Delhi District Court
State vs Munna Kumar on 21 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-08, WEST
DISTRICT TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Hem Raj, DHJS
CNR No. DLWT01-004493-2022
SC No. 314/2022
FIR No. 1200 /2021
PS: Nihal Vihar
U/s 302/34 IPC
In the matter of:
State
Versus
1. Munna Kumar
S/o Kailash Kewath
R/o Gawala Bihar, Pandarak,
Patna, Bihar.
Permanent Address:
Chander Vihar, Uday Market,
Annup Ka Khet, Nihal Vihar,
Outer District, Delhi
2. Jaldhar Kewath
Sh. Chalitar Kewath
R/o Gawala Bihar, Patna,
Bihar.
Permanent Address:
Chander Vihar, Uday Market,
Annup Ka Khet, Nihal Vihar,
Outer District, Delhi
State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 1/18
3. Shukkar Kewath
S/o Sh. Chalitar Kewath
R/o Gawala Bihar, Patna, Bihar.
Permanent Address:
Chander Vihar, Uday Market,
Annup Ka Khet, Nihal Vihar,
Outer District, Delhi
4. Kishan Yadav
S/o Sh. Shobha Kant Yadav
R/o Bihar, Rosra, Samastiput, Bihar
Permanent Address:
Chander Vihar, Uday Market,
Annup Ka Khet, Nihal Vihar,
Outer District, Delhi
5. Ramesh Kumar
S/o Sukkar Kewath
R/o Bihar, Samastipur, Bihar
Permanent Address:
Chander Vihar, Uday Market,
Annup Ka Khet, Nihal Vihar,
Outer District, Delhi
6. Kamal Kumar
S/o Sh. Mohit Mehto
R/o Bihar, Patna, Bihar
Permanent Address:
Chander Vihar, Uday Market,
Annup Ka Khet, Nihal Vihar,
Outer District, Delhi .......Accused Persons
Date of Institution of case :17-05-2022
Date of reserving for Judgment :11-12-2023
Date of pronouncement of judgment :21-12-2023
Appearance:
For the State :Mr. Himanshu Garg, Ld. Additional
Public Prosecutor.
For accused persons : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Ld. Counsel.
State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 2/18
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely Munna Kumar, Jaldhar Kewath, Shukkar Kewath, Kishan Yadav, Ramesh Kumar and Kamal Kumar were charge-sheeted to face a trial for the offences u/s 302/34 IPC by SHO PS Nihal Vihar.
The case of the prosecution:
2. The facts of the prosecution case as revealed from the chargesheet and annexed documents are that on 12.10.2021, on receipt of DD No. 31A that a dead body is found lying on the road near Chander Vihar. On receipt of the information about it, ASI Ashok alongwith Ct. Sandeep reached at Chander Vihar Main Road near Amrit Properties. The complainant namely Smt. Jyoti met them. She identified the dead body as of her brother-in- law Gagandeep Singh @ Shanky. She gave her statement to the effect that one Jagtar, who was running a shop of cycle repairing had come and informed them that Gangandeep Singh @ Shanky had been beaten by Krishan, Jaldhar, Shukkar, Munna and other persons in the field and thereafter they had thrown him on the road. On the statement of complainant, FIR U/s 302/34 IPC was registered. During further investigation, Jagtar was interrogated, who also gave his statement that on 12.10.2021, he saw accused Munna, Jaldhar Kewath, Shukkar Kewath, Kishan, Ramesh and Kamal beating deceased with dandas and also giving him legs and fist blows. He also saw accused Ramesh and Kamal taking deceased in a rickshaw and throwing him on the road at the spot.
State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 3/18 Later on, accused persons were apprehended, who admitted their involvement in killing of Gagandeep @ Shanky. They were arrested. Accused Ramesh Kumar got recovered one rickshaw. One rope was recovered at the instance of accused Kishan Yadav while three dandas were recovered at the instance of accused Munna Kumar, Jaldhar Kewath and Shukkar Kewath respectively.
As per postmortem report, the cause of death was opined to be due to cerebral damage and hemorrhagic shock as a result of multiple bruises due to blunt force/object impact. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature.
After completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 302/34 IPC was filed in the court against accused Munna Kumar, Jaldhar Kewath, Shukkar Kewath, Kishan Yadav, Ramesh Kumar and Kamal Kumar.
3. The Ld. Magistrate after the compliance of 208 Cr.P.C took the cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
The charge against the accused:
4. After hearing the prosecution and the accused persons and perusal of the chargesheet alongwith the documents filed by the prosecution, on 02.08.2022 a charge was framed against all the accused persons for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC. The accused persons did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.
The evidence by prosecution:
5. To prove the afore-mentioned charge against the accused persons, the prosecution examined four prosecution witnesses.
State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 4/18 For the sake of convenience, a brief description of testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses including the oral as well as documentary evidence, in tabular form, is as under:-
(Oral evidence):-
PW-1 Smt. Mother of deceased, who identified the Narender Kaur dead body of his son at SHM Hospital.
PW-2 Sh. Jagtar He saw deceased lying on the road while Singh he was coming to his shop and he
informed the parents of deceased about the same.
PW-3 Smt. Jyoti Bhabhi of deceased, who identified his dead body in the mortuary of SGM hospital and IO recorded her statement. PW-4 Inspector Investigating Officer of the case, who Jitender Dagar deposed about the investigation conducted by him in this case.
(Documentary evidence):-
Ex. PW-1/A (also Dead body identification statement of exhibited as Ex.PW- Smt. Narender Kaur, mother of 4/D) deceased Ex.PW-1/B (also Dead body handing over memo exhibited as Ex.PW-
4/F)
Mark PW-2/A Statement of Sh. Jagtar Singh
Ex. PW-3/A Statement of Smt. Jyoti
Ex. PW-4/A Site plan of the spot
Ex. PW-4/B Death report
Ex.PW-4/C Dead body identification statement of
Smt. Jyoti
Ex.PW-4/D Dead body identification statement of
Sh. Narender Kaur
Ex.PW-4/E Request letter of IO for postmortem of
deceased Gagandeep
Ex.PW-4/F Handing over memo of dead body of
State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 5/18
deceased
Ex.PW-4/G Seizure memo of clothes, viscera and
blood sample of deceased
Ex.PW-4/H,Ex.PW-4/I, Arrest memos of accused namely Ex.PW-4/J,Ex.PW-4/K, Ramesh, Kishan, Munna, Shokkar, Ex. PW-4/L and Ex. Kamal and Jaldhar respectively PW-4/M Ex.PW-4/N to Ex.PW- Personal search memo of all the 4/S accused Ex.PW-4/T and Disclosure statements of all the accused Ex.PW-4/Y Ex.PW-4/Z Seizure memo of cycle rickshaw got recovered by accused Ramesh Ex.PW-4/Z1 Seizure memo of one rope got recovered by accused Kishan Yadav Ex.PW- 4/Z2 Seizure memo of one danda got recovered by Shukker Ex.PW-4/Z3 Seizure memo of danda got recovered by accused Jaldhar Ex.PW-4/Z4 Seizure memo of danda got recovered by accused Munna Ex.PW-4/Z5 Request of IO regarding subsequent opinion Ex.PW-4/Z6 Subsequent opinion The statement of accused persons u/s 294 Cr.P.C:
6. Joint statement of accused persons u/s 294 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein they admitted the contents and genuineness of the following documents:-
i. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-Rikesh dated
07.01.2022 (Ex.AD-1) ii. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-HC Arun dated 12.10.2021 (Ex.AD-2) State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 6/18 iii. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-Vijendder dated 12.10.2021 (Ex.AD-3) iv. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-ASI Rajbir dated 12.10.2021 (Ex. AD-4) v. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-Ct. Yogesh dated 20.10.2021 and photographs alongwith certificate u/s 65 B IEA (Ex.AD-5) vi. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-ASI Satbir dated 20.10.2021 and scene of crime report (Ex.AD-6) vii. Contents of statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-HC Durga dated 17.12.2021, 04.01.2022 and 05.01.2022 (Ex.AD-7) viii. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW- Ct. Sandeep dated 04.01.2022 (Ex.AD-8) ix. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-Ct. Sandeep dated 05.01.2022 of (Ex.AD-9).
x. FIR No. 1200/21 PS Nihal Vihar and certificate u/s 65B IEA (Ex.AD-10) xi. Postmortem report prepared by Dr. Mahipal Singh (Ex.AD-11) Xii. FSL report prepared by Dr. Mahipal Singh (Ex.AD-12) xiii. MLC no. 21272/21 of Gagandeep Singh dated 12.10.2021 prepared by Dr. Suman Khan and Dr. Ashish (Ex.AD-13) xiv. Entries in register no.19 and 21 pertaining to the case property (Ex.AD-14) xv. Rukka (Ex.AD-15) State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 7/18
7. In view of the statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C, the prosecution witnesses i.e. Rikesh (sl.no.23), HC Arun (sl. no.9), Ct. Vijender (sl. no.7), ASI Rajbeer (sl. no.13), Ct. Yogesh (sl. no. 6), ASI Satbir (sl. no.8), HC Durga Shankar (sl. no.16), Ct. Sandeep (sl. no.20), Ct. Sandeep (sl. no.21), Dr. Mahipal Singh (sl. no.18), Dr. Suman Khan (sl. no.4), Dr. Ashish (sl. no.5), concerned MHC(M) (CP) (sl. no.15), HC Narender (sl.no.10) and SI Ajay Sehrawat (sl. no.17) were dropped from the list of witnesses.
8. On 03.10.2023, Ld. Prosecutor dropped witnesses i.e. Ct. Dinesh (sl.no.11), Ct. Devender (sl.no.12), Ct. Devender (sl.no.14), Ct. Manjeet (sl.no.19) and Ct. Sandeep (sl.no.22).
9. During the trial of the case, accused persons also gave statements thereby not disputing the fact regarding the clothes of the deceased being seized after the postmortem and were sent to the FSL. The FSL report in this regard is yet to be received. The statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C:
10. The statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C of accused persons namely namely, Munna Kumar, Jaldhar Kewath, Shukkar Kewath, Kishan Yadav, Ramesh Kumar and Kamal were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused were brought to their notice and their explanation were sought. Accused persons claimed to be falsely implicated in this case. Accused persons did not wish to lead any defence evidence.
11. During the trial, one application u/s 319 Cr.P.C filed by applicant namely Rinku S. Yadav, Advocate for summoning one Rikesh and trying him alongwith other accused. However, vide order dated 21.04.2023, the said application was dismissed.
State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 8/18 Alongwith the said application, the applicant also placed a pen drive allegedly containing the incident in question. The said applicant alongwith the pen drive had been sent to the concerned DCP and he was directed to look into the same and file a report. A report was filed that inquiries were made but nothing could come on the record. The said application u/s 319 Cr.P.C was dismissed as being not maintainable.
12. The Ld. Prosecutor and the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons advanced the final arguments.
13. Ld. Prosecutor while relying upon the oral and documentary evidence on the record argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
14. On the other hand Ld counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt while submitting that there have been several infirmities in the case.
15. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has to prove its defence on preponderance of probabilities. What do we mean by the expression 'beyond reasonable doubt'?
16. For our good fortune, the said expression has been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the various judgments. In the judgment of Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2011CRI.L.J.663, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan, elaborated the concept of Standard of Proof in a criminal trial in the following terms:
State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 9/18 "11. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination or fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend upon its own facts. The court must bear in mind that "human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions." Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone. "The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence." In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induce an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. (Vide: Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159; State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh & Anr. AIR 1973 SC 2407;
Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765; Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs.State of West Bengal, (2003) 12 SCC 377; and Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC
230).
12. In Sarwan Sigh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, this court observed (Para12) :
"Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence (before an accused can be convicted."
17. Furthermore, in the judgment of Sucha Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, (2003 ) 7 SCC 643, the Hon'ble State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 10/18 Supreme Court explained the term Beyond Reasonable Doubt and observed as under:
21. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. [See Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and others, AIR 1990 SC 209 : 1990(1) RCR(Crl.) 297 (SC)]. Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. [See State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 : 1992(3) RCR(Crl.) 63 (SC)]. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. [See Inder Singh and Anr. v. State of (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 1091)].
Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation.
"A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties." (Per Viscount Simon in Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution (1944 AC (PC) 315) quoted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998). Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth.
18. The accused has been charged for the offence u/s 302 IPC.
19. The essential ingredients of section 302 IPC are as follows:-
(1) Death of a human was being 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 State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 11/18
(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.
20. Though the FIR was lodged on the complaint of PW-3 Smt. Jyoti, but PW-2 Jagtar Singh is the material witness / eye witness of the prosecution. In his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C Mark PW-2/A he stated that on 12.10.2021 at about 8 a.m, he was present in his cycle repairing shop. When he had gone towards the field of Anoop to urinate, he heard noises of some altercation and beating and when he went near to it, he saw that accused Krishan, Jaldhar, Shukkar, Munna, Ramesh and Kamal had been beating Gangandeep Singh @ Shanky after tying him with a tree in the said field. He got afraid and went back to his shop. After some time he saw Gagandeep Singh @ Shanky lying on a rickshaw, which was being driven by accused Ramesh and accused Kamal was pulling the same. They both dropped Gagandeep Singh @ Shanky on the road and fled away. He thereafter rushed to the house of deceased and reported all the incident seen by him to the sister-in-law (भभभभ) of Gagandeep Singh @ Shanky.
However, in his deposition, he did not support the case of the prosecution. In his examination in chief he deposed to the effect that he did not remember the month and year of the incident but on the 11th day of the month at about 8.45/9 a.m, when he was going to his shop, he saw Shanky lying on the road. He went to the house of Shanky and informed his family members in this regard and thereafter went back to his shop. He did not depose anything else about the incident.
PW-2 Jagtar Singh was declared hostile by the Ld. State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 12/18 Prosecutor and was cross-examined. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember if the date of incident was 12.10.2021. Though he admitted that he was inquired by the IO in this case, but he denied the suggestion if he had informed the IO that while urinating, he heard noise of quarrel and beating in the field of Anoop. He further denied the suggestion that he informed the IO that he had seen accused Krishan, Jaldhar, Shukkar, Munna, Ramesh and Kamal beating Gangandeep Singh @ Shanky after tying him with a tree in the said field and also saying "यह बहह त चचरर करतत हह आज इसकत कतम तमतम कर ददगग" (yeh bahut chori karta hai aaj iska kaam tamam kar denge). He further denied the suggestion that after some time, he saw accused Ramesh riding a cycle rickshaw and accused Kamal pushing the same and Gagandeep Singh @ Shanky was on the rickshaw and both the accused dropped him on the road and fled away from there. He failed to identify any of the accused and also denied the suggestion that he deliberately deposed falsely in order to save the accused from punishment or that he had been won over by accused. He also denied the suggestion that he told all the true facts of the incident to the IO upon which IO recorded his statement Mark PW-2/A on 12.10.2021. He was duly confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C by the Ld. Prosecutor.
Thus, from the testimony of this star witness, it is crystal clear that he did not support the case of the prosecution in its material particulars. He even deposed nothing about the material facts of the incident. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW-2, who is a material witness, could not be proved to be supportive to the prosecution case.
State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 13/18
21. The prosecution case was registered on the statement of complainant i.e. PW-3 Smt. Jyoti who is the sister-in-law (भतभर ) of the deceased. In her statement Ex.PW-3/A, she stated that on 12.10.2021 at about 08-09 a.m Jagtar Singh (PW-2), who used to run a cycle repairing shop in front of Ajay Cable office had informed her that Gangandeep Singh @ Shanky had been beaten by Krishan, Jaldhar, Shukkar, Munna and other persons in the fields in front of Ajay Cable office and his dead body was on road near Sharma Halwai road infront of Amrit Properties. Accordingly, she alongwith her mother-in-law Narender Kaur reached the spot.
However, in her examination-in-chief, she deposed that on 12.10.2021 at about 9 a.m, one Jagtar Singh (PW-2) came to her house and informed her that her brother-in-law (दगवर ) was lying on the road. Accordingly, she reached the spot where police had already arrived and recorded her statement Ex.PW-3/A. She also deposed that on 13.10.2021, she alongwith her mother-in-law went to SGM hospital mortuary where she identified the dead body of her brother-in-law Gagandeep @ Shanky and after postmortem, they were handed over the dead body of deceased. She also failed to identify the accused and deposed that she did not know anything else about the case.
On being cross-examined by the Ld. Prosecutor, she denied the suggestion that Jagtar Singh had informed her that Kishan, Jaldhar, Shukra, Munna and some other persons had badly beating her brother-in-law in the fileds infront of of office of Ajay Cable. Though she identified her signature on statement Ex.PW-3/A, but she voluntarily stated that she could not read her State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 14/18 statement at the time of signing the same. She also denied the suggestion that due to lapse of considerable time, she was unable to remember facts of this case. Hence, in the testimony of PW- 3also nothing against the accused could come on the record.
22. PW-1 Smt. Nrender Kaur is the mother of deceased. She identified the dead body of his son at SGM hospital and IO recorded her statement E.PW-1/A in this regard. She was handed over the dead body of deceased after the postmortem vide memo Ex.PW-1/B.
23. PW-4 Inspector Jitender Dagar is the investigating officer of the case. He deposed about the investigation conducted by him in the present case. He also proved documents i.e. site plan Ex.PW-4/A, inquest papers Ex.PW-4/B, statements of complainant Smt. Jyoti and Smt. Narender Kaur as Ex.PW-4/C and Ex.PW -4/D respectively. He got conducted the postmortem of deceased Gagandeep Singh @ Shanky vide his request Ex. PW-4/D and after postmortem handed over the dead body to its relatives vide memo Ex.PW-4/F. He seized the pullanda containing the clothes, viscera and blood sample of deceased vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/G. He also identified all the accused correctly in the court and proved their arrest memos as Ex.PW- 4/H to Ex.PW-4/M and their personal search memos as Ex.PW- 4/N to Ex.PW-4/S. He also proved the documents Ex.PW-4/Z & Ex.PW-4/Z1 to Ex.PW-Z6 regarding the recoveries effected from accused persons. He also deposed about sending the case property to the FSL, recording statements of witnesses and preparing the chargesheet against the accused persons. He was duly cross-examined by all the accused persons.
State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 15/18
24. There are no other witnesses except PW-1 Smt. Narender Kaur , PW-2 Jagtar Singh, the purported eye witness and PW-3 Smt. Jyoti, the complainant. PW-Smt. Narender Kaur is the witness only to the identification of dead body of deceased Gagandeep Singh @ Shanky. However, a careful perusal of testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 shows that they both did not support the prosecution case on all the material aspects. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons as the material witness Jagtar Singh, who is shown as the eye witness, did not identify the accused persons as the offenders in this case. He failed to identify all the accused as the persons, who gave beatings to deceased Gagandeep Singh @ Shanky after tying him with a tree and also the two of the accused, who had carried the dead body on a rickshaw and threw it on the road. PW-3 Smt. Jyoti supported the case of prosecution only to the extent of finding of dead body on the spot and identifying the same as her brother-in-law Gagandeep Singh @ Shanky. Both PW-2 and PW-3 failed to identify the accused persons. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Conclusion:
25. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against accused persons namely Munna Kumar, Jaldhar Kewath, Shukkar Kewath, Kishan Yadav, Ramesh Kumar and Kamal Kumar and thus, failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, all the accused persons stand acquitted from the offences u/s 302/34 IPC.
State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 16/18
26. Earlier Bail bonds of accused persons namely Munna Kumar, Jaldhar Kewath, Shukkar Kewath, Kishan Yadav, Ramesh Kumar and Kamal Kumar stand discharged. The original documents of their previous respective sureties, if any be returned to them after cancellation of endorsement and upon the identification of the sureties.
27. The bail bonds furnished u/s 437 A Cr.P.C of accused persons are extended for a period of six months for the purpose of Section 437A Cr.P.C. After the expiry of six months, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and surety bonds discharged. Original documents of their respective sureties, if any be returned to them after cancellation of endorsement and upon the identification of the sureties. Case property, if any be destroyed after the expiry of period of appeal.
Compensation U/s 357(A) Cr.P.C
28. Before parting with this judgment, this court must deal with the aspect of compensation to the legal heirs / dependents of the deceased. The present is a case U/s 302 IPC. The deceased died an unnatural death. Section 357A Cr.P.C was brought in the statute book for the purpose of granting compensation to the victim of the offence or their legal heirs / dependents. The section also provides for the framing of Victim Compensation Scheme by the State Governments. In view of the mandate of section 357A, Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme has been enacted and has further been amended time-to-time keeping in view the requirements of the nature of the victims. Sub-section (3) of 357A provides that if the trial court, on the conclusion, is satisfied that the compensation awarded u/s 357A is not adequate State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 17/18 for rehabilitation of the victim or where the cases ends in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated, the court may make a recommendation for compensation.
29. The record reveals that the deceased belonged to the poor strata of the society and left his mother behind him. The court feels that a mother being a victim (the definition of victim in DVCS also includes the legal heirs/dependents) requires rehabilitation. Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that a recommendation should be made to the Ld. Secretary, DLSA, West to make an appropriate inquiry and grant appropriate compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, if they require rehabilitation.
30. A copy of the judgment be also sent to the Ld. Secretary, DLSA (West) for appropriate action.
31. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
HEM HEM RAJ
Date:
Pronounced in the open
RAJ 2023.12.21
16:16:11
+0530
Court on 21.12.2023. (HEM RAJ)
Additional Sessions Judge-08 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
State Vs Munna Kumar & Ors SC No.314/2022 FIR No. 1200/21 18/18