Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Manoj S/O Rajender Singh, R/O E103, ... on 19 April, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SUNITA GUPTA : DISTRICT JUDGEVII/NECUM
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
S.C. No. 109/08
State Vs. 1. Manoj S/o Rajender Singh, R/o E103, Deepak Colony,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
2. Sudhir S/o Indal, R/o E103/106, Deepak Colony,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
3. Gabbar Singh S/o Mahender Singh, R/o E103/88,
Deepak Colony, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
4. Ravinder Kumar S/o Balram, R/o E103/105, Deepak
Colony, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
FIR No. 262/08
PS Seemapuri
U/s 302/34 IPC.
Date of Institution : 23.12.08
Date on which reserved for Order : 30.03.2010
Date of Decision : 15.04.2010
J U D G E M E N T : Maxim "better alone than in a bad company" proved fatal to Bharat, when he joined the bad company of Manoj, Sudhir, Gabbar and Ravinder. On 07.09.08 at about 2pm, accused Sudhir, Gabbar and Ravinder went to the house of Ramesh Srivastava and called Bharat. They took Bharat along with them. Ramesh Srivastava got up and saw Manoj standing outside, who also went along with them. Ramesh went to public toilet. When he came out of toilet, from the side of Sewa Bharti School, he heard cries. He reached near eastern wall of Sewa Bharti School and found that Bharat was overpowered by Manoj and Gabbar, while Sudhir and Ravinder were stabbing him. He questioned them in a bold voice as to why they were assaulting Bharat. On hearing this, they ran away. Bharat ran towards his house while staggering. He also followed Bharat. Bharat reached his house and fell down. Many persons collected there and someone informed the PCR. PCR van reached S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 1/30 2 and removed Bharat to GTB Hospital. MLC of Bharat was prepared in the hospital and he succumbed to his injuries at 8.30am on that very day. Autopsy on his dead body was conducted by Dr. Monisha Pradhan. She details various stab injuries in her autopsy report, which were present on the dead body of deceased. She opined that death was caused on account of shock as a result of head injury due to blunt force impact. Statement of Ramesh Srivastava was recorded by police, which became bedrock of the case. Investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, all the four accused persons were arrested on an informant' s tip on 10.09.08.
Weapon of offence viz., knife and Danda were recovered at the instance of accused Sudhir and Ravinder. Supplementary opinion of doctor was obtained. Exhibits were sent to FSL. Investigation culminated into a charge sheet against the accused persons.
2. Charge for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which charge they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined Ramesh Srivastava (PW1), Suresh Srivastav (PW2), Suraj (PW3), Sunil Kumar, Constable (PW4), Sanjeev Kumar, Constable (PW5), Mukesh Jain SI (PW6), Dr. Sumit (PW7), Dr. Manisha Pradhan (PW8), Tarun Kumar Sharma (PW9), Balashankaran SI (PW10), Dr. Amit Jain (PW11), Sohan Lal (PW12), Arun Kumar, Head Constable (PW13), Shokender Pal, Head Constable (PW14), Ved Prakash ASI (PW15), Ramesh Chand Yadav ASI (PW16), Manisha, Constable (PW17), Arvind, Head Constable (PW18), Rakesh SI (PW19), H.S.P. Singh, Inspector (PW20) and Shashi Bala, Sr. Scientific Assitant (PW21) in the case.
4. In order to afford an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused persons, they were examined under section S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 2/30 3 313 Cr.P.C. They had denied all allegations levelled against them. Their case has been of denial simplicitor. All the accused persons, except accused Manoj, have projected that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case at the instance of Sohan Lal, in connivance with complainant and police. His daughter Preeti is complainant in a case under section 376 IPC against one Vicky, who is also a resident of their locality. Mother of accused Gabbar Singh is also an accused in that case, that is why Sohan Lal is having strained relations with their family. Poonam, another daughter of Sohan Lal, also made complaint against Sunder, cousin brother of Ravinder, as such Sohan Lal is having inimical relations with their families. However, accused Manoj claimed that he was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in the case. They have examined Sh. Ramesh Kumar (DW1), Smt. Zarina (DW2), Amar Singh (DW3), Sh. Jashwant Singh (DW4) and Sh. Om Prakash (DW5) in support of their defence.
5. Ramesh Srivastava @ Pappu (PW1) is the uncle of deceased and is the eyewitness of the incident.
Suresh Srivastava (PW2) identified dead body of his son Bharat at mortuary, GTB Hospital, vide identification statement Ex.PW2/A. Suraj (PW3) unfolds that on 06.09.08, he reached his jhuggi at about 2am. On hearing the noises, he reached jhuggi of Ramesh. He saw that Bharat, nephew of Ramesh, was lying inside the jhuggi in a pool of blood. He with the help of Ramesh and PCR officials removed Bharat to GTB Hospital for his medical examination. Thereafter, he along with Ramesh and police officials came back to jhuggi of Ramesh, and produced his blood stained kurta and pyjama before the IO. His clothes were smeared with blood, when Bharat was removed to hospital. His clothes were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/A. S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 3/30 4 Sunil Kumar, Constable (PW4) went to GTB Hospital along with SHO to get postmortem on the dead body done. After postmortem, dead body was given to relatives for funeral, vide handing over memo Ex.PW1/D. Sanjeev Kumar, Constable (PW5) received DD No.5A to the effect that one boy has been stabbed by knife near Gauri Shankar Mandir. He reached the spot along with Ved Prakash ASI. He took rukka recorded by the IO and got the case registered. He detailed those investigative steps, which took place in his presence.
Mukesh Jain SI (PW6) is the draughtsman. On being summoned by Inspector H.S.P. Singh, PS Seemapuri, Delhi, on 16.10.08, he reached Sewa Bharti School, Deepak Colony, New Seemapuri, Delhi. He inspected the spot and took rough notes and measurement on the pointing out of Ved Prakash ASI. Thereafter, on 20.10.07, he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW6/A. PW7 Dr. Sumit was working as CMO, GTB Hospital, and has proved MLC of Bharat as Ex.PW7/A prepared by Dr. Amit Jain.
PW8 Dr. Manisha Pradhan conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bharat and gave her report Ex.PW8/A and subsequent opinion Ex.PW8/B. PW9 Constable Tarun Kumar Sharma along with crime team reached at Sewa Bharti School, Dilshad Garden, Seemapuri, on 07.09.06. On the direction of ASI Ved Prakash, he took photographs from different angles. He also took photographs of jhuggi No. E103, Deepak Colony, Dilshad Garden. He proved photographs Ex.PW9/A10 to Ex.PW9/A20 and negatives Ex.PW9/A1 to Ex.PW9/A9.
PW10 Balashankaran SI was posted at Mobile Crime Team, North East Distt. On 07.09.08 at about 6am, on receipt of call, he reached Sewa Bharti School, Delhi, along with photographer, Constable Tarun and ASI Ved Prakash. Constable Tarun Kumar took photographs of the spot from S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 4/30 5 different angles. Some blood was lying at the spot and photographs were also taken of that place.
PW11 Dr. Amit Jain was working as Jr. Resident of GTB Hospital, on 09.09.08. On that day, at about 3.15am, patient Bharat was brought to hospital by Head Constable Arvind. He prepared MLC of Bharat, which is Ex.PW7/A. PW12 Sohan Lal informed the PCR van.
PW13 Arun Kumar, Head Constable, was working as MHC(M). different pullandas were deposited with him on 07.09.08, 09.09.08, 10.09.08, to which entries were recorded by him in the store room register and he proved photocopy of the same as Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW13/C. On 17.10.08, two parcels duly sealed were sent to MAMC and hospital through Inspector HSP Singh, vide R.C. NO. 241/21 and on the same day, both parcels were again deposited by Inspector HSP Singh. On 29.10.08, all the exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini through Constable Yogesh, vide R.C. No. 247/21. The result from FSL was received on 09.03.09.
PW14 Shaukender Pal, Head Constable, was working as duty officer on 07.09.08 from 9am to 5pm. On receipt of information from GTB Hospital regarding death of injured, who was admitted in the hospital, he recorded DD No. 12A, copy of which is Ex.PW12/A and sent copy of said DD entry to HSP Singh, Inspector, for action in the matter.
PW15 Ved Prakash ASI was on emergency duty on the intervening night of 06/070908 at PS Seemapuri from 8pm to 8am. On that day, at about 2.5am, on receipt of DD No. 5A, he along with Constable Sanjeev went to Sewa Bharti School, Deepak Colony, Delhi, at 3am, where he noticed blood was lying at the spot. It was revealed that injured was taken to GTB Hospital in a PCR van. After directing Constable Sanjeev to remain S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 5/30 6 at the spot to safeguard the site, he reached GTB Hospital at about 3.30am and collected MLC of injured, who was unfit for his statement. In the hospital itself, uncle of Bharat, namely, Ramesh Srivastava met him, who stated that he is the eyewitness of the occurrence. He recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, he along with Ramesh Srivmastava reached at the spot. He made his endorsement on the statement of Ramesh Srivastava Ex.PW15/ and gave rukka to Constavle Sanjeev for getting the case registered. Crime team was called at the place of occurrence, who inspected the site and took photographs of the site. He also went to Jhuggi No.103/3, where blood was lying. Photographs of the jhuggi were also taken by the crime team officials. He had taken the blood stained earth from the spot and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed with the seal of VP. He also took earth without blood from the jhuggi and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed with seal of VP. Suraj Srivastava, who accompanied the injured in PCR, produced one kurta and pyjama, which was blood stained. He kept clothes in a pullanda, which was sealed with seal of VP. He inspected the site at the instance of Ramesh Srivastava and prepared site plan Ex.PW15/B. On 16.10.08, he along with SI Mukesh went at the place of occurrence, who prepared scaled site plan of the spot. Further investigation was assigned to Inspector HSP Singh, SHO PS Seemapuri.
PW16 Ramesh Chand Yadav was working as duty officer on 07.09.08. At about 5.15am, on the basis of tehrir sent by ASI Ved Prakash through Constable Sanjeev, he recorded FIR Ex.PW16/A. He also proved DD register entry at Sr. No.5 dated 07.09.08 to the effect that someone had stabbed as Ex.PW16/C and entry at Sr. No. 12 dated 07.09.08 to the effect that injured has expired as Ex.PW16/D. PW17 Constable Manisha was posted at Central Police Control Room S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 6/30 7 on the intervening night of 06/070908 from 8pm to 8am. At about 2.42am, one male person gave information to the effect that one man has been stabbed by someone. She recorded this information. Since it was as serious call, she informed the command room and one form was given to becker 5 of Distt. NorthEast. She proved the form Ex.PW17/1.
PW18 HC, Arvind, was posted at PCR van becker 5 and has deposed that vehicle was stationed near Seemapuri Depot. At about 2.50am, one call was received from PCR to the effect that in Deepak Colony, one person has been stabbed. Immediately, he reached the spot, that is, E 103/3, Jhuggi Deepak Colony, where he found one injured person. Injured was brought from the spot to the PCR vehicle with the help of two public persons as the vehicle was parked at a distance of 150200 paces, as there was no way for the vehicle to go inside that passage. He had taken the injured to GTB Hospital. Those two public persons also accompanied him to the hospital. Injured was unconscious at that time. Those two public persons gave name of the injured as Bharat, son of Suresh. He got him admitted in the emergency. Doctor examined and prepared his MLC. After giving the custody of injured to the duty Constable Sanjay at GTB Hospital, he left the hospital.
PW19 SI Rakesh joined investigation of the case with Inspector HSP Singh, and deposed regarding the investigative steps taken by the latter.
PW20 Inspector HSP Singh deposed that on 07.09.08, he was posted at PS Seemapuri, as SHO. On receipt of DD No. 12A, he along with SI Rakesh went to GTB Hospital as an information was received regarding the death of one Bharat. There we came to know that dead body of Bharat has been removed to mortuary, GTB Hospital. Thereafter, he long with SI Rakesh went at Sewa Bharti School, Deepak Colony, Delhi, where ASI Ved Prakash and Constable Sanjeev met them. He took over the case file S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 7/30 8 from ASI Ved Prakash and he briefed him regarding facts of the case. They remained at the spot for sometime. He along with SI Rakesh went in search of accused persons. At about 5.30pm, they were present in the area of New Seemapuri. One secret informer met them, who informed that one wanted accused, namely, Manoj was present at Vivek Vihar, Railway station. On the way to Vivek Vihar, Railway Station, they requested public persons to join the investigation, but none was willing to be a witness in the case. At the pointing out of secret informer accused Manoj was overpowered from near the flyover Vivek Vihar. He interrogated accused Manoj and later on he was arrested vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B respectively. He also recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW19/C. Accused took them to the place of occurrence, that is, Sewa Bharti School, Deepak Colony. He prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW19/D which bears his signature at point B. On 08.09.08, he along with SI Rakesh went to GTB Hospital, Mortuary in a Govt. Vehicle. He prepared the inquest papers and recorded the identification statement of Ramesh Srivastav and Suresh Srivastav, vide Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW2/A. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide Ex.PW1/D. On 09.08.08, he was present at the PS, one Constable Sunil produced two sealed parcels and one sample seal of MP. He had taken the same into police possession vide memo Ex.PW19/E. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. On 10.09.08, he was present at the PS. Secret informer met him at about 7 pm and stated that the remaining accused, namely, Gabbar, Ravinder and Sudhir were present in a abandoned room, near Green Belt, 70 feet road, New Seemapuri. He made an entry to this effect. A raiding party was constituted consisting of himself, SI Rakesh, ASI Ved Parkash, ASI Shahid Khan and Constable Naveen. They went towards 70 S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 8/30 9 feet road in a Govt. Vehicle. They parked their vehicle near that abandoned road. He requested 45 passersby to join the proceedings but they refused to join the proceedings. Raid was conducted at that room. All the three accused namely Ravinder, Gabbar and Sudhir were found present there. He interrogated all the three accused persons and recorded their disclosure statement vide Ex.PW19/F, Ex.PW19/G and Ex.PW19/H. Thereafter, accused persons had taken them to the place of occurrence, that is, Sewa Bharti School, where they all pointed the place of occurrence. He prepared their pointing out memo Ex.PW19/J. Accused Ravinder pointed the place of occurrence and had taken out one knife from the eastern wall from garbage, Sewa Bharti School. He prepared the sketch of the knife Ex.PW19/K and kept the same in a pulanda and sealed with the seal of HSP and seized vide memo Ex.PW19/L. Thereafter accused Sudhir pointed the place of occurrence and got recovered one danda from the roof of Sewa Bharti School. He measured the danda and kept the same in a pulanda and it was also sealed with the seal of HSP and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/M. Accused Gabbar also pointed the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW19/J. He had also prepared the arrest memo and the personal search memo of the accused persons vide memo Ex.PW19/N to Ex.PW19/S. On 16.10.08, he along with ASI Ved Parkash and SI Mukesh Jain (Draftsman ) went at the place of occurrence. At his instance, SI Mukesh prepared the rough sketch. On 17.10.08, he had taken the two sealed parcels bearing no.P6 and no.P7 from the MHCM for obtaining the subsequent opinion from Dr.Manisha Pardhan vide R.C no.241/08 vide application Ex.PW20/A. He produced both the sealed parcels before Dr.Manisha Pardhan, who gave the subsequent opinion. He collected the subsequent report from Dr.Manisha Pardhan, who opined that injury no. 1 to 12 as mentioned in the PM report, could be possible S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 9/30 10 with the wooden bamboo stick or a similar one. She also opined that injury no.9 and 11 as mentioned in the PM report could be possible with the tip of the weapon no.2 examined or by similar pointed object/weapon. On 29.10.08, he sent exhibits parcels of the present case duly sealed to FSL, Rohini, through Constable Yogesh vide R.C no.247/21/08. He recorded statements of witnesses and got the accused persons challaned in the case.
PW21 Shashi Bala, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Biology) examined exhibits of the case biologically and serologically. She proved her reports as Ex.21/A and Ex.PW21/B respectively.
6. I have heard Sh. Subhash Chauhan, ld. Prosecutor for the State, and Sh. S. Asif and Sh. Sadiq Hussain, Advocates, for the accused Sudhir and Ravinder, Sh. M.I. Malik, Advocate for accused Gabbar and Sh. V.K. Singh, Advocate, for accused Manoj, and also perused the written submissions filed by accused Ravinder, Sudhir and Gabbar.
7. ld. Defence counsels assailed testimony of PW1 Ramesh Srivastava on the ground that conduct and behaviour of this witness is quite unnatural, inasmuch as, as per his testimony accused persons came at about 2am and he allowed the injured to go with them in the night, without asking any question. Further more, he did not help the injured in removing to the jhuggi. Further although, he deposed that injured was stabbed, but according to him, no blood oozed out when Bharat was coming from school to his jhuggi. It is improbable that after receiving knife blows, no blood would be found on the way and in case complainant was present at the spot, he must have supported the injured Bharat in bringing him towards the jhuggi and his clothes should also be smeared with blood. Moreover, there was only one source of light installed at a bamboo, which was also too away from the alleged place of occurrence. It was not S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 10/30 11 possible to identify any person in the dark from a distance of about 8 meters. Under these circumstances, it was submitted that this witness has been planted by the police only to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present case. Testimony of PW3 was also attacked on the ground that although PW1 has deposed that statement of Bharat was recorded by PCR officials, however, PW3 denied this fact. As regard PW12 Sohan Lal Sharma is concerned, it was submitted that he was having inimical terms with accused Gabbar, and as such he falsely implicated the accused persons. It was further submitted that PW19 SI Rakesh and PW20 Inspector HSP Singh have deposed in routine manner and their cross examination shows that alleged recovery is planted by the police. There are many discrepancies and lacunae in their depositions as such it was submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt, and as such accused persons are liable to be acquitted of the charge.
8. Rebutting contentions of ld. Defence counsels, it was submitted by ld. Prosecutor that PW1 Ramesh Srivastava is the uncle of deceased and is an eyewitness to the incident. He was crossexamined at great length by ld. Defence counsel. But he stood the test of crossexamination and there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. His presence at the spot finds corroboration from testimony of PW3 and the PCR officials, who took the injured Bharat to hospital in PCR van with the help of PW1 and PW3. Recovery of knife and danda has been proved at the instance of accused persons from the corroborative testimony of SI Rakesh and Inspector HSP Singh. Further the oral testimony of Ramesh Srivastava finds corroboration from medical evidence and expert evidence. Under these circumstances, it was submitted that prosecution has been able to bring home guilt of the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and all the accused S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 11/30 12 persons are liable to be convicted for charges levelled against them.
9. I have given my considerable thoughts to respective submissions of ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
10. As per prosecution case, Bharat used to reside with Sh. Ramesh Srivastava, who was his uncle, in a jhuggi at Deepak Colony, Delhi. All the accused persons were friends of Bharat and were on visiting terms and used to visit his jhuggi. They used to dine together. On the intervening night of 06/070908, Ramesh Srivastava along with Bharat was sleeping in the jhuggi. At about 2am, accused Sudhir, Gabbar and Ravinder, friends of Bharat, came inside the jhuggi and accused Manoj was standing outside the jhuggi. All these persons took Bharat towards Sewa Bharti School. Ramesh Srivastava had gone for latrine to Sarkari Sauchalaya, which is situated near Sewa Bharti School. The moment he came out from sauchalaya, he heard noise coming from Sewa Bharti School. He immediately reached there and saw Manoj and Gabbar grappled with Bharat and other two persons, namely, Ravinder and Sudhir inflicting knife blows on the person of Bharat. Ramesh Srivastava raised alarm and thereafter all the accused persons ran away from the spot. Bharat got up in the injured condition. Ramesh followed him and they came to the jhuggi. In the jhuggi, Bharat fell on the ground. Sohan Lal (PW12) informed the PCR. Constable Manisha was posted at Central Police Control Room and on receipt of information regarding stabbing of a person by someone, she recorded this information and informed the senior officials. On receipt of information, HC Arvind, who was posted at PCR van becker 5 reached at E103/3, Deepak Colony, where he found one injured person. He brought the injured to PCR vehicle with the help of PW1 Ramesh Srivastava and PW3 Suraj and took injured to GTB Hospital. Ramesh Srivastava and Suraj also accompanied him to the hospital. Bharat was examined by Dr. Amit S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 12/30 13 Jain, who prepared his MLC. Thereafter, Bharat succumbed to injuries and DD No. 17A was recorded to this effect. On receipt of information about stabbing of a person by someone, ASI Ved Prakash reached the spot and took investigative steps regarding seizure of earth control blood, earth control, calling crime team, getting the scene of crime photographed etc. After expiry of injured, postmortem was conducted on the dead body by Dr. Manisha Pradhan. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to Inspector HSP Singh, who along with SI Rakesh Kumar further took up investigation, arrested all accused persons, got knife and danda recovered at their instance. HSP Singh, Inspector also obtained subsequent opinion from Dr. Manisha Pradhan regarding weapon of offence and sent exhibits to FSL.
11. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution first of all is relying upon the ocular testimony of PW1 Ramesh Srivastava, who has unfolded that on intervening night of 06/070908, he along with Bharat was sleeping in the jhuggi. At about 2am, Sudhir, Gabbar and Ravinder, friends of Bharat, came inside the jhuggi and Manoj was standing outside the jhuggi. All these persons had taken Bharat towards Sevabharti school. He had gone for laterine, which was near a public convenience, which was situated near Seva Bharti School. The moment, he came out from the sauchalaya, he heard noises, coming from Seva Bharti School side. He immediately reached there and saw Manoj and Gabbar had grappled Bharat and other two persons, namely, Ravinder and Sudhir were inflicting knife blow on the person of Bharat. He raised an alarm and thereafter, all the four accused persons ran away from the spot. Thereafter, his nephew Bharat got up in the injured condition and he followed him and then they came reached their jhuggi, where Bharat fell on the ground. Somebody had informed the police at 100 number. Police officials came at the spot in a PCR van. Thereafter, his injured nephew was taken to GTB Hospital in that PCR S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 13/30 14 vehicle. As seen above, testimony of this witness is assailed by the ld. Defence counsels on the ground that conduct of this witness is quite unnatural, inasmuch as, he permitted Bharat to go with accused persons in the night, without asking any question. The explanation has come from the side of witness that accused persons were on visiting terms and used to visit his jhuggi to meet Bharat. Bharat and the accused persons used to dine together and therefore since they were having cordial relations, when accused came to call Bharat, he inquired from them as where they are going. His mother was also present in the jhuggi and she told him that since accused persons were known to Bharat, she permitted them to go together. Under these circumstances, in view of this explanation coming on record, conduct of the witness in permitting the injured to go with accused persons does not cast any doubt on prosecution story.
12. As regard further statement that injured himself came to the jhuggi and he was not supported by the witness and this conduct is quite unnatural. Here again, it may be mentioned that it has come in his testimony that injured got up and went towards jhuggi and he followed him. If anything untoward had happened on the way, he was there to lookafter him. As such, here again no adverse inference can be drawn against the witness. Perusal of the record reveals that this witness was crossexamined at great length and on number of dates by ld. Defence counsels. However, nothing material could be elicited to discredit his testimony. He was a close relative of the deceased. The deceased was having cordial relations with accused persons. That being so, the accused themselves have not alleged any animosity, illwill or grudge against this witness, for which reason he would falsely implicate them in such a serious case. Moreover, presence of this witness at the relevant time is quite unnatural, inasmuch as, it was on the intervening night of 06/070908 and the time was 2am. The deceased was S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 14/30 15 residing with him. That being so, presence of this witness in the jhuggi at the relevant time is quite natural. Further more, even regarding the actual incident, which took place regarding inflicting of knife blow and danda blows, he has given a vivid version of the same and absolutely no suggestion was given to this witness that they did not inflicted any knife blow or danda blow on the person of Bharat. With the result, testimony of this witness in regard to the material incident goes unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. For holding this view, I am fortified by the judgement reported in Bal Kishan vs. State & anr., 1977 Cr.L.J. 410, wherein it was held that if there is a failure to cross examine a witness in respect of a material assertion, it is to be presumed that that assertion stand admitted. This position of law was reiterated in Mehboob @ Mehmood & Ors vs. State, 2010 I AD (Delhi)
429. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, it becomes clear that in the absence of crossexamining PW1 in regard to this vital aspect, it is to be presumed that his testimony stands admitted.
13. As regard the submission of ld. Defence counsel that there was one source of light installed at a bamboo, which was away from the alleged place of occurrence and therefore, it was not possible to identify any person in the dark from a distance of about 8 meters, same is devoid of merits, inasmuch as, all the accused persons were known to the witness from earlier and immediately prior to the incident, all of them had come to his jhuggi and took injured with them. Immediately, thereafter he had gone to attend call of nature near Sewa Bharti School and on hearing the noise, when he reached place of occurrence, he saw accused persons grappling with Bharat and inflicting knife and danda blows. Keeping in view the fact that accused persons were well known to the witness from earlier, it was not difficult for him to identify them.
S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 15/3016
14. ld. Counsel for the accused rightly did not challenge the testimony of th is witness on the ground that he is close relative of deceased, inasmuch as, there are catena of decisions to the effect that relationship is not the factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that relations would not allow actual culprit and make allegations against the innocent person. For holding this view, I am fortified by Dalip Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364; Guli Chand and others v. State of Rajasthan, 1974 (3) SCC 698; Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614; Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54; Masalti and others v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202; S. Sudershan Reddy v. State of Andra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 2005, Dated 20.07.06; Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614; and Anurag & Ors vs. State, 2010 II AD (Delhi) 105. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, the mere fact that PW1 is the uncle of deceased is no ground to discredit his testimony, who has stood the test of crossexamination and it seems highly improbable that he would allow the real culprits to go scot free and to implicate accused persons with whom he had no axe to grind.
15. Further more, presence of the witness at the spot further stand proved from testimony of PW3 Suraj, who has deposed that on the intervening night of 06/070908, he had come to his jhuggi at about 2am. He had his meals. After 4045 minutes, he heard noise and immediately reached jhuggi of Ramesh, where he saw Bharat, nephew of Ramesh, was lying inside the jhuggi in a pool of blood. Somebody informed the police. PCR van came at the spot. He with the help of Ramesh put the injured Bharat in PCR vehicle and took him to GTB Hospital. HC Arvind, who was posted at PCR becker 5 on receipt of information reached the spot and removed the injured to PCR vehicle with the help of two public persons. Under these S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 16/30 17 circumstances, presence of the witness at the spot stands proved from his own testimony, which finds corroboration from remaining material available on record.
16. Further more, as stated above, he has given a detailed account of entire incident and immediately after the incident, when injured was removed to hospital, ASI Ved Prakash reached the hospital and this witness met him. At the earliest available opportunity, he gave his statement Ex.PW1/A, which became bedrock of the investigation. In this statement itself, he has named the accused persons and also assigned the role played by them. Despite searching crossexamination, nothing material could be elicited to discredit his testimony. His testimony is reliable, trustworthy and inspire confidence. Facts unfolded by this witness are found to be consistent. No inherent infirmity, attacking substratum of the case, is noted in his testimony. He projected sequence of events in cohesive manner. A true account of events has been narrated by him. He fared well during the course of crossexamination. Defence could not dispel the case detailed by this witness. He is a reliable witness and accountability of the accused can be adjudged on his sole testimony. It is well settled that in criminal trial, credible evidence of even a solitary witness can form the basis of conviction.
17. Section 134 of the Evidence Act attaches importance to the quality than to the quantity of the evidence, by providing that no particular number of witness in any case, is required for the proof of any fact. Proof of a fact would depend upon the character of witness and his competency to speak to that fact. It is not enough to prove a fact that a number of witness should assert it. No fix number of witness is needed to prove a fact, even testimony of one witness is sufficient. Law to this effect was laid by the ble Apex Court in State Vs. Valula Bhushan, AIR 1988 S.C. 236; Hon' S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 17/30 18 State Vs. Jayaram Shiva Tagore, AIR 1991 S.C. 1735 and State Vs. Ramju Surja, 1983 Cr.L.J. 1105 and 2002 (6) SCC 81, where it was held that it is quality of evidence that matters and not number of witnesses. Credible evidence of even a solitary witness can form basis of conviction. The contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments are inevitable.
18. Further more, testimony of PW1 finds corroboration from medical record. As stated above, PW1 Ramesh Srivastava has testified that accused persons grappled with Bharat, while Ravinder and Sudhir inflicted knife blows on his person. It has further come in his crossexamination that they wielded danda on Bharat. When injured was removed to GTB Hospital, he was examined by Dr. Amit Jain. He prepared his MLC Ex.PW7/A. Dr. Amit Jain has testified that on examination, he found following injuries : (1) One stab wound on left arm, having dimension of 1cm. (2) Another stab wound on left parietal region with dimension of 10cm X 0.5cm, which was bone deep.
(3) Incised wound was also there just on right eyebrow, having a dimension of 1.5cm.
(4) Stab wound was there on right leg, having a dimension of 1cm. (5) Stab wound on right parietal region, having a dimension of 4cm long.
19. After injured succumbed to injuries, his postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Manisha Pradhan, who found following external injuries over the dead body of Bharat : (1) Incised looking lacerated wound measuring 6cm X 0.5cm X1cm bone deep was present over the left parietal region of scalp. 10Cm above the left ear and 7cm from midline. The underlying subcutaneous were irregularly torn and bridging of tissues was present. Scalp hair over the wound were S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 18/30 19 crushed.
(2) Incised looking lacerated wound measuring 3cm X 0.2cm X 0.4cm bone deep was present just above the outer part of left eyebrow. Margins of the wound were irregular and contused. Tissues bridges were present. (3) Incised looking lacerated wound measuring 2.5cm X 0.6cm X 0.5cm bone deep was present over the right parietal region, 7cm above the right leg and 10cm lateral to midline. Margins were irregular and contused. Tissues were present there. Scalp hair wee crushed. (4) Abrasion reddish brown in colour measuring 1.5cm X 1.5cm was present over the bridge of nose, 1cm below the glabella. (5) Lacerated wound measuring 1cm X0.5cm X 0.3cm was present over the inner meucosal surfaces of right side of upper lip near angle. (6) Lacerated wound measuring 0.5cm X0.5cm x0.3cm was present over the inner meucosal surface of right side of lower lip, near angle. (7) Bruises reddish in colour measuring 24cm X 12cm was present over the lateral aspect of left arm and forearm and 13cm below shoulder tip. (8) Lacerated wound measuring 2.5cm X 1.2cm X 1cm subcutaneous was present over the back of left arm. 4Cm above the elbow joint. (9) Multiple scratch abrasions reddish brown in colour of average size 3cm X 0.1cm was present over the anterior surface of left knee joint, 3cm below the upper border of patella.
(10) Bruise reddish blue in colour, 10cm X 6cm was present over the lateral part of lower right forearm and wrist joint 10cm below the left elbow. (11) Multiple scratch abrasions were present, reddish in colour, of average size with dimension of 4.5cm X 0.2cm were present over the front of right knee joint.
(12) Lacerated wound measuring 1.5cm X 0.3cm X0.4cm bone deep was present over the anterior part of right leg, 17 cm below the knee joint.
S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 19/3020 Cause of death was opined as a result of head injury due to blunt force impact. All injuries were antemortem in nature. Injury No. 1 & 2 were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. She gave her report Ex.PW8/A.
20. It has further come on record that when investigation was handed over to Inspector HSP Singh, on the basis of secret information, accused Manoj was apprehended near from a flyover, Vivek Vihar. He took police officials to the place of occurrence, that is, Seva Bharti School, Deepak Colony, and pointed out memo Ex.PW19/B was prepared at his instance. Subsequently, on 10.09.08, on the basis of secret information, accused Gabar, Ravinder and Sudhir were apprehended from a room near Green Belt, 70 feet road, New Seemapuri, Delhi. On interrogation, they made disclosure statements Ex.PW19/F, Ex.PW19/G and Ex.PW19/H. Thereafter, they took police officials to the place of occurrence, that is, Sewa Bharti School and pointed out place of occurrence. Pointing out memo Ex.PW19/J was prepared. Thereafter, accused Ravinder pointed out the place of occurrence and took out one knife from eastern wall from Garbage, Sewa Bharti School. Sketch of knife Ex.PW19/K was prepared and was seized vide memo Ex.PW19/L. Thereafter, accused Sudhir pointed out the place of occurrence and got recovered one danda from room of Sewa Bharti School, which was measured, sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW19/M.
21. As regards recovery of knife and danda at the instance of accused Ravinder and Sudhir is concerned, except for submitting that same has been planted upon the accused, no other arguments were submitted by ld. Defence counsel. It was vaguely alleged in the written submissions that SI Rakesh and Inspector HSP Singh have not corroborated testimony of each other. However, no discrepancy or contradiction in their testimony was S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 20/30 21 pointed out. Although, there is no independent witness to the recovery of knife and danda. However, it has come in the testimony of SI Rakesh and Inspector HSP Singh that independent witnesses were asked to join, but none agreed. It is common experience that public persons are generally reluctant to join police proceedings. There is general apathy and indifference on the part of public to join such proceedings. This position of law was reiterated in Aslam and Ors (mohd.) vs. State, 2010 III AD (Delhi) 133. It was observed by Hon' ble High Court that reluctance of the citizens to join police proceedings is well known and needs to be recognized. It cannot be disputed that public does not want to get dragged in police and criminal cases and wants to avoid them, because of long drawn trials and unnecessary harassment. Similar view was taken in Manish vs. State, 2000 VIII AD (SC) 29 and in A. Bhai vs. State, AIR 1989 SC 696, where it was held that we cannot be oblivious to the reluctance of the common man to join such raiding parties organized by the police, lest they are compelled to attend police station and Courts umpteen times at the cost of considerable inconvenience to them, without any commensurate benefit.
22. I have carefully gone through the testimony of SI Rakesh and Inspector HSP Singh and no material contradiction has appeared in their testimony, which may create any doubt in their depositions. Their testimony cannot be rejected merely because they happen to be police officers. As observed by ble Supreme Court in Tahir vs. State, (1996) 3 SCC 338, no the Hon' infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to the police force. It was observed in Aner Raja Khimavs. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 that the presumption that a person acts honestly and legally applies as much in favour of police officers as of others. It is not proper and permissible to doubt the evidence of police S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 21/30 22 officers. Judicial approach must not be to distrust and suspect their evidence on oath without good and sufficient ground thereof. These two authorities were also relied upon by Hon'bl e Supreme Court in Aslam & Ors (Mohd.) vs. State (supra). Under these circumstances, from testimony of both these police officials, recovery of knife and danda at the instance of accused Ravinder and Sudhir has been proved.
23. After the weapons of offence were recovered, same were produced before Dr. manisha Pradhan for obtaining subsequent opinion. After going through postmortem report and examination of weapons, doctor gave her subsequent opinion Ex.PW8/B to the effect that injuries No.1, 2, 3,4,5, 6,7, 8, 9 & 10 were possible through wooden bamboo stick or similar one. Injury No. 9 and 11 were possible with weapon No.2 or similar pointed object or weapon. She also prepared sketch of knife Ex.PW8/C. In cross examination, she denied suggestion that injuries detailed in postmortem report Ex.PW8/A were not possible by weapon of offence, sketch of which is Ex.PW8/C. It has further come in her crossexamination that there was a nail in the bamboo stick, and if at the time of wielding blow, nail struck the victim and then injury No.9 and 11 could be caused. She denied that weapon of offence No.1, sketch of which was prepared by her as Ex.PW8/C, cannot cause the injury mentioned in postmortem report Ex.PW8/A. Under these circumstances, occular testimony of PW1 finds substantial corroboration from medical evidence.
24. Further more, during the course of investigation, exhibits comprising of blood stained piece of cemented material, blood stained piece of cemented floor and earth control blood stained piece of cemented floor, piece of earth control, Kurta, Pyjama, Tshirt, blood stained gauze, knife and bamboo piece were sent to FSL and as per report Ex.PW21/A prepared by Ms. Shashi Bala, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Biology) following exhibits were S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 22/30 23 received in FSL Rohini : Parcel ' 1' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with seal of "VP" containing exhibit '1 ' , kept in a plastic dibbi marked 'P1'.
Exhibit ' 1' : Cemented material having darker stains described as 'Blo od stained piece of cemented floor'.
Parcel ' 2' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "VP" containing exhibit '2 ' , kept in a plastic dibbi marked 'P2'.
Exhibit ' 2' : Cemented material having brown stains described as 'blo od stained piece of cemented floor of earth control'. Parcel ' 3' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "VP" containing exhibit '3 ' , kept in a plastic dibbi marked 'P3'.
Exhibit ' 3' : Cemented material having brown stains described as 'blo od stained piece of cemented floor'.
Parcel ' 4' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "VP" containing exhibit '4 ' , kept in a plastic dibbi, marked 'P4'.
Exhibit '
4' : Cemented material described as 'pi
ece of cemented
floor for earth control'.
Parcel '
5' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "VP"
containing exhibits '5
a' & '
5b'
, marked 'P5'.
Exhibit '
5a'
: One Kurta having brown stains.
Exhibit '
5b'
: One Pyjama having brown stains.
Parcel '
6' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "MP"
containing exhibits '6
a' & '
6b'
.
Exhibit '
6a'
: One pyjama having brown stains alongwith fungal growth.
Parcel ' 7' : One sealed envelope sealed with the seal of "MP" containing exhibit '7 ' .
Exhibit ' 7' : Blackish brown gauze cloth piece described as ' Blood S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 23/30 24 on gauze of the deceased Bharat'.
Parcel ' 8' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "MSL DEPTT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE MAM COLLEGE ND" containing exhibit '8'.
Exhibit '
8' : One knife having rusty brown stains.
Parcel '
9' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "MSL
DEPTT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE MAM COLLEGE ND" containing exhibit '9'.
Exhibit '
9' : One bamboo piece described as '
Weapon of offence
i.e. wooden bamboo'.
After examination of exhibits, the result of the analysis was as under : (1) Blood was detected on exhibits '1', '2', '3', ' 5a' , '5 b', '6a', ' 6b' , '7', '8' & ' 9'.
(2) Blood could not be detected on exhibit '4'.
(3) Report of serological analysis was as under : Exhibits Species of Origin ABO Group/Remarks '1' Blood stained Human ' A' Group cemented material '2' Blood stained No reaction cemented material '3' Blood stained Human ' A' Group cemented material '5a' Kurta Human ' A' Group '5b' Pyjama Human ' A' Group '6a' Pyjama Human ' A' Group '6b' Tshirt No reaction '7' Blood stained gauze Human ' A' Group '8' Knife Human No reaction '9' Bamboo piece No reaction ..........
25. It has come in the testimony of PW3 Suraj that when he with the help S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 24/30 25 of Ramesh put injured Bharat in PCR Van, at that time his clothes were also smeared with blood. He was wearing kurta and pyjama at the relevant time and the same were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW3/A. After postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Bharat, blood on gauze was taken and his clothes were also taken by Dr. Manisha Pradhan, and after sealing the same, same were handed over to the police, which were sent to FSL. From perusal of report, as reproduced above, blood was detected on piece of cemented floor, piece of cemented floor, piece of cemented floor of the earth control, piece of cemented floor, Kurta and pyjama, one Tshirt, Pyjama, blood gauze of deceased Bharat, knife and wooden bamboo. As per the report of biology devision, species of origin on Ex.1, 3,5A, 5B, 6A, 7 and 8 was "human". The blood group on Ex.1, 3, 5A, 5B, 6A, 7 was opined to be of "A" group. This report corroborates the testimony of Suraj that when he removed injured to GTB Hospital his clothes were smeared with blood and blood group on his clothes was found to be human and matched with blood of deceased, which was opined to be of "A" group. Similarly, on the knife blood was detected and it was opined to be of human species, however group could not be ascertained. As regards bamboo piece is concerned, species of origin of blood could not be ascertained, but fact remains that the expert report to substantial extent corroborates the testimony of prosecution witness. Result of aforesaid discussion is that ocular testimony of PW1 finds substantial corroboration from other prosecution witnesses, medical record and expert evidence.
26. As regard defence of accused is concerned, same is one of denial simplicitor. In fact a plea has been taken by them that they have been falsely implicated in this case, at the instance of Sohan Lal in connivance with complainant and police. It was alleged that Preeti, daughter of Sohan S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 25/30 26 Lal, is a complainant in a case u/s 376 IPC against one Vicky, who is also the resident of the same locality. Mother of accused Gabbar is also an accused in that case. That is why Sohan Lal is having strained relations with his family. Poonam, daughter of Sohan Lal, also made complaint against brother of accused Sudhir, that is why Sohan Lal is having inimical relations with his family. At the very outset, it may be mentioned that complainant in the instant case is Ramesh Srivastava, whose nephew Bharat has been murdered. Entire defence of the accused is that they are having inimical relations with Sohan Lal. The role of Sohan Lal in the instant case was merely to inform the police control room. When he informed PCR regarding stabbing of one person, he did not name any of the accused persons. That being so, even if it is assumed that Sohan Lal was having strained relations with Sudhir and Gabbar that ipsofacto is no reason to falsely implicate the accused in this case, because as stated above, complainant is Ramesh Srivastava, who had named all the accused persons with their specific roles in his complaint Ex.PW1/A. None of the accused are claiming or alleging any enmity, illwill or grudge against Ramesh Srivastava. As such, it seems highly improbable that at the instance of Sohan Lal, Ramesh Srivastava would allow real culprits to go scotfree or to falsely implicate the accused persons in this case, with whom even the deceased was having cordial relations. As such, this plea taken by the accused persons does not inspire confidence. Moreover, none of the accused gave any suggestion to Ramesh Srivastava that he has implicated them in this case at the instance of Sohan Lal.
27. Accused persons have examined five witnesses in support of their defence. All these witnesses have given stereotype version, by deposing that in the night of 07.09.08, they heard commotion to the effect that one person has been murdered. Sushil claimed that police officials came and S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 26/30 27 took all the four accused persons from their residence. This witness has taken contradictory plea to the plea taken by accused Gabbar in his written statement, wherein it was submitted that this accused himself surrendered before the concerned SHO at the instance of his mother and some relative and neighbours, as local police was regularly harassing and humiliating the mother and other relatives in search of the accused in the present case. If this submission is believed as correct, then it falsify the stand of the witness, who have deposed that in the morning of 07.09.08 itself, all the accused persons were taken to police station by police. Moreover, all the witnesses in their crossexamination have admitted that no complaint was made by them against ASI Ram Pal, who is alleged to have taken the accused persons. All the witnesses are neighbours of the accused persons and at their behest, they have come to depose before the Court. So far as, accused persons are concerned, they themselves have not taken this plea. Under these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of defence witness.
28. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention came to the jhuggi of Ramesh Srivastava at about 2am on the intervening night of 06/070908 and took deceased Bharat with them near Sewa Bharti School. Thereafter, they grappled with him and inflicted various knife blows on his person and also gave danda blow, which proved fatal and Bharat succumbed to his injuries. The fact that all the four accused persons came together, two of them hold the deceased, while remaining two stabbed him and gave danda S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 27/30 28 blows, clearly indicate that they shared a common intention. Under these circumstances, I hold that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, with intent to kill Bharat, stabbed him and caused injuries on his person with danda, to which injuries Bharat succumbed in GTB Hospital. As such, accused persons are held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC.
Announced in the Open Court (Sunita Gupta) On this 15th day of April, 2010. District JudgeVII/NEcumASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 28/3029 IN THE COURT OF Ms. SUNITA GUPTA : DISTRICT JUDGEVII/NECUM ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
S.C. No. 109/08State Vs. 1. Manoj S/o Rajender Singh, R/o E103, Deepak Colony, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
2. Sudhir S/o Indal, R/o E103/106, Deepak Colony, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
3. Gabbar Singh S/o Mahender Singh, R/o E103/88, Deepak Colony, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
4. Ravinder Kumar S/o Balram, R/o E103/105, Deepak Colony, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.FIR No. 262/08
PS Seemapuri U/s 302/34 IPC.
Date of Institution : 23.12.08 Date on which reserved for Order : 15.04.2010 Date of Decision : 19.04.2010 ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE : Leniency in punishment has been claimed by ld. Counsels for the convict persons, pleading that convicts are young men, aged between 2224 years. They further submit that convict persons are also saddled with their family responsibilities. They submit that it is not a rarest of rare case, where death penalty to convict persons would meet ends of justice. They further submit that convict persons have yet to start their life, and in case they are awarded capital punishment, then their families would ruin.
2. On 07.09.08 at about 2pm, convict Sudhir, Gabbar and Ravinder went to the house of Ramesh Srivastava and called Bharat. They took Bharat along with them. Ramesh Srivatava got up and saw convict Manoj standing outside, who also went along with them. Ramesh went to public toilet. When he came out of toilet, from the side of Sewa Bharti School, he heard cries. He reached near eastern wall of Sewa Bharti School and found that S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 29/30 30 Bharat was overpowered by convict Manoj and Gabbar, while convict Sudhir and Ravinder were stabbing him. He questioned them in a bold voice as to why they were assaulting Bharat. On hearing this, convict persons ran away. Bharat ran towards his house while staggering. Bharat was removed to hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries at about 8.30pm on that very day.
3. From the facts and circumstances detailed above, coupled with mitigating factors surrounding the convict persons, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a rarest of rare case where capital punishment to convict persons would meet ends of justice. However, the offence committed by convict persons is of serious complexion and is also aggravating factor, which made me to sentence all the convict persons to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ each for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they would further undergo RI for six months.
4. All the convict persons shall get benefit u/s 428 Cr.P.C. A copy of judgement and order on sentence be supplied to the convict persons free of cost.
Announced in the Open Court (Sunita Gupta) On this 19th day of April, 2010. District JudgeVII/NEcumASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
S.C. No. 109/08 Pag e 30/30