Delhi District Court
State vs Dharam Singh@Billa on 23 December, 2023
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT) TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-008535-2016
Sessions Case No. 58186/2016
FIR No. 331/2016
PS: Anand Parbat
U/s 302 IPC
State Vs. Dharam Singh @ Billa
a) Date of commission of offence : 15/07/2016
b) Name of the complainant : Smt. Prakash Kaur
W/o Sh. Laabh Singh
c) Name of accused and address : Dharam Singh @ Billa
S/o Late Joginder Singh
R/o H.No. T-85, Near Holy Chowk,
Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi
d) Offence complained of : u/s. 302 IPC
e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f) Final order : CONVICTED
Date of institution of the case : 10/10/2016
Date of committal : 04/11/2016
Date on which judgment was : 07/12/2023
reserved
Date of judgment : 23/12/2023
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23
16:11:21
+0530
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.1 of 71
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 15/07/2016 at 10:00 AM, in the street in-front of H.No.A-74, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Anand Parbat, accused Dharam Singh @ Billa had committed the murder of Sh. Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju by repeatedly hitting his head and other parts of his body with iron pipe.
REGISTRATION OF FIR, INVESTIGATION AND CHARGE-
SHEET
2. In the present case, on the complaint of the complainant Smt. Prakash Kaur, FIR bearing No. 331/2016, Police Station Anand Parbat, U/s. 307 IPC was got registered by the Police of Police Station Anand Parbat. After registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated by the police and on completion of the investigation, the present charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Ld. Duty MM on 10/10/2016 for trial of the Digitally signed by VIJAY accused Dharam Singh @ Billa. VIJAY SHANKAR Date: SHANKAR 2023.12.23 16:11:30 +0530 FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.2 of 71 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa COGNIZANCE
3. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Ld. ACMM vide order dated 13/10/2016.
SUPPLY OF COPIES AND COMMITTAL
4. Copies of the charge-sheet were supplied to the accused Dharam Singh @ Billa in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, vide order dated 26/10/2016 passed by the Ld. ACMM, the present case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
CHARGE
5. Finding a prima-facie case against the accused Dharam Singh @ Billa, charge for the offence u/s. 302 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. Prosecution was then called upon to substantiate its case by examining its witnesses. The prosecution in support of its case had examined 22 witnesses. The prosecution had examined the following Digitally signed by VIJAY witnesses:- VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:11:40 +0530 FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.3 of 71 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa (1) PW-1 Smt. Prakash Kaur (2) PW-2 Sh. Kartar Singh (3) PW-3 HC Ramesh Chand (4) PW-4 HC Ashok (5) PW-5 Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur (6) PW-6 HC Damodar (7) PW-7 Sh. Labh Singh @ Chamkila (8) PW-8 Dr. Himanshu Aggarwal, PG Resident, Department of General Surgery, Dr. RML Hospital, New Delhi (9) PW-9 Ct. Vicky (10) PW-10 Dr. Rishi Solanki, Senior Resident, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi.
(11) PW-11 Ms. Shazia @ Ashu (12) PW-12 HC Harish Chand (13) PW-13 HC Anand (14) PW-14 SI Manish Kumar (15) PW-15 Retired SI Karan Pal (16) PW-16 Ct. Ajay (17) PW-17 Sh. Vivek Kumar, Junior Forensic/Assistant Chemical FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.4 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:11:49 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa Examiner (DOC), FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
(18) PW-18 Sh. Manoj Sharma (19) PW-19 Sh. Roshan Vajpayee (20) PW-20 ASI Raj Kumar (21) PW-21 Inspector Darshan Lal (22) PW-22 Dr. Ruchi Sharma, Jr. Forensic Chemical Examiner (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION
7. (1) Statement of the complainant Ex.PW-1/A (2) 15 photographs prepared from the CCTV footage Ex.PW-1/B1 to Ex.PW-1/B15 (3) Seizure memo of the photographs Ex.PW-1/C (4) Seizure memo of the sealed envelope and sample seal Ex.PW-3/A (5) Seizure memo of the exhibits lifted from the spot Ex.PW-4/A (6) Copy of NCR dated 02/06/2014 as well as MLC of Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur Mark-A (colly) FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.5 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:12:12 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa (7) Copy of FSL acknowledgment Mark-PW-6/A (8) Statement of Sh. Labh Singh Ex.PW-7/A (9) Receipt of handing over of dead body Ex.PW-7/B (10) MLC of Sukhvinder Singh Ex.PW-8/A (11) Postmortem report Ex.PW-10/A (12) Diagram sheet mentioning the relative position of the injuries by their specific numbers mentioned in PM report Ex.PW-10/B (13) Subsequent opinion Ex.PW-10/C (14) NCR No. 614/14 dated 02/06/2014 Ex.PW-12/A (15) Photocopy of FSL acknowledgment Mark-PW-13/A (16) Arrest memo of the accused Ex.PW-14/A (17) Personal search memo of the accused Ex.PW-14/B (18) Disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW-14/C (19) Pointing out memo of place of occurrence Ex.PW-14/D (20) Seizure memo of clothes in a sealed pullanda Ex.PW-15/A (21) Rukka Ex.PW-15/B (22) Site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PW-15/C (23) Seizure memo of hard disk Ex.PW-16/A (24) Seizure memo of NCR and MLC Ex.PW-16/B FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.6 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23
16:12:20
+0530
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
(25) FSL report dated 29/05/2017 in respect of hard disc Ex.PW-17/A (26) Certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act of photographs Ex.PW-18/A (27) Copy of cash memo/ retail invoice of hard disc Mark-PW-19/A (28) Certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act with regard to hard disk of DVR Ex.PW-19/A (29) Certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act Ex.PW-19/B with regard to transfer of CCTV footage in the mobile phone of mother of accused (30) Entry at Serial No.2572 in Register No.19 Ex.PW-20/A (31) Entry at Serial No.2573 in Register No.19 Ex.PW-20/B (32) Entry at Serial No.2580 in Register No.19 Ex.PW-20/C (33) Entry at Serial No.2887 in Register No.19 Ex.PW-20/D (34) Entry of RC No. 68/21/16 in Register No.19 Ex.PW-20/E (35) Copy of acknowledgment Ex.PW-20/F (36) Statement of Balvinder Singh Ex.PW-21/A (37) Request paper regarding postmortem of deceased Ex.PW-21/B (38) Application for filing FSL result Ex.PW-21/C (39) Detailed FSL report Ex.PW-22/A FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.7 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23 16:12:27 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa It is pertinent to mention here that on 16/08/2017, statement of counsel for the accused was recorded wherein he admitted the genuineness and correctness of the following documents:-
(1) FIR No. 331/2016 dated 15/07/2016 with certificate u/s. 65-B of Evidence Act Ex.PX-1 (collectively). (2) Scaled site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PX-2. (3) 12 photographs of the spot Ex.PX-3 (collectively). (4) Crime Team Visit Report dated 15/07/2016 Ex.PX-4. (5) DD No.13A dated 15/07/2016 Ex.PX-5.
(6) DD No.14A dated 15/07/2016 Ex.PX-6.
(7) DD No.19A dated 15/07/2016 Ex.PX-7.
(8) PCR form dated 15/07/2016 with certificate under Section 65 of the Evidence Act Ex.PX-8 (collectively).
Apart from aforesaid documentary evidence, the prosecution has also relied upon the other evidence (case property) i.e. iron pipe Ex.P-1, blood in gauze Ex.P-2, blood stained earth control Ex.P-3, hair strands Ex.P-4 (colly), earth control Ex.P-5, blood stained shirt and pant of deceased Ex.P-6 (colly), hard disc drive Ex.P-6, three blood stained FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.8 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:12:35 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa dupattas and one blood stained shawl Ex.P-7 (colly), blood in gauze of deceased, one cut cloth and slip of FSL Ex.P-8 and few hairs of deceased, one cut cloth and slip of FSL Ex.P-9 (colly).
It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case, blood stained clothes of the deceased had been exhibited as Ex.P-6 (colly) and hard disk had also been exhibited as Ex.P-6. In view of the same, hereinafter, aforesaid hard disk shall be read as Ex.P-6A.
8. TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
(i) PW-1 in her testimony had deposed that prior to her marriage with Sh. Labh Singh, she was married to Sh. Joginder Singh. She had two sons namely, Dharam Singh @ Billa and Manjeet Kaur @ Laddi from the first marriage. About 35 years back Sh. Joginder Singh expired and she got married to his cousin brother namely, Labh Singh. She has three children namely, Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju, Balwinder Singh @ Soni and Nirmal Kaur from the second marriage. Dharam Singh and Manjeet Kaur were got married. Accused Dharam Singh was married to Sukhvinder Kaur and they were living at Village Jharoda. Dharam Singh used to harass Sukhvinder FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.9 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:12:41 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa Kaur. About two years back accused Dharam Singh remarried with a girl namely, Ashu and he turned out Sukhvinder Kaur from the matrimonial house. Sukhvinder Kaur came at her house and started residing there. Sukhvinder was having two children from marriage with accused Dharam Singh. During stay of Sukhvinder at her house, she started residing with her son Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju. She had no objection to their living together so that the children of Sukhvinder Kaur could be brought up under the parentage of her other son namely, Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju. Sukhvinder Singh was an auto driver and he was earning member in her family. Whenever accused Dharam Singh used to come to her house, he used to quarrel with them and used to say that he will kill her as well as Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju. On 15/07/2016, at about 10:00 AM when Sukhvinder Singh proceeded towards the TSR for taking the same, accused Dharam Singh came out from the TSR. He was having an iron pipe in his hand. When Sukhvinder Singh was in the process of keeping the stepney inside the TSR, accused Dharam Singh hit the iron pipe on the backside of his head. Thereafter, he hit the iron pipe on the shoulder of Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju. He gave multiple blows of iron pipe to Raju despite of the fact that Raju had fallen on the ground. He became unconscious due to the beatings.
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.10 of 71
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23
16:12:48 +0530
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
She was crying 'Bachao Bachao' in loud voice. Accused Dharam Singh @ Billa ran away from the said place throwing the iron pipe on the ground. She, with the help of public person and Sukhvinder Kaur took Sukhvinder Singh to RML hospital. In the meantime, she had also informed the police about the incident, but the police officials asked them to take injured to the hospital and they will follow. Police came at the hospital and recorded her statement Ex.PW-1/A. At the RML hospital, Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju had expired. On the same day, she was called by the police at PS Anand Parbat. Accused Dharam Singh @ Billa was present in the PS. She identified him before the police. She also informed the police that yesterday also i.e. on 14/07/2016, Billa had come to their house and a quarrel had taken place between him and Raju and matter was pacified by her brother. On that day also, Dharam Singh had run behind Raju to kill him but Raju had run away and had saved himself.
PW-1 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(ii) PW-2 in his testimony had deposed that on 14/07/2016 at about 10-10:30 PM, while he was going from his house for having a night walk after dinner, he met accused Dharam Singh and Sukhvinder Singh FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.11 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23
16:12:55
+0530
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
(deceased) on the way. Both of them were quarreling with each other. He separated them and thereafter both of them went away from there. On the next day, he came to know that Sukhvinder has been murdered. Police recorded his statement on 01/08/2016.
Permission was granted to the Addl. PP for the State to put leading questions to the witness.
PW-2 in his testimony had further deposed that during the quarrel, accused Dharam Singh @ Billa was threatening deceased Sukhvinder @ Raju that he has kept his wife and children with him and has caused dishonour to him for which he will not spare him and will finish him. Accused Dharam Singh was under the influence of liquor at that time.
PW-2 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused. PW-2 was also re-examined by Addl. PP for the State.
(iii) PW-3 in his testimony had deposed that on 15/07/2016, he was directed by the SHO to remain present at mortuary of RML hospital for safeguard of dead body of deceased Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju which was preserved in the mortuary. On 16/07/2016, on the direction of the IO of this case, the dead body was taken to the mortuary of MAMC for postmortem FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.12 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23 16:13:04 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa examination. IO prepared the inquest documents at MAMC mortuary. After identification statements regarding the deceased, the postmortem was conducted. After the postmortem examination, the concerned Medical Officer handed over one sealed envelope with sample seal to the IO which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW-3/A. PW-3 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(iv) PW-4 in his testimony had deposed that on 15/07/2016, he joined the investigation with SI K.P. Singh.
PW-4 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(v) PW-5 in her testimony had deposed that previously she was residing at House No. T-85, near Holy Chowk, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar at the house of her mother-in-law. She got married to the accused Dharam Singh in the year 2002 and has two children from the wedlock. From the last 2-3 years of the incident, there used to be much quarrel between her and the accused Dharam Singh. Accused Dharam Singh used to harass her and commit cruelty upon her. She had made a complaint to the police at PS Burari as well as at CAW Cell against the accused. She had given the copy of one NCR dated 02/06/2014 as well as of her MLC to the IO of this case, FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.13 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:13:23 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa during her statement. Accused Dharam Singh started living with another woman namely Ashu. There used to be quarrel between her and the accused Dharam Singh about this fact. Accused had turned her out from his house in mid night with one of her child. Firstly, she went to her parental house but her parents were not in a good financial condition to maintain her and her child and therefore, she went to the house of her mother-in-law and started living there. After living with her mother- in-law for some time, she took a room on rent and started living there with her son. After 3-4 months, she told her mother-in-law about her bad financial condition. At that time Sukhwinder Singh @ Raju (since deceased) started helping her by giving some money off and on. At that time, she asked her mother-in-law about accused Dharam Singh and her condition on which her mother-in-law stated that when Dharam Singh is already residing with another woman, she should also settle down with Sukhwinder Singh @ Raju. Thereafter, she and Sukhwinder Singh @ Raju started living together. Accused Dharam Singh got annoyed and he used to visit house of her mother-in-law and used to object to the living together of her and Sukhwinder Singh @ Raju. He used to give beatings to her as well as to her mother-in-law on this issue. He had thrown away her younger son to the house of her mother-in-law out of FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.14 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date: SHANKAR 2023.12.23 16:13:29 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa anger. She took her younger son to her rented accommodation where she was living with Sukhwinder Singh @ Raju. She was living a happy life with Sukhwinder Singh @ Raju in the rented accommodation. On 14/07/2016 at about 10:00 PM, a quarrel had taken place between Raju and accused Dharam Singh in presence of her Mama Sasur namely Sh. Kartar Singh. This fact was told by Raju @ Sukhwinder Singh to her when he came home on the said day i.e. on 14/07/2016. On 15/07/2016, it was Friday, at about 9:30 AM, her sister-in-law came to her house and stated loudly from down stairs that Dharam Singh @ Billa has given iron pipe blows on the head of Raju @ Sukhwinder Singh and he is heavily bleeding. She immediately went to Holy Chowk and saw that Sukhwinder Singh lying in badly injured condition. Her mother-in-law was crying in loud voice and was saying that Billa had run away after giving injury to Sukhwinder Singh. One iron pipe was also lying there near Sukhwinder Singh at some distance. Some TSRs were also there including TSR of Sukhwinder Singh. Sukhwinder Singh had gone to the said place in order to take out his TSR for plying it on road. They took Sukhwinder Singh to RML Hospital in a TSR where he was declared dead. On 01/08/2016, she had gone to PS Anand Parbat where she had given the NCR/MLC etc. to IO of this case, which was seized by the IO FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.15 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:13:36 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa and IO had recorded her statement on the said day.
PW-5 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(vi) PW-6 in his testimony had deposed that on 22/08/2016, on the direction of IO, he had gone to MAMC for collecting the postmortem report of deceased Sukhvinder Singh. He collected the postmortem report from the department of Forensic Department and took the same to police station Anand Parbat. He handed over the said report to the IO on the same day. He further deposed that on 19/09/2016 and 23/09/2016, he joined the investigation of the present case.
Permission was granted to the Addl. PP for the State to put leading questions to the witness.
PW-6 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(vii) PW-7 in his testimony had deposed that he is a TSR driver and name of his wife is Prakash Kaur. Prior to marriage of Prakash Kaur with him, she had married to son of his Phupha and two children namely, Manjeet Kaur and Dharam Singh were born out of the said wedlock. After accidental death of first husband of Prakash Kaur, she got married with him.
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.16 of 71
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY
Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23
16:13:43
+0530
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
Out of the wedlock of Prakash Kaur with him, three children were born to them namely, Sukhvinder Singh, Balvinder Singh and Nirmal Kaur. Dharam Singh, was got married to Sukhvinder Kaur about 15-16 years back. Dharam Singh used to reside with Sukhvinder Kaur at a rented accommodation in Burari. There are two sons of accused Dharam Singh. Accused Dharam Singh started residing with another woman namely Ashu and due to this, Sukhvinder Kaur started residing with them at Baljeet Nagar. During this period, Sukhvinder Kaur and Sukhvinder Singh started residing together as husband & wife. Accused Dharam Singh started making threats by coming to their house on coming to know about this fact. He was not aware that due to this reason Dharam Singh would kill Sukhvinder Singh. On 15/07/2016, accused Dharam Singh killed Sukhvinder Singh. His wife Prakash Kaur told him this fact as she had witnessed the said incident. His wife Prakash Kaur and Sukhvinder Kaur had taken Sukhvinder Singh to RML hospital from the place of occurrence. He also reached RML hospital later on, on coming to know about the incident. Sukhvinder Singh expired at RML hospital. On the next day i.e. on 16/07/2016, he identified the dead body of Sukhvinder Singh in the mortuary of MAMC and his statement Ex.PW-7/A to this effect was recorded. After the postmortem examination FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.17 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date: 2023.12.23 16:13:50 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa of Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju, the dead body was handed over to them vide receipt Ex.PW-7/B. Brother of Prakash Kaur namely, Kartar Singh had told him that one day prior to the incident, a quarrel had taken place between deceased Sukhvinder Singh and accused Dharam Singh in which accused Dharam Singh had raised threats to Sukhvinder Singh and Kartar Singh had separated them during the quarrel.
PW-7 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(viii) PW-8 in his testimony had deposed that on 15/07/2016, vide MLC No.E/156772/16, he had medically examined an injured Sukhvinder Singh at about 10:35 AM who was brought by his mother namely, Prakash Kaur with a history of receiving injury by assault by someone around one hour back. He prepared his MLC Ex.PW-8/A. The patient was shifted to Trauma Resuscitation room and his wearing clothes were collected, sealed with the seal of hospital and handed over to the IO.
PW-8 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(ix) PW-9 in his testimony had deposed that on 15/07/2016, at about 10:30 AM, an injured namely Sukhvinder Singh was brought by his FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.18 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date: 2023.12.23 16:13:57 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa mother Smt. Prakash Kaur vide MLC No.E/156772/16. He gave information of admission of said injured to PS Anand Parbat. On the same day, at about 5:00 PM, he had informed PS Anand Parbat by telephone that the said injured Sukhvir Singh got expired at 3:22 PM during treatment in RML hospital.
PW-9 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(x) PW-10 in his testimony had deposed that on 16/07/2016, at about 12:40 PM vide postmortem examination report No.693/2016, he had performed autopsy on the dead body of deceased Mr. Sukhvinder Singh on the request of the IO Inspector Darshan Lal of PS Anand Parbat. The dead body was duly identified and was accompanying eight inquest documents. He had mentioned all the external and internal injuries found on the dead body of deceased in the postmortem report Ex.PW-10/A. In his opinion, death was a result of brain damage due to blunt force trauma to the head via injury no. 1 to 10 which were collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, consistent with being fresh in duration prior to death and caused by blunt force. After the postmortem examination, the dead body alongwith sealed FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.19 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:14:04 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa sample of dried blood on gauze, sample seal and sealed sample of scalp hair for cross matching with weapon with sample seal were handed over to the IO. The diagram sheet mentioning the relative position of the injuries by their specific numbers mentioned in the PM report is Ex.PW-10/B. Vide the letter of SHO dated 26/08/2016, received in their office on 27/08/2016, which was connected to the postmortem report no. 693/16 dated 16/07/2016 alongwith a sealed parcel sealed with the seal of APVRT-II, he had given the subsequent opinion Ex.PW-10/C in relation to the article examined. On opening the parcel, it was found containing one metallic hollow pipe with bluish green paint on it at places. There were reddish brown stains which may be of blood at the one of its end. He examined the said article and came to the conclusion that the injury no. 1 to 18 except injury no.11 on the body of deceased were possible by the said weapon examined or similar to it. He had prepared the sketch of the pipe and mentioned its measurements in the said report. The weapon of offence was sealed with his seal and was given to the IO alongwith sample seal.
PW-10 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xi) PW-11 in her testimony had deposed that she work as private
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.20 of 71
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23
16:14:10 +0530
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
Nurse and look after the patients at their houses. Previously, she was residing at Patel Nagar in a rented accommodation with her husband. She was living separately from her husband since last five years. She was knowing Laadi, sister of accused Dharam Singh @ Billa, who was residing at Patel Nagar near her house. She came to know accused Dharam Singh @ Billa being friend of Laadi. Accused Dharam Singh @ Billa asked her to marry him but she told him that as she had not obtained divorce from her husband and he had also not taken divorce from his wife, they cannot marry.
Accused had asked her for marriage as his wife had left him and was residing with his brother. Accused Dharam Singh @ Billa used to stay at her house occasionally. About six months prior to murder of brother of accused Dharam Singh @ Billa, he had stopped visiting her house. On 15.07.2016 police had come to her house alongwith sister of accused Dharam Singh @ Billa in his search. Police had made enquiries from her and had recorded her statement in the police station Anand Parbat.
PW-11 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xii) PW-12 in his testimony had deposed that as per record, one NCR No. 614/14 dated 02/06/2014 Ex. PW12/A was registered under FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.21 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23
16:14:18
+0530
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
Section 323 IPC at PS Burari on the complaint of one Sukhvinder Kaur W/o Dharam Singh.
PW-12 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xiii) PW-13 in his testimony had deposed that on 26/08/2016, vide RC No. 54/21/16, he had taken weapon of offence in sealed condition from MHC(M) of PS Anand Parbat for subsequent opinion from MAMC, department of forensic medicine. He deposited the said sealed iron pipe in the department of forensic medicine of MAMC and took the received RC to Malkhana of PS Anand Parbat and handed over the said received RC to the MHC(M). During the period, the sealed pullanda remained in his possession all the seals had remained intact and no tampering was effected by anyone in any manner to the same. On 01/03/2017, he had again joined the investigation of the present case.
PW-13 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xiv) PW-14 in his testimony had deposed that on 15/07/2016, he joined the investigation of the present case with IO Inspector Darshan Lal.
PW-14 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.22 of 71
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23
16:14:26
+0530
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
(xv) PW-15 in his testimony had deposed that on 15/07/2016, DD
NO.13-A Ex.PX-5 regarding quarrel was received by him for enquiry. He alongwith Ct. Ashok proceeded to the spot i.e. Holi Chowk, Baljeet Nagar. An injured male person was found lying at the spot and blood was oozing from his head. At some distance from the said injured, one iron pipe was also lying. He directed the family members of the said injured to immediately take him to the RML hospital through TSR. He informed SHO regarding the facts and asked him to inform the crime team for inspection of the spot. SHO Inspector Sehdev Singh Rana alongwith ATO Inspector Darshan Lal came at the spot. He received telephone call from the duty officer of PS Anand Parbat whereby he informed him that injured namely Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju had been taken to RML hospital. He left Ct. Ashok at the spot and proceeded to the RML hospital. He obtained MLC of Injured Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju from RML hospital. The examining doctor handed over him the wearing clothes of injured Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju in a sealed pullanda duly sealed with the seal of CMO DR RML HOSPITAL ND. He seized the said pullanda alongwith the sample seal vide seizure memo Ex.PW-15/A. Mother of said injured namely, Prakash Kaur was also present in the hospital. Injured was found unfit for the statement.
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.23 of 71
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23
16:14:32
+0530
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
On enquiry, Prakash Kaur was found to be eye-witness of the occurrence. He recorded her statement Ex.PW-1/A. Thereafter, he went back to the spot. From the statement of the complainant Smt. Prakash Kaur and perusal of the spot, he prepared rukka Ex.PW-15/B for registration of FIR under Section 307 IPC and gave the rukka to Ct. Ashok with direction to get the FIR registered at PS Anand Parbat. Ct. Ashok left the spot with rukka to police station. Mobile crime team came at the spot and inspected the place of occurrence. The photographer of the mobile crime team took the photographs of the spot. As pointed out by the mobile crime team, the blood on gauze from the blood lying at the spot was taken. The said blood gauze piece was kept inside a plastic container, which was closed with the help of lid and doctor's tape. The said container was kept inside cloth pullanda and was sealed with the seal of APRVT-II. He gave serial no.1 to the said pullanda. Blood stained earth control from the spot was kept inside a plastic container, which was closed with the help of lid and doctor's tape. The said container was kept inside cloth pullanda and was sealed with the seal of APRVT-II and he gave serial no.2 to the said pullanda. At the spot, some hair were lying and the same were kept inside a plastic container, which was closed with the help of lid and doctor's tape. The said container was kept FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.24 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:14:40 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa inside cloth pullanda and was sealed with the seal of APRVT-II and he gave serial no.3 to the said pullanda. From the spot, plain earth control was also taken and was kept inside a plastic container, which was closed with the help of lid and doctor's tape. The said container was kept inside cloth pullanda and was sealed with the seal of APRVT-II and he gave serial no. 4 to the said pullanda. The blood stained pipe found at the spot was measured and its length was found 31.5 inch whereas its circumference was found to be 4 inch diameter. The said pipe was kept inside cloth pullanda which was sealed with the seal of APRVT-II. Ct. Ashok returned to the spot alongwith the copy of FIR no. 331/16 u/s 307 IPC and gave the same to him with the original rukka. He seized all the above-said exhibits vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/A. The crime team Incharge handed over him the scene of crime report Ex.PX-4 and he kept the same on record. He recorded the statements of In-charge of mobile crime team and photographer and relieved them from the spot. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW-15/C of the place of occurrence. He made search for eye-witness at the spot but none could be found. Thereafter, he searched for the accused named in the FIR but he was also not found. He alongwith Ct. Ashok went back to the police station. He deposited all the pullandas in the malkhana of PS Anand Parbat. He FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.25 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date: 2023.12.23 16:14:49 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa recorded statement of Ct. Ashok under Section 161 Cr.P.C and relieved him from the investigation of the case. Vide DD no.19-A, information regarding death of injured Sukhvinder Singh, during his medical treatment at the hospital, was received in the police station from the RML hospital. He discussed the matter with the SHO and added Section 302 IPC in the case. On the direction of SHO, further investigation of the case was marked to Inspector Darshan Lal and he handed the case file to him for further investigation.
PW-15 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused. (xvi) PW-16 in his testimony had deposed that on 01/08/2016, he had joined the investigation of the present case with IO/Inspector Darshan Lal.
PW-16 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused. (xvii) PW-17 in his testimony had deposed that on 01/03/2017, one sealed parcel was received in FSL in connection with Case FIR No. 331/2016 u/s 302 IPC of PS Anand Parbat. He had examined the contents of the said cloth parcel which was containing one western Digital made hard FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.26 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23 16:14:58 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa disc drive of capacity of one TB. The requisite data could not be retrieved from the said hard disc in absence of the original DVR. He prepared his report Ex.PW-17/A in this regard on 29/05/2017. The said hard disc was sent to PS Anand Parbat after re-sealing with the seal of FSL V: K DELHI.
PW-17 was not cross-examined by counsel for the accused despite opportunity.
(xviii) PW-18 in his testimony had deposed that he has a photography studio in the name and style of Om Digital Studio. In the month of October, 2017, an old aged woman had come to his photo studio and had given her mobile phone and asked him to prepare photographs from the said mobile phone with regard to one CCTV recording/ film contained in the said mobile phone. He checked the mobile phone which was containing a memory card having the said recording of CCTV. He prepared 15 photographs Ex.PW-1/B1 to Ex.PW-1/B15 and had taken amount of Rs.600/- from the said lady as consideration. He had handed over the memory card and mobile phone to the said lady and his certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act with regard to aforesaid photographs is Ex.PW-18/A. PW-18 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.27 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:15:06 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa (xix) PW-19 in his testimony had deposed that he had installed four CCTV cameras at the corner of their street and at the main gate of his house. On 15/07/2016, police had come to his house and made enquiry from him regarding the CCTV camera installed at the corner of the street. Police asked him to run the CCTV footage of 15/07/2016. He had shown the said CCTV footage to the police. The accused namely Billa was seen in the said CCTV footage having iron rod in his hand and moving it downwards (niche ki taraf chala raha tha). After seeing the CCTV footage, police had left from there. Mother of Billa had come to his house in his absence for 2-3 days and had asked to show the CCTV footage. On 18/07/2016, she came to his house in his presence and requested him to show the CCTV footage. He asked her to bring her mobile phone so that he could transfer the CCTV footage in her mobile phone. She brought a mobile phone in which he transferred the CCTV footage and gave it back to her. After some days, police officials came to his house and asked for producing the hard disk of the CCTV camera in question. He had handed over the said hard disk to the police which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-16/A after putting into envelop and sealing the same. He had also handed over photocopy of the cash memo /retail invoice Mark-PW-19/A of the said hard disk and had FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.28 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:15:13 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa given the certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act Ex.PW-19/A with regard to the said hard disc of his DVR to the police, on their request. In the month of September, he was called by the police in police station Anand Parbat and police made enquiry from him regarding CCTV footage in question and hard disc of his DVR. He was shown photographs of the CCTV footage, which he had transferred on the mobile phone of mother of accused Billa. Police had asked from him to hand over the DVR from which he had given the hard disc to the police previously. He was not able to produce the said DVR to the police as after handing over the hard disc of his DVR, the DVR had stopped working properly due to which he had replaced the DVR. The said DVR from which he had given the hard disc to the police had got misplaced during the white wash in his house. He had handed over his certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act Ex.PW-19/B with regard to transfer of the CCTV footage in question in the mobile phone of mother of accused Billa to the police. His DVR system was running properly at the time of transfer of CCTV footage in the mobile phone of mother of accused Billa through his television set on which the said footage was being run.
PW-19 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused. Digitally signed by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:15:24 +0530 FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.29 of 71 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa (xx) PW-20 in his testimony had deposed that on 15/07/2016, he was working as MHC (M) and on that day, IO SI K.P Singh had deposited four pullandas sealed with the seal and on 16/07/2016, IO Inspector Darshan Lal had deposited two sealed envelopes and sample seal sealed with the seal of MAMC and on 01/08/2016, IO Inspector Darshan Lal had deposited Hard Disk in a pullanda sealed with the seal in the Malkhana and he made the relevant entries in this regard in the register no.19. On 23/09/2016, eight sealed pullandas/exhibits and two sample seals were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Damodar on the instruction of IO and after depositing the same in the FSL Rohini, Ct. Damodar handed over him the acknowledgement of case acceptance. On 23/02/2017 the FSL result was received and same was handed over to IO. The case property/exhibits as long as in his possession, the same were not tampered with any manner or allowed to be tampered, were remained intact and his statement was recorded by the IO.
PW-20 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused. (xxi) PW-21 in his testimony had deposed that on 15/07/2016, on receipt of DD No.19-A regarding the death of Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju in FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.30 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:15:33 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa RML hospital, the present case was marked to him for further investigation as offence u/s 302 IPC was added in the present case. After receiving the case file, he had gone through it. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Manish, Ct. Ajay left the police station in search of accused Dharam Singh @ Billa in the area of PS Anand Parbat. Simultaneously, SHO had deputed 2-3 other teams in the area in search of accused. At about 7:00 PM, when they reached in the corner of Gali no. 4/10, New Rohtak Road near Kamal T- point one secret informer met him and informed that the wanted person in this case was seen near Karol Bagh and was coming towards the Rohatak Road side, if raided, he can be apprehended. On receiving that information, he requested 3-4 passersby to join the raiding team for investigation but none agreed and left away from spot without telling their name and address as they showed their inability. In the meanwhile, the secret informer pointed towards one person who was coming from the side of Karol Bagh and told them that he is the same wanted person. Thereafter, he with the help of SI Manish apprehended the said person, who on interrogation, disclosed his name as Dharam Singh @ Billa. Accused Dharam Singh @ Billa was arrested and his personal search was also conducted and his disclosure statement was also recorded. Thereafter, accused took him and SI Manish to FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.31 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23 16:15:45 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa the place of occurrence i.e. opposite house no. A-74, near Holy Chowk, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi and he pointed out the place of occurrence near the abovesaid house and informed that he had hit Sukhvinder with iron pipe at the said place. He prepared the pointing out memo. They took the accused to the PS and after his medical examination, lodged him in lock up. He recorded the statement of witnesses. On 16/07/2016, he reached RML Hospital and collected death summary of the deceased Sukhvinder Singh. He shifted the dead body to MAMC Mortuary and thereafter, completed the inquest papers. He recorded the statement of father of deceased namely Labh Singh @ Chamkeela and brother Balvinder Singh regarding identification of dead body of deceased. After completing the inquest proceedings, he submitted the request paper to head of department of MAMC regarding postmortem of deceased. After postmortem, he handed over dead body to Labh Singh and Balvinder Singh. Thereafter, he seized exhibit handed over by the doctor. In the evening, he returned to the PS and recorded the statement of witnesses. Accused was produced before Hon'ble court on the next day and took his JC remand. He collected PCR form and certificate u/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act. On 01/08/2016, he alongwith Ct. Ajay reached at the house of Roshan Bajpai and seized dis WD1.OTB.
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.32 of 71
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23
16:15:53
+0530
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
He recorded the statement of Roshan Vajpai. He had also handed over him certificate u/s 65-B regarding hard disk of his DVR. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Ajay reached at PS. At the PS, wife of accused namely Sukvinder Kaur was present alongwith her maternal uncle Kartar Singh. She produced copy of NCR no. 614/14 dated 02/06/2014 u/s 323 IPC PS Burari alongwith copy of MLC no. 1614/14 of Aruna Asif Ali Government Hospital and same were seized. Thereafter, he recorded statement of Sukhvinder Kaur, Kartar Singh and Ct. Ajay u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he collected PM report and obtained subsequent opinion on the weapon of offence. After that, he sent the exhibits to FSL and recorded statements of remaining witnesses. During investigation, the scaled site plan was got prepared of the place of occurrence through Inspector Manohar Lal (draftsman). On 26/08/2016, he moved an application at Maulana Azad Medical College with the sealed pullanda of the weapon of offence i.e., iron pipe for seeking the subsequent opinion and accordingly the doctor concerned gave the opinion in this regard. On 23/09/2016, the exhibits were sent to FSL. Rohini through Ct. Damodar for seeking the expert opinion. He recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, charge- sheet was prepared under the supervision of SHO concerned. By the time of FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.33 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:16:00 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa filing the charge-sheet in the court, the FSL result could not be collected as the same was not prepared. Later-on, the FSL result was collected and same was filed with the case file of present case. On 25/10/2017, he collected the photographs Ex.PW-1/B1 to Ex. PW-1/B15 of the place of occurrence from the complainant Smt. Prakash Kaur and he recorded the supplementary statement of complainant. On 02/11/2017, he recorded the statement of the photographer, who developed the above mentioned photographs. The photographer also issued the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act regarding developing the photographs from the memory card which was provided to him by the complainant. On 05/11/2017, he collected the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act from Sh. Roshan Vajpai in whose CCTV camera the incident was captured. In that regard, he recorded the supplementary statement of Sh. Roshan Vajpai. He also collected the result from FSL regarding the hard disk. Thereafter, the supplementary charge-sheet was prepared on 13/02/2018 and same was filed before the court alongwith the result of FSL and other documents which were collected by him after filing the main charge-sheet.
PW-21 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused. Digitally signed by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:16:09 +0530 FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.34 of 71 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa (xxii) PW-22 in her testimony had deposed that on 23/09/2016, eight sealed parcels in connection with case FIR of present case were received in the office of FSL and marked to her for examination. On biological examination blood was detected on exhibits '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6a', '6b', '6c', '6d', '6e', '6f, '7' and '8'. On serological examination human blood was detected on exhibits 1,3, 5, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 7 and 8. Human blood could not be determined on exhibits 2 and 4. Blood Group B was detected on exhibit 1, 6c and 7. Blood Group could not be determined on exhibits 3, 5, 6a, 6b, 6d, 6e, 6f and 8. On DNA examination, the alleles from source of exhibit-1 (gauze cloth piece taken from the spot), 3 (blood stained hair taken from the spot); 5 (blood stained iron pipe taken from the spot) were matching with alleles from source of exhibits 6c (dupatta of deceased) and 8 (blood stained hair of deceased). After examination the remnants of exhibits/ parcels were sealed with the seal of FSL DR.RS DELHI. Her detailed report is Ex. PW-22/A. PW-22 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.
9. Separate statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313 FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.35 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:16:24 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations against him and rebutted the prosecution evidence against him and claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It was also stated that he has no connection with the commission of the offence of the present case. It was also stated that after his mother had performed her second marriage and after the birth of the children out of the second marriage, his mother had love and affection towards the children born out of second marriage. It was also stated that his mother had no love and affection towards them after the birth of her children from her second wedlock. It was also stated that his mother was inclined to transfer the properties in favour of children born out of her second marriage and due to the said reason, there were quarrels between him and children of his mother out of her second marriage. It was also stated that after selling the aforesaid properties, his mother had kept the consideration amount and had not given any share to him or his sister. It was also stated that his mother had took his wife in confidence and his wife had developed relationship with deceased Sukhvinder Singh. It was also stated that he had objected to the said relations and many quarrels took place. It was also stated that after the death of Sukhvinder Singh, he had been falsely implicated in this case. It was also stated that when they FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.36 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:16:34 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa demanded the said share, his mother had falsely implicated him in this case as his wife Sukhvinder Kaur was under the control of his mother and that is why, his wife, mother and other relatives have deposed against him. It was also stated that he does not want to lead evidence in his defence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
10. In the present case, accused had not led defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. This Court heard the final arguments advanced by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the entire record including the testimonies on record.
During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution witnesses have duly supported the case of the prosecution and from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused be convicted for the offence as mentioned in the charge. On the other hand, during the course of final arguments, it FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.37 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:16:42 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa was submitted by counsel for the accused that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no incriminating evidence on record against the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused be acquitted in the present case.
In order to bring home conviction the prosecution has to show on record an unbroken chain of events leading to commission of actual offence. Further, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case in such a manner so as to bring it outside the pale of any reasonable doubt.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE
12. In the present case, charge for the offence u/s. 302 IPC was framed against the accused.
Section 302 IPC has prescribed the punishment for the offence of murder. The definition of murder is given u/s. 300 IPC. Section 300 IPC is reproduced as under:-
"300. Murder- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or-
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.38 of 71
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23
16:16:50
+0530
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
Secondly.- If it is done 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- Thirdly.-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-
Fourthly.- 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."
The essential Ingredients of the offence under section 302 IPC are as under:-
(i) Death of a human was being caused;
(ii) Such death was caused by or in consequence of
the act of the accused
(iii) Such act was done
(a) with the intention of causing death, or
(b) that the accused knew it to be likely to cause death, or
(c) that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.39 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:16:57 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
13. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra", {AIR 1984 SC 1622} that following conditions must be fulfilled for successful prosecution of the accused:-
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with 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 a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence 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".
14. Law relating to appreciation of evidence of the witnesses has been elaborated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Satish @ Bombaiya Vs. State", { 44 (1991) DLT 561} and it was held that :-
"........ While appreciating the evidence of a witness FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.40 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:17:05 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa approach must be whether the evidence of the witness, read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks, and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defense may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
15. Law relating to appreciation of ocular evidence has been FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.41 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:17:14 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa elaborated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as " Akbar & Anr. Vs. State", { 2009 Cri. L.J. 4199 } and it was held that :-
"49. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a Herculean task. There is no fixed or strait-jacket formula for appreciation of ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles regarding the appreciation of the ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:-
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.42 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23
16:17:21
+0530
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.43 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:17:28 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.44 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:17:36 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.
16. FINDINGS
(i) Testimony of complainant/eye-witness PW-1 is the complainant/eye-witness in the present case. PW-1 FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.45 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date: SHANKAR 2023.12.23 16:17:45 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa is the mother of the deceased and accused. PW-1 in her testimony has categorically, elaborately and graphically described as to how the offence of murder of the deceased Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju was committed by the accused at the relevant time, date and place. Complainant/PW-1 in her testimony had duly proved on record the complaint Ex.PW-1/A, on the basis of which, the present case FIR was got registered. The complainant/PW-1 in her complaint Ex.PW-1/A has specifically mentioned the name of the accused as assailant. The name of the accused has also been specifically mentioned in the FIR Ex.PX-1. The contents of Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PX-1 have been duly proved and corroborated by PW-1 and other prosecution witnesses.
It is pertinent to mention here that on 16/08/2017, genuineness and correctness of the FIR Ex.PX-1 was not disputed by counsel for the accused. Hence, genuineness and correctness of FIR of the present case was admitted by counsel for the accused. Hence, FIR of the present case has been proved on record by the prosecution.
PW-1 in her testimony had deposed that on 15/07/2016 at about 10:00 AM when Sukhvinder Singh proceeded towards the TSR for taking the same, accused Dharam Singh came out from the TSR and he was having FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.46 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:17:52 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa an iron pipe in his hand and when Sukhvinder Singh was in the process of keeping the stepney inside the TSR, accused Dharam Singh hit the iron pipe on the backside of his head and shoulder of Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju and he gave multiple blows of iron pipe to Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju despite of the fact that Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju had fallen on the ground. She further deposed that Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju became unconscious due to the beatings. She further deposed that she was crying 'Bachao Bachao' in loud voice and accused Dharam Singh @ Billa ran away from the said place after throwing the iron pipe on the ground. She further deposed that she, with the help of public person and Sukhvinder Kaur took Sukhvinder Singh to RML hospital where Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju had expired. She further deposed that she informed the police that on 14/07/2016, accused Dharam Singh @ Billa had come to their house and a quarrel had taken place between him and Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju and matter was pacified by her brother. She further deposed that on that day also, Dharam Singh @ Billa had run behind Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju to kill him but Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju had run away and had saved himself.
PW-1 has duly supported the case of prosecution. The testimony of PW-1 is also corroborated with the testimonies of other FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.47 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:18:00 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimony/version of PW-1/complainant/eye-witness. In the cross- examination of PW-1, no material contradiction/ inconsistency has been surfaced or pointed out except some minor ones which are but natural.
(ii) Testimonies of public witnesses PW-2, PW-5, PW-7, PW-11, PW-18 and PW-19 are the public witnesses in the present case.
PW-2 in his testimony had deposed that on 14/07/2016, he met accused Dharam Singh and deceased Sukhvinder Singh and both of them were quarreling with each other and he separated them and thereafter, both of them went away from there and on the next day, he came to know that Sukhvinder Singh has been murdered. PW-2 in his testimony had also deposed that during the quarrel, accused was threatening the deceased that he has kept his wife and children with him and has caused dishonor to him for which he will not spare him and will finish him.
PW-5 is the wife of the accused. PW-5 in her testimony had FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.48 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:18:08 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa deposed that on 14/07/2016, a quarrel had taken place between the accused Dharam Singh and deceased in the presence of her Mama Sasur Kartar Singh and the said fact was told by Sukhvinder Singh when he came to home on 14/07/2016. PW-5 in her testimony had also deposed that on 15/07/2016, her sister-in-law came to her house and stated loudly that accused had given iron pipe blows on the head of Sukhvinder Singh and he is heavily bleeding and she went to the Holy chowk and saw that Sukhvinder Singh was lying in injured condition and her mother-in-law was crying in loud voice and saying that accused had ran away after giving injury to Sukhvinder Singh. PW-5 also deposed that one iron pipe was also lying there near Sukhvinder Singh at some distance.
PW-7 is the father of the deceased and step father of the accused. PW-7 in his testimony had deposed that on 15/07/2016, accused had killed Sukhvinder Singh and his wife told him this fact as she had witnessed the said incident.
PW-11 in her testimony had deposed that accused asked her to marry but she refused and police had made the enquiry from her.
PW-18 in his testimony had deposed that he prepared the photographs from the mobile phone of the complainant. FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.49 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:18:16 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa PW-19 in his testimony had deposed that CCTV Cameras were installed at his house and he handed over the hard disc of the CCTV Camera to the police.
The testimonies of PW-2, PW-5, PW-7, PW-11, PW-18 and PW-19 are corroborated with the testimonies of PW-1 and other prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimonies/versions of PW-2, PW-5, PW-7, PW-11, PW-18 and PW-19. In the cross-examination of PW-2, PW-5, PW-7, PW-11, PW-18 and PW-19, no material contradiction/ inconsistency has been surfaced or pointed out except some minor ones which are but natural.
(iii) Identity of the accused PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, PW-7, PW-11, PW-14, PW-19 and PW-21 during the course of their testimonies had duly identified the accused. Accused/counsel had not put any question in the cross-examination of aforesaid witnesses to dispute the identity of the accused. Hence, identity of the accused is duly established by the prosecution. Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23
16:18:24
+0530
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.50 of 71
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
(iv) Presence of the accused
PW-1 in her testimony has specifically deposed that the accused was present at the place of incident at the relevant time and date. Accused/counsel had not put any question in the cross-examination of the PW-1 and other concerned prosecution witnesses to dispute the presence of the accused at the place of incident at the relevant time and date. Hence, presence of the accused at the place of the incident at the relevant time and date is duly established by the prosecution.
(v) Identity of the weapon of offence/case property It is the case of the prosecution that accused had committed the murder of Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju by giving repeated blows of iron pipe upon the head and other body parts of the deceased Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju and thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot after throwing the weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe at the spot, which was recovered from the spot. During the course of examination of PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, PW-15 and PW-22, weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe Ex.P-1 was produced. During the course of examination, PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, PW-15 and PW-22 had duly identified the weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe Ex.P-1. Accused/counsel had FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.51 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23
16:18:30
+0530
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
not put any question in the cross-examination of the PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, PW-15 and PW-22 to dispute the identity of the aforesaid weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe. Seizure memo of weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe Ex.PW-4/A has been duly proved on record by the prosecution. During the course of examination of concerned prosecution witnesses, the other case properties of the present case were also produced and the same had been duly identified by the concerned prosecution witnesses. Accused/counsel had not put any question in the cross-examination of the aforesaid concerned prosecution witnesses to dispute the identity of the other case properties. Hence, identity of weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe Ex.P-1 and other case properties have been duly established/proved by the prosecution.
(vi) Medical witness PW-8 is the medical witness, who medically examined the injured/deceased and prepared MLC Ex.PW-8/A. PW-10 is the medical witness, who conducted the postmortem upon the dead body of the deceased Sukhvinder Singh and prepared postmortem report Ex.PW-10/A and diagram sheet Ex.PW-10/B mentioning the relative position of the injuries by their specific numbers mentioned in FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.52 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:18:36 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa the postmortem report and subsequent opinion Ex.PW-10/C. PW-8 in his testimony had deposed that on 15/07/2016, he had medically examined injured Sukhvinder Singh who was brought by his mother with the history of assault and he prepared the MLC Ex.PW-8/A and the patient was shifted to Trauma Resuscitation Room.
PW-10 in his testimony had deposed that on 16/07/2016, he had performed autopsy on the dead body of deceased Sukhvinder Singh and he had mentioned all the external and internal injuries found on the dead body of deceased in the postmortem report Ex.PW-10/A. PW-10 in his testimony had also deposed that in his opinion, death was a result of brain damage due to blunt force trauma to the head via injury No.1 to 10 which were collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, consistent with being fresh in duration prior to death and caused by blunt force. PW-10 in his testimony had also proved on record the diagram sheet Ex.PW-10/B mentioning the relative position of the injuries by their specific numbers mentioned in the PM report. PW-10 in his testimony had also deposed that he had given the subsequent opinion Ex.PW-10/C in relation to the article examined and came to the conclusion that the injury no.1 to 18 except injury no.11 on the FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.53 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:18:46 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa body of deceased were possible by the said weapon examined or similar to it.
The testimony of PW-10 is corroborated with the postmortem report Ex.PW-10/A, diagram sheet Ex.PW-10/B and subsequent opinion Ex.PW-10/C. Medical documents of the deceased have been duly proved on record by the aforesaid medical witnesses. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimony/ version/ opinion of the aforesaid medical witnesses.
(vii) Forensic witness PW-17 is the forensic witness, who prepared the report Ex.PW-17/A. PW-17 in his testimony had deposed that requisite data could not be retrieved from the hard disc in the absence of the original DVR.
PW-22 is also the forensic witness, who examined the exhibits and prepared the detailed FSL report Ex.PW-22/A. PW-22 in her testimony has proved on record the detailed FSL report Ex.PW-22/A. PW-22 in her testimony had deposed that on biological examination, blood was detected on exhibits '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6a', '6b', '6c', FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.54 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date: 2023.12.23 16:18:54 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa '6d', '6e', '6f, '7' and '8'. On serological examination human blood was detected on exhibits 1,3,5,6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 7 and 8. Human blood could not be determined on exhibits 2 and 4. Blood Group B was detected on exhibit 1, 6c and 7. Blood Group could not be determined on exhibits 3,5,6a,6b,6d,6e, 6f and 8. On DNA examination, the alleles from source of exhibit 1 (gauze cloth piece taken from the spot), 3 (blood stained hair taken from the spot); 5 (blood stained iron pipe taken from the spot) were matching with alleles from source of exhibits 6c (dupatta of deceased) and 8 (blood stained hair of deceased).
FSL report Ex.PW-22/A regarding aforesaid exhibits has been duly proved on record by PW-22. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimony/ version/ opinion of PW-22. In the cross- examination of PW-22, the counsel for the accused had not put any question in respect of credibility of the FSL report Ex.PW-22/A. Even otherwise, the FSL result is per se admissible u/s. 293 Cr.P.C.
(viii) Testimonies of police witnesses In the present case, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-9, PW-12, PW-13, PW-14, PW-15, PW-16, PW-20 and PW-21 are the police officials.
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.55 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date: 2023.12.23 16:19:03 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa From the testimonies of the aforesaid police witnesses, it is evident that investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case during the course of investigation have been substantially proved by the aforesaid police witnesses.
PW-15 and PW-21 are the IOs in the present case, who deposed regarding investigation conducted by them and they duly proved on record the documents relating to the investigation conducted by them.
(ix) Admitted documents It is pertinent to mention here that on 16/08/2017, statement of counsel for the accused was recorded wherein he admitted the genuineness and correctness of the following documents:-
(1) FIR No. 331/2016 dated 15/07/2016 with certificate u/s. 65-B of Evidence Act Ex.PX-1 (collectively). (2) Scaled site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PX-2. (3) 12 photographs of the spot Ex.PX-3 (collectively). (4) Crime Team Visit Report dated 15/07/2016 Ex.PX-4. (5) DD No.13A dated 15/07/2016 Ex.PX-5.
(6) DD No.14A dated 15/07/2016 Ex.PX-6.
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.56 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date: 2023.12.23 16:19:11 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa (7) DD No.19A dated 15/07/2016 Ex.PX-7.
(8) PCR form dated 15/07/2016 with certificate under Section 65 of the Evidence Act Ex.PX-8 (collectively). The aforesaid documentary evidence were admitted by counsel for the accused. Hence, the aforesaid documentary evidence were proved on record by the prosecution.
(x) Contentions of counsel for the accused
(a) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused that the accused was not having any motive to murder the deceased as two years prior to the incident, the accused was having the knowledge regarding the relationship between his wife and deceased. It was also submitted that in view of the above, there was no occasion for the accused to wait for two years to commit the murder of the deceased. On the other hand, it was submitted by Addl. PP for the State that accused was having the motive to murder the deceased.
For the purpose of any offence, motive, intention and Digitally signed by VIJAY knowledge are relevant factors. VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:19:19 +0530 FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.57 of 71 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa The terms motive, intention and knowledge have been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Basdev Vs. The State of PEPSU", { AIR 1956 SC 488} that :-
"..........of course, we have to distinguish between motive, intention and knowledge. Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention and knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases intention and knowledge merge into each other and mean the same thing more or less and intention can be presumed from knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin but it is not difficult to perceive that they cannote different things......."
Relationship between the wife of the accused and deceased is not disputed by the accused. Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. had admitted that his wife had developed relationship with deceased Sukhvinder Singh and he had objected to the said relations and many quarrels took place. As per case of the prosecution, the accused had committed the murder of the deceased on 15/07/2016. As per PW-2, a quarrel had taken place between the accused and deceased on 14/07/2016 and accused had threatened the deceased that he will not spare him and will finish him. FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.58 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date: 2023.12.23 16:19:27 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa PW-2 in his testimony had deposed that on 14/07/2016, he met accused Dharam Singh and deceased Sukhvinder Singh and both of them were quarreling with each other and he separated them and thereafter, both of them went away from there and on the next day, he came to know that Sukhvinder Singh has been murdered. PW-2 in his testimony had also deposed that during the quarrel, accused was threatening the deceased that he has kept his wife and children with him and has caused dishonor to him for which he will not spare him and will finish him.
In view of the above, it is clear that accused was having motive to murder the deceased.
Even otherwise, it is well settled law that motive looses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eye-witness is available.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kishan Pal & Ors.", { (2008) 16 SCC 73 } that :-
"..........the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime. The motive may be considered as circumstance which is relevant for FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.59 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date: 2023.12.23 16:19:33 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive looses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eye-witnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eye-witnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of eye-witnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction........."
In view of the law laid in Kishan Pal case (supra), it is held that the motive was not required to be proved by the prosecution as there is a direct evidence of the complainant/eye-witness i.e., PW-1 in the present case. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(b) It is the contention of counsel for the accused that mother of the accused i.e. complainant/PW-1 was having love and affection with the FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.60 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:19:43 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa deceased and his mother was not having love and affection with him. It is also the contention of counsel for the accused that PW-1, being mother of the deceased has falsely deposed against the accused to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. It is well settled law that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Waman & Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra", {Criminal Appeal No. 364/2009 decided on 29/06/2011} that :-
"It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the courts have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously with a little care."
In view of the specific testimonies of PW-1 and other concerned prosecution witnesses regarding commission of offence of the murder of the deceased by the accused, the contention of counsel for the FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.61 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:19:52 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa accused in this regard is not tenable.
(c) It is the contention of counsel for the accused that father of the accused was having property at Jamshedpur and he died intestate and after selling the said property, his mother had kept the consideration amount of the same and she had not given any share to the accused or his sister. It is also the contention of counsel for the accused that due to the property dispute, the mother of the accused has falsely implicated the accused in the present case. In the present case, the accused has not placed on record any documentary evidence in support of aforesaid contentions. No evidence had been lead by the accused in this regard. During the course of cross-
examination of complainant/PW-1, the counsel for the accused had not put not even a single question in respect of aforesaid alleged property dispute. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(d) It is the contention of counsel for the accused that photographs of the incident Ex.PW-1/B1 to PW-1/B15 are forged and manipulated. In the present case, the accused had also not lead any specific evidence in this FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.62 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:20:00 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa regard. In the present case, the accused had not examined any expert witness to prove the fact that the aforesaid photographs are forged and manipulated. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(e) It is the contention of counsel for the accused that in the photographs of the incident Ex.PW-1/B1 to PW-1/B15, the accused is not visible committing the murder of the deceased. Complainant/eye-
witness/PW-1 in her testimony had deposed that PW-19 had transferred the CCTV footage of the incident in her mobile phone and she got the photographs prepared from PW-18. PW-1 had also deposed that accused is visible in the aforesaid photographs and weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe is visible in his hands. Even otherwise, PW-1 is the eye-witness of the incident. PW-1 in her testimony deposed that accused had given multiple blows of weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe on the head and other body parts of the deceased. The testimony of PW-1 is corroborated with the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses and documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.63 of 71
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23
16:20:06 +0530
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
(f) It is the contention of counsel for the accused that in the
present case, CCTV footage of the incident and DVR have not been produced by the prosecution. PW-19 in his testimony had deposed that DVR was misplaced during the white wash in his house. Non-production of CCTV footage of the incident and DVR is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as PW-1/ eye-witness and other prosecution have duly supported the case of the prosecution. The testimony of PW-1 is corroborated with the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses and documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(g) It is the contention of counsel for the accused that in the present case, site plan without scale Ex.PW-15/C of the spot is not proper as details of TSR and number of properties have not been mentioned in the same and aforesaid site plan is inadmissible in evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that on 16/08/2017, genuineness and correctness of the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PX-2 was not disputed by counsel for the accused. Hence, genuineness and correctness of the scaled site plan FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.64 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23
16:20:14
+0530
State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa
of the place of occurrence was admitted by counsel for the accused. In view of the same, the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence has been duly proved on record by the prosecution. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(h) It is the contention of counsel for the accused that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra", { (2010) 13 SCC 657} that:-
"While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/ omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.65 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:20:31 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa Court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons."
In the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, no material contradiction and inconsistency has been surfaced except some minor ones which are but natural. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(i) It is the contention of counsel for the accused that no independent public witness was asked to join the investigation by the IO and the prosecution had not examined any independent public witness in the present case. It is well settled law that non-examination of any witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution and it depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Rajesh Yadav & Anr Vs. State of UP", {Criminal Appeal No.339- 340/2014 decided on 04/02/2022} and it was held that :-
"A mere non-examination of the witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution. It depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance. If the court is satisfied with the explanation given by the prosecution along with the adequacy of the FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.66 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date: SHANKAR 2023.12.23 16:20:45 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa materials sufficient enough to proceed with the trial and convict the accused, there cannot be any prejudice. Similarly, if the court is of the view that the evidence is not screened and could well be produced by the other side in support of its case, no adverse inference can be drawn. Onus is on the part of the party who alleges that a witness has not been produced deliberately to prove it...."
It is well settled law that non-joining of public witness in the investigation is not fatal in every case. In the present case, PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, PW-7, PW-11, PW-18 and PW-19 were joined in the investigation of the present case. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(j) It is the contention of counsel for the accused that IO had not investigated the present matter properly. On the other hand, it was submitted by Addl. PP for the State that IO had properly investigated the matter. There is nothing on the record to show that IO had not investigated the present matter properly and investigation was defective.
Even otherwise, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.67 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:20:53 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa in case titled as "Ambika Prasad & Anr. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)" (AIR 2000 SC 718) that :-
.....Dealing with a case of negligence on the part of the investigating officer, this Court in Karnel Singh v. State of MP {(1995) 5 SCC 518} observed that in a case of defective investigation it would not be proper to acquit the accused if the case is otherwise established conclusively because in that event it would tantamount to be falling in the hands of erring investigating officer..." Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
17. In the present case, PW-17 had not been cross-examined by the accused/counsel. The testimony of PW-17 has gone un-rebutted, un-
challenged and un-controverted.
In the present case, no defence evidence had been led by the accused in support of his defence and to rebut and contradict the case of the prosecution.
18. In the present case, the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, mode & manner of assault, weapon of offence, motive, intention and knowledge are relevant factors. The aforesaid factors have been duly FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.68 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:21:01 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa proved on record by the prosecution.
In the present case, PW-1 in her testimony had specifically deposed regarding the mode and manner in which the accused had caused the injuries to the deceased. The accused had caused the injuries to the deceased by weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe. The said factum has also been duly proved on record by the prosecution witnesses including the medical and forensic witnesses. The prosecution has duly proved on record the MLC, post-mortem report, subsequent opinion and FSL result.
The testimony of PW-1 has been corroborated with the testimonies of other public witnesses, medical, forensic and police witnesses as well as medical, forensic and other documents relied upon by the prosecution.
Testimonies of PW-1, medical and forensic witnesses as well as medical and forensic reports clearly shows the nature of injuries and mode & manner in which the accused had committed the murder of the deceased and the same also shows the intention and knowledge of the accused to kill/ murder the deceased.
19. All the essential ingredients of the offence u/s. 302 IPC have FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.69 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date: 2023.12.23 16:21:09 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa been duly proved on record from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
All the ingredients of the offence u/s. 302 IPC have been duly proved by the prosecution. The factum regarding un-natural death of deceased Sukhvinder Singh @Raju is not disputed by the accused. The prosecution has also been able to prove the fact that death of the deceased was caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused. The prosecution has also been able to prove that such act was done by the accused with the intention of causing death of the deceased and the accused knew it to be likely to cause death and the injuries caused by the accused to the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju.
20. CONCLUSION Applying priori and posteriori reasonings, this Court is held that at the relevant time, date and place, as mentioned above, accused Dharam Singh @ Billa had committed the murder of Sh. Sukhvinder Singh @ Raju by repeatedly hitting his head and other parts of his body with FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.70 of 71 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2023.12.23 16:21:16 +0530 State V. Dharam Singh @ Billa weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful to prove its case against the accused Dharam Singh @ Billa beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 302 IPC. This Court is held that the accused Dharam Singh @ Billa has committed the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. Accordingly, accused Dharam Singh @ Billa is convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC. Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2023.12.23
Announced in the open Court 16:21:24
+0530
on 23/12/2023
(VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
FIR No.331/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.71 of 71