Delhi District Court
State vs . Sachin @ Sunny & Ors. on 14 March, 2012
SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI :ASJ02
CENTRAL:ROOM NO: 32: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
ID NO: 02401R0786772006
SC NO: 55/10
FIR NO: 177/2006
U/s: 302/147/148/149/109/120 B IPC & 25/27 A.Act
P.S. : NABI KARIM
STATE Vs. SACHIN @ SUNNY & ORS.
JUDGMENT
1 Sl. No. of the Case 55/10 2 Date of Committal to Sessions 17.10.2006 3 Name of the complainant Draupdi W/o Sh. Roshan Lal R/o House No.8004, Gali No.10, Multani Dhandha, Pahar Ganj, Delhi 4 Date of commission of offence 06/06/06 5 Name of accused, parentage and address 1.Sachin S/o Sh. Madan Lal R/o House No. MSC 82, Yogmaya Mohalla, Nabi Karim Delhi. Age: 26 yrs 2.Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Madan Lal R/o House No. MSC 82, Yogmaya Mohalla, Nabi Karim Delhi. Age: 30 yrs 3.Sunil S/o Sh. Mohan Lal R/o C716, Chinnot Basti, Nabi Karim, Delhi. Age:32 yrs. 4.Jagdish Prasad S/o Sh. Durga Parshad R/o House No. MSC 86, Yogmaya Mohalla, Nabi Karim Delhi. 5.Naresh ( since expired) 6.Praveen Kumar S/o Sh. Mohan Lal R/o C716, Chinnot Basti, Nabi Karim, Delhi. 23 yrs 7.Shankey Pd. S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad R/o House No. MSC 86,Yogmaya Mohalla, Nabi Karim Delhi. Age: 22 yrs 8.Vijay @Vicky @ Motta S/o Sh. Niranjan R/o House No. AB337, Amar Puri, Nabi Karim, Delhi Age: 22 yrs 9.Ram @ Billu (Juvenile separately chargesheeted before JJB) Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 1/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 6 Offence complained of U/s: 302/147/148/120 B /109 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act 7 Offence charged of U/s: 302/147/148/149 IPC 1. Accused Vijay was also charged with Section 109 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act apart from above Sections.) 2. Accused Naresh (since expired) was charged with Section 27 of Arms Act apart from above Sections) 3. Accused Parveen and Shankey were charged with 109 IPC apart from above Sections. 8 Plea of guilty Pleaded not guilty 9 Final order 1.Sachin 2.Mukesh Kumar 3.Sunil 4.Jagdish Prasad stand Convicted U/s 302 r/w 149 IPC apart from Section 147/148 IPC 1.Shanky 2. Vijay @Vicky 3.Parveen stand Acquitted 10 Date on which order reserved 29/02/2012 11 Date on which order announced 02/03/12 BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Case of the prosecution is that on 06.06.06 DD No. 51 B Ex.PW22/A was received at PS Nabi Karim on a PCR Call at 9:50 PM to the effect that Anil has been stabbed with a knife by some boys at House No. 8004, Q11, Gali No.10, Multani Dhandha. This DD was assigned to ASI Iqbal and SI Surya Prakash also left for the spot. Upon receipt of initial DD when SI Surya Prakash reached the spot he found that injured was removed to Lady Harding Medical College. He left for the hospital with ASI Iqbal while leaving Ct. Raj Pal at the spot. Injured Anil was admitted in the hospital by his aunti Draupdi vide MLC Ex.PW 23/A with stab wounds on his scalp, abdomen and arm and he was declared unfit for statement and he had to be operated upon.
Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 2/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12
2. On 06.06.06 itself DD No.24 A Ex.PW 22/B was received at PS Nabi Karim at 11:50 PM on the call of Duty Ct. Om Prakash from Lady Harding Medical College that Anil @ Pangey was declared dead. Complainant Smt. Draupdi gave her statement Ex.PW1/D1 to SI Surya Prakash to the effect that she is residing at 8004/10 Multani Dhandha with her family and was sitting outside her house with her Jethani Smt. Prem at 9:30 PM and also Anil @ Pangey who is son of her Jeth.
3. As per her above statement, 45 boys including Mukesh, Sunny and Sunil apart from two others who are residents of Yog Maya and are known to her came from Chinnot Basti side . Mukesh asked Anil for whereabouts of Bunty on which Anil told him that he is not aware of it. On this Mukesh hit Anil with a hockey stick on his head while saying " Bunty nahin to tu hi sahi". When Anil tried to run to safety, Sunil hit Anil with a knife in his abdomen while Sunny hit Anil with a knife on his arm. As a result Anil fell down . The other two boys exhorted " Aaj iska kaam tamam kar do". On this Draupdi raised hue and cry and all the boys ran towards Gali No. 9. Draupdi threw a thapi towards them. She also told the police that on the same day at 6:30 PM Anil's younger brother Bunti had a quarrel with above boys family and they had come to take revenge . She took Anil to Lady Harding Hospital in a rickshaw with the help of Rajesh where he died. On this statement FIR Ex. PW 27/A was recorded U/s 302/34 IPC. Further investigation was taken over by Inspector Joginder Singh. IO seized blood stained clothes of deceased Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 3/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 vide Memo Ex. PW 22/C and blood stained chunni of Draupdi vide memo Ex. PW 22/B.
4. Crime Team was summoned to the spot and the spot was got photographed which are Ex.PW 4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A7. At the spot IO seized blood from the spot apart from blood stained cot vide memo Ex.PW 11/A . He prepared unscaled site plan Ex. PW 26/A. He carried out inquest proceedings of deceased Anil with Brief facts Ex. PW 26/C, death report Ex. PW 26/B. Sample blood was seized vide Memo Ex.PW17/A. The body was postmortem and the report is Ex. PW 3/A as per which Anil died of antemortem sharp incised wounds which caused hemorrhagic shock and death. The body was identified vide statement Ex. PW 2/A and it was handed over to his family vide memo Ex. PW 26/D.
5. On 08.06.06 accused Sachin was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW19/B, personal search Ex. PW 19/C apart from arrest of Jagdish Prasad vide arrest and personal search memo Ex. PW19/G & H, Shankey Prasad vide memo Ex.PW19/I & J . Accused Sachin gave disclosure statement Ex.PW19/A, disclosure of Jagdish Prasad is Ex.PW19/D and disclosure of Shankey Prasad is Ex.PW 19/E and that of Ravi @ Billu is Ex. PW 19/F. Police seized blood stained clothes of accused Sachin vide memo Ex. PW 19/M. He also got recovered from the roof of his house a blood stained knife and memo Ex.PW 19/L and sketch Ex.PW 19/K. He pointed out the spot vide memo Ex.PW19/P. Accused Jagdish Prasad pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW19/Q and got Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 4/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 recovered a wooden danda from the roof of house no. MSC 82 vide memo Ex. PW 19/N . Shankey Prasad pointed out the spot vide memo Ex. PW19/R and got recovered wooden danda Ex.PW19/O.
6. On 13.06.06 accused Mukesh and Parveen were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW 19/T & Ex. PW19/U and personal search Ex.19/V & W respectively. Mukesh gave disclosure statement Ex.PW19/X while Parveen gave a disclosure statement Ex.PW 19/Y. Pointing out memo of spot are Ex.PW19/S and Ex.PW19/Z1. Mukesh got recovered one hockey stick vide memo Ex.PW19/Z from his house.
7. On 09.07.06 accused Sunil and Naresh were arrested vide memos Ex.PW26/F & E and personal search Ex.PW26/G & H respectively. They gave disclosure statement Ex.PW 26/K & J respectively and Sunil pointed out the spot vide memo Ex.PW35/A. He got recovered button actuated knife from his house AB 138, Amar Puri vide memo Ex.PW26/M and sketch Ex. PW 26/L.
8. On 25.07.06 accused Vijay @ Vicky was arrested by Special Staff, Central District with a knife and he was placed under arrest in this case on 26.07.06 vide memo Ex.PW 35/B. His disclosure is Ex.PW 26/N. DD Entry qua intimation of his arrest is Ex. PW 20/A, he gave his disclosure statement to Spl Staff Ex. PW 29/J.
9. Exhibits were deposited in Mal Khana and also sent to FSL Rohini as per Mal Khana entry & Road Certificate Ex. PW 25/A, Ex. PW 24/A to C. The FSL result is Ex. PW Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 5/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 26/O to R as per which "AB Blood Group" was found on sample gauge and five other exhibits. Scaled site plan is Ex. PW 10/DA . TIP proceedings of refusal are Ex.PW13/A 1 to A3, Ex. PW 13/C, Ex. PW 13/B to Ex. PW 13/B5, Ex. PW 14/A , Ex. PW 34/A to D. Juvenile Ravi @ Billu was charge sheeted before the Juvenile Justice Board. Weeding out order of Rojnamcha Ex. PW 30/A & B . Gazette notification qua Arms Act is Ex. PW 12/A.
10.After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet U/s: 302/147/148/120 B IPC was filed.
After compliance of 207 Cr.P.C, case was committed to Sessions. During the course of trial accused Mukesh , Sunil , Sachin @ Sunny , Jagdish Prasad and Naresh were charged with offences punishable U/s 302 r/w 149 IPC apart from Section 147/148 IPC . Accused Naresh was additionally charged with U/s 27 Arms Act . Accused Vijay @ Vicky, Parveen and Shankey Prasad were charged with Section 109 r/w 302 IPC apart from Section 147 & 148 IPC . Accused Vijay @ Vicky was additionally charged with U/s 27 Arms Act.
11.To prove its case prosecution examined 35 witnesses in all. It was followed by recording of Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement of accused .
12.I have heard arguments of Ld. Addl. PP Sh. V.K.Negi for State and Ld. Counsel Sh.
Jitender Sethi for accused Sunil, Parveen, Jagdish and Shankey and Ld. Counsel Sh. S.P. Sharma for accused Mukesh and Sachin @ Sunny , Ld. Counsel Ms. Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 6/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 Chitra Mal advocate of Legal Aid for accused Vijay @ Vicky. I have also carefully perused the entire case file.
13.At the onset it would be appropriate to have glance at the gist of deposition made by PWs.
14.PW1 Draupdi is eye witness of the occurrence and she narrated on the lines of Ex.PW1/D1 besides identifying accused persons in the Court. In her testimony she has also specifically stated that accused Jagdish Parsad @ Jaggi was armed with knife, accused Suneel was having a hockey, accused Sunny was having a cricket stump and accused Shanky was having danda in his hand whereas accused Ravi (juvenile) was having one Darati in his hand. They all fatally assaulted Anil in her presence and she identified them.
15. PW2 Vijay Kumar identified the dead body of the deceased Anil @ Pangey.
16.PW3 is Dr. Shrabana Kumar Nayak who conducted the post mortem and proved PM Report Ex. PW 3/A.
17.PW4 is Ct. Mahesh Kumar, photographer who clicked the photographs Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW 4/A7 and proved negatives Ex. PW 4 /B (colly).
18.PW5 is Premwati , is also an eye witness of the case. She also supported the prosecution case by deposing on the lines of the prosecution story and identified all accused as the persons who killed Anil @ Pangey.
Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 7/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12
19.PW6 Rajesh took the injured to hospital on the cycle rickshaw with the help of Premwati and Draupdi.
20.PW7 is Ct. Rakesh Kumar who took the exhibits to FSL on 19.7.2006 and deposited the same there vide RC No.65/21.
21.PW8 Chunki, is also an eye witness who supported the prosecution case and identified all accused as assaulters.
22.PW9 is Ct. Raj Pal , who took the DD Entry No. 51 B and gave it to the ASI Iqbal Singh at the instance of DO.
23.PW10 is Ct. Rajesh Kumar, who was also called at the spot i.e. H. No. 8004/10, Multani Dhanda by SI Surya Prakash to guard the spot.
24.PW11 is Inspector Yash Pal, Incharge Crime Team who visited the spot and inspected the same.
25.PW 12 Shri Zora proved the notification no. F 13/203/79Home (G) vide Ex.PW12/A.
26.PW13 Ms. Archana Sinha, Ld. ADJ conducted the TIP proceedings of Sachin Mukesh, Jagdish, Shankey Prasad and Parveen Kumar and proved the report as Ex.PW13/B1 to 5 vide which accused Sachin Mukesh, Jagdish, Shankey Prasad and Parveen Kumar refused to participate the Test Identification Parade.
Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 8/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12
27.PW14 Sh. Bhupesh Kumar, Ld. ADJ conducted the TIP proceedings of Vijay @ Vikky @ Motta vide Ex.PW14/A & B according to which accused Vijay refused to join TIP.
28.PW15 Ct. Jai Singh & PW16 Ct. Kali Charan were directed to remain present in the hospital till the postmortem of deceased.
29.PW16 Ct. Kali Charan reached Lady Harding Mortuary along with Ct. Jai Singh on intervening night of 06/070606 and both of them were directed to remain there to look after the dead body by SI Rajesh Kumar.
30.PW17 Sh. Mukesh Kumar was posted at Lady Harding Hospital as PA to HOD FMT on 30.6.06 and he handed over the PM Report and sealed blood sample to the police.
31.PW18 is ASI Iqbal Singh who received DD Entry No. 51 B and thereafter reached the spot and joined investigation.
32.PW19 HC Charan Singh also joined the investigation with Inspector Joginder Singh on 08.6.2006 and narrated on the lines of the prosecution story.
33.PW 20 HC Satish Kaushik, is witness to the arrest of accused Vicky in case FIR No.397/06 U/s 25/54/59 A.Act and accused Vicky made disclosure before him admitting his involvement in the present case. He has also identified the accused Vicky.
34.PW 21 Mahesh draftsman prepared scaled site plan on the basis of rough notes.
Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 9/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12
35.PW22 Surya Prakash first IO of the case narrated on the lines of prosecution story and detailed out entire investigation.
36. PW23 is Dr. C. R. Arthi who examined the injured Anil @ Pangey.
37.PW24 MHCM Ram Krishan has proved the relevant entries of register
38.PW25 MHCM Satender has also proved the relevant entries.
39.PW26 is Inspector Joginder Singh, IO of the case . He has narrated the entire investigational steps taken by him during investigation.
40. PW27 is Sant Ram, Duty Officer and he has proved registration of case FIR.
41. PW28 is HC Satbir who collected the MLC .
42.PW29 is Dr. Manoj who proved the MLC of injured .
43.PW30 is HC Mahesh who received the information at Control Room regarding stabbing of Anil .
44.PW31 is Tej Pal who collected the pullandas from Malkhana and deposited in FSL .
45.PW32 is HC Hari Singh arrested the accused Vijay on the basis of secret information on 25.7.2006 and witness to the recovery of knife for which FIR No.397/06 was registered as well as witness to the disclosure statement of accused Vijay disclosing his involvement in the present case.
46.PW33 is Ct. Rashid Khan joined investigation in case FIR No. 397/06 and in his presence accused Vicky made disclosure statement about the present case. Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 10/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12
47.PW34 is Shri Sunil Choudhary, LD. ACMM qua TIP of accused Naresh & Sunil .
48.PW35 is HC Udaybir who arrested accused Naresh and Vijay .
49. The three basic ingredients U/s 302 IPC runs as under:
The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 302 are as follows:
1. Death of a human being was caused;
2. Such death was caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused;
3. Such act was done
(a) with the intention of causing death, or
(b) that the accused knew it to be likely to cause death, or
(c) that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
: Death of a human being was caused; As per prosecution case, it
50.First Ingredient was Anil @ Pangey S/o Sh. Banwari Lal who was murdered on 06.06.06 . This stands proved as per MLC Ex. PW 43/A . PM Report Ex. PW 3/A , Inquest proceedings Ex. PW 26/B &C, Body Identification Statements Ex. PW 2/A and Body handing over receipt Ex. PW 26/D. The factum of Anil @ Pangey suffering unnatural death has come in the deposition of PW1 Draupdi, PW5 Premwati and PW6 Rajesh and PW8 Chankey Prasad. Factum of deceased Anil Pangey suffering unnatural death has not been disputed by the defence either during course of trial or during final arguments. As such prosecution has successfully proved the first ingredient.
: Such death was caused by or in consequence of the act of
51.Second Ingredient the accused: In order to connect the 8 chargesheeted accused (one Ravi @ Billu Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 11/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 separately charge sheeted before Ld. JJB) prosecution has primarily relied on deposition of complainant PW1 Draupdi, eye witness PW5 Premwati and another eye witness PW 8 Chankey Prasad. Prosecution has also relied upon deposition of other supporting witnesses.
52. It would be appropriate to evaluate deposition of each of the three eye witnesses at length.
PW1 Draupdi:
53. As far as PW1 Draupdi is concerned, it is case of the prosecution that she was sitting in front of her house along with PW5 Premwati along with deceased Anil @ Pangey at 8004/10 , Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj when at around 9:30 PM accused persons came there armed with knives, hockey an Dandas. They assaulted Anil after a brief conversation about Bunty. It was PW1 Draupdi alone who is proved to have been removed injured Anil @ Pangey to Lady Harding Hospital . MLC Ex. PW 23/A shows that deceased Anil @ Pangey was admitted there by PW1 Draupdi at 10:00 PM on 06.06.06. Deceased was removed to hospital with the help of PW6 Rajesh and the same is evident from deposition of PW6 in the court where he stated that when he came out after hearing noise he found deceased Anil @ Pangey lying on a cot in Gali in injured condition. Rajesh brought a cycle rickshaw and removed deceased Anil @ Pangey to Lady Harding Hospital with PW1 Draupdi and PW5 Premwati.
Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 12/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12
54.In the hospital PW22 SI Surya Prakash recorded statement of PW1 Draupdi Ex. PW 1/DA on the basis of which FIR in hand was registered. According to the FIR there were only five boys while names of only three accused i.e. Mukesh, Sachin @ Sunny and Sunil has been mentioned. Section 161 Cr. P.C. statement of witness PW5 Premwati was recorded by the IO in the Hospital itself who apart from naming accused Mukesh, Sachin @ Sunny and Sunil named the additional two persons as Jagdish Prasad and Naresh. Supplementary statement of PW was recorded when she is shown to have disclosed names of other accused.
55.In her deposition in the court PW1 Draupdi stated that five accused who assaulted deceased Anil @ Pangey were Mukesh, Sachin @ Sunny , Sunil, Jagdish Prasad and Naresh . She assigned specific roles to each of the accused while stating that accused Mukesh assaulted the deceased with hockey on his head. Accused Sachin@ Sunny, Sunil and Naresh assaulted the deceased with knives. Accused Jagdish Prasad assaulted the deceased with danda. She also deposed about other accused namely Shankey , Ravi(Juvenile), Parveen and Vicky.
56. It has been argued by Ld. Counsels also that deposition of PW1 Draupdi can not be believed in so far as there are anomalies in her statement recorded during the trial. It is pointed out that even though as per prosecution case accused Sachin @ Sunny and Sunil had knives in their hands but in one portion of her statement apart from deposing Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 13/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 qua possession of knife by the above two accused, she has also stated that Sachin @ Sunny had a wicket in his hand and Sunil had a hockey in his hand. I do not read much in to this plea in view of the fact that this is a murder case wherein 9 persons have been impleaded accused. It might have been a great trauma and shock for a lady to see her young relative being assaulted and killed right in front of her eyes. It is evident from her first appearance in the court on 19.2.2007 when she became unwell and the immense stress took a tool over her. Actually she has supported the prosecution case in its entirety. But the sheer fact that her deposition continued for 2½ years at length, itself explains minor aberrations here and there. Moreover, it has come on record that she is an illiterate and rustic lady and as such it can not be expected from such a witness to give a spanky photo finish kind of parrot like statement. It is a settled legal proposition that ability of a person to assimilate and reproduce such a traumatic incident frame by frame after years of witnessing it vary from person to person. It is well settled that discarding a truthful witness on minor contradictions is a fallacy.
57.In case titled State Vs. Lekh Raj (2000) 1 SCC 247, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"minor contradictions are bound to appear even in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person and the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of the witness."
58.In case titled Vijay @ Chinee Vs State of MP 2010 (3) RCR Criminal 794 while Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 14/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 observing about a Rustic / illiterate villager witness , it was observed:
"A person coming from altogether different background and having education may not be able to give a precise account of the incident... however, that can not be ground to reject his testimony."
59.In case titled Bhola @ Parasram Vs State of HP, 2009 (2) RCR Criminal 166, it was ruled:
" Even if there are some omissions , contradictions and discrepancies , the entire evidence can not be discarded .... undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness.... a witness can not be accepted to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident verbatim ."
60.In case titled Munna @ Pooran Yadav Vs State of MP, 2009 (1) RCR Criminal 35 Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing maxim "Falsus in uno, falsus omnibus observed that: " when evidence of a witness is found to be partly true and partly not , that part of the evidence be accepted which is true. Theory of Falsus in uno, falsus omnibus has long back ceased to apply in our criminal jurisprudence."
61.In case titled Hakam Singh, 2005 (3)Apex Criminal 220 (SC) While dealing with the murder case and while relying the deposition of a rustic eye witness village lady Hon'ble Supreme Court terming her to be truthful eyewitness observed that :
''It can not be expected from a rustic village lady that she should give very accurate and photographic version of the Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 15/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 incident. Her evidence can not be discarded just because she could not answer the technical questions''
62.As such partial minor momentary aberrations qua which accused held which weapon in deposition of PW1 Draupdi does not go to the root of the matter and as such does not impeach the credibility as an eye witness.
63.It has been argued by the defence that there is a contradiction about the time of recoding of statement of Draupdi as well. I am not in agreement with this plea in so far as in her deposition recorded on 13.3.2009, she has categorically stated that her first statement was recorded in the hospital itself on 6.6.2006. This fact is duly corroborated not only by the FIR Ex.PW27/A but also by deposition of PW22 SI Surya Parkash who recorded her statement in the hospital. Similar statement was given by IO PW26 Inspector Joginder Singh. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to her cross examination dated 4.5.09 where it is mentioned by this witness that her statement was recorded at the spot apart from recording of statement of PW5 Premwati. Record reveals that this reference is not qua the asal tehrir statement Ex.PW1/DA but is qua her supplementary 161 Cr.P.C. statement which was recorded at the time of preparation of site plan after she came back to the spot from the hospital.
64.Another plea taken by defence qua deposition of PW1 Draupdi is that statement Ex.PW1/DA i.e. ashal tehrir of Draupdi was recorded after the arrest of the accused in so far as in her cross examination date 4.5.09 , she stated that she mentioned the names of Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 16/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 fathers of accused in her statement only after it was disclosed by the accused themselves. I am not in agreement with this plea as well since in this portion of her statement it is not mentioned as to which 161 Cr.P.C. statement is being referred to by Ld. Defence Counsel. Name and parentage of accused Jagdish Parsad , Naresh, Vijay @ Vicky, Shanky Parsad and Parveen Kumar also duly find mentioned in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded on 7.8.06. This statement was recorded after arrest of all the accused persons. Even with regards to mention of fathers name of accused Mukesh, Sunny and Sunil in asal tehrir , the referred portion does not conclusively shows that it pertains to post arrest period. It can even pertain to pre assault period since as per PW1 Draupdi, all the accused persons are resident of Yog Maya, Paharganj and she was aware of them as they used to come to her Mohalla.
65.In order to impeach the credibility of this witness, another plea taken is that according to PW8 Chanky, statement of Pw1 was recorded at police station on the next day i.e. 7.6.06. This plea is based on incorrect appreciation of facts and sequence of event in so far as it is case of the prosecution that PW8 Chanky did not accompany the injured Anil @ Pangey to the hospital. As such he might not had witnessed the recording of statement of PW1 Draupdi Ex.PW1/A on the basis of which the FIR was registered. Further more , there are in total 5 different statements of Draupdi recorded by the Police during investigation at different stages and a futile attempt was made by the defence to Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 17/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 mix up different statements recorded at different stages.
66.Another plea taken is that deposition of this witness qua identifying the accused persons can not be believed because according to cross examination of PW5 there was darkness at the spot as street light was not working. It has specifically come in so many words in the examination of chief of PW1 Draupdi that there was a electricity pole having night lamp close to the spot. In her cross examination, Draupdi was not suggested defence that there was no sufficient light at the spot or that there was darkness. IO PW26 Inspector Joginder who prepared and proved the unscaled site plan showing electricity pole with light and house light in the adjacent house in the gali has not even been cross examined or suggested denying the existence of any source of light. In this backdrop bald reference to a portion of cross examination of PW5 of there being no light is of no avail to defence. Perusal of unscaled site plan Ex. PW 26/A not only shows existence of electricity pole right next to the place of assault but also reveals that house light was available at the spot. Even the scaled site plan Ex.PW10/DA reveals that electricity pole with a tube light was available . Even in the cross examination of PW10 Ct. Rajesh to whom the site plan was referred to by the defence, no negative suggestion was put qua existence of electricity pole with light. All that he was asked is as to how many poles with electricity were present at the spot.
67.As such the deposition of PW1 Draupdi appears to be candid and natural. Her entire Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 18/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 statement is duly corroborated by medical evidence as well as deposition of PW5 Premwati, her coeye witness.
DEPOSITION OF PW5 PREMWATI
68.
69.As per prosecution case this witness was also present at the spot with complainant PW1 Draupdi and deceased Anil @ Pangey and they were chatting with each other. She had witnessed the entire assault and had also accompanied deceased to the hospital where her 161 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded by the police. In her statement to the police, she took name of accused Mukesh , Sachin @ Sunny , Sunil, Jagdish Parsad and Naresh. However, in her Court statement, even though she identified all the accused persons but she gave the name of only accused Naresh. As per her all the accused were armed with hockey , knives and dandas when they assaulted the deceased right in her presence. She accompanied deceased and Draupdi to hospital where her statement was recorded by IO PW26 Inspector Joginder . Even though she has failed to specifically name the other accused persons but the fact that she has identified them by their faces is of substantial importance. The only limited mileage which the defence could gather in her deposition that she could not assign individual roles to the accused. In her cross examination , she has tried to give a mileage to the defence case by referring to the accused persons as part of the mob and stating that upon seeing the assault & that she had fainted. Be that as it may, as per settled legal proposition , her deposition in chief Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 19/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 shall have precedence where she gives sufficient corroboration of the assault and the detailed deposition of PW1 Draupdi.
DEPOSITION OF PW8 CHUNKY
70.
71.As regards this witness, the case of the prosecution is on a weak wicket. Despite being real brother of deceased Anil and claiming to have witnessed the entire assault, his conduct , post assault, is quite suspicious. He neither accompanied injured Anil to the hospital nor informed the police or met the police at the spot. In his cross examination he accepted specific suggestion of the defence that when he came down from his room to the spot, all the accused persons had already ran away from there and they were 30 fts away from the spot. Despite his this revelation , it can not be said that his deposition is totally redundant as far as prosecution case is concerned, since he saw the accused persons assembled close to the spot at 9.15pm apart from seeing them fleeing with arms again very near to the spot. Interestingly his deposition qua sighting accused persons near the spot of assault minutes before the actual assault has not been disputed by the entire defence team in the cross examination and no negative suggestion qua the same was given.
72.Upon evaluating the specific pleas qua each of the three eyewitnesses , I shall evaluate the pleas taken by the defence in the light of evidence available on record qua each of the accused individually.
Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 20/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 ACCUSED SACHIN @ SUNNY
73.
74.This accused is not only named in the FIR but has also been named and identified by PW1 Draupdi and PW8 Chunky in court. PW5 Premwati identified him as one of the assailants although she has not named him. According to star witness of the prosecution PW1 Draupdi, Sachin was armed with a knife and he gave blows in the abdomen and arm of deceased Anil Pangey. He was arrested by the police on 8.6.06 itself when police seized his blood stained clothes i.e. Tshirt and a light blue trosure (lower) vide memo Ex.PW19/M. According to FSL report Ex.PW26/O & P , his both the clothes exhibits 5a and 5b were found containing blood stains of AB Blood Group was found on the lower which duly matched with the blood group of deceased i.e. AB Blood Group as found on sample gauze and clothes of deceased.
75.This accused also got recovered a knife from roof of his house Ex.PW19/L and its sketch is PW19/K. But IO of this case did not take pain in seeking a subsequent opinion qua the weapon of offence and nature of injuries. It is a settled legal proposition that substantial interest of justice shall not be allowed to jeopardized by any inaction of the Investigating Officer.
76.In State Vs. Mir Mohd. Omar (2000) 8 SCC 382 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "If offenders are acquitted only on account of flaws or defects in investigation, the cause of criminal justice becomes the Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 21/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 victim. Efforts should be made by courts to see that criminal justice is salvaged despite such defects in investigation."
77.In Paras Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar, 1999(1) RCR(Criminal) 627 : (1999(2) SCC
126) it was held that:
"if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency or because of negligence the prosecution evidence is required to be examined de hors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party"
78.In Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 403 : (1998 (4) SCC 517) it was observed that :
"if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the Law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice."
The view was again reiterated in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and Ors., 2003(1) RCR(Criminal) 701 : (2003(2) SCC 518)".
79.Upon perusal of the knife Ex. Px5, it is found to be a single edged one and as per post mortem report , deceased did suffer incise wounds over his abdomen and other body parts. Even though the blood could not be detected on this weapon but the recovery of this weapon is duly corroborating the deposition of eye witness PW1 Draupdi and PW2 Premwati. Deposition of eye witnesses qua role played by this accused is trustworthy Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 22/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 and believable and they have successfully withstood the brunt of cross examination qua the accused. Apart from deposition of eye witnesses the existence of blood of the deceased on the cloth of accused is substantiating beyond shadow of doubt that he had participated in murderous assault of Anil @ Pangey on the night of 6.6.2006. ACCUSED MUKESH KUMAR
80.
81.As regard the accused Mukesh Kumar , he too stands duly named in FIR and also in the deposition of PW1 Draupdi apart from PW8 Chunky. It has come on record that he was carrying a hockey with him and the murderous assault was initiated by him. He was named by PW1 and PW8 and was identified by all the eye witnesses in the Court. He was arrested by the Police on 13.6.2006 and he got recovered the hockey stick on his pointing out from his house at Yog Maya Mohalla, Nabi Karim from under the Iron box. This recovery corroborates the deposition of eye witnesses that hockey was used in the commission of the murder in hand. Also according to the PM Report , deceased had suffered blunt injuries as well in the form of abrasions. Hence, version of eye witnesses regarding the role of this accused is trustworthy and believable and same remained unshattered despite brunt of cross examination. As such on account of his being named and identified as one of the murderers by eye witnesses coupled with the recovery, his participation in the murderous assault stand duly proved. ACCUSED SUNIL
82. Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 23/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12
83. As regard the accused Sunil , he has been duly named in FIR and also in the deposition of PW1 Draupdi and PW2 Premwati apart from PW8 Chunky. It has come on record that he was carrying a knife with him and he participated in the murderous assault by assaulting deceased Anil @ Pangey in his abdomen. He was named by PW1 and PW8 and was identified by all the eye witnesses in the Court. He was arrested by the Police on 09.7.2006 . He disclosed about disposing the button actuating knife in a small drain close to his house but despite attempts the knife could not be recovered. Mere non recovery of weapon of offence is of no avail to defence as this has not diluted the deposition of truthful eye witnesses against him and it rather indicates that he deliberately destroyed the evidence. It is specifically deposed by the witness that accused Sunil had stabbed the deceased in his abdomen . Also according to the PM Report , deceased had suffered several stab injuries in abdomen which were opined to be fatal in nature. Eye witnesses have specifically deposed the role played by this accused in a trustworthy and cogent manner and moreso, they have successfully withstood the brunt of cross examination qua the accused. As such on account of his being named and identified as one of the murderers by eye witnesses , his participation in the murderous assault stand duly proved.
ACCUSED JAGDISH PARSAD
84.
85.Name of accused Jagdish Parsad has not been mentioned in the FIR by PW1. However, Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 24/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 he was duly named by PW1 in her supplementary 161 Cr.P.C. statement. In the FIR apart from naming accused Mukesh, Sachin and Sunil , presence of two other persons stands duly mentioned. During investigation names of those persons were revealed by eye witness PW5 Premwati when her statement which was recorded by IO PW26 in the hospital itself as Jagdish Parsad and Naresh. During the course of evidence , PW1 Draupdi has specifically named accused Jagdish while stating that he was carrying a danda. PW5 Premwati has also identified him as one of the assaulters by face but could not name him. Accused Jagdish was arrested on 8.6.06 and he got recovered wooden danda from roof of his house vide memo Ex.PW19/M . Usage of Danda is corroborated by the Post Mortem Report on account of blunt injuries. Hence, overall evaluation of eye witnesses qua role played by this accused appear to be trustworthy and believable and despite being cross examined at length, their versions remained stagnant qua the accused. As such in the light of deposition of eye witnesses, it stands duly established that accused Jagdish was part of the bunch of murderer assaulters who killed Anil @ Pangey.
ACCUSED NARESH (SINCE EXPIRED / PROCEEDING ALREADY ABATED)
86.
87.Name of accused Naresh has not been mentioned in the FIR by PW1. However, he was duly named by PW1 Draupdi in her supplementary 161 Cr.P.C. statement. In the FIR apart from naming accused Mukesh, Sachin and Sunil , Draupdi has referred to the Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 25/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 presence of two other persons. During investigation names of those persons were revealed by eye witness PW5 Premwati when her statement was recorded by IO PW26 in the hospital itself as Jagdish Parsad and Naresh. During the course of evidence , PW1 Draupdi as well as PW5 Premwati have specifically named and identified accused Naresh as one of the assaulters who was carrying knife with which he assaulted deceased Anil @Pangey. Accused Naresh was arrested on 9.7.06 and he got recovered nd a button actuated knife vide memo Ex.PW26/M from behind utensils on a room on 2 floor of his Amar Puri, Nabi Karim house. According to PM report Ex.PW3/A, deceased Anil received several ante mortem fatal injuries.
ACCUSED SHANKY PARSAD, VIJAY @ VICKY & PARVEEN
88.
89.As regard these three accused are concerned, it is evident that neither they were named in the FIR by PW1 Draupdi nor in the first 161 Cr.P.C. statement given by eye witness PW5 Premwati. Rather according to the FIR which is first in time & qua which legally much more sanctity has to be attached, the total number of assaulters were only 5. It was only in the subsequent 161 Cr.P.C. statement that the number of assaulters was increased from 5 to 9. Even otherwise it has come in the deposition of PW1 that the actual assault was done by only the five persons while remaining were only standing at a distance. In her deposition in the Court, eye witness PW5 has not named either of the above three accused persons. Accused Shanky was arrested on 8.6.2006 and he is Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 26/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 shown to have got recovered a wooden danda. Accused Parveen was arrested on 13.6.2006 and no recovery was effected from him. Accused Vicky was arrested on 25.7.2006 and no recovery was effected from him . Although these three accused have been named by PW1 Draupdi in her deposition in the Court while improving her first version contained in the FIR, but she has not assigned any specific role to either of them. In the absence thereof there is nothing on record to show that they assaulted deceased at all. Considering their subsequent inclusion in the list of accused persons by their subsequent naming in the supplementary 161 Cr.P.C. statements , in my considered view the case of the prosecution qua these three accused could not cross the bar of suspicion. Owing to discrepancy in the evidence qua their presence at the spot, it can not be safely concluded that they were at all part of the unlawful assembly.
90. As such in view of the above discussion, out of the seven accused facing trial in this case law, I have no hesitation in concluding that prosecution has proved its case against accused Sachin @ Sunny , Mukesh , Sunil and Jagdish Parsad qua commission of crime punishable U/s 302 r/w 149 IPC apart from Section 147/148 IPC. This can be inferred unerringly and every hypothesis compatible with innocence of these accused has been successfully repelled by the prosecution. Accordingly accused Sachin @ Sunny , Mukesh , Sunil and Jagdish Parsad stand convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s 302 r/w 149 IPC apart from Section 147/148 IPC . They shall be Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 27/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 heard separately on the point of sentence.
91.However, case of the prosecution against accused Shanky, Vijay @Vicky and Parveen has remained in the acreage of doubt and as such accused Shanky, Vijay @Vicky and Parveen stand acquitted of the charges. Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall be deemed canceled after expiry of period of six months U/s 437A Cr.P.C. Accused Vijay @ Vicky be released from J/c forthwith if not required in any other case. Since accused Vijay @ Vicky was sent to J/c during trial on NBW, his previous bail bond and surety bond shall be deemed canceled after expiry of period of six months U/s 437A Cr.P.C.
92.Now to come up for hearing on the point of sentence qua convict Sachin @ Sunny , Mukesh , Sunil and Jagdish Parsad for commission of offence punishable U/s 302 r/w 149 IPC apart from Section 147/148 IPC .
ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED
IN OPEN COURT ON : 02/03/2012 (SURINDER S. RATHI)
Addl. Sessions Judge02
Central : Delhi
Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 28/28
SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI :ASJ02
CENTRAL:ROOM NO: 32: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
ID NO: 02401R0786772006
SC NO: 55/10
FIR NO: 177/2006
U/s 302 /147/148/ 149 IPC
State
Vs.
1.Sachin @ Sunny
2. Mukesh
3.Sunil
4. Jagdish Parsad
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Vide separate judgment dated 2.3.2012 accused Sachin @Sunny, Mukesh, Sunil and Jagdish Parsad were found guilty of commission of offence punishable U/s 302/147/148/ 149 IPC and they were convicted accordingly.
2. I have heard arguments of Ld. Addl. PP Sh. V.K. Negi for State and Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Animesh Pandit and Ld. Counsel Sh. S.P.Sharma advocates for convicts on the point of sentence . I have also perused the entire file.
3. On the point of sentence it has been submitted by Ld.Addl. PP for State that convicts do not deserve any leniency in so far as they murdered young 22 yrs old Anil @Pangey brutally by giving him fatal blows of knives, hockey sticks and danda apparently on some petty issue.
4. It is submitted by Ld. defence counsel for convict that lenient view be taken in this case Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 29/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 because convict Sachin @ Sunny is unmarried boy aged 27 yrs having two unmarried sisters and old age ailing parents and that his brother Mukesh is also coconvict in this case. He was self employed. He is not a previous convict and has no criminal antecedents.
5. As regard convict Mukesh, it has been submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that he is unmarried person aged 33 yrs having two unmarried sisters and old age ailing parents and that his brother Sachin @ Sunny is also coconvict in this case. He was self employed. He is not a previous convict and has no criminal antecedents.
6. As regard convict Sunil, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that he is a married man of 33 yrs having two minor children and is self employed. He has aged parents as well and is the only bread earner in his family. It is also submitted that convict is not a previous convict and has no criminal antecedents.
7. As regard accused Jagdish Parsad it is submitted by Ld. defence counsel that he is a married man of 50 yrs of age having three children of marriageable age apart from aged mother and he has lost his wife. He is an auto rikshaw driver by profession and has no criminal antecedents.
8. Before awarding the sentence to convicts , it would be appropriate to have a glance at the sentencing policy precedents.
9. In case titled Bikram Dorjee Vs. State of West Bengal , AIR 2009 SC 2539 Hon'ble Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 30/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 Supreme Court while discussing the law on quantum of sentence observed:
" After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed, are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task ..... the object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the concise of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Imposition of sentence without considerings its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise........ any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentence or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offence will be resultwise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for strengthen by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.
The Court will be falling in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal."
10.In case titled Sevaka Perumal Vs State AIR 1991 SC 1463 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 31/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 confidence in the efficacy of law, and society can not long endure under serious threats. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed."
11.In case titled Dhananjoy Chatterjee vs State, (1994)2 SCC 220 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "The measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime, the conduct of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected state of the victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment is manner in which the court responds to the society's cry for justice against criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment."
12.In the case in hand , it has been proved that young deceased Anil @Pangey had apparently no dispute with convicts. Such was the ferocity in the temperament of the convicts that even though they had come duly armed to assault Bunty, brother of deceased, and when they could not find Bunty, they fatally assaulted Anil @ Pangey in lieu of Bunty. Deceased Anil was armless and sitting harmlessly with his aunts. There was absolutely no instigation or reason for convicts to assault him in the manner they did. His simple denial of knowing the whereabouts of Bunty at that moment did not satisfy convicts and they showered him with multiple knives stabs apart form hockey / dandas Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 32/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 blows . In order to calm their unexplained criminal urge , the convicts sniped life out of a young innocent boy for no fault of his. Although the murder is appalling but it does not fall within the category of rarest of rare.
13.As such all the convicts namely Sachin @Sunny, Mukesh, Sunil and Jagdish Parsad are sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment for commission of offence punishable U/s 302 /149 IPC apart from fine of Rs. 2 lacs each I/D three years SI. Upon being paid the cumulative fine of Rs.8 lacs shall be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Anil @ Pangey as token of compensation.
14.Convicts are also sentenced to undergo RI of one year each for commission of offence punishable U/s 147 IPC and one year each for commission of offence punishable U/s 148 IPC
15. All sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be granted to them as convicts Sachin @Sunny is in J/c since 8.6.2006 , Mukesh is in J/c since 13.6.2006, Sunil is in J/c since 09.07.2006 and Jagdish Parsad is in J/c since 08.06.2006
16. Copy of judgment and order on sentence are being supplied to convicts free of cost. One certified copy of judgment and order on sentence be sent to the family of deceased through SHO PS Nabi Karim under intimation to this Court. File be consigned to RR. Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 33/28 SC No. 55/10/FIR NO: 177/2006 , PS Nabi Karim Date:2.3.12 ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN OPEN COURT ON : 14/03/2012 (SURINDER S. RATHI) Addl. Sessions Judge02 Central : Delhi Judgment State Vs. Sachin & Ors Page 34/28