Delhi District Court
State vs Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet on 21 February, 2015
Sessions Case No. 33/14
FIR No. 55/13
State Vs Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet
Thakur
Police Station Inderpuri.
Under Section 307 IPC
21.02.2015
Pre: Ld. APP for the state.
Ld. counsel Sh. Mohit Sharma for convict.
Arguments heard at length on the point of sentence. Vide separate
detailed order placed along side in the file, convict Ranjeet Gupta @
Ranjeet Thakur is sentenced for the offence u/s 307 IPC to undergo 06
years (six years) Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- in
default of payment of fine, convict further shall undergo one year simple
imprisonment. The amount of fine shall be paid to the wife of deceased/
victim Ranjeet as compensation. Benefit of section 428 Cr. P.C. be given
to the convict. Copy of this order and judgment be given to the convict at
free of cost forthwith. File be consigned to record room.
(RAJ KAPOOR)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS / NEW DELHI
FIR no.55/13
u/s 307 IPC
PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE (03) , PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 33/14
FIR No. 55/13
State Vs Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet
Thakur
Police Station Inderpuri.
Under Section 307 IPC
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE
21.02.2015
Pre: Ld. APP for the state.
Ld. counsel Sh. Mohit Sharma for convict.
ld. APP submits that offence of such types are increasing day by
day. Accused has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC
which prescribed life imprisonment since accused caused multiple sharp
injuries to the victim Ranjeet on 24.03.203 and victim died on
10.07.2013. Ld. APP further submits that though no relation between
death and injury has come on record yet the punishment for life
imprisonment can be given. On these grounds, ld. APP submits that
accused deserves maximum punishment.
FIR no.55/13
u/s 307 IPC
PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur
2
Contrary to it, ld. Counsel Sh. Mohit Sharma for convict submits
that convict is aged about 45 years old and he is a very poor person. He
has four small daughters and one widow mother. He is the only bread
earner in his family. ld. Counsel for the accused again submitted that
accused has remained in JC for about 47 days during the course of trial of
the case. Ld. counsel again submits that the convict is not a previous
convict. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment 'Ram
Kumar & Ors. v. State - Crl. A 687/1999 - Delhi High Court' and
having given stress on the reduction of sentence from 2 years to 2
months 18 days, which has already served by the accused. Ld. Counsel
for the accused further submits that accused has been convicted on the
sole testimony of his wife and deceased died as his natural death. He
further submits that this witness is only stellar/ sterling witness in this
case. Ld. Counsel again submits that accused and victim are living in the
same locality. Ld. Counsel again submits that a minimum sentence be
awarded to the accused taking into consideration the rehabilitative outlook
about the society and accused. On these grounds, ld. Counsel for the
accused submits that a lenient view be taken while awarding the sentence.
Controverting to the submissions of ld. Counsel for the accused, ld.
APP submits that the citation relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the
FIR no.55/13
u/s 307 IPC
PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur
3
accused is not applicable in the present case precisely for the reasons that
facts of this case and the citation are entirely distinct. Ld. APP again
submits that maximum sentence be awarded to the convict.
I have given careful consideration to the submissions of ld. Counsel
for the accused and ld. APP as well. Since, accused has been convicted
for the offence u/s 307 IPC taking into account the injuries suffered by the
victim Ranjeet a modrest sentence is imposed upon the accused. In this
backdrop to my view ends of justice shall be met if convict is sentenced for
the offence u/s 307 IPC to undergo 06 years (six years) Rigorous
Imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- in default of payment of fine,
convict further shall undergo one year simple imprisonment. The amount
of fine shall be paid to the wife of deceased/ victim Ranjeet as
compensation. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the convict.
Accordingly, convict Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet
Thakur is sentenced for the offence u/s 307 IPC
to undergo 06 years (six years) Rigorous
Imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- in default
of payment of fine, convict further shall undergo
one year simple imprisonment. The amount of
fine shall be paid to the wife of deceased/ victim
Ranjeet as compensation.
FIR no.55/13
u/s 307 IPC
PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur
4
Benefit of section 428 Cr. P.C. be given to the
convict.
Copy of this order and judgment be given to the
convict at free of cost forthwith.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON THIS 21.02.2015
(RAJ KAPOOR)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
FIR no.55/13
u/s 307 IPC
PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur
5
FIR no.55/13
Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur
U/s 307 IPC
11.02.2015
Pre: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused on bail.
Accused has been convicted for the offence u/s 307 IPC vide
separate judgment placed along side in the file.
Accused be taken into custody and sent to JC and case be fixed
for argument on the point of sentence for 21.02.2015.
(RAJ KAPOOR)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI
FIR no.55/13
u/s 307 IPC
PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur
6
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE (03) , PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 33/14
Assigned to Sessions. 24.01.2014
Arguments heard on 28.01.2015
Date of order. 11.02.2015
FIR No. 55/13
State Vs Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur
s/o Kishori Lal
r/o F-55, JJ Colony, Inder Puri,
New Delhi. Presently _ B-10,
Inderpuri JJ Colony, New Delhi
Police Station Inderpuri.
Under Section 307 IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Briefly facts of the case are that on 24.03.2013 at about 03.03 p.m. at main gate Krishi Kunj, Inderpuri, New Delhi accused inflicted injuries on the person of Ranjit Kumar by means of Razer (Ustra) with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act, he had caused death of aforesaid person. Accordingly, accused was arrested and booked for the offence u/s 307 IPC.
2. This case was committed to the Sessions Court on 24.01.2014 for trial as it pertains to the heinous crime committed under section 307 IPC FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 7 which is exclusively triable by court of Sessions. A charge for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC was framed against the accused on 07.02.2014 by this court, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove and substantiate its case the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses namely PW1 Smt. Lakshmi - wife of victim; PW2 Ct. Jaiphool
- he joined the investigation with IO on 24.03.2013; PW3 HC Giriraj Meena; - duty officer; PW4 Dr. Madhurima Taneja, Sr. Medical Officer; PW5 Ct. Suresh Kumar - he joined the investigation with the IO on 25.03.2013 at the time of arrest of accused; PW6 Dr. KiranKumar Negi, Sr. Resident, RML Hospital; PW7 Lakshmi, record clerk , RML hospital; PW8 Ct. Lekh Ram - formal witness he deposited the pulanda to the FSL; PW9 SI Mahender Singh - IO of the case; PW10 Ct. Dayanand - formal witness being Duty Ct. at RML Hospital, he conveyed the information to the duty officer at PS Inderpuri regarding admission of injured in the hospital; PW11 ASI Lachhi Ram - he also accompanied the IO during the investigation and arrest of accused on 25.03.2013; PW12 Pawan Kumar - he informed the police on seeing victim in injured condition on 24.03.2013; and PW13 HC Raghubir Singh - formal witness being MHCM - he got exhibited all the relevant entries on FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 8 record with regard to this case.
4. PW1 Smt. Lakshmi who happens to be wife of victim/ deceased deposed that on 24.03.2013 there was a fight between accused and her husband Ranjeet Kumar at about 03:30 PM. She testified that on her intervention the victim/ (now deceased) was separated. She has clearly stated that accused had beaten her husband Ranjeet Kumar. She further deposed that when she was in the process of taking her husband Ranjeet Kumar to house and were present at the bus stand accused again came armed with an ustra and assaulted Ranjeet Kumar at various places at the stomach, chest and head. Lakshmi had taken the injured to the a hospital and from there her husband was referred to RML Hospital since it was a police case. She has categorically stated that her husband remained admitted there for about 5 -6 days. She further testified that she gave a complaint to the police vide Ex.PW1/A. She further deposed that her husband expired on 10.07.2013. She got exhibited death certificate of her husband as Ex.PW1/B. This witness has been cross-examined at length. I have perused the same. In the cross-examination it has come on record that other public persons were also present at the time when she reached the place of occurrence and her children were also present there. She further stated that she FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 9 was informed by children about the fight taking place between accused and her husband.
5. PW2 Ct. Jai Phool appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 24.03.2014 on receipt of DD No. 23A, Ct.Jaiphool alongwith IO/SI Mahender Singh reached the place of occurrence were it was revealed that the injured had been taken to RML Hospital where Ranjeet Kumar was unfit for statement. SI Mahender recorded the statement of Lakshmi, W/o Ranjeet Kumar injured and the rukka was handed over to him and he got the present case registered. This witness handed over a sealed pullanda to the IO vide memo Ex.PW2/A and blood was collected from the spot vide memo Ex.PW2/B and the case property was deposited in the malkhana. This witness has been cross-examined. I have perused the same. I found some minor type of contradictions which are attributable due to the long duration of time and memory of a human being.
6. PW3 HC Girraj Meena came to the witness box and deposed that on 24.03.2013 he recorded the present FIR vide Ex.PW3/A and also made an entry on the original rukka Ex.PW3/B. This witness has not been cross-examined.
FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 10
7. In the RML Hospital PW4 Dr. Madhurima Taneja examined the injured Ranjeet Kumar and there was multiple sharp wounds on the head, chest, abdomen and left forearm. The MLC was prepared by PW4 vide Ex.PW4/A and Dr. Madhurima had also taken into possession the wearing clothes comprising of shirt, white vest which was blood stained and the same was handed over to the IO. This witness has been cross-examined. In the cross-examination it has come on record that patient was having 6 sharp injuries as per MLC.
8. PW5 Ct. Suresh Kumar came to the witness box and deposed that on 25.03.2013 he along with HC Lacchi Ram had joined the investigation of the present case and had gone to RML hospital where the statement of the injured Ranjeet Kumar was recorded. He further deposed that a secret information was received that accused would come to meet his wife at D-407, J.J.Colony, Inderpuri. He testified that accused was arrested and he was personally searched vide memos Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. Accused had also confessed the crime and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW5/C. This witness further deposed that as per disclosure statement the weapon of offence i.e, Ustra was recovered from near the wall of the nala of Shiv Mandir, Inderpuri. The FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 11 sketch of the ustra was prepared vide Ex.PW5/D and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/E and the same was sealed with the seal of MS. A site plan in respect of the recovery of the ustra was also prepared vide memo Ex.PW5/F and the case property was duly identified in the court as Ex.P1. This witness has been cross- examined at length. I have perused the same. I found some minor type of contradictions which are attributable due to the long duration of time and memory of a human being.
9. PW6 Dr. Kiran Kumar Negi, Sr. Resident appeared in the witness box and deposed that he identified the hand writing and signatures of Dr Ashwani Kumar, who had given the opinion as to the nature of injuries being suffered by injured Ranjeet Kumar. The opinion is Ex.PW6/A.
10.PW7 Lakshmi, record clerk from Dr. RML hospital came to the witness box and deposed that Lakshmi, record clerk from RML Hospital had identified the hand writing and signatures of Dr. Prashant who is the author of the MLC, which is Ex.PW7/A.
11.PW8 Ct. Lekh Ram deposed that on 12.04.2013 he had taken 4 sealed pullandas along with two sample sale and FSL form vide RC No . FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 12 33/21 to FSL Rohini and the same was deposited in FSL and duly acknowledged copy was handed over to the MHCM.
12.PW9 SI Mahender Singh is the IO of this case. I have perused his testimony very carefully. On perusal of his testimony it reveals that he made an endorsement on the statement of Lakshmi vide Ex.PW9/B and got the present case registered and had also gone to RML Hospital along with Ct. Jaiphool. He had also taken into possession the sealed pullanda handed over to Ct. Dayanand and also prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/C on the pointing out of Lakshmi. He also took photographs through mobile phone and seized the blood stained soil vide Ex.PW2/B. He again went to the hospital on the next date i.e, 25.03.2013 along with HC Lachhi Ram and Ct. Suresh and recorded the statement of injured Ex.PW9/D. He arrested the accused and consequent upon disclosure statement the weapon of offence i.e, Ustra was recovered at instance of accused and the same was taken into possession and also sketch was prepared. The photographs were ExPW9/E and had also sent the case property to FSL,Rohini. He also collected the PCR Form and also identified the case property in the court. This witness has not been cross-examined.
FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 13
13.PW10 Ct. Dayanand deposed that on 24.03.2013 he was working as Duty Constable in RML. He testified that injured Ranjeet Kumar was admitted in Hospital. MLC was prepared and the intimation was given by him to the Duty officer at PS - Inderpuri which was recorded vide DD No.23A on receipt of which ASI Mahender Singh had come to the hospital and received the MLC of the injured.
14.PW11 ASI Lachhi Ram had joined the investigations along with Ct. Suresh and SI Mahender and was a witness to the arrest of accused and to the recovery of the weapon of offence. He correctly identified the accused and the case property.
15.PW12 Pawan Kumar deposed that he was a field officer with Front Line Securities and used to depute guards at the gate of Kishan Kunj and he had received an information from the guard deputed at gate No. 2 about a quarrel and he reached gate no. 2 and when he reached near the bus stop of Kishan Kunj he saw Ranjeet Kumar in an injured condition bleeding profusely and he made a call to 100 number through his phone no.9650049002. He has also stopped an autorickshaw to send the injured to the hospital along with his wife. This witness has been cross-examined. I have perused the same. I found some minor FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 14 type of contradictions which are attributable due to the long duration of time and memory of a human being.
16.PW13 HC Raghubir Singh is a formal witness being MHCM. He testified that on 25.03.2013 pullanda was deposited with him which was entered at Sl No.1425 and sent to the FSL along with the other case property, the entries are now Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B.
17.Statement u/s 313 Cr. PC of accused was recorded in which defence of the accused was of denial in simplicitor. He produced defence witnesses namely DW1 Santosh Kumar, businessman of Transportation. This witness has been cross-examined at length. On perusal of testimony of DW1 it reveals that accused was employed as a driver on 10.03.2014 and on 24.03.2014 accused came back from Haridwar in his truck at about 06.30 p.m. and told that he does not want to do the job of driver. He made full and final payment of accused/ driver by giving Rs.3800/- at about 08.30 p.m. This witness has been cross- examined at length by the ld. APP. On perusal of his testimony, this witness does not appear a reliable person.
FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 15
18.Arguments were heard at length. During the course of arguments Ld. APP for the State has gone through the deposition of PW1 Smt. Lakshmi, who happens to be the wife of deceased Ranjeet Kumar/victim in this case. He submitted that after a lapse of about 4 months of the injuries sustained by the victim he had expired on 10.07.2014. Ld. APP has also gone through the deposition of PW4 Dr. Madhurima Taneja, PW6 Dr. Kiran Kumar, PW7 Record Clerk Lakshmi and IO SI Mahender Singh. Ld APP again submitted that the accused has examined only one DW Santosh Kumar and has also gone through his deposition and submitted that no such suggestion regarding the fact that accused not being available in Delhi at the time of incident was suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses therefore, the deposition given by DW1 is false appears to be after thought. He further submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. On these grounds he submitted that accused is liable to be convicted under Section 307 IPC.
19.Ld. counsel for the accused did not lead any argument as he has not gone through the record and the order passed by the court while dismissing the application filed u/s 311 Cr. PC to recall PW1 Lakshmi. FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 16
20.I have given careful consideration to the submissions of ld. Counsel for the accused and ld. APP as well. It is a well settled principle of law that conviction can be made on the sole testimony if it is corroborated with medical evidence as it has been held in Vahula Bhusan @ Vahuna Krishna Vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1989 SC 236 :-
"It is not right to say that an accused cannot be convicted on the sole testimony of a sole witness as the same was not corroborated by the evidence of any other witness. The contention is unsustainable as there is no role of law that the testimony of a single witness cannot be accepted and the conviction cannot be based on such evidence, if believed. The testimony of a single witness if it is straight-forward, cogent and if believed is sufficient to prove the prosecution case, the conviction can be made on the testimony of such a single witness, more particularly where the evidence of such a witness is corroborated by the medical evidence."
Interestingly, in the present case on perusal of depositions of all the prosecution witnesses and their cross-examinations I find minor type of contradictions. On minor type of contradictions the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of UP Vs Bhagwan AIR 1997 SC 3292: (1997) 1 SCC 19 made the following observations which are very relevant crucial and dominant in deciding the fate of the present case:-
"minor discrepancies in the evidence of the eye- witnesses are immaterial unless they demolished the basic case of the prosecution".
Observations made in the aforesaid case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are exfacie indicative of the fact that when contradictions are minor the FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 17 truthfulness of the witness cannot be discredited in all. No major contradiction has come on record in the testimony.
21.Before reaching at any conclusion let the relevant seton be re-produced verbatim which is as under:-
"307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 6[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.-- 7[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 6[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.] Illustrations
(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.
(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensure.
(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of 8[the first paragraph of] this section.
(d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A's keeping;
A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's servant to place it on Z's table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 18
22.It is the fundamental principle of criminal law that in case of conviction of accused the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hon'ble Supreme Court on this point has observed in a case titled as 'Vijayee Singh Vs State of UP AIR 1990 SC 1459' that:-
"'Reasonable doubt' is one which occurs to a prudent and reasonable man- The 'reasonable doubt' is one which occurs to a prudent and reasonable man. Section 3 while explaining the meaning of the words 'proof', disproved' and 'not proved' lays down the standard of proof, namely about the existence or non-existence of the circumstances from the point of view of a prudent man. The section is so worded as to provide for two conditions of mind, first, that in which a man feels abso- lutely certain of a fact, in other words, 'believe it to exist' and secondly in which, though he may not feel absolutely certain of a fact, he thinks it so extremely probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances act on the assumption of its existence. The act while adopting the requirement of the prudent man as an appropriate concrete standard by which to measure proof at the same time contemplates of giving full effect to be given to circumstances or condition of probability or improbability. It is this degree of certainty to be arrived where the circumstances before a fact can be said to be proved. A fact is said to be disproved when the court be- lieves that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable in the view of a prudent man the fact is not proved, i.e. neither proved nor disproved. It is this doubt which oc- curs to a reasonable man, has legal recognition in the field of criminal disputes. It is something different from moral convic- tion and it is also different from a suspicion. It is the result of a process of keen examination of the entire material on record by 'a prudent man'."
23.In the case in hand, eye witness PW1 Lakshmi has categorically identified the accused as a culprit who gave beatings to her husband (now deceased) and caused several injuries on his person with Razer FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 19 (Ustra). For the sake of brevity the relevant portion of her testimony is being re-produced :
".... there was a fight between my husband and the accused present in the court today and I had seen the incident at about 03:30 PM. The fight was taking place at Krishi Kunj Gate no. 2. Someone had informed me there was a fight taking place and that is why I reached the place. I intervened in the matter and both my husband and accused were separated. Accused was beating my husband. I was in the process of taking my husband to my house ...... . I and my husband were at the bus stand and the accused came armed with the ustra and assaulted my husband at various places on the stomach, chest and head with the ustra. I started crying accused escaped from the spot. ....... ......... My husband remained admitted in the hospital for 5-6 days. Police had recorded my statement in the hospital same is now Ex.PW1/A. I had shown the place of occurrence to the police.
My husband had since expired on 10.07.2013, the photocopy of his death certificate is Ex.PW1/B [OSR]. ...."
Her version with regard to the injuries has duly been corroborated by PW12 Pawan Kumar who on seeing the victim in injured condition with his wife informed the police at 100 number. PW4 Dr. Madhurima Taneja, examined the injured / victim testified that there was multiple sharp wounds on the head, chest, abdomen and left forearm. She has got exhibited the MLC of injured as Ex.PW4/A. Moreover, when she was cross-examined she affirmed the fact that patient/injured was having 06 sharp injuries as per MLC. Besides, it has also come on record in the deposition of PW5 Ct. Suresh Kumar accused was FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 20 arrested and he was personally searched vide memos Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. Accused had also confessed the crime and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW5/C and consequent upon the disclosure statement, the weapon of offence i.e, Ustra was recovered from near the wall of the nala of Shiv Mandir, Inderpuri at the instance of accused. The sketch of the Ustra was prepared vide Ex.PW5/D and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/E. The case property i.e Ustra was duly identified in the court as Ex.P1. PW9 SI Mahender Singh, IO of the case also corroborated the testimonies of PW1 Lakshmi, PW5 Ct. Suresh and other police officials. He has got exhibited the endorsement made on the statement of Lakshmi as Ex.PW9/B; site plan as Ex.PW9/C and statement of injured as Ex.PW9/D and photographs as Ex.PW9/E. The plea of accused is not sustainable that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The deposition of DW1 Santosh Kumar also does not come to rescue the accused. Besides, case has not been argued by the counsel for accused despite giving sufficient opportunities. Therefore, in light of the observations made in judgment Vahula Bhusan @ Vahuna Krishna Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and 'Vijayee Singh Vs State of UP discussed (supra), I am of the view that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 21 accused for the offence u/s 307 IPC precisely for the reasons that accused has been correctly identified by PW1 Lakshmi, 06 sharp grievous injuries have been proved on record vide MLC Ex.PW4/A of injured (now deceased) which were caused by accused with Ustra; Ustra has also been proved on record as Ex.P1.
24.Before parting with the delivery of the judgment I would like to make a note with regard to the conduct of the IO since in this case injured Ranjit Kumar (husband of PW1 Lakshmi) received multiple sharp grievous injuries on his person with Razer (Ustra) when accused assaulted upon him on 24.03.2013 and subsequently, injured expired on 10.07.2013 vide death certicate Ex.PW1/B. But, it is very strange to note that neither any supplementary challan was filed nor any information or action to have been taken by the Investigating Agency thus, I found the preparatory, adoptive, communicative and implementative measures by the IO / authority inadequate. So, concerned police official is directed to prevent recurrence of such events.
Accordingly, I convict accused Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur for the offence u/s 307 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11.02.2015 (RAJ KAPOOR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI FIR no.55/13 u/s 307 IPC PS Inderpuri : State v. Ranjeet Gupta @ Ranjeet Thakur 22