the instructions of IO.

(v) PW23 Amit Rana is an independent public witness of the prosecution. He deposed that on 19/20.11.2012, he was working as conductor / helper on the troller / truck No. HR55K5619 of Three Aces Global Logistic Company and Anil was the driver. Some of other drivers of other vehicles were Gulshan Rana, Anil and Ravi Rana. He saw Ravi being helped by Anil and Gulshan, Ravi was bleeding from his mouth and was having stabbed injuries in his chest. Anil called the police and Ravi was removed in police vehicle to the hospital and he followed Ravi in auto to hospital. He further deposed that he came to know that Ravi was given knife blow by accused Gopal.

(w) PW24 ASI Jagbir Singh has joined the investigation of this case. He has proved on record DD No.38A and Ex. PW39/A vide Ex. PW24/A and Ex. PW24/B respectively. He has proved on record the arrest memo of accused Gopal Singh vide Ex. PW24/C, his personal search memo Ex. PW24/D and his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW24/E. He also proved on record the pointing out memo vide Ex. PW24/F, sketch of knife vide Ex. PW24/G, seizure memo of knife SC No.2151/16 Page 9 of 43 vide Ex. PW24/H, seizure memo of pant Ex. PW24/J, seizure memo of phone Ex. PW24/K, inquest papers vide Ex. PW24/L, seizure memo of truck Ex. PW24/M. He also proved on record one plastic container Ex. P4, pair of sandal Ex. P5, clothes of injured Gulshan Rana Ex. P6 collectively and mobile phone Ex. P7, one pant Ex. P 8 and knife Ex. P9.

(x) PW25 Ct. Ram Kishan has joined the investigation. During investigation, he alongwith ASI Jagbir took the accused Gopal Singh to AIIMS Hospital for his medical examination and after medical examination, they returned back to spot and handed over the custody of accused to IO.

(y) PW26 Ct. Ajay Kumar is a formal witness of the prosecution. He has deposed that he had delivered copy of FIR at the office of concerned MM, at the office of ACP, DCP and Additional C.P. (z) PW27 HC Pratap Singh has joined the investigation of this case. He has deposed that on the instructions of SHO, he went to the hospital with injured Gulshan. In the hospital, doctor after taking the blood sample of Gulshan, doctor handed over one sealed pullanda with the seal of hospital alongwith sample seal and IO seized the same vide Ex. PW27/A. (aa) PW28 W. Ct. Sushma is a formal witness of the prosecution.

SC No.2151/16 Page 10 of 43

She has proved on record the information and copy of computerized proceedings vide Ex. PW28/A & Ex. PW28/B respectively.

(ab) PW29 Ct. Sube Singh is formal witness of the prosecution. He has deposed that on 02.05.2012, on the direction of IO, he took one letter no.1055 with one knife in sealed condition with the seal of DD which was taken by him from MHC (M) to the Fingerprint Bureau and deposited the same there. He returned back to the PS and handed over report to IO and deposited the other articles in Malkhana.

(ac) PW30 HC Amit Singh is formal witness of the prosecution. He has deposed that he took pullandas in sealed condition and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini.

(ad) PW31 Ms. Anita Chhari, SSO (Biology), FSL, Rohini, New Delhi, has proved on record her detailed report vide Ex. PW31/A, biological report vide Ex. PW31/B and serological report vide Ex. PW31/C. (ae) PW32 HC Rakesh Kumar, MHC (M) is formal witness of the prosecution. He has proved on record the relevant entries of depositing the exhibits in Malkhana vide Ex. PW32/A to Ex. PW 32/E. SC No.2151/16 Page 11 of 43 (af) PW33 Dr. Mahesh Bharambe, Junior Resident, Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, has proved on record the MLC of injured Gulshan Rana vide Ex. PW33/A. He opined the natures of injuries as simple sharp in nature.

(ag) PW34 SI Ashok Kumar has joined the investigation with the IO Inspector Dharam Dev. He has supported the version as given by PW24 ASI Jagbir Singh.

(ah) PW35 Ct. Shambhu Tiwari is formal witness of the prosecution. He has deposed that on 03.07.2014, he had gone to the office of FSL, Rohini and he had collected the FSL result and four envelopes and he brought the same to PS Pul Prahlad Pur and the deposited the same with MHC (M).

(ai) PW36 SI Narshi Prasad is formal witness of the prosecution. He has deposed that on 31.07.2014, he had taken sealed pullanda of knife alongwith other relevant documents and gone to AIIMS Trauma Centre, where he deposited the pullanda and documents in forensic department for seeking subsequent opinion.

(aj) PW37 HC Banwari Lal, MHC (M) is formal witness of the prosecution. He has proved on record the relevant entry of depositing the result of DNA from FSL vide already Ex. PW32/A. SC No.2151/16 Page 12 of 43 (ak) PW38 Dr. Ajay Kumara, Senior Resident, AIIMS, New Delhi has proved on record the MLC of injured Gopal Singh vide Ex. PW 38/A. (al) PW39 Dr. Mahesh Kumar, SR, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi has proved on record the opinion dated 01.08.2014 vide Ex. PW39/A and sketch of knife Ex. PW39/B. (am) PW40 Inspector Dharam Dev is IO of the case, who conducted various states of investigation, recorded the statement of witnesses and has filed the challan after completion of investigation. He has proved on record rukka vide Ex. PW40/A, notices Ex. PW 40/B to Ex. PW40/D, seizure memo of slip of truck bearing No. HR 55K5619 vide Ex. PW40/E. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 21.09.2017.

9. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all incriminating material/circumstances were put to him, to which he claimed innocence and alleged false implication.

10. Accused opted to lead evidence in his defence, but subsequently, he chose not to lead any evidence in his defence. Hence, defence evidence was closed vide order dated 08.03.2018.

SC No.2151/16 Page 13 of 43

11. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Mayank Tripathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Shri Rajeev Sirohi, learned defence counsel for accused and carefully perused the record of the case. I have also gone through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the documents proved by them during their deposition.

12. Learned defence counsel initially argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the presence of the accused at the spot of the incident. However later on during the course of arguments, the said defence was not pressed for. Learned defence counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish that the knife which was sent to the FSL for opinion was the same knife which was recovered at the instance of the accused. He argued that the measurements of the knife as given by PW24 ASI Jagbir Singh in the sketch of knife vide Ex. PW24/G are different from the measurements of the knife given by PW39 Dr. Mahesh Kumar, SR, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi who proved on record the opinion dated 01.08.2014 vide Ex. PW39/A and sketch of knife Ex. PW39/B and the measurements of the knife as recorded in the PCR form, Ex. PW 28/A. He vehemently argued that the measurements of the knife as recorded in the PCR form when compared with the measurements given in Ex. PB 24/G or Ex. PW39/A shows that there was more than one knife and that the knife which was sent to FSL was different from the knife on which opinion SC No.2151/16 Page 14 of 43 has been sought from the expert witness, PW39.

13. Learned defence counsel also argued that PW6, Ram Rattan Thakur as well as PW7, Vijay Kumar Mishra are both independent witnesses but they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned defence counsel also invited attention to the testimony of the witnesses who had deposed about the presence of one more truck driver namely Ramanandan and it was argued that as per the testimony of the eyewitnesses, Ramanandan, driver of the truck bearing registration no.HR38P9416, was present at the spot of the incident and after drawing attention to the crossexamination of PW 19 Gulshan Rana and PW20 Anil Kumar argued that since both of them have admitted that Ravi Rana (deceased), PW19 Gulshan Rana and PW20 Anil Kumar were on one side while the accused was on one side, Ramanandan, was an important witness who could have been an independent eyewitness. He argued that prosecution chose to make owner of the vehicle bearing registration no.HR38P 9416, as a witness but not the driver who was present at the time of quarrel. Learned defence counsel argued that nonexamination of Ramanandan as a witness by the prosecution casts doubts on the story of the prosecution and goes to show that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

14. Attention was also invited by learned defence counsel to the MLC of deceased Ravi Rana, Ex. PW18/A, MLC of Gulshan Rana SC No.2151/16 Page 15 of 43 (PW19) Ex. PW33/A and MLC of the accused, Ex. PW38/A in support of his submission that the injuries suffered by the accused show that even he suffered injuries at the hands of the deceased as well as Gulshan Rana. He also argued that the accused had no intention to cause death of the deceased and that the incident had not occurred preceded by any premeditation and was a result of sudden quarrel where the accused was on one side while as per the admissions of PW19 and PW20, deceased, PW19 Gulshan Rana and PW20 Anil Kumar, were on another side and it was a sudden fight.

15. Learned defence counsel also argued that the prosecution only sent the pant of the accused to FSL for the DNA profiling but did not send/recover the clothes which he was wearing on the upper part of his body and argued that the police deliberately did not send the top/tshirt/shirt which the accused was wearing on his upper part of the body nor seized the same as the seizing or production of the same would have revealed that the accused also badly beaten by the deceased, Gulshan Rana and Anil Kumar that in the sudden fight and in the heat of passion, he took out the knife and gave a knife blow at the chest of the deceased. He argued that the very fact that a single blow was given at the chest of the deceased goes to show that he did not have any intention/knowledge to kill the deceased and it all happened in the heat of passion over the sudden quarrel which happened without any premeditation.

SC No.2151/16 Page 16 of 43

16. Learned defence counsel had argued that the prosecution failed to establish that the knife belonged to the accused and that the deceased, PW19 Gulshan Rana and PW20 Anil Kumar were chasing him at the time of incident and accused Gopal Singh was heading towards his truck to save himself and it was the deceased Ravi Rana, who was chasing him with his knife.

17. Learned defence counsel has submitted that there are contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and that the prosecution failed to establish that it was the accused who was the aggressor or that the accused had any intention to kill the deceased or that he had the knowledge that the death of Ravi Rana may occur by the single knife blow given on his chest.

18. In respect of the charge of attempt to cause murder of Gulshan Rana, learned counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the same since PW6, Ram Rattan Thakur as well as PW7, Vijay Kumar Mishra are both independent witnesses but they have not supported the case of the prosecution. He also argued that Ramanandan, was also present at the time of the quarrel, but has not been examined as a witness who would have brought the true facts before this court. He also argued that the injuries suffered by Gulshan Rana as reported in his MLC go to show that the accused had no intention or knowledge to cause death of Gulshan Rana.

SC No.2151/16 Page 17 of 43

19. Learned defence counsel has therefore prayed for acquitting the accused of the charges framed against him.

20. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has argued that there is no merit in the submission made by learned defence counsel. He argued that nonexamination of Ramanandan, as a witness, does not cause any dent to the story of the prosecution in view of independent witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW19 Gulshan Rana and PW20 Anil Kumar, fully supporting the case of the prosecution. He argued that the testimonies of PW19 Gulshan Rana and PW20 Anil Kumar corroborate the testimony of each other in all material particulars and their depositions made in the examination in chief remained unshaken in their cross examination. He also argued that it cannot be said that the accused had no intention to cause death of the deceased Ravi Rana as he had given knife blow to Ravi Rana at his chest which is a vital part of the body and knowledge can also be imputed to accused that he would have known that giving of knife blow at the chest of Ravi Rana could have resulted in his death.

21. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State argued that the prosecution has proved the commission of offence punishable under section 302 IPC by the accused. He also argued that the nature of injuries on the body of Gulshan Rana is not relevant for deciding if the accused had intention or knowledge to kill Gulshan Rana and attention was drawn to the testimony of PW33 Dr. Mahesh SC No.2151/16 Page 18 of 43 Bharambe who had conducted MLC of Gulshan Rana and argued that learned defence counsel did not even crossexamine PW33 Dr. Mahesh Bharambe in support of his defence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State argued that prosecution also established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed offence punishable under section 302 and 307 IPC.

22. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and learned defence counsel.

23. PW1 HC Sunder Singh, duty officer, PW16 ASI Beg Raj, DD writer, PW25 Ct. Ram Kishan, PW26 Ct. Ajay Kumar, PW27 HC Pratap Singh, PW28 W. Ct. Sushma, PW29 Ct. Sube Singh, PW30 HC Amit Singh, PW32 HC Rakesh Kumar, PW35 Ct. Shambhu Tiwari, MHC (M), PW36 SI Narshi Prasad and PW37 HC Banwari Lal, MHC (M) are formal witnesses of the prosecution.

24. FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint given by PW19, Gulshan Rana. In his complaint, he had stated that he was employed as a driver on truck no. HR55P5136. He had brought the said truck to Admec Logistic Yard, MB Road, near Okhla Tpoint, at about 3:35 AM on 20.04.2012 for loading. Ravi Rana, who was also employed in the same company, brought his truck no. HR55P 5543 and entered in the yard following the truck of complainant, SC No.2151/16 Page 19 of 43 Gulshan Rana. There was a long queue of trucks. The vehicles were forwarding very slowly. At about 5 AM, the complainant reached nearly loading - unloading point. Ravi Rana was still following him alongwith his truck. Ravi Rana switched off the engine of his vehicle/truck. Due to the same, there became some gap between truck of the complainant and truck of Ravi Rana. Seeing the said space, the accused Gopal Singh, who had also brought his truck there for loading, drove his truck bearing no. HR38J3337 in the space between the truck of complainant and the truck of Ravi Rana. All this created a quarrel between the drivers, Ravi Rana and another driver, Anil, asked the accused to take his vehicle back. The accused, instead of taking his truck back, started quarrelling and grappling with the complainant and Ravi Rana. The wearing clothes of accused were also torn in that scuffle. Annoyed in this manner, he brought out a knife from his truck and attacked upon Ravi Rana challenging that he would teach them a lesson. The accused gave a knife blow on the left side chest of Ravi Rana. Ravi Rana started crying. The complainant tried to intervene but was attacked by accused and suffered stab injuries on his right palm and chest. The driver named Anil, called police control room at telephone no.100. Police took the victim/injured to Trauma Centre, AIIMS. Ravi Rana succumbed to injuries after reaching to hospital. On finding prima facie, sufficient material to frame charge against accused for offences punishable under section 302 & 307 IPC, charge for the said offences was framed against accused on 14.09.2012.

SC No.2151/16 Page 20 of 43

25. PW19, Gulshan Rana is an eyewitness as well as the complainant. He deposed that he was a driver employed with Three Aces Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. owned by PW17, Sh. Anmol Verma. He also deposed that he drove the traula bearing registration no. HR 55P5136. He deposed that in the intervening night of 19th and 20th April 2012, he drove said trolla to Admic Logistic Yard and his truck entered its premises at about 3:30 AM. Ravi Rana, another driver (deceased) who was also employed with Three Aces Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. had also brought his truck bearing no. HR55P5543 there and parked his truck behind vehicle of PW19. He further deposed that both of them were waiting for their turn. First his truck reached at the loading point at about 5 AM and Ravi was following him with his truck. There became some space between their trucks due to proceeding of PW19 further. One other driver namely Gopal i.e. accused, already known to PW19, brought his truck bearing no. HR 38J3337 between the truck of PW19 and Ravi Rana. He also deposed that driver of one more truck bearing no. HR38P9416 also tried to come between following his truck and the truck of accused Gopal. On objection of Ravi Rana, the said driver took back the said truck. Thereafter, Ravi Rana requested the accused to take it back but he refused to take the Truck back. A quarrel arose between Ravi and accused Gopal. Gopal brought out a knife and stabbed Ravi at his chest. He further deposed that Ravi cried "Chaku lag gaya, Chaku lag gaya". PW19 has deposed that he intervened in the matter. He was also stabbed by Gopal in his chest and on his palm. Ravi fell SC No.2151/16 Page 21 of 43 down on ground after walking to some distance. One other driver of their company namely Anil who was also there alongwith the truck called PCR at number 100. Police reached there. Gulshan Rana, i.e. PW20 and Ravi Rana were taken to Trauma Centre, AIIMS for treatment. Ravi Rana was declared dead. He also deposed that police recorded his statement Ex. PW19/A in hospital and that he accompanied police to spot and pointed out the place of incident. He further deposed that he handed over his wearing clothes to the police which were bloodstained. He deposed that police seized the same and identified the same in the court i.e. his shirt as Ex. P2 and pant as Ex. P3.

26. PW20, Anil Kumar has deposed that on 20.04.2012 at about 3 AM, he alongwith Gulshan Rana and Ravi Rana who were his friends and codrivers were going to Admic Yard and he was driving his traula bearing no. HR55K5619 and Gulshan Rana and Ravi Rana were driving their separate trucks. Their trucks were in queue. Between his truck and trucks of Gulshan Rana and Ravi Rana, there were two other trucks. He reached at loading point till 5 AM. After being loaded, he parked his truck on the side. Two trucks which were following his truck were to be unloaded. After being unloaded, both of these vehicles went away. Truck of Gulshan Rana was taken away for being loaded through Crane. As Gulshan Rana took his truck forward for being loaded, there became a gap of space between his truck and the following truck which was being driven by Ravi Rana.

SC No.2151/16 Page 22 of 43

Gopal Singh and one other person came forward alongwith their different vehicles to force those vehicles in that space. He further deposed that in this way, truck of Ravi Rana came at number 4. PW 20, Anil Kumar has further deposed that they requested the accused and that person to remove their vehicles. That other person accepted his request and he started removing his truck by backing it and PW 20 was assisting him. Ravi Rana and Gulshan Rana tried to persuade the accused Gopal to take away his truck from the queue. It resulted in a quarrel among them. PW20 also rushed to them by running. Accused went to cabin of his truck and brought out some weapon. He stabbed Ravi Rana with knife on his chest. After holding his wound, Ravi Rana sat on the ground. Gulshan Rana also suffered injury in that incident. PW20 has further deposed that he as well as his helper supported Ravi Rana and brought him up to Main Road. He informed PCR at 100 number using his mobile number 8130685602. PCR van came there. Ravi Rana and Gulshan Rana were taken to hospital by the police in PCR. PW20 has deposed that he and his helper also went to AIIMS hospital by hiring a TSR. He was informed that Ravi Rana succumbed to injuries while Gulshan Rana was being treated there. He deposed that his statement was recorded by police. He also deposed that he was employed at that time with Three Aces Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

27. Learned defence counsel took an objection that PW19, Gulshan Rana and PW20, Anil Kumar as well as the deceased were the SC No.2151/16 Page 23 of 43 employees of Three Aces Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and thus cannot be stated to be independent witnesses and that the third person who had intervened between the space of truck of Gopal and Ravi Rana namely Ramanandan was the independent eyewitness and said eyewitness has not been examined as a witness and thus prosecution failed to establish its case.

28. He also argued that accused was alone on one side while Ravi Rana (since deceased), Gulshan Rana and Anil Kumar were on other side and that in the incident, pant of accused got torn and because of shame/embarrassment, he rushed towards his truck and it was the deceased who chased the accused with the knife and when the accused was trying to board his truck, the stairs of which are at a height, Ravi Rana (since deceased) and Gulshan Rana and Anil Kumar pulled him down because of which accused fell on the lap of the deceased and the deceased suffered a knife blow from his own knife in that accident. Both PW19, Gulshan Rana and PW20, Anil Kumar, during their respective crossexamination, admitted that a driver has to put his foot on a pedestal having height of about 4 feet from the ground to climb to his seat in a truck. However it is noticed that during their respective cross examinations, both PW19, Gulshan Rana and PW20, Anil Kumar denied the suggestion that accused Gopal client to that pedestal being undraped and Ravi Rana (since deceased), Gulshan Rana and Anil Kumar pulled him and gave beating. They also denied the suggestion that Ravi Rana whipped out SC No.2151/16 Page 24 of 43 a knife to kill the accused Gopal and the victim fell down on the knife in his effort to pull down the accused from the truck and Ravi Rana fell down on his own knife. They also denied the suggestion that Ravi Rana called 'chaku lag gaya, chaku lag gaya' as he suffered injury from his own knife having fallen on it. Thus in view of the aforesaid, the said defence of the accused is not sustainable.

29. It is noticed that examination in chief of PW19, Gulshan Rana and PW20, Anil Kumar corroborate the testimony of each other in all material particulars in respect of the circumstances that led to quarrel between the accused Gopal and Ravi Rana and stabbing of Ravi Rana at his chest by a knife blow given by accused Gopal and death of Ravi Rana. This part of the testimony could not be shaken by the learned defence counsel in cross examination conducted on behalf of accused. The nonexamination of the said third person with the truck does not in any manner shake the credibility of the testimonies of PW19, Gulshan Rana and PW20, Anil Kumar.

30. Though learned defence counsel did not press for the contention that accused was not present at the spot of incident, presence of accused was established/proved by the prosecution. PW5 Shri Puneet deposed that he gave the truck bearing No. HR38J3337 to accused Gopal Singh for plying. He has proved on record RC of the vehicle vide Ex. PW5/A and his driving license vide Ex. PW5/B. PW7 Vijay Kumar Mishra deposed that he was working with ADMEC SC No.2151/16 Page 25 of 43 Logistics Limited as Supervisor and that police came and seized the entry pads vide Ex. PW7/A. The said entry pads record the in and out records of vehicles. Ex. PW7/A1 to Ex. PW7/A5 record the entry of trucks HR55P5136, slip No.45155 of Gulshan Rana at 3.35 a.m, HR55P5543, slip No.45156 of deceased Ravi Rana at 3.40 a.m, HR38J3337 of accused Gopal, slip No.45157, 3.45 AM and HR38P9416, slip No. 45158 of allegedly Ramanandan at 3.45 AM on the day of incident. In his cross examination PW7 clarified that by mistake all these time were in times and were wrongly shown as out time. PW11 Shri Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Limited, proved on record the copy of application form Ex. PW11/A relating to mobile No.981128551 which is in the name of accused Gopal Singh, copy of driving license of accused vide Ex. PW11/B, its CDR vide Ex. PW11/C and certificate vide Ex. PW11/D. The said witness was not crossexamined by learned defence counsel despite opportunity having been given. PW15 Inspector Mahesh, Draftsman, who prepared scaled site plan vide Ex. PW15/A specifically defined/earmarked the points of parking of the truck of the complainant, the accused, Ramanandan, and Ravi Rana standing one after another at point H,I,J,K respectively. Similarly IO, Dharamdev proved Ex. PW15/DA which he prepared at the spot of incident on the date of incident which again records the parking of the truck of the complainant followed by truck of accused, further followed by truck of Ramanandan and truck of Ravi Rana standing in the last and he has not been crossexamined on this aspect. Even SC No.2151/16 Page 26 of 43 rukka records the presence of these trucks. Besides that, the FSL:

DNA report, Ex. PW31/A prepared by PW31, Ms. Anita Chhari gave a specific finding that DNA profiling STR analysis performed on the pants of accused, blood gauze cloth piece of deceased and knife provided is sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile on the blood gauze cloth piece of deceased is similar with the DNA profile on the pants of accused as well as knife. Ex. PW31/A corroborates the version of prosecution of presence of accused at the place of incident on the date of incident.

31. PW8, Sh. Rakesh proved that on the night of 19th and 20 April 2012, Ramanandan was driving the truck bearing no. HR38P9416.

32. PW17, Sh. Anmol Verma, testified that he dealt in freight forwarding and custom clearance in the name of Three Aces Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and stated that on the night of 19th and 20 April 2012, Gulshan Rana and Ravi Rana, both employees of Admec Yards had gone with two trucks bearing no. HR55P5543 and HR 55P5136. He also admitted that police had seized photocopies of documents, Ex. PW17/C to Ex. PW17/E which show the owner of these trucks to be Three Aces Global Logistics Pvt.Ltd. which prove that Gulshan Rana, Ravi Rana (since deceased) and Anil Kumar were employees of Three Aces Global Logistics Pvt.Ltd. at the relevant time.

SC No.2151/16 Page 27 of 43

33. The objection taken by learned defence counsel about a different knife having been sent to the FSL for DNA profiling and not that the knife which was recovered is not sustainable in view of the said report. It is noticed that in the PCR form I, there is description of the knife. The said form records that "Gulshan s/o Partap Singh ke haath mein chaku laga hai. Me D/ct. ke hawaale kiya hai. Chaku ki lambai 5 cm, 2 cm gehra aur 2 cm chaura hai." Learned defence counsel had argued that measurements of the knife as given by PW 24 ASI Jagbir Singh in the sketch of knife vide Ex. PW24/G are different from the measurements of the knife given by PW39 Dr. Mahesh Kumar, SR, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi who proved on record the opinion dated 01.08.2014 vide Ex. PW39/A and sketch of knife Ex. PW39/B as well as from the measurements of the knife as recorded in the PCR form, Ex. PW28/A. He argued that this shows that there was more than one knife and that the knife which was sent to FSL was different from the knife on which opinion has been sought from the expert witness, PW39. The said submission of learned defence counsel is not sustainable. PCR form 1 was proved by PW

28. W/Ct. Sushma. No question was put to her to explain about the knife which had been mentioned in Ex. PW28/B. PW9 Shri Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Limited proved on record the copy of CDRs of mobile phone No.8130685602 vide Ex. PW9/A as well as the CAF of the said number. He proved that the same was assigned to PW20 Anil Kumar and the CDRs, Ex. PW9/A, also reflects the making of phone call at 100 number from the said mobile SC No.2151/16 Page 28 of 43 number on 20.04. 2012 at 5:26 AM.

34. Rather in the examination in chief PW28. W/Ct. Sushma, specifically deposed that at about 5:30 AM, she received a call from mobile number 81306866602 that "lal kuan Okhla More yaha par ek aadmi ko chaku maar diya hai." The same is recorded on Ex. PW8/B as well.

35. It is further noticed that in the portion "Gulshan s/o Partap Singh ke haath mein chaku laga hai. Me D/ct. ke hawaale kiya hai. Chaku ki lambai 5 cm, 2 cm gehra aur 2 cm chaura hai.", there is a specific reference of the complainant Gulshan Rana being injured by knife however no question was put to him even in his crossexamination to explain or tell about the said knife. Thus defence counsel cannot take advantage of his own wrong.

36. It is noticed that PW24 ASI Jagbir Singh proved on record the arrest memo of accused Gopal Singh vide Ex. PW24/C, his personal search memo Ex. PW24/D and his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW24/E. He testified that in his disclosure statement, accused had explained how he had committed the murder of Ravi Rana and also disclosed that he had thrown the bloodstained knife at West side of the wall in one small pit along with bloodstained clothes. He deposed that thereafter accused took him, IO and ASI Ashok at the place of occurrence and pointed out the same. PW24 also proved on record SC No.2151/16 Page 29 of 43 the pointing out memo vide Ex. PW24/F. He also deposed that accused took them near one wall and tubewell and he pointed out the place where one pit about 3-4 feet deep was there from which accused produced one knife and sketch of the knife was prepared. PW24 proved sketch of knife vide Ex. PW24/G, seizure memo of knife vide Ex. PW24/H. PW24 further deposed that accused also got recovered one black colour pant with lining and the same was found in torn condition, one leg was already found in stitches. PW24 also proved seizure memo of pant Ex. PW24/J. He also proved on record mobile phone Ex. P7 which was recovered from accused on his personal search and one pant Ex. P8 and knife Ex. P9. The said testimony of PW24 remained unshaken during his cross examination. PW40, IO/Inspector Dharam Dev has also deposed to the same effect. He also deposed that in his disclosure statement accused disclosed that after the incident he had jumped over the wall of dockyard and went towards northern basti jungle area where accused had changed his pant and the knife used in the incident was also thrown there and that in the said jungle near a pit accused got recovered his pant and a knife. PW24 as well as PW40, IO/Inspector Dharam Dev have stated that the said pant and knife were sealed and kept in separate pulandas vide seizure memo Ex. PW24/J and seizure memo Ex. PW24/H respectively. It was this knife and the pant which was sent to FSL. The same has been proved by the prosecution. PW30 has deposed that on 11.06.2012 he had taken 11 pullandas in sealed condition from malkhana of PS SC No.2151/16 Page 30 of 43 Pulprahlad Pur and deposited in FSL. He also deposed that after receiving the deposit acknowledgement slip, he returned back to police station and handed over same to PS and handed over to HC Rakesh. He also deposed that he took pullandas in sealed condition and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini. PW31 Ms. Anita Chhari, SSO (Biology), FSL, Rohini, New Delhi, has stated in her cross examination that she received 11 parcels in biological division on 11.06.2012 for examination. She also proved on record her detailed report vide Ex. PW31/A, biological report vide Ex. PW31/B and serological report vide Ex. PW31/C. The findings of Ex. PW 31/A have already been referred hereinbefore.

37. Learned defence counsel has stated that measurements of knife in Ex. PW24/G and Ex. PW39/B are different and stated them respectively as: Length of knife 30.5 CM 32 CM Length of Handle 12.5 CM 13 CM Length of Iron Blade 18 CM 19 CM Width of Blade 3.7 CM 3.7 CM

38. Ex. PW24/G and Ex. PW39/B have been perused. It is noticed that Ex.PW24/G does not reflect as to from which angle/side of the knife, the measurements of length of handle and the knife have been taken. Similarly it does not mention as to from which portion of the knife the length of iron blade has been measured. On the other SC No.2151/16 Page 31 of 43 hand in Ex. PW39/B, the measurements are reflected to have been taken from a particular side and from a particular portion, the length of iron blade has been measured. It is noticed that the variations in the 2 measurements are negligible and are attributable to fact that on one side of the knife, the wooden handle is long while from the other side, the iron blade is long. It is further noticed that in Ex. PW 39/B, it has been specifically mentioned that "measurements not be scaled". No question/clarification was put to PW39 in respect of the same. It is important to notice that both Ex. PW24/G and Ex. PW 39/B reflect that the words "LORD STAINLESS ROATFREINOX ORIGINAL INNOVATIVE QUALITY STAINLESS STEEL WRITTEN ON BLADE" are written on its iron blade which establish that both Ex. PW24/G and Ex. PW39/B are sketches of the same knife. Thus the submission of learned defence counsel that there was more than one knife or that the knife which was recovered by PW24 and the knife sent to FSL were different, holds no water.

39. Learned defence counsel had also taken an objection that none of the witnesses of the prosecution produced the top/short/dress which was worn by the accused on his upper body and that would have proved that accused was beaten by PW19 Gulshan Rana, PW20 Anil Kumar and Ravi Rana (since deceased). However as detailed above, it was the accused who had got recovered his own pant and the knife after recording of his disclosure statement and the same are relevant and admissible under section 27 of Indian SC No.2151/16 Page 32 of 43 Evidence Act. Thus nonproduction of the top/short/dress of the accused is not because of any default/deceit of the prosecution but because the same were not got recovered by the accused.

40. PW39, Dr. Mahesh Kumar, SR, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi has proved on record the opinion dated 01.08.2014 vide Ex. PW39/A and sketch of knife Ex. PW39/B. In Ex. PW39/A, it has been specifically reported that the injury sustained by the deceased mentioned in his MLC and Postmortem Report could be possible by the alleged knife. It has been further reported that as per the FSL, DNA examination report of the exhibits, it is highly likely possibility that the injury sustained by the deceased is produced by the alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife. MLC No.305988, Ex. PW14/A of the deceased Ravi Rana has been proved PW14 Dr. Ravinder Shukla and his Postmortem Report, Ex. PW18/A, has been proved by PW 18 Dr. Sanjay Kumar. In his report Ex. PW18/A, PW18 Dr. Sanjay Kumar has opined that the cause of the death is haemorrhagic shock as a result of antemortem thoracic injury produced by a sharp cutting weapon which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Thus finding incriminating evidence in the form of the knife, Ex.P9, which was recovered after the accused Gopal was apprehended and has been opined to be the possible weapon of offence and further evidence being DNA profile detected on the pant of the accused and said knife of the same DNA profile as that of the deceased, prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt SC No.2151/16 Page 33 of 43 that death of the deceased was caused by the knife used by the accused by giving knife blow on chest of the accused.

41. What remains to be seen is whether the stab injuries on the chest of Ravi Rana with the knife were given with intention to kill him.

42. For deciding this, it is necessary to refer to the cross examination of two star witness of the prosecution namely PW19, Gulshan Rana and PW20, Anil Kumar.

43. Learned defence counsel has argued that the quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased and Gulshan Rana and Anil Kumar due to a sudden fight without there being any premeditation and the knife blow on the chest of the deceased given by the accused was not intentional much less given with the intention of causing death.

44. During his crossexamination, PW19, Gulshan Rana, admitted that he had told to IO that Gopal and they three i.e. he, Ravi Rana (since deceased) and Anil started beating each other. He also admitted that accused was alone on one side. He admitted that he told to IO that clothes of Gopal were also torn in that beating. Similarly PW20, Anil Kumar, in his crossexamination admitted that in that quarrel he, Ravi Rana (since deceased) and Gulshan Rana were on one side and accused alone was on other side.

45. During his crossexamination, PW19, Gulshan Rana, denied the SC No.2151/16 Page 34 of 43 suggestion that accused Gopal became totally nude at the spot or they gave him severe beating. He denied the suggestion that wearing pant of accused Gopal was also torn. However PW20, Anil Kumar, in his crossexamination, stated that he intervened in that quarrel but he did not initiate it. He also admitted that wearing clothes of accused were torn in that incident. He denied the suggestion that the accused had become totally naked after his wearing clothes were torn in that incident after admitting that for once. He stated that accused had not become naked though his pant was torn up to pocket but he was still holding it on his body. The said submission is corroborated by the pant of the accused, Ex.P3.

46. In view of these statements of PW19, Gulshan Rana and of PW20, Anil Kumar, it cannot be ruled out that accused Gopal retaliated to the situation of being beaten by Gulshan Rana, Ravi Rana (since deceased) and Anil Kumar while he was alone on one side. His pant got torn is substantiated by the condition of his pant which was recovered at his instance in view of the disclosure statement which was torn badly. PW38 Dr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Resident, AIIMS, has proved on record the MLC of Gopal Singh vide Ex. PW38/A. Accused Gopal Singh had also sustained injuries is proved by the contents of his MLC.

47. In the facts of the case, it cannot be doubted that the quarrel which took place on the date of incident was sudden and not SC No.2151/16 Page 35 of 43 premeditated and that death of Ravi Rana was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. In view of the fact that accused was alone on one side and Gulshan Rana, Ravi Rana (since deceased) and Anil Kumar were together on one side, it can be safely said that the accused had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner in view of the fact that he gave only one knife blow to the deceased.

48. In case of Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 444, the Apex Court took into account that many petty or insignificant incidents, plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercation and group clashes culminating into deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention or no premeditation and may not be any criminality.

49. In the matter of Harender Singh vs State Of Delhi on 29 February, 2016, while deciding CRL.A.25/2004, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as:

"37. In the case of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2002) 3 SCC 327, the Appellant caused two bhala blows on the vital part of the body of the deceased that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The High Court held that the SC No.2151/16 Page 36 of 43 Appellant had acted in a cruel and unusual manner. Reversing the view taken by the High Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes of Exception 4 of Section 300 Indian Penal Code. In cases where after the injured had fallen down, the Appellant did not inflict any further injury when he was in a helpless position, it may indicate that he had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The Court observed as under:

"19. ....All fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes of not availing the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 Indian Penal Code. After the injuries were inflicted and the injured had fallen down, the Appellant is not shown to have inflicted any other injury upon his person when he was in a helpless position. It is proved that in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel followed by a fight, the accused who was armed with Bhala caused injuries at random and thus did not act in a cruel or unusual manner. (emphasis supplied)

38. In the case of V. Subramani v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported at (2005) 10 SCC 358, there was some dispute SC No.2151/16 Page 37 of 43 over grazing of buffaloes. Thereafter, there was altercation between the accused and the deceased. The accused dealt a single blow with a wooden yoke on the deceased. Altering the conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that it cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is ruled out. The fact situation has to be considered in each case. Thus, the part of the body on which the blow was dealt, the nature of the injury and the type of the weapon used will not always be determinative as to whether an accused is guilty of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The events which precede the incident will also have a bearing on the issue whether the act by which death was caused was done with an intention of causing death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without intention to cause death. It is the totality of circumstances which will decide the nature of the offence.

39. In the case of Golla Yelugu Govindu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported at (2008) 16 SCC 769, at SC No.2151/16 Page 38 of 43 about 2:00 A.M. when the deceased was in the house there was exchange of hot words and quarrel between the accused and the deceased. This happened in the presence of the children. Suddenly the accused hacked the deceased in the neck with a sickle and the deceased fell down and the accused once again hacked on the neck and left ear of the deceased causing severe bleeding injuries. It resulted in the death of the lady. The appellant therein submitted that Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has no application to the assault made during the course of a sudden quarrel and Exception 4 of Section 300, of the Indian Penal Code applied. The Hon'ble Supreme Court discussing the law in detail converted the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.

40. In the case decided by this Court in Crl.A.No.134/2009 titled as Jagtar Singh @ Jagga @ Ganja v. State of Delhi, there were two injuries on the neck and two in the chest, of the deceased, caused by a sharp edged weapon. There were other minor injuries and abrasions; in all there were nine injuries. According to the doctor who conducted the post mortem of the deceased, the shock caused as a result of the injuries SC No.2151/16 Page 39 of 43 to the neck and chest was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The surrounding circumstances in the case pointed to some previous quarrel between the deceased and the appellant; the latter was agitated and confronted the deceased in the first part of the incident; on the day of occurrence. It was held by this Court that though the appellant inflicted several blows some of which were fatal, it is clear that he did not set out with a premediated intention to kill the deceased. The facts clearly established an offence under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code in which intention was to cause such bodily injuries as would have resulted in death in the ordinary course of nature.

41. Our view is further fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhakar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2013 (1) JCC 266 wherein it was held as under:

"Therefore, unmindful of the consequences, though not in a cruel manner the Appellant inflicted a single blow which unfortunately caused severe damage to the vital organs resulting into the death of the deceased. In such circumstances, as rightly SC No.2151/16 Page 40 of 43 contended by Learned Counsel for the Appellant, we are convinced that the offence alleged and as found proved against the Appellant can be brought under the First Part of Section 304 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the Appellant, we are only altering the same as falling under Section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code in place of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code."

50. In my considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the death of the deceased namely Ravi Rana caused by the accused Gopal falls in explanation 4 of section 300 IPC which also provides that it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commit the first assault. In the facts of the case, the offence committed by the accused falls under section 304 part II of the IPC and the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 part II of the IPC.

51. Accused has also faced trial in view of framing of charge against accused for offence punishable under 307 IPC i.e. attempt to cause murder of PW19, Gulshan Rana. PW19, Gulshan Rana, had stated in his complaint, Ex. 19/A that when Ravi Rana shouted that Gopal had stabbed him with a knife, he tried to apprehend Gopal by running after him due to which Gopal attacked him with a knife on SC No.2151/16 Page 41 of 43 his chest. He also stated that he tried to save himself from the said attack. It led to injuries on his right hand and on his chest on left side. However in his examination in chief, PW19, Gulshan Rana deposed that when he intervened in the quarrel between accused Gopal and Ravi Rana, he was also stabbed by Gopal in his chest and on his palm. He did not say that he was given knife stab or was about to be given knife stab by accused Gopal when he tried to apprehend him. Further as noticed earlier, PW19, Gulshan Rana was an active participant in the quarrel which had taken as he has himself admitted in his cross examination that he, Ravi Rana (since deceased) and PW20, Anil Kumar were on one side while accused Gopal was alone on other side. Further, it is noticed that none of the eyewitnesses of the incident has deposed that accused Gopal had intentionally attacked Gulshan Rana with a knife much less with the intention to cause his death. Even PW20, Anil Kumar deposed that Gulshan Rana suffered injury in that incident of quarrel. MLC, Ex. PW33/A of PW19, Gulshan Rana, also shows superficial injuries over his chest and an incised wound over his right hand. Although PW33 has not been crossexamined by learned defence counsel despite opportunity being given, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Gopal did any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act he had caused death of PW19 Gulshan Rana, he would be guilty of murder. Therefore, accused Gopal is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 307 IPC.

SC No.2151/16 Page 42 of 43

52. Let the accused Gopal Singh be heard on the quantum of sentence.

Announced in the open           (DR.NEERA BHARIHOKE)
court today i.e. 03.04.19       Addl. Sessions Judge06
                            SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi


          Digitally
          signed by
          NEERA
NEERA     BHARIHOKE
BHARIHOKE Date:
          2019.04.04
          15:24:36
          +0530




SC No.2151/16                                       Page 43 of 43

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

49. In The Matter Of Harender Singh vs State Of Delhi On 29 on 3 April, 2019