Delhi District Court
State vs . Akil & Anr. on 1 October, 2011
State vs. Akil & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR KUHAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02:SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
IN RE: Sessions Case No. 81/10
ID No. 02406R0325652010
FIR No. 212/10
PS: Ambedkar Nagar
U/s 307/34 IPC
State Vs. 1. Akil, S/o Sh. Babu Khan,
R/o AII/268, Madangir, New Delhi.
2. Rajesh @ Gulli, S/o Lt. Sh. Hira Lal,
R/o AII/60, Madangir, New Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
I have heard the arguments from Ld. Addl. Public
Prosecutor for the state and Ld. Defence Counsel for the convicts.
2. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has argued that the convicts
without any rhyme or reason have caused knife injury in the abdomen of
the complainant. He submitted that the convicts on a very trivial issue
SC No. 81/10 1
State vs. Akil & Anr.
the convict had stabbed the injured when he refused to pay Rs. 150/ to
the convict Mohd. Akil for the purchase of liquor. He submitted that this
act of the convicts show their criminal propensity and, therefore, they
must be given maximum punishment for the offence. He further submits
that the injured has been stabbed from the front side cutting the front
portion of the abdomen and it is only due to timely medical intervention
and the sheer luck that the victim/injured is alive today.
3. Ld. Counsel for convicts has argued and prayed for a lenient
view. He submitted that the convict Mohd. Akil has a family consisting
of his mother, his wife and a two and a half year old child. He has no
previous criminal record of conviction. For the accused Rajesh @ Gulli,
it was submitted that he works as a furniture designer and has the
responsibility to look after the family consisting of his mother, wife and a
son of about 5/6 years old.
4. The object of awarding a sentence to a criminal is to protect
the society and to deter the criminal. Sentencing of a criminal must
reflect to the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to
be stern where it should be. If a sentence is awarded without considering
its effect on the society, the object of awarding punishment would be
frustrated. The punishment to be awarded to a criminal must conform to
SC No. 81/10 2
State vs. Akil & Anr.
and be consistent with the nature and the gravity of the offence. The
crime committed in a brutal fashion without a justified reason definitely
needs to be dealt with a strict hand, as it has been said that punishment
must "respond to the society's cry for justice against a criminal".
5. In the present case the convicts have inflicted knife injury in
the abdomen of the complainant. The cause of a quarrel was very
insignificant. The complainant who was coming home after closing his
rehri of Biryani had simply refused the demand of convicts for Rs. 150/
which they were asking for liquor. The convicts got infuriated and one of
them caught the complainant and other one took out a knife and gave
knife injury in the abdomen and thereafter ran away from the spot. The
act of the convicts show a criminal bent of mind. Therefore, it is
imperative that they should be kept out of the society so that they can
understand and appreciate the value of the societal norms.
6. While awarding sentence the court has not only to see the
mitigating circumstances of the convicts but also the need of the society.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence is
awarded to the offender. Despite reformatory theory of punishment being
in vogue, the deterrent theory has not lost its purpose and justification. A
SC No. 81/10 3
State vs. Akil & Anr.
criminal act done with impunity without bothering about its consequences
definitely has a negative effect on the citizens. A fear psychosis created
by such an act is detrimental to the interest of the society. Taking into
account all the facts and circumstances of the case, mode and the manner
of commission of the offence, nature and the gravity of the offence
following sentence is being awarded:
"Both the convicts namely Mohd. Akil and Rajesh @
Gulli are sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Seven Years and
further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ each in default of payment
of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for Six Months for
the offence under section 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC. Benefit
of section 428 Cr. P.C be given to both the convicts."
7. Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to the
convicts free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (AJAY KUMAR KUHAR)
Dated: 1st October, 2011 Addl. Sessions Judge02: South East
Saket Court: New Delhi
SC No. 81/10 4
State vs. Akil & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR KUHAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02:SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
IN RE: Sessions Case No. 81/10
ID No. 02406R0325652010
FIR No. 212/10
PS: Ambedkar Nagar
U/s 307/34 IPC
State Vs. 1. Akil, S/o Sh. Babu Khan,
R/o AII/268, Madangir, New Delhi.
2. Rajesh @ Gulli, S/o Lt. Sh. Hira Lal,
R/o AII/60, Madangir, New Delhi.
Date of institution : 11.10.2010
Date when arguments were heard : 28.09.2011
Date of Judgment : 29.09.2011
JUDGMENT
The facts of the case falls in a very narrow compass. The injured Mohd. Ubesh who used to sell Biryani on a rehri near a Masjid on Chandrawal Road was coming to his home at around 11.00/11.30 pm on 24.07.2010 after closing his shop. When he reached near his house, the accused Akil and Rajesh @ Gulli met him and accused Akil asked Mohd. Ubesh for Rs. 150/ to purchase liquor. Mohd. Ubesh (injured) refused to give Rs. 150/ to him and then the accused Rajesh @ Gulli caught hold the hands of Mohd. Ubesh and the SC No. 81/10 5 State vs. Akil & Anr.
accused Akil stabbed Mohd. Ubesh in the abdomen with a knife. The cousin brother of the injured Mohd. Ubesh namely Fakre Alam and Javed Alam had seen this incident from a little distance and as soon as they ran to catch the accused persons, they ran away from the spot by waving the knife in the air. The injured Mohd. Ubesh was taken to Trauma Centre, AIIMS for his treatment.
2. The information regarding the incident was received in the PS Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi vide DD No. 70B (Ex. PW13/E) at around 11.30 pm and ASI Tara Chand (PW4) alongwith Ct. Sahdev Singh (PW10) reached the spot where they met Ct. Kailash Singh and Ct. Sonu Kumar (PW11) as well, where ASI Tara Chand came to know that the injured Mohd. Ubesh has been taken to Trauma Centre, AIIMS. ASI Tara Chand left Ct. Kailash Singh and Ct. Sonu Kumar at the spot and went to Trauma Centre, AIIMS where the injured Mohd. Ubesh was found admitted on MLC No. 219704/10 and he was unfit for statement at that point of time. The eye witness Fakre Alam met ASI Tara Chand and his statement was recorded which is Ex. PW1/A and ASI Tara Chand sent the rukka (Ex. PW4/A) for registration of the case and, thus, FIR (Ex. PW7A) U/s 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered. The IO thereafter prepared the site plan, arrested the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements. The knife used in the commission of the offence was recovered at the instance of accused Akil which was seized. The blood stained shirt of the accused Akil was also SC No. 81/10 6 State vs. Akil & Anr.
recovered which was also seized. The blood stained clothes of the complainant Fakre Alam, who had taken the injured Mohd. Ubesh to the hospital, were also seized by the Investigating Officer and the blood stained clothes of the injured were also given to the IO by the doctor which were also seized. The injuries on the person of the injured Mohd. Ubesh were opined as "grievous sharp". After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court.
3. The accused persons were sent for trial and on 18.10.2010, both the accused were charged for the offence U/s 307/34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
4. The prosecution had led evidence and examined following witnesses: 4.1 PW1 is Fakre Alam. He has deposed that Mohd. Ubesh is the son of his maternal uncle who sell Biryani on rehri outside the ABlock. He further deposed that on 24.07.2010 (initially he told date of offence as 22.11.2010) at about 11.15 pm, he was standing in front of his house alongwith his younger brother Javed Alam when he heard the noise outside the house of Mohd. Ubesh which is at a distance of six houses from his house. He saw the accused Akil abusing Mohd. Ubesh and accused Rajesh @ Gulli was also with accused Akil. As he moved towards the house of Mohd. Ubesh where the incident was taking place, he saw the accused Akil hitting Mohd. Ubesh with the knife in his SC No. 81/10 7 State vs. Akil & Anr.
abdomen and accused Rajesh had caught hold the hands of Mohd. Ubesh. He further deposed that he had taken Mohd. Ubesh to Trauma Centre, AIIMS and he had made a call to 100 number PCR. He further deposed that since Mohd. Ubesh was bleeding heavily, so he took him to the hospital himself. He deposed that police had come to the hospital where his statement was recorded. He proved his statement Ex. PW1/A. He also deposed that his clothes got also stained with blood which were seized by the police as per the seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. 4.2 PW2 is Mohd. Ubesh. He deposed that on 24.07.2010 at around 11/11.30 pm, he was coming home after closing his rehri. When he reached in front of his house, he met the accused Akil and Rajesh @ Gulli and accused Akil asked for Rs. 150/ for liquor and when he refused, he started abusing him. He also abused them. The accused Rajesh @ Gulli caught hold his hands and accused Akil hit him with a chhuri (knife) in his abdomen. He further deposed that both the accused persons ran away from the spot. He deposed that his mother also reached the spot and his cousin brother took him to hospital. He deposed that when the police had come to the hospital, he was unconscious and the police made inquiry from him later on.
4.3 PW3 is Smt. Firdosh. She deposed that on 24.07.2010 at about 11.15 pm, she was inside the house and heard the noise outside the house. When she came out, she saw that the accused Akil and Rajesh @ Gulli were quarreling with his son Mohd. Ubesh. She saw that accused Rajesh @ Gulli SC No. 81/10 8 State vs. Akil & Anr.
caught hold the hands of his son Mohd. Ubesh and the accused Akil stabbed him with a knife in the abdomen.
4.4 PW4 is ASI Tara Chand, who had received the DD No. 70B and firstly, he had reached the spot with Ct. Sahdev but since he did not find any eye witness on the spot, he came to the Trauma Centre where he found injured Mohd. Ubesh admitted on MLC No. 219704/10. The doctor had opined him unfit for statement. Thereafter, he met Fakre Alam in the hospital and recorded his statement and sent the rukka for registration of the case. 4.5 PW5 is Javed Alam. His statement is also on the same line as the statement of PW1 Fakre Alam.
4.6 PW6 is Ct. Purshottam. He was the member of the crime team who had reached the spot at AII/264, Madangir, New Delhi on 25.07.2010 around 12.00 noon and took photographs of the scene of spot. The photographs are Ex. PW6/A and negatives are Ex. PW6/B. 4.7 PW7 is HC Jayanti Prasad, who was the Duty Officer on 25.07.2010 and had registered FIR at 3.00 am in the night on the basis of the rukka brought by Ct. Sahdev and sent by ASI Tara Chand. He has proved the FIR Ex. PW7/A. 4.8 PW8 is Smt. Nafisa. She is a hostile witness. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused Akil had got recovered the knife from a diwan from the house of Smt. Nafisa, who happens to be his sister. However, she has not supported the prosecution case with regard to the recovery of the said knife. SC No. 81/10 9
State vs. Akil & Anr.
4.9 PW9 is Ct. Dharamvir Singh. He had accompanied the Investigating Officer Inspector Rajkumar Shah during the investigation. He deposed that the sealed pulanda containing the clothes of the injured Mohd. Ubesh was handed over by ASI Tara Chand which was seized by the IO Inspector Rajkumar Shah vide memo Ex. PW9/A. He further deposed that they went to the spot at AII/264, Madangir, New Delhi where Fakre Alam met them and IO prepared the site plan at his instance. Earth control and blood lying on the spot were lifted by the IO which were seized vide Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW9/C respectively. He further deposed that Fakre Alam also handed over his blood stained clothes which were seized by the IO vide Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that on the same day, the accused Akil was arrested by the IO from his house and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW9/F and thereafter, the accused Rajesh @ Gulli was arrested from the bus stand near the Virat Cinema, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi. He further deposed that pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Akil, a knife was recovered from the house of his sister Nafisa (PW8) at A133, LBlock, Gali No. 13, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, which was used in the commission of the offence. 4.10 PW10 is Ct. Sahdev Singh, who had accompanied ASI Tara Chand to the spot.
4.11 PW11 is Ct. Sonu Kumar who was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar on emergency duty with HC Kailash and on receipt of DD No. 70B, he alongwith HC Kailash had reached AII/183, Madangir, New Delhi where they SC No. 81/10 10 State vs. Akil & Anr.
came to know that the incident had taken place in front of AII/264, Madangir, New Delhi and ASI Tara Chand and Ct. Dharamvir also reached there. The injured was already taken to the Trauma Centre, AIIMS. 4.12 PW12 is SI Jitender Kumar, who was the InCharge of the crime team and gave his report Ex. PW12/A. 4.13 PW13 is Inspector R.K. Saha, the IO of the case. 4.14 PW14 is Dr. Dinesh Yadav, who had medically examined the injured Mohd. Ubesh and the MLC Ex. PW14/A was prepared by him. He deposed that the injured was brought to the hospital with a "stab injury at abdomen epigastic region with oozing of blood". He further deposed that the injury was grievous caused by sharp object and it was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In the cross examination, he deposed that the patient was hospitalized for six days.
5. The accused persons when confronted with their statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C, denied the same intoto and took the plea that they have been implicated falsely in this case. Accused Akil took the plea that he was running a business of Cable Networking and Fakre Alam (PW1) had forcibly taken his business of Cable Networking in the BlockA/II, Madangir, New Delhi and paid only Rs. 1 lac to him. He deposed that he has been falsely implicated in this case so that he may not again start the business of Cable Networking in the SC No. 81/10 11 State vs. Akil & Anr.
area. The accused Rajesh @ Gulli took the plea that since the accused Mohd. Akil is his friend and he used to help him in the business of Cable Networking, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. None of the accused has preferred to lead evidence in defence.
6. I have heard the arguments from Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor and Ld. Defence Counsel for both the accused persons. Perused the evidence on the record.
7. Ld. Addl. P.P has argued that the statement of PW1 Fakre Alam, PW2 Mohd Ubesh, PW3 Smt Firdosh and PW5 Javed prove the incident in which the accused Akil had caused stab injury to Mohd Ubesh. He submitted that the medical evidence i.e MLC of injured Ex. PW14/A and the statement of PW14 Dr Dinesh Yadav corroborates the statement of the witnesses. As per the statement of PW14 Dr Dinesh Yadav the injured Mohd Ubesh had received a stab injury in the abdomen epigastic region and the injuries have been opined as 'grievous' being caused by sharp object. Not only that the injury has also been found sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further argued that during the investigation the knife used in the commission of the offence was recovered which was having blood stains and the clothes of the accused Akil were seized which were also having blood stains. The wearing clothes of the complainant Fakre Alam, who had taken the SC No. 81/10 12 State vs. Akil & Anr.
injured to the hospital and in the process received stain on his clothes, were also seized and these clothes were sent to the FSL. The FSL report shows that the clothes of Fakre Alam (PW1) and the shirt of the accused were having blood of 'B' group which correspond to the blood group of the injured which was taken in a gauze in the hospital. Thus, the evidence on the record prove the case of the prosecution.
8. Ld. Defence Counsel, on the other hand, has argued that the accused have been falsely implicated in the present case due to a motive. It was argued that the accused Akil was running the business of cable networking which was purchased per force by PW1 Fakre Alam and they implicated the accused Akil and his friend Rajesh so that Akil may not start his business of cable networking in the same area of AII Block, Madangir. Apart from this, he further argued that the knife has been shown to be recovered from the residence of the sister (PW8 Nafisa) of the accused Akil from A133, LBlock, Gali No. 13, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi but no public witness has been joined at the time of said recovery. He further argued that the place of occurrence in the present case is also doubtful. The DD No. 70 B Ex. PW13/E shows the place of incident at AII/183, Madangir while the witnesses deposed about the incident in front of H. No. AII/264, Madangir. Therefore, the prosecution case becomes doubtful. He further argued that the Investigating Officer PW13 Inspector R.K. Saha had seized the earth control, shirt of the accused, the knife, SC No. 81/10 13 State vs. Akil & Anr.
blood stained earth and the clothes of the complainant and kept them in a pullanda by putting his seal. However, it has no where come in evidence as to who was given the seal after the use. Therefore the inference can be drawn that the seal remained with the Investigating Officer and thus, the tampering with the sealed pullanda cannot be ruled out. He further argued that the nature of injury has been opined by PW14 as 'grievous', however, he has not stated on what basis he has opined the injuries as 'grievous'. He relied upon the judgment in Mamu Lal Vs. State 1994 (31) DRJ to support his argument that when the doctor has not mentioned on what basis the injury was opined as grievous injury cannot be treated as grievous. However, the perusal of this judgment would show that the facts of the case were not similar as in the case of Mamu Lal Vs. State (supra) the doctor who has opined the nature of injury as 'dangerous' had not examined the patient. Therefore, the court was not convinced about his opinion regarding the injuries being dangerous in nature. In the present case, however, PW14 Dr Dinesh Yadav had himself examined the patient and had given the opinion as to its nature. In the cross examination he specifically stated that on the basis of the injury he had opined the same as 'grievous'.
9. So far as the oral testimonies of PW1 Fakre Alam, PW2 Mohd Ubesh, PW3 Smt Firdosh and PW5 Javed are concerned they support and corroborate each other on all the material particulars. PW1 Fakre Alam and SC No. 81/10 14 State vs. Akil & Anr.
PW5 Javed deposed that on 24.07.2010 at about 11.15 pm Mohd Ubesh was outside his house which was at a distance of six houses from their house. They saw the accused Akil causing a stab injury with a knife in the abdomen of Mohd Ubesh while the accused Rajesh @ Gulli caught hold him by hands. PW5 Javed has categorically deposed that he was at a distance of about 1015 feet from the place of occurrence. He has deposed that he had seen the accused Mohd Ubesh. He denied the suggestion that he came to know about the stabbing when he heard the shouts of injured Mohd Ubesh. PW1 Fakre Alam deposed that he had seen the accused Akil abusing Mohd Ubesh. He further deposed that he had heard the noise outside the house of Mohd Ubesh which was at a distance of six houses from his house. He deposed that he moved towards the house of Mohd Ubesh where the incident was taking place he saw accused Akil hitting Mohd Ubesh with a knife in his abdomen. The question arise why PW1 Fakre Alam and PW5 Javed could not caught hold of the accused ? PW1 has explained in his examination in chief that by the time he reached the spot, both accused ran away from the spot. PW5 explained that he went towards them and he initially tried to follow the accused. The accused Akil was having knife in his hand and he stopped as Akil was waving the knife in the air. This explain why the accused could not be apprehended on the spot. Moreover, when the injured Mohd Ubesh was lying on the ground and was bleeding it was the priority of PW1 and PW5 to get him medical aid instead of running after the accused.
SC No. 81/10 15
State vs. Akil & Anr.
10. PW3 Smt Firdosh has deposed that she was inside her house when she heard the noise outside and when she came out she saw the quarreling. She had seen the accused Rajesh holding the hands of her son and the accused Akil stabbing him with a knife in his abdomen. She denied the suggestion in the cross examination that she had not seen the accused at the spot or that some unknown persons had beaten her son.
11. The statement of injured Mohd Ubesh has further cemented the prosecution case. He deposed that when he reached in front of his house accused Akil asked for Rs 150/ for liquor and on his refusal Akil started abusing him. He further deposed that he also started abusing Akil and Rajesh. The accused Rajesh caught hold his hands and Akil hit him with a knife in the abdomen and after assaulting him both of them ran away. He denied the suggestion in the cross examination that the accused did not demand money from him or they were not present at the spot. He denied the suggestion that due to ill will between Fakre Alam and Akil they have been falsely implicated.
12. This ocular evidence of witnesses cannot be brushed aside lightly in the absence of any major contradictions or inconsistency in their statements. The statement of the injured witness is always considered at a very high pedestal. While appreciating the evidence of the injured witness the court is required to keep in mind firstly; that the evidence of the injured witness SC No. 81/10 16 State vs. Akil & Anr.
cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in the natural conduct or some minor contradictions, secondly; if there is any exaggeration or embellishment in the statement of the injured witness then that part of the statement can be discarded but not the whole evidence, thirdly; unless it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that the injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused and lastly; broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into account and the discrepancies, inconsistencies or contradictions which generally occur due to passage of time and loss of memory should be discarded.
13. Although, there is no requirement of any corroboration to the statement of an injured but in the present case we have the corroboration as well as from the medical evidence as well as scientific evidence. PW14 Dr Dinesh Yadav has proved the MLC of the injured which has shown an injury of 12 cm X 6 cm CLW at epigastic region. Doctor opined this injury as 'grievous' and 'sharp'. The gravity of the injury can be ascertained from the fact that the patient was admitted in the hospital on 24.07.2010 and was discharged on 01.08.2010. The endorsement on the MLC Ex. PW14/A would show that till 28.07.2010 the patient was unfit SC No. 81/10 17 State vs. Akil & Anr.
for the statement. The Dr. Dinesh Yadav (PW14) also deposed that the injury in the case was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. So this medical evidence further support the factum of the injuries being caused in the abdomen of the injured Mohd Ubesh. Who had caused this injury is evident from the ocular evidence and to an extent corroborated by the FSL report.
14. In this case the Investigating Officer had seized one Tshirt and one half nikkar of the complainant Fakre Alam Ex. P9/3 and Ex. P9/4 which were having blood stains. The Investigating Officer also seized the shirt of the accused Akil (Ex. P9/2) which was also having blood stains. When the injured was in the hospital the Investigating Officer had collected one envelope containing blood in gauze of Mohd Ubesh from Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology AIIMS, as per seizure memo Ex. PW9/M. This blood in gauze cloth was also sent to the FSL. In the FSL the Tshirt and the nikkar Ex. P9/3 and Ex. P9/4 were given the Exhibit 3a and 3b. The shirt of the accused Akil Ex. P9/2 was given Exhibit 6 in the FSL and the gauze cloth piece was given Exhibit 8 at the time of examination. The report Ex. PW13/D shows that the blood group found on Exhibit 3a, 3b, 6 and 8 was that of 'B' group SC No. 81/10 18 State vs. Akil & Anr.
and was of human origin. Thus, the blood noted on clothes of complainant Fakre Alam (PW1) and accused is of the same group as that of injured. This evidence connect the accused with the offence and thus, corroborate the statement of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5.
15. Now the question arise about the offence which is committed in the case. The accused have been charged for the offence U/s 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC. To attract section 307 IPC the prosecution has to prove the presence of the intent or the knowledge of the accused to commit the offence of murder. The court has to consider whether the act committed, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in this section. So an intent coupled with some overt act would be sufficient to invoke the provision of section 307 IPC.
16. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Balram Bama Patil AIR 1983 SC 305 it was observed : "what the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate SC No. 81/10 19 State vs. Akil & Anr.
act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof in the court."
17. To attract section 307 IPC it is not necessary that the injury must be dangerous. The nature of injury may not be the deciding factor but it may be of considerable assistance to come to a finding as to the intention of the accused. The manner of commission of the offence, the weapon of offence used, the place of injury on the body and the surrounding circumstances are the real factors which are to be considered to arrive at a finding whether section 307 IPC is made out or not.
18. In the present case the accused demanded Rs 150/ from the injured and on his refusal he was caught by hands by one of the accused and the other took out a knife and stabbed him in the abdomen causing a grievous injury which PW14 Dr Dinesh Yadav considered sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This injury with knife is caused at vital part of body of Mohd Ubesh after making him immobile as the accused Rajesh had caught hold his hands. Therefore, the manner of the commission of the offence and other such factors leaves no room for doubt that section 307 IPC is attracted in the case.
SC No. 81/10 20
State vs. Akil & Anr.
19. The argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecution case becomes doubtful as there is confusion about the place of occurrence is devoid of any merit. PW2 has categorically mentioned his address in examination in chief as AII/264. PW3 Smt Firdosh who has also given her address as AII/264, Madangir deposed that she had heard the noise outside her house and when came out she saw the incident. PW6 Ct Purshottam who was a member of the Crime Team had taken the photograph of the scene of occurrence at AII/264, Madangir. The Investigating Officer has prepared the site plan and has shown House No. 264 as well as House No. A183 and has specifically pointed out the place at point A where the incident took place which fall in front of House No. AII/264.
20. The argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused that the Investigating Officer did not state to whom the seal was handed over after sealing the pullanda is also not sustainable because the seizure memo of these pullandas i.e Ex. PW9/B, Ex. PW8/B, Ex. PW9/C and Ex. PW1/B dated 25.07.2010 clearly mention that the seal after use was handed over to Ct Dharamvir.
SC No. 81/10 21
State vs. Akil & Anr.
21. So far as the argument of not joining of the public witness at the time of the recovery of knife is concerned, it also does not help the accused. The recovery of the knife was effected from the house of Smt Nafisa (PW8) who happens to be the sister of accused Akil. She was also made a witness to the recovery, although she did not support the prosecution case when she came in the witness box.
22. The defence taken by the accused persons that there was a motive for false implication also lack the strength. No one can believe the theory that a person would suffer such a serious injury in the abdomen which had the capacity to cause his death just to falsely implicate a person. The ocular evidence of the witnesses supported by the medical evidence and the scientific evidence has not left any room for doubt that the accused were the perpetrator of the crime. Hence, both the accused are held guilty for the offence U/s 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC and convicted accordingly.
Announced in open court (AJAY KUMAR KUHAR)
Dated: 29th September, 2011 Addl. Sessions Judge02: South East
Saket Court: New Delhi
SC No. 81/10 22