Delhi District Court
State vs . Shashi Bhushan Singh @ Dheman on 17 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
II (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 03/2014
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0007872014
State Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh @ Dheman
S/o Sh. Ravinder Singh
R/o Village Mothaha, PS Mahura,
District Chapra, Bihar
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 463/2013
Police Station: Aman Vihar
Under Sections: 302/307 IPC
Date of committal to sessions court: 13.1.2014
Date on which orders were reserved: 14.11.2014
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 14.11.2014
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per the allegations on 9.11.2013 at about 12:30 Noon at House No. B107, Gali No. 8, Pratap ViharIII, Aman Vihar, Delhi the accused Shahi Bhushan Singh @ Dheman attacked on Priyanka with a knife while she tried to save her husband from his clutches and caused injures to her with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act he caused the death of Priyanka he would be guilty of murder. Further, it has been alleged that the accused also St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 1 assaulted on the person of Harender with a knife and committed his murder.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 9.10.2013 at about 12:50 Noon an information was received at Police Station Aman Vihar regarding a stabbing incident on which SI Vasant Kumar along with Ct. Pawan reached the spot i.e. at B107, Gali No. 8, Partap Vihar III, Delhi where found blood was found scattered on the floor and on the bed sheet. On inquiry they came to know that the injured have already been taken to SGM Hospital. Ct. Pawan was left at the spot for guarding the same and whereas SI Vasant reached SGM hospital and collected the MLC of Harender, S/o Ram Jattan Thakur who was declared 'Brought Dead' whereas the injured Priyanka was under treatment. SI Vasant Kumar recorded the statement of Priyanka wherein she had alleged that her brother Shashi Bhushan Singh has inflicted knife blows upon her as well as upon her husband Harender. On the basis of the statement of Priyanka the present case was registered after which the investigations were marked to Inspector Mahender Singh who came to the spot and lifted the various exhibits from the spot. An eye witness Master Gaurav was also present in the house and was interrogated by the Investigating Officer.
(3) During investigations SI Karamveer along with Ct. Devender and Ct. Rajbir went to the house of Kailash Prasad Sharma at H. No. 144, St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 2 Gali No. 3, Nawada Colony, Faridabad, Haryana who was interrogated regarding phone which he was using and informed that the said phone was being using by his tenant Sh. Brijesh Kumar who was residing in the house of Ashok Kumar. Thereafter Kailash Prasad pointed out the house of Ashok Kumar and thereafter they all went there along with Kailash Prasad Sharma where Brijesh met them and the accused Shashi Bhushan also met them, after which Shashi Bhushan Singh was arrested in this case and his disclosure statement was recorded.
(4) On 10.10.2013 the postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted and thereafter the accused Shashi Bhushan led the police party to C1 Block, Gali No. 1, Partap Vihar III, near sukhe nehar and got recovered his blood stained shirt under the pullia and disclosed that at the time of the incident he was wearing the said shirt. The said shirt was then taken into possession and thereafter efforts were made to trace out the weapon of offence i.e. knife but the same could not be found. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed in the Court.
CHARGES:
(5) Charges under Sections 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(6) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 3 proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of Prosecution Witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of witness No.
1. PW1 ASI Ajit Singh Police Witness - Crime Team Incharge
2. PW2 Ct. Ravinder Chauhan Police Witness - Crime Team Photographer
3. PW3 HC Rajesh Police Witness - Duty Officer
4. PW4 W/Ct. Geeta Police Witness - DD Writer
5. PW5 HC Raj Kumar Police Witness - MHCM
6. PW6 Ct. Pawan Police Witness who had reached the spot with SI Vasant Kumar
7. PW7 Ct. Devender Kumar Police Witness who had deposited the pullandas with FSL
8. PW8 Ct. Rajbir Police Witness who had joined investigations with SI Karamveer
9. PW9 Ct. Rajbir Police Witness - Special Messenger
10. PW10 Insp. Mahesh Kumar Police Witness - Draftsman
11. PW11 ASI Gyanender Police Witness who had got recorded the statement of Priyanka and Gaurav under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
12. PW12 ASI Jagdish Singh Police Witness - PCR Van Incharge
13. PW13 W Ct. Meenakshi Police Witness - PCR Official
14. PW14 Ct. Madan Pal Police Witness who had joined investigations with Inspector Mahender Singh
15. PW15 SI Karamvir Police Witness who has proved the arrest of accused
16. PW16 Israr Babu Nodal Offier from Vodafone
17. PW17 Devender Singh Thakur Public Witness - Brother of the deceased
18. PW18 Gaurav Child Witness - Eye Witness to the St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 4 Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of witness No. incident
19. PW19 Kailash Parshad Sharma Public Witness who has proved the arrest of accused
20. PW20 Abhay Kumar Public Witness - Nephew of the deceased
21. PW21 Dr. Rajesh Dalal Official Witness from SGM Hospital
22. PW22 SI Vasant Kumar Initial Investigating Officer
23. PW23 Priyanka Injured/ Complainant - wife of the deceased
24. PW24 Anita Chari FSL Expert
25. PW25 Dr. Vivek Rawat Autopsy Surgeon
26. PW26 Insp. Mahender Singh Investigating Officer List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Exhibit Details of documents Proved by
No. No.
1 PW1/1 Affidavit of evidence of ASI Ajit Singh ASI Ajit Singh
2 PW1/A Crime Team Report
3 PW2/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Ravinder Ct. Ravinder
4 PW2/A1 to Photographs of the scene of crime
PW2/A6
5 PW2/B Negatives of above photographs
6 PW3/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Rajesh HC Rajesh
7 PW3/A DD No. 28A
8 PW3/B FIR
9 PW3/C Endorsement on rukka
10 PW3/D Certificate U/s 65
11 PW4/1 Affidavit of evidence of W/Ct. Geeta W/Ct. Geeta
12 PW4/A DD No. 33B
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 5
Sr. Exhibit Details of documents Proved by
No. No.
13 PW5/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Raj Kumar HC Raj Kumar
14 PW5/A Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 1613/1 to
1613/4
15 PW5/B RC 305/21/13
16 PW5/C FSL receipt
17 PW6/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Pawan Ct. Pawan
18 PW7/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Devender Ct. Devender Kumar
19 PW8/A Pointing out memo
20 PW9/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Rajbir Ct. Rajbir
21 PW10/1 Affidavit of evidence of Insp. Mahesh Insp. Mahesh Kumar
22 PW10/A Scaled Site Plan
23 PW11/1 Affidavit of evidence of ASI Gyanender ASI Gyanender
24 PW12/1 Affidavit of evidence of ASI Jagdish ASI Jagdish Singh
25 PW13/1 Affidavit of evidence of W/Ct. W/Ct. Meenakshi
Meenakshi
26 PW13/A PCR Form
27 PW14/A Disclosure statement Ct. Madan Pal
28 PW14/B Seizure memo of Shirt
29 PW15/A Arrest memo of accused Shashi Bhushan SI Karamvir
30 PW15/B Personal search memo
31 PW16/A Copy of CAF Israr Babu
32 PW16/B Copy of DL
33 PW16/C CDR
34 PW16/D Cell ID Chart
35 PW16/E Certificate U/s 65
36 PW17/A Dead body Identification statement Devender Singh
37 PW17/B Dead body identification statement of Thakur
Ravinder
38 PW17/C Dead body handed over receipt
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 6
Sr. Exhibit Details of documents Proved by
No. No.
39 PW18/A Rough Site Plan Gaurav
40 PW18/B Statement of Gaurav
41 PW18/DX1 Confronted statement
42 PW21/A MLC Dr. Rajesh Dalal
43 PW21/B MLC of Priyanka
44 PW22/A Statement of Priyanka SI Vasant Kumar
45 PW22/B Rukka
46 PW22/C Seizure memo of Articles
47 PW22/D Seizure memo of blood stained cloths
48 PW22/E Disclosure statement
49 PW22/F Admit Card
50 PW22/G Seizure memo of Sample seal
51 PW23/A Statement of Priyanka U/s 164 CrPC Priyanka
52 PW24/A Biological Report Anita Chhari
53 PW24/B Serological Report
54 PW25/A Postmortem Report Dr. Vivek Rawat
55 PW26/A Inquest Document Insp. Mahender
Singh
56 PW26/B Request for Postmortem
57 PW26/C Form 25:35
58 PW26/D Brief Facts
EVIDENCE:
(7) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many
as Twenty Six Witnesses as under:
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 7
Public/ Eye Witnesses:
(8) PW17 Sh. Devender Singh Thakur has deposed that he is a
driver by profession and on 10.10.2013 he went to mortuary, SGM hospital where he identified body of his brother Harender in the presence of his other brother Ravinder after which his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer regarding identification of the body which is Ex.PW17/A bearing his signature at point A and bearing the signature of his brother Ravinder at point B. According to the witness after getting the postmortem conducted, the dead body was handed over to him vide receipt Ex.PW17/B bearing his signature at point A and bearing the signature of his brother Ravinder at point B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted in this regard.
(9) PW18 Gaurav is the nephew of the deceased and is a child aged 1213 years studying in class 6th. Before recording his statement, this Court had interacted with the child and found that he was intelligent enough to understand the sanctity of oath and and hence thereafter his statement was recorded on Oath in vernacular in camera proceedings. (10) According to the child witness he is a studying in 6th class in Nagar Nigam Prathmik Vidyalya at Jalibe Chowk, Ratan Vihar and is residing in the house along with his parents, younger brother Saurabh and younger sister Poonam and his chacha/ uncle Ravinder his wife and another uncle/ chacha Harender and his wife Priyanka who were also St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 8 residing with them. (Mein apne mummy papa, mera chota bhai Saurabh, chhoti behan Poonam ke saath rehta hu. Humare ghar mein pehle chacha Ravinder unki patni, dusre chacha Harender aur unki patni Priyanka sath sath rehte thai. Ye log ab humarey sath nahi rehte.) He has stated that about two months prior to the incident, his chacha/ uncle Harender was married to Priyanka and he was told by his parents that the family members of Priyanka were averse to this alliance ( Ghatna se lagbhag do mahine pehle mere chacha Harender ki shaadi Priyanka se hui thi. Mujhe mere papa ne bataya tha ki meri chachi Priyanka ke gharwale inki shaadi ke khilaf hai.) He has further deposed that on 9.10.2013 at about 11:30 AM while his uncle Harender was watching TV when the brother of his Chachi Priyanka namely Dhiman, whose complete name he is not aware, came from Bihar. ( Mere chacha Harender ghar mein bed par letkar T.V dekhrahe thei tabi mere chachi ka bhai aaya jisko log Dheman kehte thei mujhe unka pura naam nahi pataa. them din 09.10.2013 thi. Woh (Dheman) 11:30 was Bihar se aaye thei.) According to him, at that time he (witness), his uncle Harender, his aunt Priyanka, his younger sister and his other aunt/ chachi were present in the house. (Us samay, mere chacha Harender, meri chachi Priyanka, mein, meri choti behan aur doosri chachi jiska naam mujhe nahi maalum mauzud thei.) He has stated that the accused Dheman asked uncle Harender as to why he was not sending Priyanka due to which the tickets had been canceled many times. On this his uncle Harender told Dheman that his mother was paralytic and if he St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 9 sends Priyanka then who would take care of the children? (Dehman mere chacha Harender se keh raha tha ki aap itni saari date de rahe ho meri chachi ko lejaane ke liye aur bar bar ticket cancel karaate ho. Us par mere chacha Harender ne kaha ki mere maa ko paralysis hua hai. Agar mein Priyanka ko bhej dunga to in bachon ki dekhbal kaun karega.). He has further stated that thereafter his aunt/ Chachi went to the room inside whereas Harender remained in the room outside and Dheman went inside the room and repeatedly told Priyanka that she had to go with him (Is par meri chachi ander wale room mein chali gai aur mere chacha Harender bahar wale room mein reh gaye. Dehman bhi ander chala gaya aur meri chachi Priyanka se keh raha tha ki aaj tujhe jaana padega. Dehman bar bar chachi Priyanka ko keh raha tha ki tujhe mere saath jana padega.) According to the witness, in the meanwhile he (witness) also came inside the room and his aunt/ Chachi sat near his uncle and the accused Dheman went outside the room and took out a knife after which he inflicted injuries on the neck of Priyanka as a result of which she fell down. He has further stated that his other aunt/ chachi started crying on which his uncle Harender shouted and asked him to run away( Tabhi mein ander kamarein mein ander chala aaya. Meri chachi peeche se aakar chacha ke paas baith gai. Dehman bhi ander wale room se baahar aagya. Uske baad Dehman ne chaku nikal liya uske baad pehle meri chachi ke gale mein maara, meri chachi zameen par gir gayi. Meri doosri chachi Priyanka chachi ko pakadkar rone lagi. Jab mere chacha Harender chilaye, mereko St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 10 chacha Harender ne kaha ki gate khol ke baahar bhag jaa.). The witness has further stated that thereafter the accused Dheman stood there after opening the gate and bolted the gate from inside and threatened him (child witness) by saying that he would kill him if he goes out on which he (witness) along with his younger sister went upstairs and saw the entire happening from the wiremesh (Uske baad Dehman gate kholkar wahi khadaa ho gaya aur ander se kundi lagaa li. Dehman ne mujhse kaha ki agar tu baahar jayega to tereko bhi maar dunga. Mein aur meri choti behan chat par bhaag gaye aur beech ki jaali se sab kuch dekhte rahe.) He has also stated that his uncle Harender who was in half pants at that time, started to wear his pants and probably thought that he would run outside and would call somebody for help ( Mere chacha Harender ne us samay half pant pehni hui thi aur woh pant pehen ne lage. Mere chacha Harender ne socha ki pant pehenkar bahar bhag jaaunga aur kisi ko bula kar le aaunga). However as soon as his uncle Harender reached near the gate to open it, the accused Dheman caught hold of the legs of Harender and pulled him, on which Harender caught the neck of the accused Dheman who then stabbed Harender in his chest. (Jaise hi woh gate kholne keliye aaye, Dehman ne mere chacha Harender ki taang pakadkar kheenchli. Phir mere chacha Harender ne Dehman ki garden pakadli. Phir Dehman ne kuch nahi dekha aur chaku chacha Harender ke seenay mein maar diya.) He has further deposed that his uncle/ chacha Harender was pressing the neck of Dheman with great force on which Dheman St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 11 pulled the knife from the chest of Harender and gave a blow on the head of Harender (Mere chacha phir badi tej se Dehman ki gardan dabaa rahe thei tabhi Dehman ne chaku seenay se nikalkar chacha Harender ke sir mein maardiya). According to the witness, his aunt/ chachi Priyanka was slightly conscious at that time and she ran outside after opening the gate thinking that she would call somebody but the accused Dheman caught the legs of Priyanka and gave fourfive knife blows to Priyanka after which he ran away. (Meri chachi Priyanka to us samay thoda hosh tha. Woh gate kholkar bahar chaligayi. Unhone shocha kisiko bulalungi. Tabhi Dehman bahar bhaag raha tha. Meri chachi Priyanka ne Dehman ki taang pakadli. Tabhi Dehman nein chaar/panch chaku meri chachi Priyanka ke maar diye aur uske baad bhag gaya.) He has also stated that after about half an hour Police came and took his uncle Harender and aunt Priyanka to Hospital and he too accompanied the police to Hospital where his uncle Harender expired after five minutes. (Aadhe ghante baad police aa gayi thi. Police mere chacha Harender aur chachi Priyanka ko hospital lekar gaye thei aur mein bhi unke saath gaya tha. Hospital mein bharti hone ke paanch minute baad mere chacha Harender guzar gaye thei.). He has further stated that police interrogated him and he also pointed out the place on incident to the police on which police prepared a site plan which is Ex.PW18/A bearing his signatures at point A. (Police walon ne mere sath puchtach kari thi. Jahan par mere chacha chachi ko mara tha maine woh jagah police ko dikhayi thi. Police ne mere samne scale se map St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 12 banaaya tha. Woh map Ex.PW18/A hai jis par police ne mere sign karaye thei. Mere sign map pe point A par hai). According to the witness he had also given his statement before the Ld. MM which proceedings under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are Ex.PW18/B (Meine apna bayaan pehle bhi judge sahab ko diya tha.) He has correctly identified the accused Dehman i.e. Shashi Bhushan in the Court.
(11) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has stated that he used to go to school at 12:30 noon and return by 6:30 PM whereas his sister Poonam who was studying in class 4th used to go at 7:00 AM and return by 2:00 PM (Mein school dupahar 12:30 baje jaata hun aur shaam ko 06:30 baje aata hu. Meri behan Poonam us time fourth mein padti thi. Woh subah 07:00 baje school jaati thi aur dupahar 02:00 baje waapis aati thi.). He has also stated that the distance between his house and school is 2 kms and on the date of incident she did not go to school (Mera School ghar se 2KM door hai. Jis din ye haadsa hua tha us din woh school nahi gayi thi). The witness has stated that police made inquiries from him in the hospital and also made inquires from his cousin (son of Bua) Abhay (Police ne mere se puchtach hospital mein ki thi. Mere bua ke ladke Abhai bahiya se bhi puchtach kari thi). (12) The witness has further stated that he had told the police in his statement that he also went inside the room (Mai bhi kamre mein chala gaya tha. Ye baat maine police uncle ko apne bayan mein bataa di thi), St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 13 however, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW18/DX1 the above fact was not found so mentioned. According to the witness, he has also told to the police in his statement that he his uncle Harender was watching TV while laying on the bed inside the room (Meine police ko ye baat bhi bataa di thi ki mere chacha Harender ghar mein bed par letkar T.V dekhrahe thai). but when confronted with statement Ex.PW18/DX1 the above fact was not found so recorded.
(13) According to the witness, he had also stated to the police in his statement that the accused Dheman asked his uncle Harender that he was not sending Priyanka due to which the tickets were cancelled on many times, on which his uncle Harender told Dheman that his mother was paralytic and if he sends Priyanka then who would take care of the children and that his aunt/ Chachi then went to the room inside whereas Harender remained in the room outside and Dheman went inside the room and repeatedly told Priyanka that she had to go with him (Meine police ko ye baat bhi bataa di thi ki Dehman mere chacha Harender se keh raha tha ki aap itni saari date de rahe ho meri chachi ko lejaane ke liye aur bar bar ticket cancel karaate ho. Us par mere chacha Harender ne kaha ki mere maa ko paralysis hua hai. Agar mein Priyanka ko bhej dunga to in bachon ki dekhbal kaun karega. Is par meri chachi ander wale room mein chali gai aur mere chacha Harender bahar wale room mein reh gaye. Dehman bhi ander chala gaya aur meri chachi Priyanka se keh raha tha ki aaj tujhe jaana padega). However, when confronted with his statement St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 14 Ex.PW18/DX1 the aforesaid facts were not found so recorded. (14) He has also stated that he had told to the police that Dheman had threatened him by saying that he would kill him if he run away on which he (witness) along with his younger sister went upstairs and saw the entire happening from the wiremesh; that his uncle Harender who was in half pant at that time, started wearing the pants and thought that he would run outside and would call somebody to help and that as soon as his uncle Harender reached near the gate to open it, the accused Dheman caught hold the leg of Harender. (Meine police ko ye baat bhi bataa di thi ki Dehman ne mujhse kaha ki agar tu baahar jayega to tereko bhi maar dunga. Mein aur meri choti behan chat par bhaag gaye aur beech ki jaali se sab kuch dekhte rahe. Mere chacha Harender ne us samay half pant pehni hui thi aur woh pant pehen ne lage. Mere chacha Harender ne socha ki pant pehenkar bahar bhag jaaunga aur kisi ko bula kar le aaunga. Jaise hi woh gate kholne keliye aaye, Dehman ne mere chacha Harender ki taang pakadkar kheenchli.). However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW18/DX1 the aforesaid facts were not found so recorded.
(15) The witness has further stated that there were residential houses near their house and after the incident about 4050 public persons had gathered at the spot. According to him, he had accompanied the police while they were taking his uncle Harender and aunt Priyanka to the hospital. He has also stated that there are two rooms on the ground floor St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 15 of his house and toilet is constructed on the terrace. The witness has further stated that he and his sister had raised an alarm at the time of incident but there was nobody at that time. The witness has explained that the entire incident had taken place within 1520 minutes. He has further stated that he has not been tutored by the police as to what he had to say in the Court and has voluntarily explained that outside the court room he was asked as to what he would tell to the Court on which he told the police that he would inform the Court about whatever had happened in the house on that day. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposed in the Court on the tutoring of his family members or that he had been tutored by the police and has also denied the suggestion that he was not present in the house at the time of the incident or that the accused Dheman @ Shashi Bhushan Singh did not inflict knife blows to Harender and Priyanka or that he has deposed falsely.
(16) PW19 Sh. Kailash Parshad Sharma has deposed that he is residing at House No. 144, post palli, Faridabad, Haryana along with his family and he is a labour by profession. According to the witness Brijesh Kumar Singh was residing in his house as a tenant for the last more than two years and SIM number 9654821729 had been obtained by him but he had given the same to Brijesh for using it and he has not taken the same back and Brijesh was using the same.
(17) Witness has further deposed that in the late night hours of 09.10.2013 the Delhi police had come to him and made inquiries from him St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 16 regarding the said SIM. He also informed them that Brijesh was using the said SIM. He also informed them that Brijesh had left his tenancy and was residing in the house of Ashok Dubey which was in the adjoining gali i.e. gali No. 3 after which he showed them the house of Ashok Dubey and pointed out Brijesh to the police. According to which at that time his nephew Shashi Bhushan Singh was also present with him and they all i.e. himself, Brijesh and Shashi Bhushan Singh came to Delhi at Police Station Aman Vihar where his statement was recorded and he was relieved.
(18) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has deposed that no document was executed between him and Brijesh when he handed over his SIM to Brijesh for his use. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had not given his SIM to Brijesh for his use as claimed by him. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was making a false statement on the asking of the police.
(19) PW20 Sh. Abhay Kumar has deposed that he is residing at Plot No. 50B, Trishul colony, Chhawla, New Delhi71 along with his family and he was into a private job and he was a technical hand at Bench Mark Sales Pvt. Ltd. According to the witness on 09.10.2013 he received a call from Gaurav, the son of his Mama Sh. Harender Kumar that his mama Harender Kumar had been stabbed. Therefter he reached SGM hospital where he met the wife of Harender i.e. Priyanka and in the evening he was interrogated by the police.
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 17 (20) According to the witness Priyanka and Harender were having a love affair for the last two years but there was an opposition from her family. Witness has further deposed that on 31.07.2013 Harender and Priyanka had come to Delhi from Bihar and got married first in the temple and then in the court where it was registered and after the marriage they were residing some where in the Nangloi area and also in the house belonging to Harender at B107, Partap Vihar Phase III, Delhi. According to the witness the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh is the brother of Priyanka and he had made a telephone call to him once and asked him about the whereabouts of Priyanka and Harender. Witness has further deposed that thereafter he had given this mobile number from where he had received a call from Shashi Bhushan Singh to the police which is 9654821729. He has deposed that at that time when Shashi Bhushan Singh had called him, he had threatened him that it will not be good for him if he does not disclose the whereabouts of Harender and Priyanka. (21) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he did not mention this fact to the police that Gaurav had made him a call informing him that Harender had been stabbed and has voluntarily explained that Gaurav only told him that chacha ko chaku mar diya.
(22) On a court question if he knew Shashi Bhushan Singh prior to the incident because his Bhua is married to his mama Devender and Priyanka who was married to his mama Harender is the real sister of St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 18 Shashi Bhushan Singh. Witness has denied the suggestion that Shashi Bhushan Singh had never made any telephone call to him from any number or threatened to see him in case if he did not disclose the whereabouts of Priyanka and Harender. According to the witness he had not made any police complaint with regard to the threatening call. (23) PW23 Ms. Priyanka is the sister of the accused and wife of the deceased who is also an eye witness who had been injured in the incident. She has deposed that she was residing at B108, Gali No.8, Pratap Vihar, alongwith her deceased husband Harender Singh, her Jeth Devender and his wife Sindhu, another Jeth Devinder and his wife Meena alongwith their children. According to the witness she was married with Harender on 21.07.2013 it was a court marriage but her parents, her brothersisters were not happy with this marriage. Witness has deposed that the marriage of her Bua namely Sindu has taken place with her jeth Devender in the year 2010 and her jethani Meena had already gone to her village in Bihar about one week prior to the day of incident and her jeth Devinder along with her son Gaurav aged about 12 years, daughter Poonam aged about 9 years were living together with them. (24) According to the witness on 09.10.2013 at about 12.30PM her younger brother Shashi Singh @ Dhemon came to their house and asked her to go with him to Village Chhapra, Bihar on which she refused to go with him and told him that she will come to Village Chhapra, Bihar later on. She has further deposed that on this her brother Shashi Singh @ St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 19 Dhemon threatened her to come with him otherwise he would kill her and thereafter he immediately took out the knife and slashed it towards her which hit on her neck. According to the witness her husband Harender told Gaurav to go immediately out of the house and to call someone from outside on which at the same time the accused Shashi Singh had given the knife blow to her husband which hit him (Harender) on his chest and tried to run away. Witness has further deposed that she immediately came out of her house and tried to apprehend her brother Shashi Singh on which he again gave her a knife blow and ran away from the spot. At the same time they were crying and on hearing their cries someone informed the police. According to the witness the PCR van came to the spot which took her and her husband to SGM Hospital where her husband was declared dead in the hospital and she was admitted in the hospital where she was given medical treatment and her statement was recorded by the police in the hospital which statement is Ex.PW22/A. Witness has further deposed that after being discharged from the hospital, she came back to the spot where police official met her and she handed over her blood stained clothes to the Investigating Officer who took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW22/D. (25) Witness has further deposed that on 15.10.2013 she attended the court and she had given her statement U/s 164 Cr. P. C. before Ld. MM. her statement U/s 164 Cr. P. C. is Ex.PW23/A bearing her signatures at point A which proceeding U/s 164 Cr. P. C. and not disputed St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 20 by the accused. She has identified one bed sheet of multicolour of red, grey, yellow and brown and one mattress of dark green colour as the same as the same which were lying on the bed at the time of incident which bed sheet is Ex.P1 and the mattress is Ex.P2. She has also correctly identified one Ferozi/light blue colored printed maxi and one ferozi/light blue colored peticoat as the same as belonged to her which maxi is Ex.P7 and the petticoat is Ex.P8 (26) In her cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that H.No. B107, Gali No. 8, Pratap ViharIII is surrounded by other residential houses. She has further deposed that her nephew Gaurav goes to school at about 12.00Noon and comes back from the school around 6.00PM but on the day of incident i.e. 09.10.2013 Gaurav had not gone to his school due to holidays on account of Durga Pooja/Dussehra. According to the witness her deceased husband was having transport business and he went to his job at about 9.00AM and came back at home at about 10.00PM but on the day of incident her husband did not go to his job due to Dussehra. Witness has further deposed that there are two rooms in her matrimonial house and her Bua/jethani namely Sindhu was with her on the day of incident but she was not aware if her Bua / Jethani was examined by the police or not. She has stated that she had not visited her native village after her marriage. According to the witness prior to her marriage, her bua namely Sindhu used to visit her native village and she was having cordial relations with St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 21 her parents and other relatives and after the marriage of her bua, her parents, brotherssisters used to visit the matrimonial house of her bua. Witness has further deposed that there was an opposition by her family to the marriage with the deceased Harender since it was an outcome of a love affair to which her family did not approve of it. She has admitted that a her brother Shashi had visited her matrimonial house on the Raksha Bandhan after her marriage to the deceased Harender. According to the witness she was the eldest in her family and at that time her brother Shashi Singh @ Dhemon was doing Graduation(BA) from Chhapra, Bihar. (27) Witness has further deposed that on 09.10.2013 her brother Shashi came to her house at about 12.30PM and after 57 minutes to the of reaching of her brother Shashi, the incident had taken place. According to the witness at the time when her brother came during Raksha Bandhan, she had tied Rakhi to him and there was no dispute and there were cordial relations between them. Witness has admitted that even on the date of incident her brother came to her house, he was insisting to take her home but Witness has denied the suggestion that it was out of love and affection that he wanted her to accompany him to her paternal home to visit her parents, voluntarily added that he was addressing her in anger. Witness has admitted that her husband had booked the ticket and later got the same canceled and her brother was objecting to the same and has voluntarily explained that this verbal St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 22 altercation did not take place on the day of incident. Witness has further deposed that there was a hathapayee i.e. physical altercation between her husband and her brother and has voluntarily explained that this was only after she was given a knife blow that her husband had caught her brother. Witness has admitted that her brother had been caught by her husband by his neck. According to the witness at that time Gaurav, Poonam and also her bua/jethani Sindhu were at home. She has denied the suggestion that a large number of neighbor had also gathered on hearing the sounds of quarrel.
(28) Witness has further deposed that she had also spoken to her parents on one or two occasion and her grandfather / dada had also visited her after her marriage and has voluntarily explained that but he was not happy with the way she had married. Witness has further deposed that they had got the police report lodged in respect of the threats extended to her and her husband but she did not inform the Investigating Officer about any such complaint lodged against her family. Witness has denied the suggestion that no such complaint was made against her parents. According to the witness her marriage was solemnized at Arya Samaj Marriage Mandal, at B53, 9 & 10, Yadav Market, Naharpur, Sector7, Rohini, Delhi85. Witness has denied the suggestion that her marriage with the deceased was not legal and proper and that is why her family was averse to the manner in which she had got married to the St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 23 deceased Harender. Witness has further deposed that her statement was recorded by the police officials in the hospital as well as at her house and she had told the doctor who had examined her that she was assaulted by her brother Dhemon. Witness has denied the suggestion that she did not give any details regarding the history to the doctor or that the said details / history were given by the family of her husband.
(29) Witness has also denied the suggestion that her brother had come to the house to meet her as a matter of courtesy and to take her home to visit her parents or that finding him alone, her husband and her inlaws including her bua misbehaved with her brother or that her husband thereafter started assaulting her brother Shashi Singh. Witness has denied the suggestion that it was her husband who had brought the knife and tried to inflict injuries on her brother but she intervened and received the blow. Witness has denied the suggestion that on seeing her condition her brother become highly agitated and in order to stop her husband, locked him in the room but her husband continued to assault her brother. Witness has denied the suggestion that in the free fight, her husband sustained injuries. Witness has denied the suggestion that even Shashi had sustained injuries but he deliberately not got examined. According to the witness in her presence the police did not take anything into possession including knife. Witness has denied the suggestion that she has been tutored by her inlaws to depose against her brother to falsely implicate him in this case. Witness has denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely. St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 24 (30) This witness was also recalled for cross examination on application U/s 311 Cr. P. C. dated 30.09.2014 and further in her cross examination she admitted that she had came to the court along with her in laws. She has admitted that initially she was not being produced in the court and it was only later on the insistence of the court that she had been was brought to the court by her Jeth and devar. She has also admitted that she was being harassed by her Jeth and devar, and now presently she is lodged in Bapnu Ghar a house for destitute women. Witness has stated that her devar Ravinder was insisting that she should marry him and her all documents relating to education were with her jeth/fufa which he was not returning. Witness has further deposed that when she came to the court, her jeth/fufa had a accompanied her and the police officer but has denied the suggestion that her fufa had tutored her or that she deposed on his tutoring. She has denied the suggestion that even on the day of her deposition in the court she was under pressure from her in laws or that she depose on that day at the instance of her in laws.
Witnesses of Medical Record:
(31) PW21 Dr. Rajesh Dalal has deposed that on 09.10.2013 at around 1:20 PM patient namely Harender, S/o Ram Jatan Thakur, aged 25 years male was brought to the casualty in the hospital by ASI Jagdish Singh, with an alleged history of stab injury. According to the witness in the casualty he examined the above said patient vide MLC No. 18932 St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 25 which is Ex.PW21/A and at the time of the examination he found that the patient was unconscious, pulse and BP were not recordable, ECG shows straight line and after examination he declared the patient as brought dead.
(32) Witness has further deposed that on the same day at around 2 PM another patient namely Priyanka, W/o Harender, aged 21 years, female was brought to the casualty in the hospital by ASI Jagdish with an alleged history of stab injury. According to the witness in the casualty Dr. Subhash JR examined the above said patient under his supervision vide MLC No. 18933 which is Ex.PW21/B bearing the signatures of Dr. Subhash at point A, which he identifies as he had worked under his supervision and he had left the services of the hospital and the above said MLC also bears his name at point B. Witness has further deposed that on examination Dr. Subhash found stab injury on back on left shoulder, stab injury on neck, stab injury over right arm, stab injury over occipital area and after providing initial treatment patient was referred to Surgery and Ortho departments/SR for further management and opinion. (33) Witness has further deposed that on 14.12.2013 on the basis of radiological opinion and final opinion by SR Ortho and SR Surgery, he opined the nature of injuries as Simple which observations are present on the MLC at encircled portion X bearing his signatures at point C. (34) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that at the time of examination patient Priyanka was conscious, St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 26 oriented. Witness has admitted that as per the MLC Priyanka had not mentioned the name of the assailant.
(35) PW25 Dr. Vivek Rawat has deposed that on 10.10.2013 he was working as SR Forensic Medicine, SGM hospital and Dr. Manoj Dhingra was working as Medical officer Incharge, Forensic Medicine and on that day they both conducted the postmortem on the body of Harender, S/o Ram Jatan Thakur, aged around 25 years male vide PM report Ex.PW25/A bearing his signatures at various points mark A and bearing the signatures of Dr. Manoj Dhingra at point B. According to the witness on examination he found following injuries :
1. Stab wound 2x0.5cm bone deep over back part of right parietal eminence.
2. Stab wound 3 x 1.2 cm x cavity deep (up to lung), oval shaped, seen lying obliquely over front of left chest 7.5 cm lateral to midline and 15 cm below shoulder along midclavicular line. Tailing seen at lower angle.
3. Stab wound 2.8 x 1 cm x muscle deep, oval shaped, seen lying obliquely over back of left chest 9cm lateral to midline (vertebral column) and 21 cm below shoulder. Tailing seen at lower angle. (36) Witness has further deposed that on internal examination extravasation of blood seen under injury No. 2 and 3. No fracture seen. Cutting of muscles seen at level of 3rd and 4th ribs on left side. Pleural cavity contains 950 ml of fluid blood on left side. Laceration 1.6 x .6 x St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 27 2.3 cm seen over anterior aspect of upper lobe of left lung. Both lungs were severely congested and edematous. Extravasation of blood seen in right parietal scalp area. Metallic tip of a knife seen inserted in area of right parietal eminence under injury No. 1.
(37) According to the witness the time since death within 612 hours prior to preservation in SGM hospital Mortuary. The cause of death was due to shock associated with damage for chest structures under injury No. 2 which was fresh and antemortem at the time of death and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. According to the witness all injuries were caused by sharp, pointed, single edged weapon. they had preserved blood stained gauze, clothes and tip of knife with the seal of the department.
(38) Witness has also correctly identified one tip of knife as the same as recovered from the skull of the deceased which is Ex.P9. He has also correctly identified white full sleeves black stripped shirt, one blue denim full pant, one grey underwear as the same which were seized at the time of the postmortem of the deceased. The white full sleeves black stripped shirt is Ex.P10, blue denim full pant is Ex.P11 and grey color underwear is Ex.P12.
(39) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that no opinion regarding nature of injuries as to whether they accidental, homicidal or suicidal had been given and he also St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 28 cannot give any definite opinion if Ex.P9 is the tip of the knife, voluntarily explained that it could be a part of any pointed metallic object and his opinion was subject to corelation and is not a definite opinion. Witness has further deposed that at no point of time any weapon of offence was produced before him for purposes of opinion. On a court question the witness has clarified that there was tailing signs which confirm the use of the weapon which was also pulled out. (40) According to the witness in his opinion the injuries are homicidal because of the number of wounds and the places where they are present does not confirm to the same being accidental or suicidal. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has given his observations on the asking of the investigating officer.
FSL Expert:
(41) PW24 Ms. Anita Chhari has deposed that on 19.12.2013 six sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of MSG and three sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary, Mangolpuri Delhi were received in the office for examination sent from the Police Station Aman Vihar and she tallied the seals of the parcel with the sample seal and found that same were intact. According to the witness after examination she gave her biological report which is Ex.PW24/A bearing her signatures at various points mark A. Witness has further deposed that after examination St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 29 blood was detected on exhibits 1a(one petticoat having brown stains), 1b(one maxi having brown stains), 2a (one bed sheet having brown stains), 2b(one gudri/mattress having brown stains), 3( cemented pieces having dirty brownish stains), 4 (cemented pieces having dirty brownish stains), 5 (cemented material), 6 (one shirt having brown stains described as blood stained shirt of accused), 7 (very small metallic piece described as Tip of knife), 8a (one shirt having brown stains), 8b (one jeans pants with belt having brown stains), 8c (one underwear) and 9 (brown gauze cloth piece described as blood gauze of deceased). According to the witness she also examined the exhibits serologically and gave her report which is Ex.PW24/B bearing her signatures at point A. (42) Witness has further deposed that according to the serologically examination human blood group of A group was found on exhibit 1a (petticoat), 1b(maxi), 3 (blood stained cemented pieces), 5 (blood stained cemented material). Human blood group of AB group was found on exhibits 2a(bed sheet), 2b(gudri/mattress), 4(blood stained cemented pieces), 6 (shirt), 8a(shirt), 8b (jeans pants with belt) and exhibit 9 (blood stained gauze cloth piece). According to the witness after examination the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of AC FSL DELHI.
(43) This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 30 Nodal Officer:
(44) PW16 Sh. Israr Babu has brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile No. 9711358585 which is issued in the name of Harender Kumar, S/o Ram Jattan, R/o A27, G Block, Indira Lake, Sultanpuri, Delhi 86 vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW16/A, copy of DL in support of residence proof is Ex.PW16/B. Call details for 09.10.2013 are Ex.PW16/C (running into one page) bearing his signatures and office seal at point A. Cell ID chart is Ex.PW16/D(running into one page) bearing his signatures and office seal at point A. Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW16/E bearing his signatures and office seal at point A. (45) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that their main server is situated at Pune and he has retrieved the call details from the official computer alloted to him from which he has a direct access from the main server. Witness has denied the suggestion that there is no system of regular power backup in their office resulting into a data loss. Witness has denied the suggestion that the above call details have been fabricated on the directions and at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
Police/ Official Witnesses:
(46) PW1 ASI Ajit Singh has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 bearing his signatures at point A and St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 31 B and has proved crime team report which is Ex.PW1/A. In his affidavit, witness has deposed that on 09.10.2013 he was posted as Incharge Mobile Crime Team outer district along with photographer Ct. Ravinder Chauhan of their team and he along with Ct. Ravinder Chauhan photographer proceeded at the spot at H. No B107, Pratap Vihar III, Delhi on receipt of information of the present case and contacted the investigating officer/SI Vasant Kumar. According to the witness he conducted the inspection of spot and Ct. Ravinder Chauhan took photograph of the scene of crime on at the directions of investigating officer SI Vasant Kumar and he prepared scene of crime report 1752/13 dated 09.10.2013 and handed over the same to the Investigating officer Insp. Mahender Singh on 10.10.2013. (47) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he had prepared his report while sitting in the Police Station at the instance of the Investigating Officer. (48) PW2 Ct. Ravinder Chauhan has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and has proved photographs which are Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A6 and negatives of the above photographs which are Ex.PW2/B. In his affidavit, witness has deposed that on 09.10.2013 he was posted as a photographer in Mobile Crime Team Outer District along with Incharge ASI Ajeet Singh and on that day he along with ASI Ajit St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 32 Singh, incharge Mobile Crime Team proceeded at the spot at H.No. B107, Pratap Vihar III, Delhi on receipt of information of the present case, he contacted investigating officer SI Vasant Kumar. According to the witness he along with ASI Ajeet Singh Incharge Mobile Crime Team took six photographs of the spot at the directions of investigating officer SI Vasant Kumar and he got prepared the positives two sets of six photographs of the Scene of Crime and handed over the same to the investigating officer on 28.10.2013.
(49) In his cross examination by Ld. The Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he reached the spot at around 2:20 PM and remained there upto 3 PM and his statement was recorded in the office of the Crime Team. Witness has denied the suggestion that the photographs were taken by him after manipulating the scene of crime at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(50) PW3 HC Rajesh, has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and has proved DD No. 28A, copy of which is Ex.PW3/A, copy of FIR which is Ex.PW3/B bearing his signatures at point A and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW3/C bearing his signatures at point A. The witness has also relied upon the certificate U/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act, which is Ex.PW3/D bearing his signatures at point A. St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 33 (51) In his affidavit of examination in chief, the witness has deposed that on 09.10.2013 he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Aman Vihar and was present in the Police Station. On that day from 4 PM to 12 PM he was on duty as duty officer at Police Station Aman Vihar and he received rukka at 5:40 PM from SI Vasant Kumar which endorsed vide DD No. 28A and handed over the same to CIPA operator Ct. Kuldeep No. 2686/OD for registration of FIR No. 463/13 and thereafter the CIPA operator recorded the same and handed over the FIR along with rukka to him at 6:15 PM and he checked its correctness with the rukka and after finding it to be correct, he handed over the FIR No 463/13 along with its rukka to Ct. Pawan No. 2113/OD for delivering the same to the Investigating Officer Inspector Mahender Singh and also handed over copies of the FIR to the special messenger Ct. Rajbir No. 1998/OD who delivered copies of the FIR at the residences of senior officers and illaka Metropolitan Magistrate on government motorcycle bearing No. DL1SN 2636 and he prepared the certificate U/s 65 Indian Evidence Act regarding true information of the FIR as recorded by the CIPA operator under his supervision in the computer and the same is correct and genuine which certificate bears his signatures. (52) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that the FIR and rukka is ante dated and ante timed at the instance of the senior officers.
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 34 (53) PW4 W/Ct. Geeta has tender her examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/1 bearing her signatures at point A and B and she has proved DD No. 33B, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A. In her affidavit of examination in chief the witness has deposed that on 09.10.2013 she was posted as a constable at Police Station Aman Vihar and was present in the Police Station and on that day from 8AM to 4 PM as DD writer and she recorded DD No. 33B and prepared a copy of the same which she handed over to SI Vasant Kumar for further action.
According to the witness the DD No. 33B dated 09.10.2013 bears her signatures and it is a true copy of the daily dairy register. (54) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that the DD entry is manipulated later on at the instance of the Investigating Officer. Witness has denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
(55) PW5 HC Raj Kumar, has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and has proved entry in register No. 19 vide Mud No. 1613/1 to 1613/4 copies of which are Ex.PW5/A (running into four pages). The witness has relied upon RC No. 305/21/13, copy of which is Ex.PW5/B bearing his signatures at point A and copy of FSL receipt which is Ex.PW5/C. In his affidavit of examination in chief the witness has deposed that on 09.10.2013 he was posted as Head Constable (MCHM) at St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 35 Police Station Aman Vihar and on that day investigating officer Insp. Mahender Singh gave him pullandas of the present case for deposit in malkhana and he deposited the same in malkhana and made an entry in the Register No. 19 at serial No. 1613/a to 1613/4. According to the witness on 19.12.2013 he handed over nine sealed pullandas and sample seal along with RC No. 305/2/13 and a forwarding letter No. 5724/SHO Aman Vihar dated 19.12.2013 to Ct. Devender No. 1916/OD for depositing the above exhibits in FSL, GNT Delhi Rohini and after depositing the same he obtained acknowledgment No. FSL2013/B9376 dated 19.12.2013. According to the witness there was no tampering of any kind with the exhibits as long as they were in his possession. (56) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that the entries in the register No. 19 are manipulated and fabricated at the instance of the Investigating Officer. (57) PW6 Ct. Pawan has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW6/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B. In his affidavit of examination in chief of the witness has deposed that on 09.10.2013 he was posted as constable at Police Station Aman Vihar and was present in the Police Station and on that day he was performing emergency duty from 8AM to 8PM and he along with SI Vasant Kumar emergency officer proceeded at the place of incident at H.No. B107, Gali No. 8, Pratap Vihar III, Delhi. According to the witness SI proceeded at hospital and left him at the spot for preservation of the Scene of Crime. St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 36 Thereafter SI returned back to the spot and handed over a rukka to him which he took to the Police Station and handed over the same to duty officer HC Rajesh for registration of the case. Witness has further deposed that the duty officer HC Rajesh handed over to him the above FIR No. 463/13 along with a rukka and he handed over the same to Investigating Officer Insp. Mahender Singh after which he was relieved from the spot and the Investigating Officer recorded his statement on 09.10.2013.
(58) In his cross examination done by the Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that on 09.10.2013 he along with SI Vasant Kumar reached at the spot at around 1:15 PM but he does not remember the exact time when he left the spot. He has stated that 1520 public persons were present there at that time. He has admitted that house No. B107, Gali No. 8, Pratap Vihar III, Delhi is situated in a thickly populated area. According to the witness SI Vasant Kumar left the spot after 510 minutes and proceeded to the but he does not remember the exact time when he took the rukka to the Police Station and has clarified that he had gone to the Police Station along with rukka on motorcycle. Witness has further deposed that he came back after about 2025 minutes from the Police Station after registration of the FIR and his statement was recorded at the spot itself. Witness has denied the suggestion that no rukka was taken by him to the Police Station or that he was deposing falsely. St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 37 (59) PW7 Ct. Devender Kumar has tender his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW7/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and has proved copy of RC No. 305/21/13, copy of which is Ex. PW5/B and copy of receipt of FSL which is Ex.PW5/C. In his affidavit of examination in chief the witness has deposed that on 19.12.2013 he was posted as a Constable at Police Station Aman Vihar and was present in the Police Station and on that day the HCM HC Raj Kumar handed over to him nine sealed pullandas and a sample seal along with RC No. 305/21/13 and forwarding letter No. 5724/SHO Aman Vihar dated 19.12.2013. According to the witness on that day he deposited the above exhibits in the FSL, GNCT Delhi Rohini and obtained the acknowledgment bearing No. FSL2013/B9376 dated 19.12.2013 after which he handed over the same to MHCM and there was no tampering of any kind with the exhibits as long as they were in his possession and investigating officer recorded his statement on 19.12.2013. (60) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that the case property were tampered with during the time same remained in his custody.
(61) PW8 Ct. Rajbir, has deposed that on 09.10.2013 he was posted at Police Station Aman Vihar and on that day he had joined the investigations in the present case along with SI Karamveer. According to the witness he along with SI Karamveer and Ct. Devender had gone to gali No. 3, House No. 144, Nawada colony, Faridabad, Haryana where St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 38 they met Kailash Parshad. Witness has further deposed that they interrogated Kailash Parshad on a mobile number taken on his ID which number he does not recollect on which Kailash Parshad informed that one Brijesh used to reside in his house and he had given his ID proof to Brijesh to obtain the same and it was Brijesh who was using his ID for this number. According to the witness he also informed that Brijesh had left his house and was now residing in the house of Ashok, which is also in the vicinity and Kailash Parshad then accompanied them and then pointed out the house of Ashok where they found Brijesh present there along with another boy whose name they later came to know was Shashi Bhushan. According to the witness they brought both these boys to Delhi and handed them over to Insp. Mahender Singh and he was thereafter relieved. (62) Witness has further deposed that on 10.10.2013 he along with Investigating officer/Insp. Mahender Singh, SI Vasant Kumar and accused Shashi Bhushan proceeded at house No. B107, gali No. 8, Pratap Vihar, III where accused pointed out the scene of crime on which Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo of the scene of crime which is Ex.PW8/A. Thereafter they returned to the Police Station where his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and he was relieved. The witness has identified the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh. (63) Leading questions were put to the witness by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein the witness has admitted that the mobile phone number on which the inquiry was made from Kailash Parshad is 9654821729 and St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 39 has voluntarily explained that he did not remember the same and had forgotten the number because even his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. was not recorded and he could not refresh his memory.
(64) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that on 09.10.2013 they left the Police Station at around 10:30 PM in a private gypsy which was driven by a private driver but he does not remember the name of the driver. He has stated that they were all in uniform and they reached Faridabad at around 12:30 (midnight). According to the witness the local police met them at Nawada, Faridabad who accompanied them but he does not remember if any arrival entry was made by the Investigating Officer in the Local Police station and they stated that they remained there for about half an hour and left Nawada with Kailash, Brijesh and Shashi Bushan and reached Police Station Aman Vihar at around 3 AM and thereafter he was relieved. Witness has further deposed that on 10.10.2013 they left the Police Station at around 78 AM. Witness has admitted that the place of incident is situated in a thickly populated area. According to the witness no police official was deputed there and room was already open when they reached there. He has stated that the pointing out memo was prepared while sitting in the room itself and they remained there for about one hour. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused did not point out any spot or that the pointing out memo was prepared by the Investigating Officer of his own while sitting in the Police Station or that the accused St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 40 was compelled to sign certain blank documents which were later on converted into memos. Witness has denied the suggestion that since he did not participate in any of investigations on 09.10.2013 that is why his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. was not recorded by the Investigating Officer in respect of proceedings dated 09.10.2013. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was improving his earlier version on the asking of the senior officers or that he deposing falsely.
(65) PW 9 Ct. Rajbir, has tender his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW9/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B. In his affidavit of examination in chief witness has deposed that on 09.10.2013 he was posted as constable at Police Station Aman Vihar and FIR copies of the present case were entrusted to him by the duty officer for delivering the same to Ld. Illaka Metropolitan Magistrate, Joint CP/NR and Addl. CP/outer district and on that day he had delivered the copies of the present FIR to all the above said officers as special messenger on government vehicle motorcycle bearing No. Dl1SN2636 at their respective residences and investigating officer recorded his statement on 10.10.2013.
(66) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that no FIR was delivered by him to senior officers or that he was deposing falsely.
(67) PW10 Inspector Mahesh Kumar has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW10/1 bearing his St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 41 signatures at point A and B and has proved scaled site plan which is Ex.PW10/A bearing his signatures at point A. In his affidavit of examination in chief the witness has deposed that he was posted as an Inspector/ Draftsman at crime branch 10th floor, PHQ, Delhi police and on 02.11.2013 on call of Investigating Officer Inspector Mahender Singh, he had visited the Police Station Aman Vihar and departed to the spot along with the Investigating Officer and reached H.No. B107, Pratap Vihar III Delhi and took measurements/noting for preparation of the scaled site plan. According to the witness as per the noting he prepared the scaled site plan of site and the same was handed over to the Investigating Officer on 21.12.2013 who then recorded his statement on 02.11.2013 and 21.02.2013.
(68) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that he reached at the spot at around 3 PM and remained there for about 45 minutes. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot. Witness has admitted that he had prepared the scaled site plan in his office and has voluntarily explained that he has prepared the Rough Notes of the spot. Witness has admitted that he did not hand over the Rough Notes to the Investigating Officer and has voluntarily explained that he had destroyed the same.
(69) PW11 ASI Gyanender has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW11/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B. In his affidavit of examination in chief, witness has deposed that St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 42 on 15.10.2013 he was posted as ASI at Police Station Aman Vihar and was present in Police Station and on that day he produced the complainant Smt. Priyanka and witness Ravi of the present case in the Hon'ble court of illaqa Metropolitan Magistrate and their statement were recorded U/s 164 Cr. P.C. by the link MM. According to the witness after recording statement he requested the hon'ble court and obtained the copies of statement and handed over the same to investigating officer Insp. Mahender Singh and the Investigating Officer recorded his statement on 15.10.2013. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (70) PW12 ASI Jagdish Singh has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW12/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B. In his affidavit of examination in chief, the witness has deposed that on 09.10.2013 he was posted as incharge PCR van Libra25 from 8AM to 8PM and on that day at about 12:48 he received the information of incident of the present case, after which he immediately proceeded to spot at B107, Pratap Vihar PartIII, Delhi. According to the witness after reaching the spot, he took the injured Priyanka and her husband Harender to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mangolpuri where doctor declared Harender as dead and he gave all information to the PCR Control Room. Witness has further deposed that he gave his log book attested photocopy to investigating officer/Insp. Mahender Singh in this regard and investigating officer recorded his statement on 29.10.2013. St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 43 (71) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that his statement was recorded in the hospital and he took the injured to the hospital at around 1:15 PM and he remained in the hospital for about 510 minutes.
(72) PW13 W/Ct. Meenakshi, has tendered her examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW13/1 bearing her signatures at point A and B and has relied upon the documents i.e. PCR form which is Ex.PW13/A. In her affidavit of examination in chief the witness has deposed that on 09.10.2013 she was posted as constable at PHQ, Delhi and on that day from 8AM to 8PM she was doing the duty in PCR at Channel No. 157 and at about 12:45:51 she received the information of the incident of the present case from mobile No. 9711358585 and she recorded the same on that day. According to the witness she has checked the PCR form with the investigating officer and has admitted that the Investigating Officer recorded her statement on 30.10.2013. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(73) PW14 Ct. Madan Pal has deposed that on 10.10.2013 he was posted at Police Station Aman Vihar and on that day he alongwith Inspector Mahender Singh were busy in the investigation of this case and went to the court of Ld. MM where police remand of accused Shashi Bhushan was taken for one day. According to the witness he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer in the court and his disclosure St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 44 statement was recorded in his presence and same is Ex.PW14/A and thereafter the accused Shashi Bhushan took them near Sukhi Nehar behind Nithari village on the pullia and got recovered one blood stained shirt which was stated to has been worn by the accused at the time of incident. Witness has further deposed that the said shirt was converted into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of MSG and the said pullinda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/B. (74) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that the accused was taken from the court at about 02:30/03:00 pm and he was taken to the said Pulia in their private gypsy. He has stated that they took about one hour in reaching the above said Pulia. Witness has admitted that Pratap Vihar is a thickly populated area and road leading to Pulia remains busy. According to the witness public person was asked to join the investigation but none agreed and left the spot and no public person was taken from the way to the place of recovery of the above said shirt. Witness has further deposed that the said shirt was got recovered from inside the Pulia and no site plan was prepared at the aforesaid Pulia and the writing work was done while standing at the Pulia by Inspector Mahender Singh and SI Vasant. Witness has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was made by the accused Shashi Bhushan. Witness has denied the suggestion that no shirt was got recovered by the accused. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he signed all the memos while sitting in the Police Station or that he was St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 45 deposing falsely.
(75) PW15 SI Karamvir has deposed that on 09.10.2013 he was posted at Police Station Aman Vihar and on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, he along with Ct. Devender and Ct. Rajbir went to the house of Kailash Prasad Sharma at H. No. 144, Gali No. 3, Nawada Colony, Faridabad. According to the witness he was interrogated regarding phone which he was using, number of which he does not remember at the time of his deposition and informed that the said phone was being using by his known person Sh. Brijesh Kumar who is residing in the house of Ashok Kumar. He has deposed that Kailash Prasad pointed out the house of Ashok Kumar and thereafter then they all went there along with Kailash Prasad Sharma where Brijesh met them and the accused Shashi Bhushan also met them and they all including Shashi Bhushan, Brijesh Kumar and Kailash Prasad Sharma came back to the police station. According to the witness the accused Shashi Bhushan was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW15/A and he was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW15/B and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C. (76) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that they left Police Station at about 1:30 pm in a private gypsy but he does not remember the registration number of the Gypsy which was driven by a private driver whose name he does not remember. He has clarified that the driver was not joined as a witness. According to St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 46 the witness they reached Faridabad at about 12:30 am and local police staff of Faridabad met them on the way and they accompanied them to the house of Kailash Chand and no arrival entry was made by him at Police Station Faridabad. Witness has further deposed that they remained there for about half an hour and reached Delhi at around 3:00 AM and his statement was recorded in the Police Station and all the documents regarding arrest and personal search of the accused were prepared in the Police Station. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
(77) PW22 SI Vasant Kumar has deposed that on 09.10.2013 he was posted at Police Station Aman Vihar and on that day he was on emergency duty from 8AM to 8PM. According to the witness on the receipt of DD No. 33B which is Ex.PW4/A regarding stabbing at B107, Gali No. 8, Partap Vihar III, Delhi, he along with Ct. Pawan reached there, where he found blood scattered on the floor and on the bed sheet. Witness has further deposed that on inquiry he came to know that the injured persons has already been taken to SGM hospital and he left Ct. Pawan at the spot for guarding the spot and he went to SGM hospital and he collected the MLC of deceased Harender, S/o Ram Jattan Thakur and MLC of injured Priyanka who was under treatment. According to the witness he recorded the statement of injured Priyanka as she was fit for giving her statement at that time and the statement of Priyanka is Ex.PW22/A bearing the signatures of Priyanka at point A and was St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 47 attested by him at point B. According to the witness he came back to the spot and called the crime team after which the crime team inspected the spot and in the meanwhile he made his endorsement on the statement of Priyanka vide Ex.PW22/B and converted the same into a rukka and he send the rukka to the Police Station through Ct. Pawan for registration of the FIR. According to the witness in the meanwhile Ct. Pawan had come to the spot along with a copy of the FIR and original rukka and Insp. Mahender Singh also came with Ct. Pawan to whom further investigations was handed over. Witness has further deposed that Insp. Mahender lifted the blood stained bed sheets along with mattress and same were converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of MSG and Insp. Mahender Singh, Investigating Officer of the case had also broken the piece of the blood stained floor and kept the same in a polythene bag and sealed with the same seal and Investigating Officer had also broken the earth control with the help of hammer. According to the witness the aforesaid piece of earth control was also sealed with the same seal and the Investigating Officer had also lifted the blood stained concrete from out of the house and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the same seal and the aforesaid articles were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/C. Witness has further deposed that the eye witness Master Gaurav was also present in the house where the incident had taken place and he was interrogated and the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan Ex.PW18/A at his instance. According to the witness the injured St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 48 Priyanka had come to the spot after being discharged from the hospital and she had produced her blood stained clothes to the Investigating Officer who converted the same into a parcel and sealed with the same seal and the aforesaid parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/D and the accused was tried to trace but he could not be traced till then.
(78) Witness has further deposed that on the intervening night of 09/10.10.2013 SI Karamveer along with his staff brought the accused Shashi Bhushan from Faridabad, Haryana and produced the accused before Insp. Mahender Singh and Insp. Mahender Singh interrogated the accused and arrested him in the present case vide memo Ex.PW15/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/B and he was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded by Insp. Mahender Singh vide Ex.PW22/E. According to the witness in his personal search one admit card of examination of Bihar which shows the photograph and details of Shashi Bhushan and the Investigating Officer seized the said admit card vide memo Ex.PW22/F. He has testified that the accused Shashi Bhushan took them to the place of incident and pointed out the rooms where he has committed the incident and Investigating Officer prepared the memo of pointing out vide Ex.PW8/A and thereafter they returned to the police station. He has further deposed that thereafter he accompanied Insp. Mahender Singh to SGM Hospital Mortuary where the St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 49 body of deceased Harender was got identified from the relatives of the deceased vide identification memo Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B and thereafter postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW17/C. According to the witness after the postmortem the doctor concerned handed over three sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary along with sample seal to the Investigating Officer which was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/G and thereafter they returned to the Police Station and the case property was deposited with MHC(M) by the Investigating officer.
(79) Witness has further deposed that on the same day i.e. on 10.10.2013 he joined the investigations in the present case along with Investigating Officer Insp. Mahender Singh and on that day the accused Shashi Bhushan led them to C1 block, gali No. 1, Partap Vihar III, near sukhe nehar. According to the witness from there he got recovered his blood stained shirt under the pullia and stated that at the time of the incident he was wearing the said shirt and thereafter Investigating Officer converted the said shirt into pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed with the seal of MSG and thereafter Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out cum seizure memo of blood stained shirt vide memo Ex.PW14/B. According to the witness thereafter they tried to search the weapon of offence i.e. knife but same could not be found and thereafter St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 50 they returned to the Police Station and accused was put in the lockup and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and he was relieved.
(80) The witness has identified the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh in the Court. He has also identified the case property i.e. one bed sheet of multicolor of red, grey, yellow and brown and one mattress of dark green color as the same as lifted by the Investigating Officer from the spot which bed sheet which is Ex.P1 and the mattress is Ex.P2; cemented material/ blood stained broken pieces of floor as the same as lifted by the Investigating Officer from inside the house which is collectively Ex.P3; blood stained cemented pieces as the same as lifted by the Investigating Officer from inside the house which is collectively Ex.P4; cemented material as the same as lifted by the Investigating Officer from outside the house which is collectively Ex.P5; blood stained shirt of light grey color with lining as the same as got recovered by the accused and belonging to the accused which is Ex.P6; one Ferrozi/blue colored printed maxi and one Ferrozi/ blue colored petticoat as the same as produced by Priyanka which maxi is Ex.P7 and the Peticoat is Ex.P8.
(81) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel the witness has stated that on 09.10.2013 he reached the spot at about 1.15PM on his private motorcycle and has admitted that the place of incident is situated in a thickly populated residential area. According to the witness 7 St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 51 to 8 public persons had gathered there outside the house and the room i.e. the place of incident was opened and no family member was present there in that room. He has deposed that he remained at the place of incident for 5 to 10 minutes and thereafter he left for the SGM Hospital. Witness has further deposed that no family member of the injured Priyanka met him in the hospital and he recorded the statement of injured Priyanka in his handwriting and came back to the spot after about 2 ½ hours and sent the information to the SHO regarding the death of Harender through his mobile. According to the witness when he reached at the spot, the crime team was present there and was inspecting the place of incident and he sent the rukka through Ct. Pawan to Police Station at about 5.15PM and Ct. Pawan returned to the spot along with copy of FIR and original rukka at about 6.15PM along with SHO Inspector Mahender Singh. According to the witness, it took about 15 to 20 minutes in lifting the exhibits from the spot by the Investigating Officer and Priyanka had come to the spot at around 7.30PM from the hospital. According to the witness statement of Master Gaurav was recorded by Inspector Mahender Singh at the spot and all the documents except rukka were prepared by Inspector Mahender Singh in his own handwriting and no public persons from the neighborhood was called at the time of lifting the exhibits from the spot and they remained at the spot upto 7.30PM and in his presence no knife was recovered from the spot.
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 52 (82) Witness has further deposed that on the intervening night of 09/10. 10.2013 SI Karambir brought the accused Shashi Bhushan in the midnight and disclosure statement of accused Shashi was recorded by Inspector Mahender Singh and the accused Shashi Bhushan took them to the place of incident at about 7.008.00AM on 10.10.2013. He has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was made by the accused. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused did not point out the place of incident. Witness has denied the suggestion that no rukka was sent by him. Witness has denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were conducted while sitting in the Police Station or that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. Witness has denied the suggestion that he himself recorded the statement of Priyanka in connivance with the Investigating Officer at the instance of her in laws. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
(83) PW26 Inspector Mahender Singh has deposed that on 09.10.2013 he was posted as SHO at Police Station Aman Vihar and on that day after registration of the present case, the further investigations were handed over to him and he received the copy of FIR and original rukka through Ct. Pawan and he reached the spot along with Ct. Pawan where SI Vasant Kumar met them. According to the witness he was conducting the investigations and he narrated the entire investigations conducted by him and he handed over the MLCs of injured and deceased to him. Witness has further deposed that master Gaurav who was also St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 53 present at the spot as eye witness met him and he interrogated him and at the instance of master Gaurav he prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW18/A. Witness has further deposed that he lifted the blood stained bed sheets along with mattress and same were converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of MSG. He has stated that he also broke the piece of the blood stained floor and kept the same in a polythene bag and sealed with the same seal and he also broken the earth control with the help of hammer. According to the witness the aforesaid piece of earth control was also sealed with the same seal. He also lifted the blood stained concrete from out of the house and kept in a plastic container and sealed the same with the same seal and the aforesaid articles were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/C. Witness has further deposed that in the meanwhile Injured Priyanka came to the spot after being discharged from the hospital and produced her blood stained clothes to him which he converted into a parcel and sealed with the same seal and the aforesaid parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/D and thereafter they returned to the Police Station and he deposited the case property with MHC(M).
(84) Witness has further deposed that on the same day one Abhay Kumar met him and he was interrogated and he provided him one mobile number 9654821729 and told that the accused made a telephonic call from this mobile number from Faridabad on his mobile number and he formed a raiding party under the supervision of SI Karamveer and send the team St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 54 to Faridabad at the address found by them from the service provider of the aforesaid mobile phone. According to the witness SI Karamveer found that the aforesaid mobile phone was being used by the cousin of accused Shashi Bhushan Singh and the registered owner of the aforesaid mobile phone was Ashok Kumar.
(85) Witness has further deposed that on 10.10.2013 SI Karamveer brought the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh in the Police Station and handed over him to him and he interrogated and arrested him in this case vide memo Ex.PW15/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/B and he was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded by him vide Ex.PW22/E. According to the witness in his personal search one admit card of examination of Bihar which shows the photograph and details of Shashi Bhushan and the admission card Ex.PX1 was taken as proof of his date of birth. Witness has further deposed that he seized the said admit card vide memo Ex.PW22/F and in his personal search Rs 500/ were also recovered and he deposited the case property with MHC(M).
(86) He has further deposed that the accused Shashi Bhushan took them to the place of incident and pointed out the rooms where he has committed the incident and he prepared the memo of pointing out vide Ex.PW8/A. He has further deposed that on the same day i.e. on 10.10.2013 he prepared the inquest documents in the hospital and he St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 55 received the MLCs along with the request made by SI Vasant Kumar vide Ex.PW26/A on which the patient was found fit for statement. According to the witness he prepared the request for getting the postmortem conducted vide Ex.PW26/B and he filled in form 25.35 vide Ex.PW26/C and he then prepared the brief facts Ex.PW26/D and recorded the statements of witnesses regarding identification of the dead body vide Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B. Witness has further deposed that thereafter postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW17/C and after the postmortem the doctor concerned handed over three sealed pullandas containing tip of knife, clothes of deceased, blood gauze duly sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary along with sample seal to him which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/G. According to the witness thereafter they returned to the Police Station and the case property was deposited with MHC(M) and the accused was produced before Ld. MM and obtained his police remand for one day. Witness has further deposed that he was again interrogated and his subsequent disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW14/A. He has further deposed that the accused Shashi Bhushan led them to C1 block, gali No. 1, Partap Vihar III, near sukhe nehar and pointed out the place where he had concealed his clothes worn by him at the time of incident and thereafter he got recovered his blood stained shirt St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 56 from under the pullia and stated that at the time of the incident he was wearing the said shirt. According to the witness thereafter he converted the said shirt into pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed with the seal of MSG and thereafter he prepared the pointing out cum seizure memo of blood stained shirt vide memo Ex.PW14/B and thereafter they tried to search for the weapon of offence i.e. knife but same could not be found and thereafter they returned to the Police Station and case property was deposited with MHC(M) and accused was put in the lockup. He has further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 11.10.2013 the accused was produced before the illaka magistrate and was sent to JC. (87) According to the witness on 15.10.2013 the injured Priyanka was taken to Ld. MM where her statement U/s 164 Cr. P.C. was got recorded by ASI Gyanender Singh and on the same day the statement of master Gaurav was also got recorded by ASI Gyanender Singh and both the statements are Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW23/A. He then collected the photographs from the photographer of mobile crime team and the crime team report which is Ex.PW1/A. Witness has further deposed that on 02.11.2013 he called Insp. Mahesh, Draftsman and took him to the spot and at the instance of Master Gaurav he prepared his rough notes and measurements and thereafter he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW10/A which he collected from him. He has further deposed that he made inquiries regarding call details of the aforesaid mobile phone and found that the same was registered in the name of deceased and he St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 57 collected the PCR record which is Ex.PW13/A and thereafter he collected the record of duty of PCR officials and regarding conversation of the present case. According to the witness he issued a notice U/s 91 Cr. P.C. to the Nodal officer, Vodafone mobile services vide Ex.PW26/E and he collected the call details vide Ex.PW16/C. He has further deposed that the application form of the subscriber vide Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B and he collected the cell ID chart vide Ex.PW16/D and the certificate of the aforesaid mobile phone vide Ex.P 16/E. (88) Witness has further deposed that on 19.12.2013 he send the exhibits to the FSL Rohini through Ct. Devender vide RC No. 305/21/13 and Ct. Devender handed over to him the copy of the RC and the copy of the receipt issued by FSL official and he recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. he recorded the statements of other concerned witnesses and after completion of the investigations he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court.
(89) The witness has identified the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh in the Court. He has also identified the case property i.e. one bed sheet of multicolor of red, grey, yellow and brown and one mattress of dark green color as the same as lifted by him from the spot which bed sheet is Ex.P1, mattress is Ex.P2, cemented material/ blood stained broken pieces of floor as the same as lifted by him from inside the house which is collectively Ex.P3; blood stained cemented pieces as the same as lifted by St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 58 him from inside the house which are collectively Ex.P4; cemented material as the same as lifted by him from outside the house which is collectively Ex.P5; one blood stained shirt of light grey color with lining as the same as got recovered by the accused and belonging to the accused which is Ex.P6; one Ferrozi/blue colored printed maxi and one Ferrozi/ blue colored petticoat as the same as produced by Priyanka which maxi is Ex.P7 and the Petticoat is Ex.P8.
(90) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that on 09.10.2013 he reached at the spot at about 6.15PM and he recorded statement of Master Gaurav at the spot and took the help of SI Vasant Kumar in preparing the documents of this case and states that he took about 30 minutes in lifting the exhibits from the spot. According to the witness the injured Priyanka came to the spot at about 8.009.00PM on the same day and he stayed at the spot on that day till about 10.00PM. Witness has denied the suggestion that Gaurav has not made any statement to him or that he made him as eye witness only to fill the lacunas. Witness has further deposed that on 10.10.2013 the accused Shashi Bhushan was brought to the Police Station at about 12.30AM(midnight) and the accused was taken to the place of the incident at about 6.007.00AM but he did not ask any public person to be a witness even at the time lifting the exhibits or thereafter. Witness has admitted that knife was not recovered in this case. According to the witness first the disclosure statement of accused was recorded in the Police Station and his subsequent disclosure statement St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 59 was recorded in the court complex. Witness has denied the suggestion that both the disclosure statements were recorded by him of his own. Witness has further deposed that the accused took the police party to the pulia of sukhee nahar, C1, Pratap ViharIII, at about 7.00PM and he was taken there in a government vehicle and they were in police uniform and they left the Police Station after making the departure entry but he does not remember its number.
(91) Witness has further deposed that the accused got recovered his blood stained shirt from under the pulia but he did not prepare any site plan of the place of recovery of the shirt and the writing work was done while sitting in the vehicle near the pulia and they came back to the Police Station at about 9.00PM. Witness has denied the suggestion that Priyanka and Master Gaurav were tutored by him before putting them for their statement U/s 164 Cr. P. C. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not investigate the case properly or that nothing was recovered at the instance of the accused. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure statement. Witness has further denied the suggestion that the entire writing work was done while sitting in the Police Station.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENE EVIDENCE:
(92) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of accused Shashi Bhushan Singh @ Dheman was recorded under Section St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 60 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating material was put to him which he has denied. He has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, on 9.10.2013 he went to the house of his sister Priyanka as a courtesy visit and to her home to meet his parents but her husband, her inlaws including his bua misbehaved with him and her husband started assaulting him and brought a knife and inflicted injuries on his person. He has further stated that his sister intervened in between and she also received blows from her husband and after seeing the condition of his sister, he got agitated and tried to save his sister and himself. He has also stated that in that process her husband sustained injuries and he also sustained injuries in the incident but his medical examination was not got conducted by the police. According to the accused, he has not committed any offence. However, the accused has preferred not to examine any witness in his defence.
FINDINGS:
(93) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also gone through the memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record. I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 61
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition
No. witness
Public witnesses:
1. Devender Singh He is the brother of the deceased who has proved that on
Thakur (PW17) 10.10.2013 he had identified the dead body of his brother
Harender in vide Ex.PW17/A and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to him vide receipt Ex.PW17/B .
2. Gaurav (PW18) He is the nephew of the deceased and is a child aged 1213 years studying in class 6th. His statement was recorded on Oath in vernacular in camera proceedings wherein he has stated the following aspects:
1. That he is a studying in 6th class in Nagar Nigam Prathmik Vidyalya at Jalibe Chowk, Ratan Vihar and is residing in the house along with his parents, younger brother Saurabh and younger sister Poonam and his chacha/ uncle Devender his wife and another uncle/ chacha Harender and his wife Priyanka who were also residing with them.
2. That about two months prior to the incident, his chacha/ uncle Harender was married to Priyanka and he was told by his parents that the family members of Priyanka were averse to this alliance.
3. That on 9.10.2013 at about 11:30 AM while his uncle Harender was watching TV when the brother of his Chachi Priyanka namely Dhiman, whose complete name he is not aware, came from Bihar.
4. That at that time he (witness), his uncle Harender, his aunt Priyanka, his younger sister and his other aunt/ chachi were present in the house.
5. That the accused Dheman asked his uncle Harender as to why he was not sending Priyanka due to which the tickets had been cancelled many times. On this his uncle Harender told Dheman that his mother was paralytic and if he sends Priyanka then who would take care of the children?
6. That thereafter his aunt/ Chachi went to the room inside whereas Harender remained in the room St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 62 outside and Dheman went inside the room and repeatedly told Priyanka that she had to go with him.
7. That in the meanwhile he (witness) also came inside the room and his aunt/ Chachi sat near his uncle and the accused Dheman went outside the room and took out a knife after which he inflicted injuries on the neck of Priyanka as a result of which she fell down.
He has further stated that his other aunt/ chachi started crying on which his uncle Harender shouted and asked him to run away.
8. That thereafter the accused Dheman stood there after opening the gate and bolted the gate from inside and threatened him (child witness) by saying that he would kill him if he goes out on which he (witness) along with his younger sister went upstairs and saw the entire happening from the wiremesh.
9. That his uncle Harender who was in half pants at that time, started to wear his pants and probably thought that he would run outside and would call somebody for help.
10. That however as soon as his uncle Harender reached near the gate to open it, the accused Dheman caught hold of the legs of Harender and pulled him, on which Harender caught the neck of the accused Dheman who then stabbed Harender in his chest.
11. That his uncle/ chacha Harender was pressing the neck of Dheman with great force on which Dheman pulled the knife from the chest of Harender and gave a blow on the head of Harender.
12. That his aunt/ chachi Priyanka was slightly conscious at that time and she ran outside after opening the gate thinking that she would call somebody but the accused Dheman caught the legs of Priyanka and gave fourfive knife blows to Priyanka after which he ran away.
13. That after about half an hour Police came and took his uncle Harender and aunt Priyanka to Hospital and he too accompanied the police to Hospital where his uncle Harender expired after five minutes.
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 63
14. That police interrogated him and he also pointed out the place on incident to the police on which police prepared a site plan which is Ex.PW18/A bearing his signatures at point A.
15. That he had also given his statement before the Ld. MM which proceedings under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
are Ex.PW18/B.
3. Kailash Parshad This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
Sharma (PW19) 1. That he is residing at House No. 144, post palli, Faridabad, Haryana along with his family and he is a labour by profession.
2. That Brijesh Kumar Singh was residing in his house as a tenant for the last more than two years and SIM number 9654821729 had been obtained by him but he had given the same to Brijesh for using it and he has not taken the same back and Brijesh was using the same.
3. That in the late night hours of 09.10.2013 the Delhi police had come to him and made inquiries from him regarding the said SIM.
4. That he informed the police that Brijesh was using the said SIM and had left his tenancy and was residing in the house of Ashok Dubey which was in the adjoining gali i.e. gali No. 3 after which he showed them the house of Ashok Dubey and pointed out Brijesh to the police.
5. That at that time his nephew Shashi Bhushan Singh was also present with him and they all i.e. himself, Brijesh and Shashi Bhushan Singh came to Delhi at Police Station Aman Vihar where his statement was recorded and he was relieved.
4. Abhay Kumar He is the nephew of the deceased who has proved the (PW20) following aspects:
1. That he is residing at Plot No. 50B, Trishul Colony, Chhawla, New Delhi71 along with his family and he was into a private job and he was a technical hand at Bench Mark Sales Pvt. Ltd.St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 64
2. That on 09.10.2013 he received a call from Gaurav, the son of his Mama Sh. Harender Kumar that his mama Harender Kumar had been stabbed.
3. That he reached SGM hospital where he met the wife of Harender i.e. Priyanka and in the evening he was interrogated by the police.
4. That Priyanka and Harender were having a love affair for the last two years but there was an opposition from her family.
5. That on 31.07.2013 Harender and Priyanka had come to Delhi from Bihar and got married first in the temple and then in the court where it was registered and after the marriage they were residing some where in the Nangloi area and also in the house belonging to Harender at B107, Partap Vihar Phase III, Delhi.
6. That the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh is the brother of Priyanka and he had made a telephone call to him once and asked him about the whereabouts of Priyanka and Harender on which disclosed it to him.
7. That thereafter he had given this mobile number from where he had received a call from Shashi Bhushan Singh to the police which is 9654821729.
8. That at that time when Shashi Bhushan Singh had called him, he had threatened him that it will not be good for him if he does not disclose the whereabouts of Harender and Priyanka.
5 Ms. Priyanka She is the sister of the accused and wife of the deceased who (PW23) is also an eye witness who had been injured in the incident.
She has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That she was residing at B108, Gali No.8, Pratap Vihar, alongwith her deceased husband Harender Singh, her Jeth Devender and his wife Sindhu, another Jeth Devinder and his wife Meena alongwith their children.
2. That she was married with Harender on 21.07.2013 it was a court marriage but her parents, her brother sisters were not happy with this marriage.St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 65
3. That the marriage of her Bua namely Sindu has taken place with her jeth Devender in the year 2010 and her jethani Meena had already gone to her village in Bihar about one week prior to the day of incident and her jeth Devinder along with her son Gaurav aged about 12 years, daughter Poonam aged about 9 years were living together with them.
4. That on 09.10.2013 at about 12.30PM her younger brother Shashi Singh @ Dhemon came to their house and asked her to go with him to Village Chhapra, Bihar on which she refused to go with him and told him that she will come to Village Chhapra, Bihar later on.
5. That on this her brother Shashi Singh @ Dhemon threatened her to come with him otherwise he would kill her and thereafter he immediately took out the knife and slashed it towards her which hit on her neck.
6. That her husband Harender told Gaurav to go immediately out of the house and to call someone from outside on which at the same time the accused Shashi Singh had given the knife blow to her husband which hit him (Harender) on his chest and tried to run away.
7. That she immediately came out of her house and tried to apprehend her brother Shashi Singh on which he again gave her a knife blow and ran away from the spot.
8. That on hearing their cries someone informed the police.
9. That the PCR van came to the spot which took her and her husband to SGM Hospital where her husband was declared dead in the hospital and she was admitted in the hospital where she was given medical treatment and her statement was recorded by the police in the hospital which statement is Ex.PW22/A.
10. That after being discharged from the hospital, she came back to the spot where police official met her St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 66 and she handed over her blood stained clothes to the Investigating Officer who took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW22/D.
11. That on 15.10.2013 she attended the court and she had given her statement U/s 164 Cr. P. C. before Ld. MM. her statement U/s 164 Cr. P. C. is Ex.PW23/A bearing her signatures at point A which proceeding U/s 164 Cr.P.C.
Witnesses of Medical Record:
6. Dr. Rajesh Dalal This witness has proved the following aspects:
(PW21) 1. That on 09.10.2013 at around 1:20 PM patient namely Harender, S/o Ram Jatan Thakur, aged 25 years male was brought to the casualty in the SGM Hospital by ASI Jagdish Singh, with an alleged history of stab injury.
2. That in the Casualty he examined the above said patient vide MLC No. 18932 which is Ex.PW21/A and at the time of the examination he found that the patient was unconscious, pulse and BP were not recordable, ECG shows straight line and after examination he declared the patient as brought dead.
3. That on the same day at around 2:00 PM another patient namely Priyanka, W/o Harender, aged 21 years, female was brought to the casualty in the hospital by ASI Jagdish with an alleged history of stab injury.
4. That in the Casualty Dr. Subhash JR examined the above said patient under his supervision vide MLC No. 18933 which is Ex.PW21/B bearing the signatures of Dr. Subhash at point A.
5. That on examination Dr. Subhash found stab injury on back on left shoulder, stab injury on neck, stab injury over right arm, stab injury over occipital area and after providing initial treatment patient was referred to Surgery and Ortho departments/SR for further management and opinion.
6. That on 14.12.2013 on the basis of radiological opinion and final opinion by SR Ortho and SR St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 67 Surgery, he opined the nature of injuries as Simple which observations are present on the MLC at encircled portion X.
7. Dr. Vivek Rawat He is the Autopsy Surgeon who has proved having conducted (PW25) the Postmortem Examination on the dead body of the deceased Harender vide postmortem report Ex.PW25/A. He has proved that on examination he found following injuries:
1. Stab wound 2 x 0.5 cm bone deep over back part of right parietal eminence.
2. Stab wound 3 x 1.2 cm x cavity deep (up to lung), oval shaped, seen lying obliquely over front of left chest 7.5 cm lateral to midline and 15 cm below shoulder along midclavicular line. Tailing seen at lower angle.
3. Stab wound 2.8 x 1 cm x muscle deep, oval shaped, seen lying obliquely over back of left chest 9cm lateral to midline (vertebral column) and 21 cm below shoulder. Tailing seen at lower angle.
He has further proved that on internal examination extravasation of blood seen under injury No. 2 and 3. No fracture seen. Cutting of muscles seen at level of 3rd and 4th ribs on left side. Pleural cavity contains 950 ml of fluid blood on left side. Laceration 1.6 x .6 x 2.3 cm seen over anterior aspect of upper lobe of left lung. Both lungs were severely congested and edematous. Extravasation of blood seen in right parietal scalp area. Metallic tip of a knife seen inserted in area of right parietal eminence under injury No. 1. He has proved having opined that the time since death within 612 hours prior to preservation in SGM hospital Mortuary; Cause of death was due to shock associated with damage for chest structures under injury No. 2 which was fresh and antemortem at the time of death and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all injuries were caused by sharp, pointed, single edged weapon. He has proved that they had preserved blood stained gauze, clothes and tip of knife with the seal of the department.
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 68
In his cross examination the witness has explained that no opinion regarding nature of injuries as to whether they accidental, homicidal or suicidal had been given. He is also unable to give any definite opinion if Ex.P9 is the tip of the knife and has explained that it could be a part of any pointed metallic object and his opinion was subject to corelation and is not a definite opinion. He has also proved that at no point of time any weapon of offence was produced before him for purposes of opinion. He has further clarified that in his opinion the injuries were homicidal because of the number of wounds and the places where they are present does not confirm to the same being accidental or suicidal.
Forensic Evidence:
8. Ms. Anita Chhari She is the Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) who has proved (PW24) the following aspects:
1. That on 19.12.2013 six sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of MSG and three sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary, Mangolpuri Delhi were received in the office for examination sent from the Police Station Aman Vihar and she tallied the seals of the parcel with the sample seal and found that same were intact.
2. That after examination she gave her biological report which is Ex.PW24/A according to which blood was detected on exhibits 1a(one petticoat having brown stains), 1b(one maxi having brown stains), 2a (one bed sheet having brown stains), 2b (one gudri/mattress having brown stains), 3 (cemented pieces having dirty brownish stains), 4 (cemented pieces having dirty brownish stains), 5 (cemented material), 6 (one shirt having brown stains described as blood stained shirt of accused), 7 (very small metallic piece described as Tip of knife), 8a (one shirt having brown stains), 8b (one jeans pants with belt having brown stains), 8c (one underwear) and 9 (brown gauze cloth piece described as blood gauze of deceased).
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 69
3. That she also examined the exhibits serologically and gave her report which is Ex.PW24/B according to which Human Blood of A Group was found on exhibit 1a (petticoat), 1b (maxi), 3 (blood stained cemented pieces), 5 (blood stained cemented material) and Human Blood of AB Group was found on exhibits 2a(bed sheet), 2b (gudri/mattress), 4(blood stained cemented pieces), 6 (shirt), 8a(shirt), 8b (jeans pants with belt) and exhibit 9 (blood stained gauze cloth piece).
4. That after examination the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of AC FSL DELHI.
Nodal Officer
9. Israr babu This witness has proved that the mobile No. 9711358585 has (PW16) been issued in the name of Harender Kumar, S/o Ram Jattan, R/o A27, G Block, Indira Lake, Sultanpuri, Delhi 86 vide Customer Application Form Ex.PW16/A, copy of DL in support of residence proof is Ex.PW16/B. He has also proved the Call Details Record for 09.10.2013 which are Ex.PW16/C; Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW16/D and Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW16/E. Police/ official witnesses:
10. ASI Ajit Singh He is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who (PW1) has proved having inspected the spot of incident and prepared the Crime Team Report which is Ex.PW1/A.
11. Ct. Ravinder He is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer Chauhan (PW2) who has proved having visited the spot of incident and having taken the photographs which are Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A6 and negatives of which are Ex.PW2/B.
12. HC Rajesh (PW3) He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has proved the DD No. 28A copy of which is Ex.PW3/A, copy of FIR which is Ex.PW3/B, endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW3/C and certificate U/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act, which is Ex.PW3/D. St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 70
13. W/Ct. Geeta She is a formal witness being the DD Writer who has proved (PW4) having recorded the DD No. 33B, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A.
14. HC Raj Kumar He is a formal witness being the MHCM who has proved the (PW5) entry in register No. 19 vide Mud No. 1613/1 to 1613/4 copies of which are Ex.PW5/A; RC No. 305/21/13 copy of which is Ex.PW5/B and copy of FSL receipt which is Ex.PW5/C.
15. Ct. Pawan (PW6) He is a formal witness who had reached the spot along with SI Vasant and preserved the same and then got the FIR registered.
16. Ct. Devender He is a formal witness who has proved having deposited the Kumar (PW7) pullandas/ exhibits with the FSL Rohini.
17. Ct. Rajbir (PW8) This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 09.10.2013 he along with SI Karamveer and Ct. Devender had gone to Gali No. 3, House No. 144, Nawada Colony, Faridabad, Haryana where they met Kailash Parshad.
2. That that they interrogated Kailash Parshad on a mobile number 9654821729 taken on his ID on which Kailash Parshad informed that one Brijesh used to reside in his house and he had given his ID proof to Brijesh to obtain the same and it was Brijesh who was using his ID for this number.
3. That he also informed that Brijesh had left his house and was now residing in the house of Ashok, which is also in the vicinity and Kailash Parshad then accompanied them and then pointed out the house of Ashok where they found Brijesh present there along with another boy whose name they later came to know was Shashi Bhushan.
4. That they brought both these boys to Delhi and handed them over to Insp. Mahender Singh and he was thereafter relieved.
5. That on 10.10.2013 he along with Investigating officer/Insp. Mahender Singh, SI Vasant Kumar and accused Shashi Bhushan proceeded at house No. B107, Gali No. 8, Pratap Vihar, III where accused St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 71 pointed out the scene of crime on which Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo of the scene of crime which is Ex.PW8/A.
6. That thereafter they returned to the Police Station where his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and he was relieved.
18. Ct. Rajbir (PW9) He is a formal witness being the Special Messenger who has proved having delivered the copies of Special Reports to the Ld. Illaka Metropolitan Magistrate, Joint CP/NR and Addl. CP/ Outer District.
19. Inspector Mahesh He is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has proved Kumar (PW10) having visited the spot of incident and having prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW10/A.
20. ASI Gyanender This witness has proved the following aspects:
(PW11) 1. That on 15.10.2013 he was posted as ASI at Police Station Aman Vihar and was present in Police Station and on that day he produced the complainant Smt. Priyanka and witness Ravi of the present case in the Hon'ble court of Illaqa Metropolitan Magistrate and their statements were recorded U/s 164 Cr. P.C. by the link MM.
2. That after recording statement he requested the Hon'ble court and obtained the copies of statement and handed over the same to investigating officer Insp. Mahender Singh and the Investigating Officer recorded his statement on 15.10.2013.
21. ASI Jagdish He is the PCR Van Incharge who has deposed on the Singh (PW12) following aspects:
1. That on 09.10.2013 he was posted as incharge PCR van Libra25 from 8AM to 8PM and on that day at about 12:48 he received the information of incident of the present case, after which he immediately proceeded to spot at B107, Pratap Vihar PartIII, Delhi.
2. That after reaching the spot, he took the injured Priyanka and her husband Harender to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mangolpuri where doctor declared Harender as dead and he gave all information to the St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 72 PCR Control Room.
3. That he gave his log book attested photocopy to investigating officer/Insp. Mahender Singh in this regard and investigating officer recorded his statement on 29.10.2013.
22. W/Ct. Meenakshi She is a formal witness being the PCR Official who has (PW13) proved that on 09.10.2013 at about 12:45:51 she received information of the incident of the present case from mobile No. 9711358585 and she recorded the same on that day vide Ex.PW13/A.
23. Ct. Madan Pal This witness has deposed on the following apsects:
(PW14) 1. That on 10.10.2013 he alongwith Inspector Mahender Singh were busy in the investigation of this case and went to the court of Ld. MM where police remand of accused Shashi Bhushan was taken for one day.
2. That the accused was interrogated by the Investigating Officer in the court and his disclosure statement was recorded in his presence and same is Ex.PW14/A.
3. That thereafter the accused Shashi Bhushan took them near Sukhi Nehar behind Nithari village on the pullia and got recovered one blood stained shirt which was stated to has been worn by the accused at the time of incident.
4. That the said shirt was converted into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of MSG and the said pullinda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/B.
24. SI Karamveer He is the initial Investigating Officer who has deposed on (PW15) the following aspects:
1. That on 09.10.2013 on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, he along with Ct. Devender and Ct. Rajbir went to the house of Kailash Prasad Sharma at H. No. 144, Gali No. 3, Nawada Colony, Faridabad.
2. That Kailash Prasad Sharma was interrogated regarding phone which he was using, number of which he does not remember at the time of his St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 73 deposition and informed that the said phone was being using by his known person Sh. Brijesh Kumar who is residing in the house of Ashok Kumar.
3. That Kailash Prasad pointed out the house of Ashok Kumar and thereafter then they all went there along with Kailash Prasad Sharma where Brijesh met them and the accused Shashi Bhushan also met them.
4. That they all including Shashi Bhushan, Brijesh Kumar and Kailash Prasad Sharma came back to the police station.
5. That the accused Shashi Bhushan was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW15/A and he was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW15/B and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C.
25. SI Vasant Kumar He is the initial Investigating Officer who has proved the (PW22) following aspects:
1. That on 09.10.2013 on the receipt of DD No. 33B which is Ex.PW4/A regarding stabbing at B107, Gali No. 8, Partap Vihar III, Delhi, he along with Ct.
Pawan reached there, where he found blood scattered on the floor and on the bed sheet.
2. That on inquiry he came to know that the injured persons has already been taken to SGM hospital and he left Ct. Pawan at the spot for guarding the spot and he went to SGM Hospital and he collected the MLC of deceased Harender, S/o Ram Jattan Thakur and MLC of injured Priyanka who was under
treatment.
3. That he recorded the statement of injured Priyanka as she was fit for giving her statement at that time and the statement of Priyanka is Ex.PW22/A bearing the signatures of Priyanka at point A and was attested by him at point B.
4. That he came back to the spot and called the crime team after which the crime team inspected the spot and in the meanwhile he made his endorsement on the statement of Priyanka vide Ex.PW22/B and St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 74 converted the same into a rukka.
5. That he send the rukka to the Police Station through Ct. Pawan for registration of the FIR.
6. That in the meanwhile Ct. Pawan had come to the spot along with a copy of the FIR and original rukka and Insp. Mahender Singh also came with Ct. Pawan to whom further investigations was handed over.
7. That Insp. Mahender lifted the blood stained bed sheets along with mattress and same were converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of MSG.
8. That Insp. Mahender Singh, had also broken the piece of the blood stained floor and kept the same in a polythene bag and sealed with the same seal and Investigating Officer had also broken the earth control with the help of hammer.
9. That the aforesaid piece of earth control was also sealed with the same seal and the Investigating Officer had also lifted the blood stained concrete from out of the house and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the same seal and the aforesaid articles were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/C.
10. That the eye witness Master Gaurav was also present in the house where the incident had taken place and he was interrogated.
11. That the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan Ex.PW18/A at his instance.
12. That the injured Priyanka had come to the spot after being discharged from the hospital and she had produced her blood stained clothes to the Investigating Officer who converted the same into a parcel and sealed with the same seal and the aforesaid parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/D and the accused was tried to trace but he could not be traced till then.
13. That on the intervening night of 09/10.10.2013 SI Karamveer along with his staff brought the accused Shashi Bhushan from Faridabad, Haryana and produced the accused before Insp. Mahender Singh St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 75 who interrogated the accused.
14. That the accused was arrested in the present case vide memo Ex.PW15/A, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/B and his disclosure statement was recorded by Insp. Mahender Singh vide Ex.PW22/E.
15. That in his personal search one admit card of examination of Bihar which shows the photograph and details of Shashi Bhushan and the Investigating Officer seized the said admit card vide memo Ex.PW22/F.
16. That the accused Shashi Bhushan took them to the place of incident and pointed out the rooms where he has committed the incident and Investigating Officer prepared the memo of pointing out vide Ex.PW8/A and thereafter they returned to the police station.
17. That thereafter he accompanied Insp. Mahender Singh to SGM Hospital Mortuary where the body of deceased Harender was got identified from the relatives of the deceased vide identification memo Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B.
18. That thereafter postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW17/C.
19. That after the postmortem the doctor concerned handed over three sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary along with sample seal to the Investigating Officer which was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/G and thereafter they returned to the Police Station and the case property was deposited with MHC(M) by the Investigating officer.
20. That on the same day i.e. on 10.10.2013 he joined the investigations in the present case along with Investigating Officer Insp. Mahender Singh and on that day the accused Shashi Bhushan led them to C1 block, gali No. 1, Partap Vihar III, near sukhe nehar. St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 76
21. That from there the accused got recovered his blood stained shirt under the pullia and stated that at the time of the incident he was wearing the said shirt and thereafter Investigating Officer converted the said shirt into pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed with the seal of MSG and thereafter Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out cum seizure memo of blood stained shirt vide memo Ex.PW14/B.
22. That thereafter they tried to search the weapon of offence i.e. knife but same could not be found and thereafter they returned to the Police Station and accused was put in the lockup and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and he was relieved.
26. Inspector He is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has Mahender Singh deposed on the following aspects:
(PW26) 1. That on 09.10.2013 after registration of the present case, the further investigations were handed over to him and he received the copy of FIR and original rukka through Ct. Pawan and reached the spot along with Ct. Pawan where SI Vasant Kumar met them.
2. That SI Vasant handed over the MLCs of injured and deceased to him.
3. That Master Gaurav who was also present at the spot as eye witness met him and he interrogated him and at the instance of master Gaurav he prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW18/A.
4. That he lifted the blood stained bed sheets along with mattress and same were converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of MSG.
5. That he also broke the piece of the blood stained floor and kept the same in a polythene bag and sealed with the same seal and he also broken the earth control with the help of hammer.
6. That the aforesaid piece of earth control was also sealed with the same seal.
7. That he lifted the blood stained concrete from out of the house and kept in a plastic container and sealed the same with the same seal and the aforesaid St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 77 articles were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/C.
8. That in the meanwhile the injured Priyanka came to the spot after being discharged from the hospital and produced her blood stained clothes to him which he converted into a parcel and sealed with the same seal.
9. That the aforesaid parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/D and thereafter they returned to the Police Station and he deposited the case property with MHC(M).
10. That on the same day one Abhay Kumar met him and he was interrogated and he provided him one mobile number 9654821729 and told that the accused made a telephonic call from this mobile number from Faridabad on his mobile number.
11. That he formed a raiding party under the supervision of SI Karamveer and send the team to Faridabad at the address found by them from the service provider of the aforesaid mobile phone.
12. That SI Karamveer found that the aforesaid mobile phone was being used by the cousin of accused Shashi Bhushan Singh and the registered owner of the aforesaid mobile phone was Ashok Kumar.
13. That on 10.10.2013 SI Karamveer brought the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh in the Police Station and handed over him to him.
14. That accused was interrogated and arrested him in this case vide memo Ex.PW15/A, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/B and his disclosure statement was recorded by him vide Ex.PW22/E.
15. That in the personal search of accused one admit card of examination of Bihar which shows the photograph and details of Shashi Bhushan which Admit Car Ex.PX1 was taken as proof of his date of birth.
16. That he seized the said admit card vide memo Ex.PW22/F and in his personal search Rs 500/ were St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 78 also recovered and he deposited the case property with MHC(M).
17. That the accused Shashi Bhushan took them to the place of incident and pointed out the rooms where he has committed the incident and he prepared the memo of pointing out vide Ex.PW8/A.
18. That on the same day i.e. on 10.10.2013 he prepared the inquest documents in the hospital and he received the MLCs along with the request made by SI Vasant Kumar vide Ex.PW26/A on which the patient was found fit for statement.
19. That he prepared the request for getting the postmortem conducted vide Ex.PW26/B and he filed in form 25.35 vide Ex.PW26/C and he then prepared the brief facts Ex.PW26/D and recorded the statements of witnesses regarding identification of the dead body vide Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B.
20. That thereafter postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW17/C.
21. That after the postmortem the doctor concerned handed over three sealed pullandas containing tip of knife, clothes of deceased, blood gauze duly sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary along with sample seal to him which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/G.
22. That thereafter they returned to the Police Station and the case property was deposited with MHC(M) and the accused was produced before Ld. MM and obtained his police remand for one day.
23. That he was again interrogated and his subsequent disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW14/A.
24. That the accused Shashi Bhushan led them to C1 block, gali No. 1, Partap Vihar III, near sukhe nehar and pointed out the place where he had concealed his clothes worn by him at the time of incident and thereafter he got recovered his blood stained shirt from under the pullia and stated that at the time of St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 79 the incident he was wearing the said shirt.
25. That thereafter he converted the said shirt into pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed with the seal of MSG and thereafter he prepared the pointing out cum seizure memo of blood stained shirt vide memo Ex.PW14/B.
26. That thereafter they tried to search for the weapon of offence i.e. knife but same could not be found and thereafter they returned to the Police Station and case property was deposited with MHC(M) and accused was put in the lockup.
27. That on the next day i.e. on 11.10.2013 the accused was produced before the illaka magistrate and was sent to Judicial Custody.
28. That on 15.10.2013 the injured Priyanka was taken to Ld. MM where her statement U/s 164 Cr. P.C. was got recorded by ASI Gyanender Singh and on the same day the statement of master Gaurav was also got recorded by ASI Gyanender Singh and both the statements are Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW23/A.
29. That he collected the photographs from the photographer of mobile crime team and the crime team report which is Ex.PW1/A.
30. That on 02.11.2013 he called Insp. Mahesh, Draftsman and took him to the spot and at the instance of Master Gaurav he prepared his rough notes and measurements and thereafter he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW10/A which he collected from him.
31. That he made inquiries regarding call details of the aforesaid mobile phone and found that the same was registered in the name of deceased and he collected the PCR record which is Ex.PW13/A and thereafter he collected the record of duty of PCR officials and regarding conversation of the present case.
32. That he issued a notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. to the Nodal officer, Vodafone mobile services vide Ex.PW26/E and he collected the call details vide Ex.PW16/C. St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 80
33. That the application form of the subscriber vide Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B and he collected the cell ID chart vide Ex.PW16/D and the certificate of the aforesaid mobile phone vide Ex.PW16/E.
34. That on 19.12.2013 he send the exhibits to the FSL Rohini through Ct. Devender vide RC No. 305/21/13 and Ct. Devender handed over to him the copy of the RC and the copy of the receipt issued by FSL official and he recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C.
35. That he recorded the statements of other concerned witnesses and after completion of the investigations he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court.
(94) Now coming to the microscopic evaluation of evidence against the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh.
Medical Evidence:
(95) The case of the prosecution is that the parental family of Priyanka and the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh @ Dheman who is the brother of injured/ complainant Priyanka and brother in law/ Sala of the deceased Harender were not happy with the alliance and marriage of Priyanka with the deceased. In this background the accused had gone to the house of his sister i.e. complainant Priyanka and committed murder of Harender by repeatedly stabbing him and also caused injuries to his sister Priyanka with a knife. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimonies of Dr. Rajesh Dalal (PW21) and Dr. Vivek Rawat (PW25) and the reports prepared by them.St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 81
(96) Coming first to the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Dalal (PW21) who has proved that on 09.10.2013 at around 1:20 PM patient namely Harender S/o Ram Jatan Thakur, aged 25 years male was brought in the Casualty in the hospital by ASI Jagdish Singh, with alleged history of stab injury. He has proved having examined the witness vide MLC which is Ex.PW21/A and at the time of examination he found that the patient was unconscious, pulse and BP were not recordable, ECG showed straight line and hence he declared the patient as 'Brought Dead'.
(97) Dr. Rajesh Dalal (PW21) has further proved that on the same day i.e. 9.10.2013 at around 2:00 PM another patient namely Priyanka W/o Harender, aged 21 years, female was brought in the casualty in the hospital by ASI Jagdish with alleged history of stab injury and Dr. Subhash Junior Resident examined her under his supervision vide MLC No. 18933 which is Ex.PW21/B according to which there were following injuries on Priyanka:
1. Stab injury on back of left side of shoulder .2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm.
2. Stab injury on neck 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm.
3. Stab injury on right side of arm 3 x 0.5 x 1 cm.
4. Stab injury on occipital area 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm (98) He has further proved that on 14.12.2013 on the basis of radiological opinion and final opinion by SR Ortho and SR Surgery, he opined the nature of injuries as Simple which observations are present on St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 82 the MLC at encircled portion X. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has stated that at the time of examination patient Priyanka was conscious, oriented and as per the MLC Priyanka had not mentioned the name of the assailant.
(99) Coming next to the testimony of Dr. Vivek Rawat (PW25), he has proved that on 10.10.2013 he along with Dr. Manoj Dhingra conducted the postmortem on the body of Harender, S/o Ram Jatan Thakur, aged around 25 years male vide Postmortem Report Ex.PW25/A according to which following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:
1. Stab wound 2x0.5cm bone deep over back part of right parietal eminence.
2. Stab wound 3 x 1.2 cm x cavity deep (up to lung), oval shaped, seen lying obliquely over front of left chest 7.5 cm lateral to midline and 15 cm below shoulder along midclavicular line and tailing seen at lower angle.
3. Stab wound 2.8 x 1 cm x muscle deep, oval shaped, seen lying obliquely over back of left chest 9cm lateral to midline (vertebral column) and 21 cm below shoulder and tailing seen at lower angle.
(100) He has further proved that on internal examination extravasation of blood seen under injury No. 2 and 3, no fracture was seen and cutting of muscles seen at level of 3rd and 4th ribs on left side; Pleural cavity contained 950 ml of fluid blood on left side; Laceration of 1.6 x .6 x 2.3 cm seen over anterior aspect of upper lobe of left lung; Both lungs St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 83 were severely congested and edematous; Extravasation of blood seen in right parietal scalp area and Metallic tip of a knife seen inserted in area of right parietal eminence under injury No.1. The witness has proved that the time since death was within 612 hours prior to preservation in SGM Hospital Mortuary and the cause of death was due to shock associated with damage for chest structures under injury No. 2 which was fresh and antemortem at the time of death and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all injuries were caused by sharp, pointed, single edged weapon. He has proved having preserved blood stained gauze, clothes and tip of knife with the seal of the department.
(101) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, Dr. Vivek Rawat (PW25) has explained that no opinion regarding nature of injuries as to whether accidental, homicidal or suicidal was given nor can he give any definite opinion if Ex.P9 is the tip of the knife and has explained that it could be a part of any pointed metallic object and his opinion was subject to corelation and is not a definite opinion. He has further explained that at no point of time any weapon of offence was produced before him for purposes of opinion. On a specific Court Question the witness has explained that there were tailing signs which confirm the use of the weapon which was also pulled out. He has further explained that in his opinion the injuries were homicidal because St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 84 of the number of wounds and the places where they are present does not confirm to the same being accidental or suicidal. (102) The above medical record is compatible to the prosecution version of Homicidal Death of the deceased Harender and repeated injuries caused to Priyanka but it does not stand conclusively establishes that these injuries were caused with a knife but does establish that the weapon could be a pointed metallic object.
Electronic Evidence:
(103) The case of the prosecution is that it was on the basis of the mobile number 9654821729 which was used by the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh who had made a call on the number of deceased Harender 9711358585 that the accused was finally tracked and apprehended.
(104) Sh. Israr Babu (PW16) Alternate Nodal Officer from Vodafone has proved that the mobile No. 9711358585 has been issued in the name of Harender Kumar (deceased) S/o Ram Jattan, R/o A27, G Block, Indira Lake, Sultanpuri, Delhi86 vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW16/A, copy of DL in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW16/B. He has also placed on record the Call Details Record for 09.10.2013 which are Ex.PW16/C (running into one page);
Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW16/D (running into one page) and Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW16/E. The St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 85 prosecution is also placing its reliance on the testimony of Kailash Prashad Sharma (PW19) who has proved that he had given his SIM bearing No. 9654821729 to his tenant Brijesh (uncle of the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh) for his use but no witness from the Service Provider has been examined to prove the said aspect.
(105) In so far as the public witness Kailash Prashad Sharma (PW19) is concerned he admits that the SIM bearing No. 9654821729 was in his name which he had given to his previous tenant Brijesh who was using the said SIM number. He has further proved that in the late night hours of 09.10.2013 police had come to him and made inquiries from him regarding the said SIM on which he had informed them that Brijesh was using the said SIM and at that time Brijesh had left his tenancy and was residing in the house of Ashok Dubey which was in the adjoining gali i.e. gali No. 3. he has proved having led the police to the house of Ashok Dubey and pointed out Brijesh to the police and and the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh who is the nephew of Brijesh was apprehended from the said room.
(106) Here, I may observe that the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh is not disputing his presence at the spot of the incident and hence I hold that the above electronic evidence does not help the prosecution in any manner except to the extent of proving the location of the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh which he even otherwise does not dispute. St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 86 Forensic Evidence:
(107) The case of the prosecution is that after the incident the clothes of both the injures Priyanka and that of the deceased Harender were preserved. Further, various exhibits were also lifted from the spot of incident and after the arrest of the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh his clothes were also taken into possession. All the above exhibits were then sent to FSL for expert opinion. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimony of Ms. Anita Chhari (PW24) the Forensic Expert and the reports prepared by her.
(108) I have gone through the testimony of Ms. Anita Chhari (PW24) who has proved that on 19.12.2013 six sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of MSG and three sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary, Mangolpuri Delhi were received in the office for examination sent from the Police Station Aman Vihar and she tallied the seals of the parcel with the sample seal and found that same were intact.
She has proved that after examination she prepared the Biological Report which is Ex.PW24/A according to which blood was detected on exhibits 1a (one petticoat having brown stains), 1b (one maxi having brown stains), 2a (one bed sheet having brown stains), 2b (one gudri/mattress having brown stains), 3(cemented pieces having dirty brownish stains), 4 (cemented pieces having dirty brownish stains), 5 (cemented material), 6 (one shirt having brown stains described as blood stained shirt of accused), 7 (very small metallic piece described as Tip of knife), 8a (one St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 87 shirt having brown stains), 8b (one jeans pants with belt having brown stains), 8c (one underwear) and 9 (brown gauze cloth piece described as blood gauze of deceased). She has also proved having examined the above exhibits serologically and prepared her report which is Ex.PW24/B according to which Human Blood of A group was found on exhibit 1a (petticoat), 1b(maxi), 3 (blood stained cemented pieces), 5 (blood stained cemented material) whereas Human Blood of AB group was found on exhibits 2a (bed sheet), 2b (gudri/mattress), 4 (blood stained cemented pieces), 6 (shirt of the accused), 8a (shirt), 8b (jeans pants with belt) and exhibit 9 (blood stained gauze cloth piece) (109) The above forensic evidence is compatible to the prosecution case to the effect that the incident had taken place at the house of the deceased in which the deceased Harender and his wife Priyanka received injuries and in which a pointed metallic object was used as a weapon of offence.
Motive/ Intention:
(110) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh is the brother of the complainant/ injured Priyanka and brother in law (sala) of the deceased Harender Singh. The accused and his family were averse to the marriage of Priyanka with Harender Singh not only on account of their close family ties but also because Harender was much elder in age. It is alleged that in view of this background, the St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 88 accused Shashi Bhushan Singh went to the house of the deceased duly armed with a knife with the intent to cause death of the deceased and in pursuance to the same he inflicted repeated stab injuries to the deceased Harender thereby causing his instant death and when Priyanka tried to intervene to save the deceased Harender even she was not spared and was given repeated knife blows.
(111) However, before coming the evidence on merits, I may observe that the Motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evidence should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motive is best known to the perpetrator of the crime and not to others. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
(112) Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 89 significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.
(113) Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into consideration by Courts as it will render assistance to Courts while analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused. [Ref.:
IV (2012) SLT 257].
(114) Moreover, in a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of a crime, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused is guilty of the offence charged with. However, at the same time the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone, who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime [Ref.: State of U.P. Vs. Bahu Ram reported in 2000 (4) SCC 515 and Ujjagal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2007 (14) SCALE 428].
(115) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case I may observe that the material eye witnesses of the prosecution i.e. the child witness Gaurav (PW18) and the injured/ St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 90 complainant Priyanka (PW23) who was the wife of the deceased and sister of the accused have not supported this version of the prosecution. Abhay Kumar (PW20) the nephew of the deceased has also not confirmed this version of the prosecution. No doubt, they have confirmed that the marriage of the deceased Harender Singh with Priyanka was against the will of the family of Priyanka and was not approved yet the circumstances which have been narrated by the eye witnesses Gaurav (PW18) and Priyanka (PW23) show that even previously the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh had come to the house of Priyanka during Raksha Bandhan and got tied the Rakhi from Priyanka and the relationship was normal if not too good. On the date of the incident the accused Shashi Bhuhan Singh had gone to the house of Priyanka to take her to her parental house where she was to go after the marriage as a part of a ritual but the deceased Harender was reluctant in sending her back on the pretext that his mother and children of the brother were to be taken care of and her presence in Delhi was required. It has also come on record that the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh became agitated on the ground that the deceased was postponing the same and every time the train tickets were booked, the deceased used to get the same cancelled. Being agitated first there was a verbal altercation followed by a physical altercation in which the injures were caused to both Priyanka and Harender by some Pointed Metallic Object whose end was recovered from the skull of the deceased and not be a knife. The motive so alleged by the prosecution does not stand established St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 91 under the given circumstances and on the face of it the incident was an outcome of a sudden quarrel on account of refusal of the deceased to send his wife to her parental home. I may note that there is nothing on record to show that the deceased had come prepared and had carried any weapon with him. Rather, on the contrary in his testimony Dr. Vivek Rawat (PW23) has clarified that no definite opinion can be given with regard to the metallic piece recovered from the skull of the deceased i.e. whether it was the tip of knife or could have been a part of any pointed metallic object. Here, I may also observe that the Investigating Agency has failed to recover the weapon of offence.
(116) This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and establish the Motive so attributed to the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh. Further, in so far as the aspect of Intention of the accused is concerned, I may observe that there is nothing on record to show that the offence has been premeditated, for had that been so, the accused would have come armed and prepared. Rather, the weapon of offence has not been recovered and the incident had taken place in a sudden quarrel. This being so the intent of the accused to cause death has not been established. However, the manner in which three repeated stab injures were caused on vital organs including head and chest confirms that the intention so alleged was to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 92
Ocular Evidence:
(117) Ocular evidence/eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. The eye witness account requires a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, it should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of other evidence. The ocular evidence has to be tested for its inherent consistency and inherent probability of the story, consistency of the account given by one witness with that given by the other witness held to be creditworthy, consistency with the undisputed facts, the 'credit' of the witnesses who performed in the witnessbox, their power of observation and it is only then that the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.
(118) In the present case there is direct ocular eye witness account in the form of the testimonies of Gaurav (PW18) the nephew of the deceased and Priyanka (PW23) the injured/ complainant. The case of the prosecution that the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh is the brother of the injured/ complainant Priyanka and brother in law/ sala of the deceased Harender. It has been alleged that the accused and his family members were averse to the marriage of Priyanka with Harender who was almost twice the age of Priyanka and therefore on the date of incident i.e. 9.10.2013 at about 12:30 Noon the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh went to St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 93 the house of Priyanka and inflicted knife blows on the vital parts of Harender as a result of which he expired and when Priyanka tried to intervene, he also gave knife blows to her. In order to prove its case the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimonies on the testimonies of Gaurav (PW18) the nephew of the deceased and Priyanka (PW23) the injured/ complainant.
(119) Since the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the testimonies of Gaurav (PW18) and Priyanka hence it is necessary for this Court to first determine whether what they have deposed is reliable and truthful. It is settled law that in a case where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court (Courts of Act). It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 94 credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978). (120) It is also a matter of common knowledge that ordinarily witnesses are either not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by Courts for manifold reasons and one of the reasons is that they do not have courage to depose against habitual criminal apprehending threats to their life. A rustic or an illiterate witness may not be able to withstand the test of cross examination which may be sometime because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skillful crossexaminer and at times under the stress of cross examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When such a person is faced with an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, hence minor discrepancies have to be ignored. Instances are not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. (Ref. Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 SC 1965).
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 95 (121) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I now proceed to evaluate the evidentiary value of the statements of both these witnesses i.e. Gaurav (PW18) and Priyanka (PW23) have also been recorded before the Ld. MM under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in the Court they have supported the prosecution version. Coming first to the testimony of the child witness Gaurav (PW18) who was aged about twelvethirteen years and was found to be intelligent and understanding the nature of queries being put to him and also the sanctity of oath after which his statement was recorded in vernacular, relevant portion of which I reproduce as under:
"........ Mein apne mummy papa, mera chota bhai Saurabh, chhoti behan Poonam ke saath rehta hu. Humare ghar mein pehle chacha Ravinder unki patni, dusre chacha Harender aur unki patni Priyanka sath sath rehte thai. Ye log ab humarey sath nahi rehte. Ghatna se lagbhag do mahine pehle mere chacha Harender ki shaadi Priyanka se hui thi. Mujhe mere papa ne bataya tha ki meri chachi Priyanka ke gharwale inki shaadi ke khilaf hai. Mere chacha Harender ghar mein bed par letkar T.V dekhrahe thei tabi mere chachi ka bhai aaya jisko log Dheman kehte thei mujhe unka pura naam nahi pataa. Us din 09.10.2013 thi. Woh (Dheman) 11:30 am Bihar se aaye thei. Us samay, mere chacha Harender, meri chachi Priyanka, mein, meri choti behan aur doosri chachi jiska naam mujhe nahi maalum mauzud thei. Dehman mere chacha Harender se keh raha tha ki aap itni saari date de rahe ho meri chachi ko lejaane ke liye St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 96 aur bar bar ticket cancel karaate ho. Us par mere chacha Harender ne kaha ki mere maa ko paralysis hua hai. Agar mein Priyanka ko bhej dunga to in bachon ki dekhbal kaun karega. Is par meri chachi ander wale room mein chali gai aur mere chacha Harender bahar wale room mein reh gaye. Dheman bhi ander chala gaya aur meri chachi Priyanka se keh raha tha ki aaj tujhe jaana padega. Dehman bar bar chachi Priyanka ko keh raha tha ki tujhe mere saath jana padega. Tabhi mein ander kamarein mein ander chala aaya. Meri chachi peeche se aakar chacha ke paas baith gai. Dehman bhi ander wale room se baahar aagya. Uske baad Dehman ne chaku nikal liya uske baad pehle meri chachi ke gale mein maara, meri chachi zameen par gir gayi. Meri doosri chachi Priyanka chachi ko pakadkar rone lagi. Jab mere chacha Harender chilaye, mereko chacha Harender ne kaha ki gate khol ke baahar bhag jaa. Uske baad Dehman gate kholkar wahi khadaa ho gaya aur ander se kundi lagaa li. Dehman ne mujhse kaha ki agar tu baahar jayega to tereko bhi maar dunga. Mein aur meri choti behan chat par bhaag gaye aur beech ki jaali se sab kuch dekhte rahe. Mere chacha Harender ne us samay half pant pehni hui thi aur woh pant pehen ne lage. Mere chacha Harender ne socha ki pant pehenkar bahar bhag jaaunga aur kisi ko bula kar le aaunga. Jaise hi woh gate kholne keliye aaye, Dehman ne mere chacha Harender ki taang pakadkar kheenchli. Phir mere chacha Harender ne Dehman ki garden pakadli. Phir Dehman ne kuch nahi dekha aur chaku chacha Harender ke seenay mein maar diya. Mere chacha phir badi tezi se Dehman ki gardan dabaa rahe thei tabhi Dehman ne St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 97 chaku seenay se nikalkar chacha Harender ke sir mein maardiya. Meri chachi Priyanka to us samay thoda hosh tha. Woh gate kholkar bahar chaligayi. Unhone shocha kisiko bulalungi. Tabhi Dehman bahar bhaag raha tha. Meri chachi Priyanka ne Dehman ki taang pakadli. Tabhi Dehman nein chaar/panch chaku meri chachi Priyanka ke maar diye aur uske baad bhag gaya. Aadhe ghante baad police aa gayi thi. Police mere chacha Harender aur chachi Priyanka ko hospital lekar gaye thei aur mein bhi unke saath gaya tha. Hospital mein bharti hone ke paanch minute baad mere chacha Harender gujar gaye thei. Police walon ne mere sath puchtach kari thi. Jahan par mere chacha chachi ko mara tha maine woh jagah police ko dikhayi thi. Police ne mere samne scale se map banaaya tha. Woh map Ex. PW18/A hai jis par police ne mere sign karaye thei. Mere sign map pe point A par hai.
Meine apna bayaan pehle bhi judge sahab ko diya tha.
At this stage one sealed envelope sealed with the seal of DS is taken out. The envelope has been opened and statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C of the witness Gaurav and Priyanka are taken out and the proceedings of the witness Gaurav is shown to the witness who has identified his signature. The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C is Ex. PW18/B bearing his signature at point A. (The proceeding U/s 164 Cr. P. C. is not disputed by the accused.) Mein Dehman ko pehchan sakta hun. Witness has correctly identified the accused Dehman who is present in the court.St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 98
(122) The crossexamination of this witness is also being reproduced in verbatim as under:
"........ Mein school dupahar 12:30 baje jaata hun aur shaam ko 06:30 baje aata hu. Meri behan Poonam us time fourth mein padti thi. Woh subah 07:00 baje school jaati thi aur dupahar 02:00 baje waapis aati thi. Mera School ghar se 2KM door hai. Jis din yeh haadsa hua tha us din woh school nahi gayi thi. Police ne mere se puchtach hospital mein ki thi. Mere bua ke ladke Abhai bahiya se bhi puchtach kari thi. Mai bhi kamre mein chala gaya tha. Ye baat maine police uncle ko apne bayan mein bataa di thi. (confronted with statement Ex. PW18/DX1 where this fact is not mentioned). Meine police ko ye baat bhi bataa di thi ki mere chacha Harender ghar mein bed par letkar T.V dekhrahe thei. (confronted with statement Ex.PW18/DX1 where this fact is not mentioned).
Meine police ko yeh baat bhi bataa di thi ki Dehman mere chacha Harender se keh raha tha ki aap itni saari date de rahe ho meri chachi ko lejaane ke liye aur bar bar ticket cancel karaate ho. Us par mere chacha Harender ne kaha ki mere maa ko paralysis hua hai. Agar mein Priyanka ko bhej dunga to in bachon ki dekhbal kaun karega. Is par meri chachi ander wale room mein chali gai aur mere chacha Harender bahar wale room mein reh gaye. Dehman bhi ander chala gaya aur meri chachi Priyanka se keh raha tha ki aaj tujhe jaana padega. (confronted with statement Ex. PW18/DX1 where this fact is not mentioned).
Meine police ko yeh baat bhi bataa di thi ki Dehman ne mujhse kaha ki agar tu baahar jayega to St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 99 tereko bhi maar dunga. Mein aur meri choti behan chat par bhaag gaye aur beech ki jaali se sab kuch dekhte rahe. Mere chacha Harender ne us samay half pant pehni hui thi aur woh pant pehen ne lage. Mere chacha Harender ne socha ki pant pehenkar bahar bhag jaaunga aur kisi ko bula kar le aaunga. Jaise hi woh gate kholne keliye aaye, Dehman ne mere chacha Harender ki taang pakadkar kheenchli. (confronted with statement Ex. PW18/DX1 where this fact is not mentioned).
Humare ghar ke aas paas aur bhi ghar hai.
Ghatna ke baad lagbhag 4050 log mauke par ikatha ho gaye thei. Police ke saath mein, mere chacha Harender aur chachi Priyanka hi hospital gaye thei. Humare ghar mein ground floor par hi 2 kamre hai. Chhat par sirf toilet hai. Maine aur meri behan ne ghatna ke samay shore machaya tha lekin us samay koi nahi tha. In sari ghatna me lagbhag 1520 minutes lage. Aaj gawahi dene se pahale police ne mujhe nahi bataya tha ki mujhe kya kahana hai.
Voltd. : Bahar sirf mujhse poochha tha ki kya kya kahana hai aur maine unse bataya tha ki mujhe ye ye kahana hai jo bhi kuchh ghar me hua tha. Ye kahna galat hai ki maine jo bayan diya wo ghar walon ke sikhaye padhaye me diya hai ya mujhe police ne bataya hai. Ye kahana galat hai ki mere samane Dehman (Shashi Bhushan accused) ne mere chacha aur chachi ko chakoo nahi mare the. Ye kahana galat hai ki main aaj jhoothi gawahi de raha hoo. Ye kahna galat hai ki ghatna wale din main ghar par nahi tha......."
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 100
(123) It is writ large that in the Court the witness Gaurav (PW18) had made material improvements and admits that he was before coming to the Court with regard to the nature of deposition and hence under the given circumstances the improvements made in the testimony of Gaurav (PW18) are liable to be ignored.
(124) Coming next to the testimony of Priyanka (PW23) who is the wife of the deceased and also the sister of the accused. I may observe that the main objection of the parental family of Priyanka being averse to her alliance with Harender are two fold, first that they were closely related to each other, the real Bua/ paternal aunt of Priyanka being married to Devender Thakur (PW17) the real brother of the deceased Harender and second that on account of the age difference the deceased Harender being almost twice the age of the complainant Priyanka which agitated the family of the complainant/ injured Priyanka particularly the manner in which the marriage had taken place that after Priyanka had eloped with the deceased and had a Court Marriage. The relevant portion of the testimony of Priyanka (PW23) is reproduced as under:
"........ I was residing at B108, Gali No.8, Pratap Vihar, alongwith my deceased husband Harender Singh, my Jeth Devender and his wife Sindhu, another Jeth Devinder and his wife Meena alongwith their children. I was married with Harender on 21.07.2013 and it was a court marriage. My parents, my brother sisters were not happy with this marriage. The marriage of my Bua namely Sindu has taken place with St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 101 my jeth Devender in the year 2010. My jethani Meena had already gone to her village in Bihar about one week prior to the day of incident. My jeth Devinder alongwith his son Gaurav aged about 12 years, daughter Poonam aged about 9 years were living together with us.
On 09.10.2013 at about 12.30PM my younger brother Shashi Singh @ Dhemon present in the court today (correctly identified) came to our house and asked me to go with him to Village Chhapra, Bihar. I had refused to go with him and told him that I will come to Village Chhapra, Bihar later on. My brother Shashi Singh @ Dhemon threatened me to go with him otherwise he will kill me. He immediately took out the knife and slashed it towards me which hit on my neck. My husband Harender told Gaurav to go immediately out of the house and to call someone from outside. At the same time Shashi Singh had given the knife blow to my husband which hit him (Harender) on his chest and tried to run away. I immediately came out of my house and tried to apprehend my brother Shashi Singh on which he again gave me knife blow to me and ran away from the spot. We were crying and on hearing our cries someone informed the police. The PCR van came to the spot which took me and my husband to SGM Hospital. My husband was declared dead in the hospital. I was admitted in the hospital where I was given medical treatment. My statement was recorded by the police in the hospital which statement is already Ex.PW22/A bearing my signatures at point A. After being discharged from the hospital, I came back to the spot where police official met me. I handed over my blood stained clothes to the IO who St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 102 took the same into possession vide memo already Ex.PW22/D bearing my signatures at point C. On 15.10.2013 I attended the court and I had given my statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. before Ld. MM. My statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. is Ex.PW23/A bearing my signatures at point A. (The proceeding U/s 164 Cr.P.C. is not disputed by the accused.) I can identify my clothes if shown to me.
At this state MHC(M) produced one opened pullanda which was opened during the testimony of earlier witness and one bed sheet of multicolour of red, grey, yellow and brown and one mattress of dark green colour are taken out and are shown to the witness correct correctly identifies the same as the same which were lying ont he bed at the time of incident. The bed sheet is already Ex.P1 and the mattress is already Ex.P2.
MHC(M) also produced parcel no. 1 already opened during the testimony of earlier witness and the one Ferozi/light blue coloured printed maxi and one ferozi/light blue coloured peticoat are taken out and shown to the witness who correctly identified the same as belonged to her. The maxi is already Ex.P7 and the peticot is already Ex.P8........"
(125) The witness Priyanka has been exhaustively crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel on two occasions wherein she has explained that on the day of incident her husband did not go to his job due to Dusshera and her Bua/ Jethani namely Sindhu was with her on the day of incident. She is not aware if her Bua/ Jethani was examined by the police or not. According to the witness, there is an opposition by her family to St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 103 the marriage with the deceased Harender since it was an outcome of a love affair to which her family did not approve. She has also explained that her brother i.e. accused Shashi Bhushan Singh had visited her matrimonial house on the Raksha Bandhan after her marriage and she had tied Rakhi to him and there was no dispute and there were cordial relations between them. She has further explained that on 09.10.2013 her brother Shashi came to her house at about 12.30PM and after five to seven minutes of reaching her brother Shashi, the incident had taken place. She has admitted that even on the date of incident when her brother came to her house, he was insisting upon taking her home and that her husband booked the ticket and later got the same canceled which was objected to by her brother and has explained that this verbal altercation did not take place on the day of incident. She has further deposed that there was a hathapayee between her husband and her brother and has explained that this was only after she was given a knife blow that her husband had caught her brother. She has also admitted that her brother had been caught by her husband by his neck. According to the witness at that time Gaurav, Poonam and also her bua/ jethani Sindhu were at home. She has stated that she had also spoken to her parents on one or two occasion and her grandfather/ dada also visited her after her marriage and has explained that he was not happy with the way she had married. According to her, they had got the police report lodged in respect of the threats extended to her and her husband and she did not inform the Investigating Officer St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 104 about any such complaint lodged against her family. (126) When this incriminating material was put to the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he did not deny his presence at the spot and also did not deny the incident but has raised a defence pleading that the injuries had been inflicted in a Sudden Fight in self defence after there was a quarrel on account of the deceased not permitted his sister Priyanka to visit her parents. The relevant question and its answer is reproduced as under:
"....... Q48: Do you wish to say anything else? Ans: I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated. On 9.10.2013 I went to the house of my sister Priyanka as a courtesy visit and to take her home to meet my parents but her husband, her inlaws including my bua misbehaved with me and her husband started assaulting me and brought a knife and inflicted injuries on my person. My sister intervened in between and she also received blows from her husband. After seeing the condition of my sister, I got agitated and tried to save my sister and myself. In that process her husband sustained injuries. I also sustained injuries in the incident but my medical examination was not got conducted by the police. I have not committed any offence......."
(127) It is writ large from the aforesaid that Firstly the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh admits his presence at the spot. Secondly the accused does not dispute the incident in which the incident had taken St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 105 place but only disputes the manner of the incident. It is borne out from the testimony of child witness Gaurav (PW18) and the injured Priyanka (PW23) that there was a verbal altercation and both of them have admitted that the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh had come to the house to pick up Priyanka for visiting her parents and her tickets had already been booked but Harender at the last moment got the same cancelled who was not willing to send Priyanka with her brother whereas the accused claimed that Harender was deliberately stopping Priyanka from visiting her parental family. Under these given circumstances, the question of the accused having come prepared or the incident being an outcome of a prior planning or premeditation does not arise. The complainant Priyanka (PW23) on her part has admitted in her crossexamination that a month before the incident the relationship had almost normalized and the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh had also on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan had got the Rakhi tied from her. She has also admitted that her other family members including her grandfather/ Dada had come and visited her after marriage which again reflects that the relationship between them was normalizing. If this be so, then it is doubtful that Shashi Bhushan Singh would have come entertaining an intent of killing the deceased at the first instance.
(128) Thirdly in so far as the apprehension and arrest of the accused is concerned the same is not disputed and the recovery of the blood stained shirt of the accused himself which he got recovered pursuant St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 106 to his disclosure statement becomes irrelevant in view of the fact that the accused does not dispute the incident or his presence at the spot but only disputes the manner of the incident.
(129) Fourthly the weapon of offence has not been recovered by the Investigating Agency. Though it is the case of the prosecution the knife which was used in the offence but no knife has been recovered. As regards the metallic piece recovered from the skull of the deceased, no definite opinion has been given by the Autopsy Surgeon who states that he cannot give any definite opinion whether it was the tip of a knife but has stressed it could have been a part of a pointed metallic object. If this be so, then it apparently confirms that after the verbal and physical altercation which took place at the house of the deceased the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh finding himself cornered must have picked up the knife or may be an ice prick and some other pointed object, inflicted blows on the deceased Harender in which process the complainant Priyanka also received injuries when she intervened to same her husband. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that under the given circumstances the present case does not fall within the purview of provisions of Section 302 Indian Penal Code and at the most the accused can be held liable for the offence under Section 304 Indian Penal Code and I do find merit in her submissions. I may observe that as per the provisions of Section 300 Indian Penal Code culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or if it is done St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 107 with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid and this is punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. There are five exceptions provided to the above. Firstly culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of selfcontrol by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. I may observe that this exception is also subject to the proviso that the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person; the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant; the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence; the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Secondly Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 108 the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. Thirdly Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without illwill towards the person whose death is caused. Fourthly Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Lastly Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. [Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Kundaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (11) SCC 97]. (130) The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 109 interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300 Indian Penal Code. (Ref.: Daya Nand Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2008 SC 1823).
(131) Whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four Clauses of the definition of 'murder' contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third Clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the Exceptions enumerated is Section 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 110 not amounting to murder', punishable under the First Part of Section 304, Indian Penal Code. Note: All murders are culpable homicide but not vice aversa. (Ref.: State of A.P. Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya reported in AIR 1977 SC 45).
(132) It is submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the provisions of Section 302 IPC has no application as the assault was made during the course of sudden quarrel and in Self Defence and hence under the given circumstances either in Exception 2 of Section 300 or Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC apply. I may observe that for bringing in its operation it has to be established that the act was committed in Right of Private Defence of a person or that it was without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. While Second Exception of Section 300 Indian Penal Code covers cases where act is done by the offender in good faith without any premeditation in Right of Private Defence of that person, the Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight which deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. While in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of selfcontrol, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 111 would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1; but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. A sudden fight implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the fight occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 112 be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression undue advantage as used in the provision means unfair advantage. Where the offender takes undue advantage or has acted in a cruel or unusual manner, the benefit of Exception 4 cannot be given to him. If the weapon used or the manner of attack by the assailant is out of all proportion, that circumstance must be taken into consideration to decide whether undue advantage has been taken. [Ref.: Golla Yelugu Govindu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 16 (2008) SCC 769]. To avail the benefit of Exception 4, the defence is required to probabilise that the offence was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and the offender had not taken any undue advantage and the offender had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The exception is based upon the principle that in the absence of premeditation and on account of total deprivation of selfcontrol but on St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 113 account of heat of passion, the offence was committed which, normally a man of sober urges would not resort to. Sudden fight, though not defined under the Act, implies mutual provocation. It has been held by courts that a fight is not perse palliating circumstance and only unpremeditated fight is such. The time gap between quarrel and the fight is an important consideration to decide the applicability of the incident. If there intervenes a sufficient time for passion to subside, giving the accused time to come to normalcy and the fight takes place thereafter, the killing would be murder but if the time gap is not sufficient, the accused may be held entitled to the benefit of this exception. [Ref.: Sukhbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2000 (3) SCC 327: AIR 2002 SC 1168 followed by our own High Court in the case of Manoj Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State in Criminal Appeal No. 638/2009 decided on 27.3.2012].
(133) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove and establish the motive so attributed to the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh. It has come on record that though the marriage of Priyanka with deceased Harender was objected to by the family members of the accused, yet with the passage of time the said relationship was normalizing and even on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan the accused Shashi Bhushan had gone to the house of her sister Priyanka and got tied Rakhi from her. I may note that the incident had taken place in the house of the deceased Harender. There is nothing on record that the incident was committed after premeditation St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 114 and preparation or that the accused had come duly armed. Rather, the evidence on record confirms that the incident had taken place in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, when Harender refused to send Priyanka with the accused. During the physical altercation which ensued both Harender and the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh were assaulting each other and it stands established from the testimony of both Gaurav and Priyanka that the deceased Harender had caught hold of the neck of accused Shashi Bhushan Singh and was pressing the same hard when the accused who was trying to free himself hit him with a metallic object with a pointed tip. The place of incident was a room inside a building used as a residence and object used could be a kitchen knife, poker, iceprick etc. (not confirmed by the prosecution) which are easily available and the possibility of the accused having picked up the object which was lying in the room which could be a knife or may be an ice prick or a poker with which he inflicted injuries upon the deceased and the complainant/ injured cannot be ruled out and rather appears to be more probable. This being the background, I hereby hold that the case of the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh falls within the Exception 2 and Exception 4 of Section 300 Indian Penal Code.
(134) Fifthly it has also to be seen whether under the given circumstances the accused is liable to be held guilty for the offence under Section 304 (Part1) or 304 (Part2) of Indian Penal Code. It is evident from the medical evidence on record that as many as three stab injuries St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 115 were inflicted upon the deceased i.e. on the back part of right parietal eminence, on front of lower chest and back of left chest. Though the prosecution has not been able to prove and establish the intent of the accused to cause death, however, the manner in which repeated stab injures were caused to the deceased on vital organs establishes that the intention of the accused was to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. This being the background, I hold the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 (Part1) Indian Penal Code. (135) Lastly coming to the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code settled against the accused in so far as the injuries caused to Priyanka are concerned, I may observe that as per the provisions of Section 307 Indian Penal Code whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act causes death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. To constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC, it is sufficient if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances and may even in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 116 between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some over act in execution thereof [Ref.: Vipin Bihari Vs. State of MP reported in 2006 (8) SCC 799; Bappa @ Bapu Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2004 (6) SCC 485; State of Maharastra Vs. Kashi Rao & Ors. reported in 2003 (10) SCC 434; Hari Mohan Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2004 (12) SCC 220 and Surender Kumar Sharma Vs. State reported in 2010 (III) AD (Delhi) 198]. This being the legal position, intention can be deduced not only from the nature of injuries caused but also from other circumstances.
(136) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case as already discussed herein above, neither the knowledge nor the intention so reflected qua the injures caused to Priyanka stand established. The medical evidence does not substantiate the charges alleged. There is no injury which could have cause death in the ordinary course of nature rather, the injuries were opined to be Simple in nature which the circumstances confirm were recovered in a sudden quarrel between the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh and the deceased Harender when Priyanka intervened to separate the two. Therefore, under these St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 117 circumstances I hereby hold that the intention and knowledge as contemplated under the provisions of Section 299 and 300 Indian Penal Code is not made out. This being so I hereby hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and substantiate the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code against the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh who however is liable to held guilty for the offence under Section 308 Indian Penal Code (not under Section 307 Indian Penal Code).
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(137) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with 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;
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 118
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so 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.
(138) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigations conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. The identity of the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh @ Dheman stands established, he is the brother of injured Priyanka and brother in law/ sala of the deceased Harender. On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses the following aspects stand established:
➢ That Priyanka the real sister of the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh, had married to Harender the real brother of her Phoofa against the will of her parents and family members.
➢ That the parents of Priyanka were averse to her marriage/ alliance not only because the real Bua of Priyanka namely Sindhu was married to the real brother of Harender namely Devender Thakur but also because Harender was almost more than twice the age of Priyanka.St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 119
➢ That due to passage of time the relations between the two families were normalizing and even on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh had gone to the house of his sister Priyanka and got a Rakhi tied from her and her family including her Dada (grandfather) also started visiting her.
➢ That on the date of incident i.e. 9.10.2013 the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh had gone to the house of her sister to bring her back to her parental home as a part of the ritual after marriage and the train tickets had already been booked.
➢ That Harender (deceased) was reluctant in sending Priyanka to her parental house on the pretext of ailment of his mother and studies and care of his niece and nephew and had got cancelled the train tickets.
➢ That initially there was a verbal altercation between Shashi Bhushan Singh and Harender on this aspect which was followed by a physical altercation with both Shashi Bhushan and Harender hitting out at each other.
➢ That during the physical altercation the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh picked up some pointed metallic object lying in the house and inflicted injuries upon Harender on his vital parts including head.
➢ That when Priyanka intervened to save her husband from the accused, she was also not spared and the accused also inflicted injures with this metallic object upon her after which he ran away.St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 120
➢ That the entire incident was witness by child Gaurav the nephew of Harender.
➢ That after hearing the cries of Priyanka, the neighbours gathered and someone made a 100 number call after which the police reached the spot and shifted both the injured to Hospital where Harender was declared 'Brought Dead' (139) The Medical Evidence on record establishes that the cause of death was due to shock associated with damage for chest structures under injury No. 2 which was fresh and antemortem at the time of death and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. It also stands established that a metallic tip was recovered from the area of right parietal eminence under injury No.1, however, the prosecution has not been able to prove that it was the tip of a knife and establishes the possibility of the same being a tip of a pointed metallic object. Further, the medical evidence on record is also compatible to the injuries inflicted on the body of the injured/ complainant Priyanka. The Ocular Evidence on record in the form of child witness Gaurav and Priyanka confirm the prosecution case that it was the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh @ Dheman who had inflicted injuries upon the deceased Harender and also upon the complainant/ injured Priyanka.
(140) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 121 faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
(141) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
(142) However, there is nothing on record that the incident was committed with premeditation or that the accused had come duly armed.
Rather, the evidence on record confirms that the incident had taken place in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, when Harender refused to send Priyanka with the accused. During the physical altercation which ensued both Harender and the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh were assaulting each other and it stands established from the testimony of both Gaurav and Priyanka that the deceased Harender had St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 122 caught hold of the neck of accused Shashi Bhushan Singh and was pressing the same hard when the accused who was trying to free himself hit him with a metallic object with a pointed tip. The place of incident was a room inside a building used as a residence and object used could be a kitchen knife, poker, iceprick etc. (not confirmed by the prosecution) which are easily available and the possibility of the accused having picked up the object which was lying in the room which could be a knife or may be an iceprick or a poker with which he inflicted injuries upon the deceased and the complainant/ injured cannot be ruled out and rather appears to be more probable. This being the background, this Court has held that the case of the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh falls within the Exception 2 and Exception 4 of Section 300 Indian Penal Code. Further, it is evident from the medical evidence on record that as many as three stab injuries were inflicted upon the deceased i.e. on the back part of right parietal eminence, on front of lower chest and back of left chest. Though the prosecution has not been able to prove and establish the intent of the accused to cause death, however, the manner in which repeated stab injures were caused to the deceased on vital organs establishes that the intention of the accused was to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. This being the background, this Court has held the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 (Part1) Indian Penal Code. (143) Further, in so far as the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code qua the injures caused to Priyanka is concerned, neither the St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 123 knowledge nor the intention so reflected qua the injures caused to Priyanka stand established. The medical evidence does not substantiate the charges alleged. There is no injury which could have cause death in the ordinary course of nature rather, the injuries were opined to be Simple in nature which the circumstances confirm were recovered in a sudden quarrel between the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh and the deceased Harender when Priyanka intervened to separate the two. Therefore, under these circumstances I hereby hold that the intention and knowledge as contemplated under the provisions of Section 299 and 300 Indian Penal Code is not made out. This being so I hereby hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and substantiate the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code against the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh who however is liable to held guilty for the offence under Section 308 Indian Penal Code (not under Section 307 Indian Penal Code). The accused is accordingly convicted. (144) Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 15.11.2014.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 14.11.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 124
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE II (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 03/2014 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0007872014 State Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh @ Dheman S/o Sh. Ravinder Singh R/o Village Mothaha, PS Mahura, District Chapra, Bihar (Convicted) FIR No.: 463/2013 Police Station: Aman Vihar Under Sections: 302/307 IPC Date of Conviction: 14.11.2014 Arguments heard on: 15.11.2014 Date of sentence: 17.11.2014 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict in Judicial Custody with Ms. Sadhna Bhatia Advocate/ Amicus Curie.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
As per the allegations on 9.11.2013 at about 12:30 Noon at House No. B107, Gali No. 8, Pratap ViharIII, Aman Vihar, Delhi the accused Shahi Bhushan Singh @ Dheman attacked on Priyanka with a St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 125 knife while she tried to save her husband from his clutches and caused injures to her with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act he caused the death of Priyanka he would be guilty of murder. It has been further alleged that the accused also assaulted on the person of Harender with a knife and committed his murder.
However, on the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses particularly the child witness Gaurav and Priyanka and also on the basis of medical, forensic and other evidence on record, vide a detail judgment dated 14.11.2014 the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh has been held guilty of the offence under Section 304 (Part1) and 308 Indian Penal Code.
Vide the detailed judgment this Court has observed that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish and prove that Priyanka the real sister of the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh, had married to Harender the real brother of her Phoofa against the will of her parents and family members; that the parents of Priyanka were averse to her marriage/ alliance not only because the real Bua of Priyanka namely Sindhu was married to the real brother of Harender namely Devender Thakur but also because Harender was almost more than twice the age of Priyanka; that due to passage of time the relations between the two families were normalizing and even on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh had gone to the house of his sister St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 126 Priyanka and got a Rakhi tied from her and her family including her Dada (grandfather) also started visiting her.
Further, the prosecution has been able to prove and establish that on the date of incident i.e. 9.10.2013 the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh had gone to the house of her sister to bring her back to her parental home as a part of the ritual after marriage and the train tickets had already been booked; that Harender (deceased) was reluctant in sending Priyanka to her parental house on the pretext of ailment of his mother and studies and care of his niece and nephew and had got cancelled the train tickets; that initially there was a verbal altercation between Shashi Bhushan Singh and Harender on this aspect which was followed by a physical altercation with both Shashi Bhushan and Harender hitting out at each other; that during the physical altercation the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh picked up some pointed metallic object lying in the house and inflicted injuries upon Harender on his vital parts including head; that when Priyanka intervened to save her husband from the accused, she was also not spared and the accused also inflicted injures with this metallic object upon her after which he ran away; that the entire incident was witness by child Gaurav the nephew of Harender; that after hearing the cries of Priyanka, the neighbours gathered and someone made a 100 number call after which the police reached the spot and shifted both the injured to Hospital where Harender was declared 'Brought Dead' It has been observed by this Court that the Medical Evidence St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 127 on record establishes that the cause of death was due to shock associated with damage for chest structures under injury No. 2 which was fresh and antemortem at the time of death and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. It has also been established that a metallic tip was recovered from the area of right parietal eminence under injury No.1, however, the prosecution has not been able to prove that it was the tip of a knife and established the possibility of the same being a tip of a pointed metallic object. The medical evidence on record is also compatible to the injuries inflicted on the body of the injured/ complainant Priyanka. The Ocular Evidence on record in the form of child witness Gaurav and Priyanka confirms the prosecution case that it was the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh @ Dheman who had inflicted injuries upon the deceased Harender and also upon the complainant/ injured Priyanka.
This Court has further observed that there is nothing on record that the incident was committed with premeditation or that the accused had come duly armed. Rather, the evidence on record confirms that the incident had taken place in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, when Harender refused to send Priyanka with the accused. During the physical altercation which ensued both Harender and the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh were assaulting each other and it stands established from the testimony of both Gaurav and Priyanka that the deceased Harender had caught hold of the neck of accused Shashi St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 128 Bhushan Singh and was pressing the same hard when the accused who was trying to free himself hit him with a metallic object with a pointed tip. The place of incident was a room inside a building used as a residence and object used could be a kitchen knife, poker, iceprick etc. (not confirmed by the prosecution) which are easily available and the possibility of the accused having picked up the object which was lying in the room which could be a knife or may be an iceprick or a poker with which he inflicted injuries upon the deceased and the complainant/ injured cannot be ruled out and rather appears to be more probable. This being the background, this Court has held that the case of the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh falls within the Exception 2 and Exception 4 of Section 300 Indian Penal Code.
It has also been observed by this Court that the medical evidence on record establishes that as many as three stab injuries were inflicted upon the deceased i.e. on the back part of right parietal eminence, on front of lower chest and back of left chest. Though the prosecution has not been able to prove and establish the intent of the accused to cause death, however, the manner in which repeated stab injures were caused to the deceased on vital organs establishes that the intention of the accused was to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. This being the background, this Court has held the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 (Part1) Indian Penal Code.
Further, in so far as the charge under Section 307 Indian St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 129 Penal Code qua the injures caused to Priyanka is concerned, this Court has observed that neither the knowledge nor the intention so reflected qua the injures caused to Priyanka stand established. The medical evidence does not substantiate the charges alleged. There is no injury which could have cause death in the ordinary course of nature rather, the injuries were opined to be Simple in nature which the circumstances confirm were recovered in a sudden quarrel between the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh and the deceased Harender when Priyanka intervened to separate the two. Therefore, under these circumstances this Court has held that the intention and knowledge as contemplated under the provisions of Section 299 and 300 Indian Penal Code is not made out and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and substantiate the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code against the accused Shashi Bhushan Singh who has been held guilty for the offence under Section 308 Indian Penal Code (not under Section 307 Indian Penal Code).
The accused has been accordingly convicted.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Shashi Bhushan Singh @ Dheman is a young boy of 20 years having a family comprising of aged parents, one young brother and two younger sisters (including the complainant/ injured Priyanka). At the time of his arrest he was pursuing B. Sc. which has now completed.
Ld. Amicus Curie has vehemently argued that the convict is a St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 130 young boy having no previous criminal involvements and is a first time offender. She has further argued that the convict has a bright future and any harsh view at this stage would round his entire carrier. She has prayed that a lenient view be taken against the convict.
I have considered the submissions made before me and I may observe that the convict Shashi Bhushan Singh @ Dheman is a young boy having no criminal antecedents pursuing his B.Sc. Which he has now completed. He is the brother of the injured/ complainant Priyanka and the brother in law/ sala of the deceased Harender. The incident in question had taken place in a sudden quarrel when the deceased Harender refused to sent Priyanka with him pursuant to which there was verbal and physical altercation in which the deceased was fatally injured. Any harsh view would ruin his entire family. This being the background, I award the following sentences to the convict Shashi Bhushan Singh:
1. For the offence under Section 304 (Part1) Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lac). In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three Months. The entire fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/, if deposited by the convict, shall be given to the wife of the deceased i.e. Priyanka as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
2. For the offence under Section 308 Indian Penal Code, the convict St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 131 is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five Years and fine to the tune of Rs.25,000/ (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand). In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month. The entire fine amount of Rs.25,000/, if deposited by the convict, shall be given to the wife of the deceased i.e. Priyanka as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules.
Compensation, if deposited and no appeal is preferred within the period of limitation, the same be released to the victim Priyanka.
Before ending I may observe that vide order dated 15.4.2014 when the victim Priyanka appeared before this Court during the stage of evidence, this Court had observed her to be in a state of total dependency and destitution which state of affairs was placed before the State i.e. GNCT of Delhi and to the Delhi Legal Services Authority. I am now informed that presently the victim Priyanka is residing at Bapno Ghar Care of All India Women Conference, 6 Bhagwan Dass Road, Delhi and her case had already been referred to Delhi Legal Services Authority and pursuant to the orders of this Court an interim compensation of Rs. Three Lacs (Rs.3,00,000/) has already been awarded to the victim/ injured St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 132 Priyanka by the Delhi Legal Services Authority.
Matter be also referred to Delhi Legal Service Authority for further compensation to the parents of the deceased under Victim Compensation Scheme and it is clarified that the compensation already released shall be liable to be adjusted as per rules.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
One copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs and one of order on sentence be attached with his jail warrant.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 17.11.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Singh, FIR No. 463/2013, PS Aman Vihar Page No. 133