Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Prem Kishore S/O. Sunheri Lal R/O. on 18 August, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL : ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
DATE OF INSTITUTION :07.02.2001.
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT: 30.07.2008.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:04.08.2008
S.C. NO.189/06.
FIR NO.279/00.
PS-S.P. BADLI.
U/S. 302/120B/34 IPC.
STATE VS. 1. Prem Kishore S/o. Sunheri Lal R/o.
Kasganj Khedia Mohalla, District- Atta
(U.P)
2. Rishi S/o. Balbir Singh R/o. Village-
Giddwa, District-Bhatinda, Punjab.
3. Aanand Kumar @ Beeru S/o. Sh.
Bhagirath Prasad R/o. Gali No.7,
H.No.181, Sant Nagar Burari, Delhi.
4. Charanjeet Singh @ Channi S/o.
Shamsher Singh R/o. D-135, Tagore
Garden Extension, Delhi.
5. Narayan Singh S/o. Sh. Jaswant
Singh R/o. B-3/11, Rajouri Garden,
Delhi. [Expired on 04.03.2007]
JUDGMENT
1.1.Accused Prem Kishore, Rishi, Anand Kumar, Charanjeet and 2 Narayan Singh were chargesheeted by PS-Samaipur Badli to face trial for offences punishable under Section 302/120B/34 IPC for the murder of one Ram Chander. During pendency of the trial accused Narayan Singh expired on 4.3.2007 and the trial continued qua remaining four accused persons.
1.2.Criminal law was set into motion on 1.5.2000, on receipt of information from Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital regarding Ram Chander aged about 45 years, having received stab injuries at about 8.30 pm near Mubarka Chowk.. The patient was provided treatment and thereafter declared dead at about 10 pm. On receipt of the information a police team from PS- Samaipur Badli reached the hospital. Statement of Vinod, who claimed to be related to the deceased as his nephew, was recorded. He stated that he had been working as a Helper on a Lathe Machine at CW-76, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar for the last 7-8 months. Ram Chander who belonged to the same native village as the complainant also worked in the same factory. Complainant addressed him as uncle. They had been working together for the last 6-7 months and used to commute together. On the day of occurrence he alongwith his uncle Ram Chander was returning home, 3 when at about 8:30 PM they were attacked by six persons. Two persons each caught hold of them and one of them stabbed Ram Chander on his Chest and abdomen. Other two were ready with their scooters to escape. Complainant was confused and he ran away. The assailants ran away within seconds. He shifted the injured to hospital on rickshaw where the patient was declared dead at 10 pm. 1.3.On the complaint abovesaid FIR under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was registered and the investigation was handed over to Inspector Puskal Sharma.
2.1.During investigation the prosecution story emerged as under :-
One Gurdial Singh and Narayan Singh were jointly running factory at B-62/1, Wazirpur Industrial Area. They were related to each other as cousins. Subsequently they both separated and Gurdial Singh set up a factory of the same nature at CW-76, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar.
They started poaching each others' workers. Deceased Ram Chander who initially worked with Narayan Singh had shifted to the factory of Gurdial Singh. Narayan Singh used the services of his driver 4 Charanjeet Singh Chadha who further sought the help of others namely Prem Kishore, Rishi and Anand Kumar. All these four persons waylaid Ram Chander on 1.5.2000 at about 8.30 PM and gave him stab injuries, as a result whereof he expired. Subsequently Charanjeet sent threatening letters at the factory of Gurdial Singh. In those letters it was stated that 'any person who worked in that factory would meet same fate as Ram Chander'. Gurdial also received threatening phone calls on his mobile phone, which calls were also allegedly made by Charanjeet.
2.2.A separate FIR bearing No.547/2000, PS- Kirti Nagar, U/s 506/384 IPC had been registered on the basis of statement of Gurdial Singh regarding the threats received on his mobile phone.
2.3.During investigation handwriting of Charanjeet was found to match with the handwriting on threatening letters. On the basis of eyewitness account of Vinod Kumar accused persons sought to be put TIP, which they declined. Scooters used by the accused persons to flee away from the spot were recovered, weapon of offence was recovered. Finding sufficient material accused Prem Kishore, Rishi, Aanand Kumar and 5 Charanjeet to have caused the occurrence alongwith Narayan Singh, who was the main conspirator, they all were chargesheeted.
3.1.After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the Court of Sessions which in turn was assigned to the predecessor of this Court.
4.1.The predecessor of this court vide order dated 27.3.2001 framed charges against all the accused persons for offences punishable under section 120B IPC and 302 read with 120B read with 34 IPC. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5.1.Prosecution in support of its case, examined 36 witnesses. PE was closed on the statement the ld. APP for the State dated 16.4.2007.
Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, who denied the occurrence and various documents prepared during investigation. Charanjeet Singh stated the report of the handwriting expert to be wrong. However, none of the accused persons desired to lead defence evidence.
66.1.Sh. Sanjay Soni, on behalf of the State has argued that Vinod Kumar (P'W2) has proved the prosecution case, as regards the eyewitness account. All the four accused persons facing trial, were identified by him to be the assailants. He had attributed the role of causing stab injuries to Prem Kishore. The other three had acted in furtherance of the conspiracy and aided him. It is submitted that cross examination of this witness, wherein he turned hostile would be hit by law laid down in Khujji VS State of M.P. reported as AIR 1991 SC 1859. In support of ocular version, certain circumstances have also been pointed out by Sh. Soni. Reliance has been placed upon handwriting expert's Report Ex.PW36/D. As per this report the threatening letters received at the factory of PW Gurdial Singh were in the handwriting of accused Charanjeet. Reference has also been made to Ex.PW1/A, which is rukka of FIR No.547/2000, PS-Kirti Nagar, wherein PW Gurdial Singh had complained of telephonic threats to his life. The threats were extended from telephone numbers which were installed in the premises owned by brother of accused Charanjeet and his neighbour.
7.1.Sh. Sunil Ahuja, Sh. K.C. Maini, Sh. Pankaj Tomar and Sh. R.K. 7 Bhartiya, ld. defence Counsels have argued that the prosecution story is not established at all. None of the public witnesses also were cited to prove the occurrence or the circumstances have supported the prosecution case. The weapon of offence or the scooters allegedly used by the accused persons to escape from the spot are not connected with the offence. The recovery of knife is doubtful. The testimony of Vinod Kumar (PW2) is doubtful as in his first version to the police he has mentioned of six accused persons, whereas in the court he has deposed about only four of them. The identification of accused persons by Vinod Kumar (PW2) is of no consequence as he had seen the accused persons almost a year after the occurrence. TIP had not taken place. Identification in the court is of no consequence. Further the investigation by the investigating officer was extremely poor. The accused persons were not in muffled face when the permission for TIP was sought. Photographs of the accused persons had already been taken. There were no blood stains on the clothes of Vinod, his presence itself is doubtful. The manner of arrest of the accused persons and their disclosure statements on the same day are doubtful. The presence of deceased and witness Vinod Kumar at the factory on the day of occurrence is doubtful, as the same was Labour Day, when 8 factories do not function. It is further argued that the handwriting expert's report can not to be read in evidence as the specimen handwriting was taken without the permission of court. Moreover, the role of each accused is not clear. There is no evidence of the circumstances which may prove the offence of conspiracy. 8.1.I have heard ld. Counsels and with their assistance had gone through the evidence and documents on record.
8.2.Before discussing the evidence in detail, I shall briefly refer to the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the purpose for which they were cited. Since most of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version, it shall not be necessary to refer to their testimony in detail.
8.3.Gurdial Singh (PW1) is the person with whom accused Narayan Singh was initially working in partnership, at B-62/1, Wazirpur Industrial Area. While appearing as a witness he has denied that he was in partnership business with Narayan Singh at B-62/1, Wazirpur Industrial Area. Though, he has admitted that his father and father of 9 Narayan Singh had been running a factory at the abovesaid address. He has also admitted that Narayan Singh used to visit his father in the abovesaid factory. He deposed Narayan Singh to be his cousin and also deposed that he was manufacturing machines at CW-76, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. The rest of the prosecution case as regards differences because of poaching of workers was denied. However, he admitted that one Ram Chander (deceased) had worked in his factory for a few months. He also admitted about threatening calls received on his mobile phone. He admitting even the lodging of FIR No.547/00, PS-Kirti Nagar, under Section 506/384 IPC regarding having received threatening calls on his mobile phone. He admitted his statement Ex.PW1/A, on the basis whereof rukka in FIR NO.547/00 was recorded.
8.4.Aanand Kumar (PW2) is the author of FIR and the most important prosecution witness. He supported the entire prosecution case in his examination in chief. But sang an absolutely different tune when recalled for cross examination a couple of months later. His evidence shall be discussed in detail in subsequent paras. 10 8.5.Aanand Verma (PW7) was cited to prove that some threatening letters had been received at the factory of Gurdial Singh (PW1), i.e. CW-76, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. Ramji Lal (PW9) is father of Anand Verma (PW7), he was a guard at CW-76, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi. Janardan Paswan (PW11) was a guard at an adjoining factory. They were also cited to prove the receipt of threatening letter at CW-76, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. None of the three has supported the prosecution case.
8.6.Ravinder Singh (PW5), Harinder Singh (PW6), Raj Kumar (PW12) are co-workers of deceased Ram Chander. They were cited to prove hostile relations between ex-partners Narayan Singh and Accused Gurdial Singh (PW1). None of them has supported the prosecution case. Khushmati (PW10) is wife of the deceased. She was cited to prove the state of mind of deceased prior to his death, when he was reportedly under tension because of differences among Narayan Singh and Gurdial Singh. She also did not support the prosecution case. 8.7.Smt. Kamla (PW22) and Bhagwan Dass Gupta (PW23) were running a Grocery shop in Raghubir Nagar. Telephone number 5151947 was 11 installed in their grocery shop. They were both cited to identify accused Charanjeet to have made threatening phone calls from their phone on the mobile phone of Gurdial Singh. They did not identify Charanjeet Singh (accused). However, admitted that the abovesaid telephone was installed in their shop.
8.8.Harjeet Singh (PW24) and Pritipal Singh (PW25) are nephew and real brother of accused Charanjeet. Telephone number 5123767 was installed in their Tyre Shop. They were cited to identify Charanjeet to have made threatening phone calls to Gurdial Singh (PW1) from this number. They also did not support the prosecution case. 8.9.Ashwani Rana (PW21) is a neighbour of Charanjeet. Before whom Charanjeet had allegedly made a confession. This witness also turned hostile. Sh. S.S.Malhotra, Ld. MM (PW34) is a witness to accused persons refusing to join TIP proceedings. Harshvardhan (PW36) is an expert from FSL, Madhuban. He has proved his report comparing the handwriting of accused Charanjeet with the handwriting on the threatening letters. His report is Ex.PW36/A. Dr. V.K. Goel (PW35) has proved FSL Report regarding the blood and Serological 12 examination.
8.10.Dr. Raj Kumar (PW3) from BJRM Hospital had attended upon the deceased when he was brought in casualty with history of stab injuries. He proved the injuries on the person of deceased. The MLC was prepared by Dr. Sandesh Gupta, whose handwriting and signatures were identified by Dr. Raj Kumar (PW3). As per the MLC, injured had been brought by Vinod in the hospital at 9.30 pm. Dr. Pankaj Aggarwal (PW4) has also proved MLC Ex.PW3/A. 8.11.Remaining witnesses are police officials, who have proved various stages of investigation.
9.1.The prosecution case is based on eye witness account in the shape of testimony of Vinod (PW2), supported by circumstantial evidence to prove that accused Narayan Singh (since deceased) had the motive to cause the murder of Ram Chander (worker) with the view to terrorize other workers who were leaving his factory and joining the factory of his ex-partner Gurdial Singh (PW1). During the progress of trial most of the witnesses in support of the circumstantial evidence did not support the prosecution case. However, it is rightly said that, 'men 13 may lie but the documents do not'. Some documents have remain un-rebutted, which establish the motive and involvement of accused Charanjeet and Narayan Singh (since deceased). The ocular version in the testimony to Vinod (PW2) is corroborated by the medical evidence, as well as , the circumstantial evidence. The u-turn which the witness took during his cross examination is established to be an absolutely false version. In the backdrop of this prima facie opinion, I shall now discuss the relevant evidence.
10.1.Eyewitness Account:-Vinod Kumar (PW2) and deceased Ram Chander worked together on the Lathe Machine in the factory of Gurdial Singh at CW-76, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi. They were both natives of the same village. Vinod addressed the deceased as uncle. On the day of occurrence i.e. 01.05.2000 they were returning together from their factory. When they reached lower G.T. Karnal Road to board a bus at about 8.30 pm, they were attacked by four persons. Two of them caught hold of the witness and other two grappled with his uncle. One of them stabbed his uncle in the stomach and chest. The witness ran away towards the bus stand raising alarm of "Bachao-Bachao". He sought help but none turned up. He then 14 returned to his uncle and took him to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital in a rickshaw. He identified accused Prem Kishore to have stabbed his uncle and the other accused persons to be present with Prem Kishore at the time of occurrence. He then clarified that accused Narayan Singh was not among those who had attacked.
10.2. On being cross examined by the ld. APP, he clarified that in rukka he had mentioned of six persons to have attacked them, under the fear that he may be castigated for not saving his uncle. He clarified that there were actually only four assailants. He denied that he had stated that accused Charanjeet and accused Rishi were the drivers of the scooters of which the accused persons ran away. He again clarified that he did not know their names, therefore, could not have so stated to the IO. He also deposed that accused Aanand had caught hold of the deceased, when he was stabbed by Prem Kishore.
10.3.The cross examination of this witnesses by the defence counsels was deferred. Witness was recalled and cross examined about ten weeks later. He was now singing a different note. He deposed that he and his uncle boarded the bus at about 8.15 pm from different gates, when he 15 reached the destination, he found that his uncle was not in the bus. He returned to the spot and came to know that his uncle has been stabbed by some criminals and taken to hospital. He then reached the hospital at 11 pm. No incident of stabbing had been taken place in his presence. He deposed that during his examination in chief he had been tutored by some police officials and threatened to support the prosecution version. The witness was permitted to be re-examined by the State and he stated that he did not tell the court that he had been threatened to depose against the accused persons. He also deposed that he had seen the accused persons about 2 ½ months after the incident at the PS. 10.4.Testimony of this witness is challenged by the ld. defence counsels on the ground that in his first version to the police he had mentioned of six accused persons and in the court he has mentioned of only four assailants. He has, of course, not supported the prosecution case during cross examination. Further his clothes were not seized by the police, to show presence of blood of the deceased, whom he had carried to the hospital. It is also argued that identification of accused persons by him is of no consequences, as he did not know the accused persons prior to the occurrence, and that photographs had been taken 16 by the police.
10.5.I am of the opinion that none of the arguments raised by the defence counsels to challenge the varacity of Vinod Kumar's examination in chief carries any weight. Challenge to the presence of this witnesses and the deceased on 1.5.2000 i.e. Labour Day at the place of their factory does not cut any ice with this court. Merely because on Labour Day, Government has declared a holiday for the labour, does not establish that the factory was not open. Violations by factory owners are an accepted fact. However, during the cross examination of this witness no suggestion was given to him that the factory was closed, or that they had not visited the factory on that day. 10.6.The discrepancy in the number of assailants mentioned in the rukka and his deposition in the court has been clarified by him. In the cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State conducted on 7.5.2001 itself, he explained that he had mentioned six assailants to escape criticism for not having saved the uncle.
10.7.The truthfulness of the witness is reflected from the fact that he 17 denied the suggestion by prosecution that accused Charanjeet and Rishi were the drivers on the scooters, by which accused persons escaped from the spot. He refused to tow the prosecution line by stating that he did not know names of the accused persons, therefore, could not have so stated to the IO.
10.8.The fact that witness had not seen accused persons prior to the occurrence and had also not refreshed his memory in TIP, does not impress this court. This is not a case where the witness was examined after a very long gap. The occurrence had taken place on 01.05.2000 and the witness was examined on 07.05.2001, i.e. one year after the occurrence. The memory could not have faded during this period, as the witness was himself at the receiving end of the offence. He had been grabbed by two of the accused persons and the other two grappeled and stabbed his uncle in his presence. Accused persons were in very close proximity of the witness, as he had been caught hold of by them. Moreover, the witness has deposed that there was light of vehicles moving on the G.T. Road. Refusal to join TIP is a circumstances that shall be read against the accused persons and not in their favour. However, as discussed in subsequent paras the 18 involvement of accused Charanjeet is established from other circumstances also.
11.1.The version deposed by the witness in his cross cross examination is absolutely false version. In cross-examination Vinod (PW2) deposed that he reached the hospital at 11 PM, which is contrary to the documentary evidence. MLC Ex.PW3/A prepared at 9:30 PM records his presence as the person who had brought the injured to hospital.
11.2.The ocular version deposed by Vinod Kumar in his examination-in- chief is also corroborated by the medical evidence. Witness has deposed the injured to have been stabbed in the stomach and chest. MLC and the Postmortem report also record injuries no.1 & 2 on the chest and below right nipple.
11.3.There is also no question put to this witness during his cross examination that his clothes were stained with blood, while shifting the injured to the hospital.
1911.4.It is a settled preposition of law that if a witness turns hostile during his cross examination, which is recorded on an adjourned date; then his deposition in examination in chief can be relied upon. This was so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khujji VS State of M.P. AIR 1991 SC 1859. A Devision Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi followed this preposition of law in Abdul Mirza Saleem VS State reported as 2005(123) DLT 73. As discussed in paras 11.1. to 11.3 the version of Vinod (PW2) in his cross-examination is absolutely false. His examination-in-chief as discussed in para 10.1 to 10.8. is truthful and credible. I, therefore, find no reasons to disbelieve the presence or the testimony of Vinod (PW2) in his examination-in-chief. 12.1.I shall now discuss the circumstances proved by the prosecution to support the eyewitness account and to establish motive for the offence. 13.1.Threats at the factory of Gurdial Singh:- The witnesses cited by the prosecution to prove that some threatening letters were dropped at the factory of Gurdial Singh (PW1) bearing number CW-76, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Deli have not supported the prosecution case. However, seizure memo of the envelops and the letters Ex.PW7/A has 20 been admitted by PW7, Anand Verma, which bears his signatures at point A. SI Gopal Ram (PW27) has also proved this seizure memo. The FSL Expert Harsh Vardhan (PW36) has proved his report Ex.PW36/D. As per his report, handwriting on the envelops and the letters therein i.e. Ex.PW36/B( collectively) and Ex.PW36/C (collectively) are in the handwriting of accused Charanjeet. 13.2.Report of this witness was challanged on the ground that the specimen handwriting of accused Charanjeet was taken during investigation without the permission of Court. This being a self incriminating evidence is hit by Article 20(3) of Constitution of India. This argument raised by the ld. defence counsel is absolutely meritless. Reliance upon law laid down in Devender Kumar Vs. State 2002 (3) J.C.C. 1789 is misplaced. This issue was settled by an 11(eleven) Judge decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case of State of Mumbai VS Kathi Kalu Oghad reported as AIR 1961 SC 1808. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:-
"Giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or fingers 21 or specimen writings or showings parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression 'to be a witness'.
13.3.Discussing the law laid down in Kathi Kalu's case (supra) an Hon'ble Single Bench of Delhi High Court has held in Rakesh Bisht VS State reported as 2007 Cri.L.J. 1530 as under :-
"....................In Kathi Kalu (1961 (2) Cri.L.J. 856) (supra), in the course of trial, the identification of the respondent therein, as one of the two alleged culprits was the most important question to be decided by the Court. Besides other evidence, the prosecution adduced in evidence a receipt "Exhibit" alleged to have been in his handwriting and said to have been given by him. In order to prove that Exhibit-5 was in the handwriting of the accused, the police had obtained from him during the investigation three handwriting specimens on three separate sheets of paper which were marked as Exhibits 27,28 and 29. The disputed document, namely, Exhibit-5 was compared with the admitted handwriting in Exhibits 27,28 and 29 by the handwriting expert whose evidence was to the effect that they were all written by the same person. In the trial and in the High Court, the question was raised as to the admissibility of the specimen writings contained in Exhibits 27,28, and 19, in 22 view of the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. So, it is clear that in Kathi Kalu (supra), the question was not whether the Court could direct an accused in the course of the investigation to provide handwriting samples, but whether the handwriting samples already obtained in the course of investigation would be admissible in view of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that it would be as the taking of handwriting samples, did not amount to be accused being a witness against himself..................................................... ............................................................"
13.4.A perusal of the threatening letter Ex.PW36/C (collectively) reflects that it was declared therein that 'any person who worked in that factory would face consequences dangerous than that of Ram Chander'. Seizure memo Ex.PW7/A reflects that the same were seized on 08.05.2001 i.e. they were delivered within seven or eight days of the murder of Ram Chander. This establishes the motive of Narayan Singh (since deceased) to terrorize the workers who were leaving his factory and joining that of his ex-partner Gurdial Singh (PW1). This evidence not only corroborates the prosecution case as regards the motive of the murder of Ram Chander, but in my opinion, also explains the circumstances under which Vinod (PW2) turned hostile in 23 his cross examination.
14.1.Another circumstance which establishes differences between Narayan Singh and Gurdial Singh is the threats received by Gurdial Singh on his mobile phone. Gurdial Singh (PW1) in his testimony has admitted his statement Ex.PW1/A on the basis whereof FIR NO.547/00, PS-Kirti Nagar was registered. A perusal of statement Ex.PW1/A reveals that he had received threats on his mobile phone from landline numbers which were 5123766 and 5151947. Pritipal Singh (PW25) and Harjeet Singh (PW24) have deposed that telephone number 5123766 was installed in their Tyre repairing shop at Raghubir Nagar. They have also deposed that accused Charanjeet is related to them as real brother and real chacha respectively. The other telephone number mentioned in the statement of Gurdial Singh (PW1) is also installed in a shop in the area at Raghubir Nagar. Accused Charanjeet is resident of Tagore Garden, which is situated nearby and one of these telephone being installed in the shop of his own brother, again indicates at his involvement in making these threatening phone calls. 15.1.It was argued by the ld. defence counsels that the knife attributed to 24 accused Prem Kishore was allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Charanjeet. The recovery was effected from standing water opposite his house, after a gap of 7 months of the occurrence. The FSL report Ex.PW35/A did not detect any blood on the knife. I find force in the arguments of ld. defence counsel, that recovery of knife and its user in the occurrence has not established beyond reasonable doubt.
15.2.Similarly recovery of scooter and its user is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged scooters used by the accused persons to flee from the spot of occurrence, were not shown to the eyewitness Vinod Kumar (PW2). I also, therefore, hold that recovery of alleged scooters is not incriminating against the accused persons. 15.3.Another argument advanced by ld. defence counsels is on the basis of MLC, that MLC records history of 'Dacoity'. I am not impressed by this arguments at all. The author of MLC Dr. Sandesh Gupta was not available to the prosecution. MLC was proved through Dr. Raj Kumar under whom Dr. Sandesh Gupta had worked. In his 25 examination-in-chief Dr. Raj Kumar (PW3) has deposed that patient was brought with alleged history of stab injuries in 'uknown dacoity'. The Ld. APP for the State had objected to the word dacoity during the deposition of PW3, as the same was not legible. A perusal of MLC Ex.PW3/A does reveal that the word referred to as dacoity is not legible. On a deeper study of this word it is patent that there is another letter after letter 't' in the uppercase. If it were word 'dacoity' 't' would be immediately followed by 'y' and not by another letter in the uppercase. I, therefore, do not agree with the ld. Defence counsels that history of dacoity is recorded in the MLC.
15.4.It was also argued by the ld. defence counsels that the accused persons when produced before the Ld. MM were not in muffled faces. The TIP was, therefore, of no consequences. Reliance has been placed upon on law laid down in 1990 Cri.L.J. 68 & 1983 Cri.L.J. 434. In my opinion both the judgments are not applicable on the facts of the present case. In both the cited judgments TIP proceedings were held to be improper; whereas in the present case, TIP had been refused by the accused persons. Further as discussed in para 10.8 26 above, the identifications by PW2 Vinod Kumar cannot be disputed. 15.5.The argument by ld. defence counsels that handwriting is not a perfect science and conviction cannot be based solely on handwriting report, does not advance the case of defence. As discussed in para no.13.3. & 13.4., the handwriting of accused Charanjeet is being used only to corroborate the eyewitness account. The handwriting of accused was used for the similar purpose in Kathi Kalu's case (Supra). 15.6.Before closing the discussion on the evidence, it shall be pertinent to refer to the latest view on criminal jurisprudence. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt has been diluted. It has been held that the proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. In State of Punjab VS Karnail Singh reported as 2004 (SCC) Criminal 135, it was held in para 12 as under :-
"A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no ionnocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot aford 27 any favorite other than the truth."
This view was re-iterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Trimuk Maroti Kirkan Vs State of Maharashtra reported as 2007 Cri.L.J. 20.
16.1.On assimilating the evidence as discussed above role of accused Charanjeet is a common thread in threats by telephone and the threats by letters. His presence at the time of occurrence on 01.05.2000 establishes motive for the commission of murder. Accused Charanjeet was a driver with accused Narayan Singh (since deceased) and as per the evidence it will not be improper to say that he was also a henchman for Narayan Singh (since deceased ). Accused Prem Kishore, Aanand and Rishi were merely tools employed by Charanjeet to realise the desires of his employer Narayan Singh (since deceased). As held by this court in para 10 & 11 above, there is no reason to disbelieve the presence and involvement of all the four accused persons facing trial, in the incident when the Ram Chander was stabbed on 01.05.2000 at 8:30PM at Mukerba Chowk, G.T. Karnal Road. The stab injuries might have been caused by Prem Kishore, 28 alone, yet all the four acted in unison and are, therefore equally liable for the main offence. The role of each one of them has been described by the witness Vinod Kumar. He has deposed that Prem Kishore had stabbed Ram Chander and Rishi caught hold of Ram Chander. The inference consequentially is that the other two caught hold of Vinod Kumar (PW2) so that he may not come to the rescue of his uncle. 16.2.As regards the charge for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC the fact that occurrence was not spontaneous reflects premeditation of minds. All the four had come to the spot together and one of them was armed with a knife. There were clearly demarcated role of each of the accused persons, as two of them caught hold of witness Vinod and the other two attacked deceased Ram Chander. This also reflects that the offence was carried out in a preplanned manner, where each person knew the role assigned to him. There was also no history of accused persons and the deceased knowing each other or of having entered into any conflict at the spot. The purpose of the offence being to terrorize the workers who were shifting allegiance, further indicates that the offence was carried out in a planned manner after conspiring with each other. The charge for 29 offence punishable under Section 120 B IPC is thus established. 16.3.I, further hold that all the four accused persons acted and committed the murder of Ram Chander in prosecution of their conspiracy. They are thus guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 120B IPC. They are accordingly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and Section 302 read with 120B IPC. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open Court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL) today i.e. 04.08.2008. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
30IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
DATE OF INSTITUTION :07.02.2001.
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT: 30.07.2008.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:04.08.2008.
DATE OF ORDER ON SENTENCE : 18.08.2008, S.C. NO.189/06.
FIR NO.279/00.
PS-S.P. BADLI.
STATE VS. 1. Prem Kishore S/o. Sunheri Lal R/o.
Kasganj Khedia Mohalla, District- Atta (U.P)
2. Rishi S/o. Balbir Singh R/o. Village-
Giddwa, District-Bhatinda, Punjab.
3. Aanand Kumar @ Beeru S/o. Sh.
Bhagirath Prasad R/o. Gali No.7, H.No.181, Sant Nagar Burari, Delhi.
4. Charanjeet Singh @ Channi S/o.
Shamsher Singh R/o. D-135, Tagore Garden Extension, Delhi.
5. Narayan Singh S/o. Sh. Jaswant Singh R/o. B-3/11, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. [Expired on 04.03.2007] 31 ORDER ON SENTENCE 1.1.Vide a separate judgment dated 04.08.2008, accused persons stand convicted for offence punishable under Section 120 B, 302 read with 120B IPC.
1.2.Sh. Sanjay Soni, ld. APP for the State has argued that the accused persons in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy had committed the murder of a worker employed in the rival factory. The motive to commit the murder was to scare poor workers. The accused persons had acted on behalf of their co-accused Narayan Singh, who was an industrialist. It is, therefore, argued that the accused persons do not deserve any lenient approach.
2.1.Learned Counsels for the accused have argued that the offences does not fall in the category of rarest of the rare case, in terms of quantum or nature of offence. Therefore, a lenient approach is prayed for. 3.1.I have heard the ld. Counsels. This is a case where one person was stabbed and he expired as a result of injuries sustained by him. I agree 32 with the ld. Defence counsels that it does not fall in the category of rarest of the rare, so as to attract death penalty. Accused persons are, therefore, held liable to undergo RI for life, for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. They shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of the accused persons shall undergo SI for a period of six (6) months. 4.1.As regards the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120B IPC, accused persons shall undergo RI for life. They shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine each of the accused persons shall further undergo SI for a period of nine(9) months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Convict shall also be entitled to the benefit of provision of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Ordered accordingly.
5.1.Copy of judgment and order on sentence be provided to the convict today itself free of cost. Sessions file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL) today i.e. 18.08.2008. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
33STATE VS PREM KISHORE & ORS.
FIR NO.279/00.
PS-S.P. BADLI.
18.08.2008.
Present: APP for the State.
All the convict/accused persons produced from JC. Vide a separate order on sentence, all convict/accused persons shall undergo RI for life, for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. They shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of the convict/accused persons shall undergo SI for a period of six (6) months.
As regards the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120B IPC, convict/accused persons shall undergo RI for life. They shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine each of the accused persons shall further undergo SI for a period of nine(9) months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Convict/Accused persons shall also be entitled to the benefit of provision of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of judgment and order on sentence be provided to the convict/accused persons today itself free of cost. Sessions file be consigned to record room.
(NAROTTAM KAUSHAL) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
18.08.2008 34 STATE VS PREM KISHORE & ORS.
FIR NO.279/00.
PS-S.P. BADLI.
04.08.2008.
Present: APP for the State.
Accused on bail.
Vide a separate judgment, accused persons are held guilty for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, 302/120B IPC . They are taken into custody.
Now to come up for arguments on sentence on 07.08.2008.
(NAROTTAM KAUSHAL) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
04.08.2008