Delhi District Court
Veera Reddy vs . State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., Air 1990 ... on 27 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(CENTRAL): DELHI
SC No.9/13
FIR No.180/2012
PS New Delhi Railway Station.
U/s 302/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Dulal @ Vishal,
S/o Sh. Sanjay Kumar,
R/o Near Govt. School,
Kasim Vihar, Loni.
2. Pramod @ Lambu,
S/o Sh. Suresh,
R/o Chhoti Barauni,
PO Kahar Kuon,
Distt. Datya, M.P.
3. Ranjit
S/o Sh. Kumar Singh,
R/o Village Marka, PS Siwara,
District Narsingpur, M.P.
4. Deepak Kumar
S/o Sh. Khusheshwar Mukhtya,
R/o Hingoli, PS Sadar,
District Darbhanga, Bihar. .......Accused Persons
Date of institution : 28.01.2013
Date of Judgment : 27.01.2014
1
J U D G M E N T
Dulal @ Vishal, Parmod @ Lambu, Ranjeet and Deepak Kumar, all the four accused persons have been facing trial for offences U/s 302 read with Sec.34, Sec.394 read with Sec.34, Sec.394 read with Sec.397 IPC.
2. Accusation levelled against the accused persons is that on 13.10.2012, Parmod @ Lambu accused in furtherance of his common intention and that of his three coaccused, caused injuries on the person of a boy aged 1617 years (whose identity could not be established). They are also alleged to have indulged in commission of robbery against the said boy. At that time, Parmod accused allegedly used deadly weapon i.e. a Knife.
On the night, intervening 1314.10.2012, PW HC Prem Narain of PS NDRS was patrolling near platform no.10 & 11. A person told him that a boy was lying under pakka pul. On reaching the disclosed place, he found a boy aged 1820 years lying at a short distance from railway track near platform no.12 - 13. He apprised the Duty Officer of this fact. Thereupon, ASI Ashok reached the spot i.e. in front of platform no.12 - 13, under flyover bridge and found dead body of a boy lying there with injury. Blood was found lying scattered. One slipper was found lying in between the feet of the boy whereas the 2 other slipper was lying at a short distance.
ASI Ashok Kumar appended endorsement to the copy of DD no. 2A, sent rukka to the police station through Ct. Prem Narain and got this case registered. Special reports were dispatched to Metropolitan Magistrate and senior police officers. Inspector Rakesh Khari, SHO took up investigation of the case. Accompanied by HC Prem Narain, the Inspector reached the spot where the dead body was lying.
Crime team headed by SI Dhan Singh also reached the spot, inspected it, took snaps of the scene of crime. Incharge of the crime team prepared his report. The Inspector prepared rough site plan of that place.
During spot inspection, the Inspector picked up from the spot sample of blood; two glass bottles i.e. one empty and broken and other filled one; pair of hawai chappal; earth control, blood stained earth and a piece of blood stained stone. These were seized.
Despite efforts, dead body could not be identified. Inspector Rakesh carried out inquest proceedings in respect of dead body and thereafter the same was dispatched to Subzi Mandi Mortuary. On return to the police station, Inspector deposited the above mentioned items in the malkhana.
It is case of prosecution that on 15.10.2012 at about 4.00 p.m., 3 Inspector Rakesh Khari while present at platform no.16, received secret information that the persons involved in the present crime were going to assemble in khandars near Minto Bridge, on the same evening, at about 5.00. Thereupon, Inspector constituted a raiding party and reached the disclosed place i.e. the khandars.
Further, it is case of prosecution that at about 5.00 p.m., initially Dulal and Parmod, accused entered the khandars. They were followed by accused Ranjit and Deepak. All of them were apprehended at the pointing of secret informer.
Further, it is case of prosecution that during interrogation Parmod, accused made disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof got recovered a knife and his own pant from the bushes in the northyard of New Delhi Railway Station. The knife and the pant were turned into separate parcels, sealed and then seized.
The other three accused are also alleged to have made disclosure statement and led to aforesaid bushes. From there, Ranjeet accused picked up a Tshirt. It was turned into a separate parcel, sealed and then seized. On return to the police station, the Inspector deposited these items in the malkhana.
On the basis of application, submitted by Inspector Rakesh Khari, on 25.10.2012, Dr. Kulbhushan conducted autopsy. Material 4 exhibits produced by the doctor after autopsy were seized and then deposited in the malkhana. Dead body was cremated at Cremation ground, Kale Khan. On 19.11.2012, the Inspector had opinion of the doctor regarding weapon of offence. On 06.12.2012, material exhibits were got dispatched to FSL Rohini, where the same were analyzed. The experts submitted their reports.
During investigation, salary slips of Deepak and Ranjit, accused were collected from the office of CTS Management Services. Scaled site plan was also got prepared. On completion of investigation, challan was put in court.
Copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused persons free of costs U/s 207 Cr.P.C. before commitment of the case to the Court of Session.
Charge
3. Prima facie case having been made out, charge for an offence U/s 302 IPC was framed against Parmod; U/s 302 read with Sec.34 IPC was framed against accused Dulal, Ranjit and Deepak on 18.05.2013.
Charge for an offence U/s 394 read with Sec.397 IPC was framed against accused Parmod; whereas charge for offence U/s 394 read with Sec.34 IPC was framed against the remaining three accused. 5
Since the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence.
Prosecution Evidence
4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined, following 14 witnesses: PW1 SI Dhan Singh, Incharge of To prove his inspection report mobile crime team Ex.PW1/A PW2 Ct. Ravinder Kumar, To prove negatives Ex.PW2/A1 to Photographer, member of the Ex.PW2/A13 and their positives mobile crime team Ex.PW2/B1 to Ex.PW2/B13.
PW3 Sh. Raman Kumar, To prove production of salary slips of Supervisor from CTS Deepak and Ranjit for the month of Management Services March,2012 before the police. PW4 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, To prove scaled site plan Ex.PW4/A. Draughtsman PW5 HC Roop Chand To prove delivery of special reports. PW6 SI Ashok Kumar Who initially reached the spot on receipt of DD no.2A and found that dead body of the boy was lying there.
PW7 HC Ram Parsad, MHC(M) To prove deposit of the case property in the malkhana and dispatch al material exhibits to FSL Rohini.
PW8 Ct. Prem Narain Who reached the spot and found the dead body lying there on the night intervening 1314.10.2012 on having been informed by a person.
PW9 HC Harinder To prove deposit of 10 sealed parcels and forwarding letter on 06.12.2012 at FSL Rohini.
6 PW10 Ct. Harinder Who remained on duty to guard the dead body at the mortuary of Subzi Mandi and who delivered material exhibits collected from the doctor after the autopsy to the Investigating Officer.
PW11 Ct. Anil Kumar To prove DD no.58B Ex.PW11/A and DD no.2B Ex.PW11/B. PW12 HC Rakesh, the concerned To prove recording of FIR and recording Duty Officer of entries in daily diary register. PW13 Inspector Rakesh Kumar Investigating Officer. PW14 Dr. Kulbhushan Goyal To prove autopsy report Ex.PW14/A and the opinion Ex.PW14/B regarding nature of weapon of offence.
Statement of Accused
5. When examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances and claimed false implication. They denied that they were arrested by the police on 15.12.2012 from khandars or that they got recovered any items from the bushes.
Despite opportunity, accused persons opted not to lead any evidence in defence.
Argument heard. File perused.
Evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence
6. The law regarding circumstances evidence is more or less well settled. Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following principles :
1. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
2. the facts so established should be consistent only with 7 the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
3. the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency.
4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and
5. there must be a chain of evidence complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Reference in this regard may be made to the decision in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79 and Chenga Reddy & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996) 10 SCC 193.
Herein, prosecution has based its case on the following circumstances
1. Medical evidence
2. Recovery of knife
3. Recovery of pant of Pramod accused
4. Recovery of Tshirt of Ranjit accused
5. Motive
7. As per prosecution version, on the night intervening 13/14.10.2012, dead body of a boy was reportedly lying under railway 8 over bridge, by the side of platform no.12 - 13. This information was first of all received by Ct. Prem Narain (PW8), who was on patrolling duty on platform no.1213.
The Constable reached the disclosed place and observed dead body of the boy aged 1820 years lying at a short distance from the railway track near platform no.12 - 13 and communicated this fact to the Duty Officer, whereupon ASI Ashok reached the spot. Communication of this information by Ct. Prem Narain to the police station stands established from DD no.2A recorded at PS NDRS at 12.15 a.m. PW6 SI Ashok Kumar has also deposed about his arrival at the spot i.e. in front of platform no.1213, under the flyover bridge and having found dead body of a boy aged 1920 years lying there with injuries. Further, according to the witness, blood was also found lying scattered there. The witness supported case of prosecution regarding presence of Ct. Prem Narain. Further according to the witness, a pair of slipper was also found lying there. The witness then deposed to have prepared rukka Ex.PW6/A and dispatched the same to the police station. This rukka led to recording of FIR Ex.PW12/B at 1.45 a.m. Rukka was dispatched from the spot at 1.30 a.m. After registration of the case, investigation was taken over by PW13 Inspector Rakesh 9 Kumar. Having reached the spot Inspector Rakesh Kumar observed a dead body lying under the flyover bridge, ahead of platform no.1213. According to Inspector, he lifted blood, a pair of hawai chappal; a piece of blood stained stone, blood stained earth, two glass bottles one broken and the other filled with scent. The witness has proved seizure memo Ex.PW6/B to Ex.PW6/G prepared in this regard. PW6 has also deposed regarding seizure of the aforesaid items from the spot by Inspector Rakesh in his presence.
It is case of prosecution that crime team headed by PW1 SI Dhan Singh also reached the spot at about 2.30 a.m. PW2 Ct. Ravinder, one of its member, took snaps of the scene of crime. In this regard, he has proved negatives Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A13 and their positives Ex.PW2/B1 to Ex.PW2/B13. PW1 has proved his report Ex.PW1/A. From the statements of PW1, PW2, PW6, PW8 and PW13, it stands established that dead body of 19 years old boy was found lying under the bridge, near platform no.12 13 at New Delhi Railway Station and that occurrence had taken place there.
The dead body was got preserved at Subzi Mandi Mortuary and subjected to autopsy on 25.10.2012. PW14 Dr. Kulbhushan conducted autopsy on the dead body and submitted report Ex.PW14/A. The doctor observed an incised penetrating wound over the left side of the 10 chest and few abrasions over left shoulder and right elbow. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were antemortem in nature and injury no.1 was caused with sharp, cutting and penetrating weapon. In the opinion of the doctor, probable duration that elapsed between the death and postmortem examination was 1112 days. Cause of death in this case was shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to stomach and liver associated with element of respiratory distress due to chest and diaphragmatic injury. Injury no.1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
8. Medical evidence regarding injuries and cause of death has gone unchallenged. So, it stands established that the boy found dead on the night intervening 1314.10.2012 under the flyover bridge was murdered.
9. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence, as no eye witness was available for being joined in investigation. Even identification of the dead body could not be established, and the dead body had to be cremated without its identification having been established, despite hue and cry notice.
The question arises as to who caused the death of the boy on the night intervening 13/14.10.2012?
Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the accused persons did commit 11 murder of the said boy in furtherance of their common intention while committing robbery and this fact stands established from the recoveries of knife, pant and Tshirt made from and at the instance of Pramod and Ranjit, accused in pursuance of their disclosure statements made after they were apprehended on the next day i.e. 15.10.2012, on the basis of secret information. Learned Addl. P.P. has referred to FSL report and opinion of doctor to connect the accused persons with the commission of the crime.
On the other hand, learned defence counsel has submitted that no independent witness was associated before or at the time of recovery of knife and clothes, at the instance of the accused persons; that the prosecution has failed to establish the blood group of the blood sample lifted from the spot and blood stained earth; that no fingerprints were lifted from the handle of the knife so as to connect accused Pramod, to establish that Pramod accused was wearing pant Ex.P5 or Ranjit was wearing Tshirt Ex.P7 at the time of commission of crime. Nothing incriminating was recovered from Dulal and Deepak accused. So, it has been urged that prosecution has failed to establish its case against any of the accused persons.
It is case of the prosecution that soon after visit to the spot Inspector Rakesh Khari in presence of ASI Ashok Kumar and Ct. 12 Prem Narain picked up pair of Hawai Chappal, blood stained earth, earth control, piece of stone stained with blood and two small bottles one lying broken and the other filled with scent. Inspector Rakesh Khari and ASI Ashok Kumar have deposed about these recoveries vide memo Ex PW6/B, C, D, E and F. As noticed above, as per prosecution version, Ct. Prem Narain was also present at the spot. None of these seizure memos bear attestation of Ct. Prem Narain. Furthermore, PW8 Ct. Prem Narain has no where deposed about seizure of any of these items. There is no explanation as to why these memos were not got attested from Ct. Prem Narain or as to why Ct. Prem Narain omitted to stated about seizure of these items if he was present there. Furthermore, as per Investigating Officer these items were sealed and seized. To rule out the possibility of tampering with the case property, generally, seal is entrusted by the Investigating Officer to some other person. Herein, none of these memo Ex PW6/B to E reveal that after use the seal was handed over by the Inspector either to SI Ashok Kumar or Ct. Prem Narain. So, prosecution has failed to rule out possibility of tampering with the case property.
Even otherwise, as per report of FSL, as regards sample of blood and blood stained earth there was no reaction so as to determine the 13 blood group. Therefore, these do not connect the accused with the present crime.
As regards the small bottles, Investigating Officer could arrange for lifting of fingerprints from them, but there is nothing on record to suggest that any attempt was made for lifting of fingerprints from any of these bottles so as to find out if it is the victim who was carrying the same or to establish presence of any of the accused.
As regards pair of chappal, it is not case of the prosecution that it belongs to any of the accused, so as to connect them with present crime.
Disclosure statements
10. As per prosecution version, on 15.10.2012 i.e. on the next date at about 5 pm, when Inspector Rakesh Khari was present at platform no. 16 with his staff, he received secret information that persons involved in commission of crime were going to assemble at a deserted place, near Minto Bridge, at about 5 pm. According to the Inspector raiding party was constituted and at the pointing out of secret informer all the four accused were apprehended when then entered Khandars near Minto Bridge, at about 5 pm, this raiding party consisted of ASI Ashok Kumar, HC Harinder, HC Ayaz and Ct. Satyajit.
It is significant to note that Inspector Rakesh Khari did not 14 prepare any rough sketch or site plan of the place of arrest of the accused persons. There is no explanation in this regard.
In case any such secret information was received, Inspector Rakesh Khari could take along any person from the platform itself to witness arrest of the accused persons.
It is not case of the prosecution that the Inspector made any effort while he was present at the railway station to take along any person from there.
According to the Inspector, Rakesh Khari he tried to join the persons from the public on way to Khandars but none joined. Admittedly, Inspector neither recorded names and addresses of the persons nor issued them any notice for their refusal.
Since there is no explanation for nonjoining of independent witnesses, same puts the Court on guard to scrutinize the statements of witnesses regarding arrest of the accused from the deserted place and subsequent recoveries.
Recoveries in pursuance of disclosure statements
11. As per version narrated by PW13 Inspector Rakesh Khari, Pramod accused made disclosure statement that he could get recovered knife and his pant from the bushes of North Yard of NDRS. Further, according to him, Dulal, Deepak and Ranjeet also made disclosure statement that they could get recovered weapon offence, T 15 shirt of Ranjit and pant of Parmod. Disclosure statement made by the accused persons are Ex PW2/K1 to K4.
PW6 SI Ashok Kumar also deposed that all the accused persons made disclosure statements regarding their involvement in the present crime and that they had concealed the weapon of offence in the bushes by the service road in the area of North Yard of NDRS.
It is significant to note that SI Ashok Kumar nowhere stated that the coaccused of Pramod also made disclosure statement that they could get discovered Tshirt and pant of Pramod accused. He also did not state that Pramod made disclosure statement and further to get recovered his pant from the bushes.
Had any such disclosure statement been made regarding recovery of pant and Tshirt, PW6 SI Ashok Kumar would not have omitted to state about the same.
PW6 could not tell in his cross examination as to which of the accused had made disclosure statement first. Had he been present on the given date time and place, he could easily tell first of all such and such accused had made disclosure statement.
After the disclosure statement was made, IO should have made efforts to join persons from the public to witness and attest the recoveries which were going to be affected.
According to Inspector, he had asked 1 2 passersby to join the 16 party, but none came forward. In his cross examination, he admitted that railway employees were on duty in the railway yard, but at a distance of about ½ km. Fact remains that before leaving for the disclosed place i.e. khandars, he could make efforts to associate persons from the platform, but he did not join anyone.
So, absence of corroboration from independent witness once again puts the Court on guard to scrutinize the statement of these two police officials regarding recoveries said to have been made from the bushes.
According to PW Inspector Rakesh Khari, Pramod accused picked up a knife and his pant from the bushes. These were turned into parcels sealed and then seized. Further according to him, Ranjit accused picked up one Tshirt from the bushes which was also turned into a parcel, sealed and then seized.
No doubt on analysis at FSL, blood group 'O' i.e. of the deceased was observed on the knife, the pant of Pramod and Tshirt of Ranjit, it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these items were concealed by the accused persons alone and got recovered by them from there.
According to PW13 Inspector Rakesh Khari, the bushes from where the recoveries is alleged to have been made are by the side of a thoroughfare.
17
In order to connect the accused with recovery of incriminating material on the basis of disclosure statement, it is to be established that it is only the accused who knew that the articles were lying there. Herein, when bushes are stated to be by the side of thoroughfare, possibility of these items having been thrown there by anyone while moving on the road cannot be ruled out. In other words knowledge of concealment of these items at the said place cannot be attributed only to of the accused persons.
As noticed above, Inspector sealed these items, but not with his own seal. According to the Inspector, he used seal of ASI Ashok Kumar. As to why the Inspector did not use his own seal, the explanation is that he was not carrying it. But there is no further explanation as to why he was not carrying his seal, while he set out to investigate a murder case.
Furthermore, in such like cases, in order to rule possibility of tampering with the case property, after use seal is handed over by the user to another person. Herein seal was of ASI Ashok Kumar. It was for the Inspector to prove that he returned the seal to the ASI Ashok Kumar or someone else.
There is nothing in the statement of ASI Ashok Kumar as to when the Inspector returned his seal to him after the aforesaid three parcels containing knife and clothes were sealed near the bushes. 18
Therefore, this Court finds that prosecution has failed to rule out possibility of tampering with the case property. Once it is so held, prosecution cannot take advantage of the fact that blood group observed on these three items tallied with the blood group of the deceased, so as to connect these three accused with commission of the crime.
Medical Evidence
12. It is case of the prosecution that Dr. Kulbhushan Goyal, was asked to give his opinion regarding use of knife and the doctor opined vide Ex PW14/B, injury no. 1 on the dead body was possible with the knife Ex P4 examined by him or with similar type of weapon.
Firstly, as noticed above, prosecution has failed to rule out possibility of tampering with the case property. Secondly, doctor has not given specific opinion that it is only with the knife Ex P4 produced by Inspector Rakesh Khari that injury no. 1 was possible. When he opined that injury no. 1 could be caused by similar type of weapon, possibility of use of another weapon i.e. than knife Ex P4 cannot be ruled out. No fingerprints were lifted from kinfe Ex P4. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that injury no. 1 on the person of deceased was inflicted with knife Ex PW4 only.
Learned defence counsel has pointed out that as per prosecution version, in view of disclosure statement of the accused, it transpired 19 that actually two boys were assaulted while robbery was being committed. Investigating Officer failed to investigate and find out as to who was the other victim. The contention is that no investigation in this regard creates doubt if any such disclosure statement was made by any such accused.
It is true that as per disclosure statement, there were two victims. In view of this disclosure statement, it was duty of the Investigating Officer to find out if any other boy was also the victim, and if so, who he was? However, while appearing in Court, Inspector Rakesh Khari nowhere stated about any other victim. No investigation in this regard, creates doubt in the prosecution version. Furthermore, in case there were two victims and Pramod accused used the same knife in inflicting injuries on their persons, then that blood group of blood observed on the knife could not be of 'O' group only. This fact also creates doubt regarding use of knife in commission of crime.
Motive
13. It is case of prosecution that the accused persons committed murder of an unidentified boy, while committing robbery. But prosecution has failed to establish as to what was robbed from the boy. There is also nothing to suggest that any robbed item belonging to the deceased was recovered from any of the accused. So, 20 prosecution has failed to establish that any of the accused had any motive in commission of murder.
Conclusion
14. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that prosecution has not been able to substantiate the accusation levelled against any of the accused that anyone of them was involved in commission of offence of the robbery or murder of the boy aged 19 years on the night intervening 13/14.10.2012 at New Delhi Railway Station. Extending the benefit of doubt, this Court hereby orders for acquittal of all the accused persons.
Case property be disposed of in accordance with rules on expiry of period for appeal/Revision, if none is preferred, or subject to decision thereof.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court
on 27.01.2014 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
21