Delhi District Court
State vs . Puran Chand on 14 January, 2011
Page No. 1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI J.R.ARYAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01/NEW DELHI
PATIALA HOUSE COURT.
SESISONS CASE NO. 075/2008
State Vs. Puran Chand
S/o Shri Kaniya Lal
R/o CII/226, Madangir,
New Delhi.
FIR No. 168/2008
Police Station Ambedkar Nagar
Under Section 304 Part II IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Accused has been convicted U/s 304 Part II IPC. Today both
sides have been heard. Counsel Sh. S.K.Saxena submitted that
accused was an young boy and had three minor children and his
wife and they will be ruined if a harsh sentence is awarded. It is
submitted that there is no previous involvement in any criminal
activity of accused and counsel prayed for a sentence already
undergone by accused in this case.
It has been argued from prosecution side that the deceased
was also a poor labourer and his family is also equally suffering and
accordingly a suitable and adequate sentence is prayed.
Page No. 2
Accused is a young boy and no criminal antecedent against
him are the mitigating factors. The offence is punishable with
imprisonment which may extent up to 10 years or fine or both. I
have given consideration to both sides submissions. A sentence of
7 years R.I in this offence will meet the ends of justice. I accordingly
award sentence of 7 years R.I to accused Puran Chand for this
offence U/s 304 Part II IPC. Period undergone during trial in this
case shall be set off against this sentence.
Announced in the open (J. R. ARYAN)
court on 17/01/2011. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
NEW DELHI.
Page No. 3
IN THE COURT OF SHRI J.R.ARYAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01/NEW DELHI
PATIALA HOUSE COURT.
SESISONS CASE NO. 075/2008
Date of Institution : 28/07/2008
Arguments heard : 06/01/2011
Date of Judgment : 14/01/2011
State Vs. Puran Chand
S/o Shri Kaniya Lal
R/o CII/226, Madangir,
New Delhi.
FIR No. 168/2008
Police Station Ambedkar Nagar
Under Section 302 IPC
JUDGMENT
Accused Puran Chand has been tried on a charge of murder and the charge is that on intervening night of 6th / 7th of April 2008 accused committed murder of victim deceased Hari Singh S/o Laxman Dass in a residential house C2/183 Madangir, New Delhi. Accused claimed trial. The prosecution seeks to prove charge from circumstantial evidence and the incriminating circumstance sought to be brought in proving this charge are :
1. That accused was seen in the house C2/183, Madangir at around 10 PM of the night of the incident i.e., 6.4.2008 ;
2. Accused dissuaded PW1 Smt. Basanti and her daughter PW2 Page No. 4 from going inside the flat C2/183 Madangir when these witnesses wished to enter inside the house to find out well being of the deceased, deceased being brother in law of PW1 i.e., brother of the husband of PW1 and at that point of time deceased alone was residing in his house C2/183 Madangir as the wife and children of deceased had gone to wife's parent place in Trilok Puri, Delhi ;
3. Accused succeeded in preventing PW1 and PW2 in entering inside the house by explaining to these two witnesses that because of heavy alcohol take the deceased was not in a normal condition and witness could see him in the next morning ;
4. Deceased was found murdered by infliction of blunt force wherein injuries were found caused to skull and chest ;
5. Finally the incriminating circumstance is that accused after his arrest on 8.4.2008 got recovered a pant and shirt which he was wearing on the date of the incident recovery got effected from his house C2/226, 1st floor room and the pant cream colour was found bearing some stain marks and FSL report Ex. PW13/A reveals that stain marks were of human blood and its group was determined as A which matched with the blood group of the deceased.
Prosecution to prove its charge has examined in all 21 witnesses. Before a brief account of this evidence is taken note of, facts leading to registration of this case may be set out which are as Page No. 5 follow .
DD no. 10A Ex. PW6/C was recorded at PS Ambedkar Nagar on 7.4.2008 at 11.40 AM. Its contents were that a murder had taken place and body was lying in a house C2/183 Madangir . Police officials from PS Ambedkar Nagar reached and SHO Inspector Subhash Tandon took up inquiry. PW1 Smt. Basanti, sister in law of the deceased R/o C2/118 Madangir, New Delhi gave a statement of facts concerning this case and accordingly it was taken to be the FIR. Statement given by Basanti Ex. PW1/A was that deceased Hari Singh, brother in law of the informant aged around 3839 years was r/o of the ground floor of C2/183 Madangir and was in a job / profession of white wash of buildings. Hari Singh had returned to Delhi from his work 3 or 4 days before and was residing alone in the house as his wife and children had gone to wife's parent place in Trilok Puri, Delhi.
Informant further claimed that another brother in law of informant namely Dal Chand r/o C2/250 Madangir, had gone to Jaipur to visit a temple and had returned with his family a day before and accordingly had arranged a gathering for God prayer (bhajan kirtan) at his house. Informant and her daughter Manju PW2 had gone to call upon neighbouring people to come and join that prayer gathering. While they were passing through and were in front of Page No. 6 house of Hari Singh, the door of the house was seen a little open and some noise was coming from inside the house. Informant and her daughter Manju when peeped into room from that door, accused Puran came out of the inner side room. Informant knew Puran as he was r/o a gali situated in the back side. Accused Puran then asked to Manju that Hari Singh had taken an excess liquor and was not in senses and asked Manju to leave. Hearing this version of accused, informant and her daughter proceeded towards their destination while looking behind that accused Puran, having come out of the house, kept a constant watch that informant and her daughter had gone away.
It is further given in this report that on 7.4.2008 another uncle of the informant namely Net Ram when came to the house of Hari Singh at around 11 AM to know about his well being, he found Hari Singh lying in blood on the floor of inside room and was dead. She further claimed that on being told about Puran to her family people, they tried to trace Puran but he was found absent from his house. She further claimed that she suspected Puran to have killed Hari Singh as she was to recover some amount from Hari Singh and that could be the reason for the noise which she heard coming out of the house.
Inspector Subhash Tandon finding the dead body lying on the floor of the room in the house, found an offence u/s. 302 IPC committed and accordingly by sending tehrir Ex. PW21/A on this Page No. 7 statement Ex. PW1/A, FIR Ex. PW6/A was got registered. DD No. 14 A Ex. Pw6/B of FIR was recorded separately. FIR was registered at 2.50 PM on 7.4.2008. Sample of blood, bloodstained concrete and concrete earth control were lifted through sealed containers and seizure memo Ex. PW10/A was prepared. Four empty liquor bottles (three halves and one full bottles) were found lying. Crime team was called to lift chance finger print from these bottles and 7 chance prints were lifted. But then these chance print when taken up for analysis at FSL, vide report Ex. PW17/B those prints were found partial and smudged not disclosing sufficient number of line details and accordingly it was found not enough to compare if with specimen finger prints of deceased and of accused. One bloodstained clothe, cream colour, was found lying nearby body of the deceased which was also taken into pulanda and affixed a seal and its seizure memo Ex. PW10/C was prepared.
Dead body was got removed to AIIMS Hospital mortuary and there it was subjected to postmortem on 8.4.2008. Following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body :
1. A multiple abraded contused area over whole of right face measuring 12x9cm, on exploration massive extravasation of blood seen in facial muscles and subcutaneous part.
2. A contusion is present over left side of the face involving whole Page No. 8 area, with swelling of both lips with contusion. On exploration shows extravasated (massive) of whole face and lips.
3. A contusion of size 6x17 cm is present over chest on the right extending from midline to latterly & downwards upto axillary fold and clavicle at above. On exploration whole chest was found in front and lateral aspect shows massive extravasation of blood.
There is fracture and associated haematoma of body of sternum at upper end. The evidence of fracture 26th ribs over anterior aspect blunt on the right side. Also fracture of 48th ribs over anterior aspect on the left side of chest. The wall of chest shows massive extravasation blood internally and externally. The right lung shows a construe are of size 6x8c on medial anterior surface.
4. A contusion of size 5x4cm is present over antero lateral aspect of left arm 20cm below from shoulder tip.
5. A contusion of size 3x2 cm is present over antero lateral surface of left arm situated 7cm above from elbow joint.
6. A contusion of size 3x3cm is present over posterior aspect of left wrist at lateral side.
7. Contusion of size 4x4cm is present over anterior aspect of right arm, 12cm below from shoulder.
Time since death was opined about one and a half day and the Page No. 9 cause of death was opined as haemorrhagic shock due to blunt force impact which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries were found antemortem in nature and fresh in duration. Viscera was preserved. Postmortem report is Ex. PW12/A. Viscera contents when analyzed at FSL report Ex. PW21/H revealed presence of ethyl alcohol and it further ruled out any kind of poisoning. Crime team took photographs of the scene of the crime and photographs Ex. PW5/A8 to A10 and 12,13 and 14 respectively focus the body as seen lying on the floor.
It is further claimed by prosecution that accused Puran was arrested on 8.4.2008 from jahapana jungle site on a secret information. On being interrogated accused confessed his involvement in this crime. Accused then got recovered a pant and t shirt from 1st floor room of his house and these clothes were seized through a pulanda and seal ST was affixed on pulanda. Seizure memo Ex. PW10/B was prepared. Bloodstained exhibits in this case were got examined at FSL and report as Ex. PW13/A was received that bloodstained exhibits picked up from the spot and the six simple gauze gave analysis report that it was human origin blood and it was blood group A as seen above, the pant which accused got recovered was found bearing bloodstains and that blood was also A group. With these incriminating facts that accused was charge sheeted. Page No. 10
Witnesses examined in this trial are; PW1 and PW2 of the incriminating circumstance and fact that accused was seen in the house of deceased at around 10 PM of the intervening night of 6.4.2008. PW1 Smt. Basanti deposed in evidence that deceased Hari Singh, her brother in law was R/o C2/183 Madangir, Delhi . Incident was of 6.4.2008, she deposed, and Hari Singh was living alone when his wife and children had gone to their parents place in Trilok Puri, Delhi. She further deposed that her 2nd brother in law Dal Chand had gone to Jaipur for a pilgrimage and had returned a day before and accordingly programme for a God prayer ( bhajan kirtan) was arranged in his house. She further deposed that on the date of incident she went to Dal Chand house and at around 10 PM she along with her daughter Manju set out to call invitation to neighbouring people. Having called at various places, while they happened to pass through in front of the house of Hari Singh, witness deposed, she and her daughter saw entry gate of that house open a little. Manju asked witness if she could go inside to know about her uncle Hari Singh and they heard a noise coming from inside the house. While they were just present on the main gate when accused Puran Chand R/o their locality came out of the house and prevented this witness and Manju from going inside the house saying that Hari Singh had taken a overdose of liquor and was not in good condition and asked them Page No. 11 that they could come and see him in morning.
Witness further deposed that she observed accused Puran Chand appeared to be in a perplex condition, a little out of breath and not in a position to speak properly. This witness along with her daughter Manju then proceeded towards house of Dal Chand. They saw Puran Chand keeping a watch on them standing in front of the house of the Hari Singh till they reached the corner of the gali. Witness deposed further that on 7.4.2008 her uncle Net Ram when happened to visit Hari Singh's house to know about his well being this incident of murder of Hari Singh was discovered. Witness proved her report given to the police as Ex. PW1/A. PW2 Miss Manju aged around 14 years has fully corroborated the facts deposed by her mother as PW1.
Defence counsel Shri S. K. Saxena appointed amicus to defend accused has argued and pointed out that both these witnesses were chance witnesses. Both of them admitted in their cross examination that while they were prevented from entering inside the house by accused Puran Chand, they did raise any protest and did not call anybody , it ought to have created and developed some kind of reason or suspicion and then to take any kind of further action. Even if Hari Singh was stated to have taken excess dose of liquor as told by Puran Chand , it being an occasion where a prayer programme had been Page No. 12 arranged in the house of the brother of deceased Hari Singh, they must have as a probable human conduct gone inside the house to see if Hari Singh cold be taken to join that prayer programme. At least they could have gone inside to find out the condition of the victim Hari Singh as qua in take of liquor. Counsel argued that it was contrary to a normal human behaviour that witnesses, close relative of the victim deceased, would proceed without caring to go inside and that should create a serious doubt in their deposition.
Counsel further argued that prosecution has examined another witness PW4 as R/o adjoining house of the deceased i.e., C2/184 Madangir and according to prosecution this witness saw PW1 and 2 happened to stop and try to see Hari Singh on the previous night i.e., 6.4.2008 and Puran Chand preventing them from coming inside the house after having come out of the house of Hari Singh. But then the witness was found hostile by the prosecution when he did not support the prosecution case on this point and has been cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP. In this cross examination witness denied to have seen and observed any such fact or to have given those facts in his statement and he was confronted i.e earlier 161 CrPC statement. Counsel submitted that testimony of PW1 and PW2 cannot be accepted and this incriminating circumstance cannot be held proved against accused.
Page No. 13
Defence counsel read over from the cross examination of PW 1 that the house C2/183 comprised three storeys. 1st and 2nd floor accommodation consisted accommodation similar to ground floor i.e, two room set. 1st and 2nd floor accommodation was in occupation of tenants. There were four tenants in individual rooms in the 1st and the 2nd floor but then witness clarified that some of them were residing and some had gone to their native place. She did not recall or knew who particular tenant was residing and who had gone to his native place on the date of the incident. The house area comprised 25 s. yd.. Counsel submitted that had it been an incident that witness PW1 and PW2 when stopped in order to go inside and find out the wellbeing of deceased, uncle of PW2 and they heard some kind of noise coming from inside, situation would have attracted occupants of the 1st and the 2nd floor tenants as it was a small area house and no other tenants attracted to any such noise coming from ground floor accommodation, it was not possible to believe PW1 and PW2 that they did see any such incident that accused Puran Chand was present inside the house.
Another defence suggestion given to PW1 and the witness answered it wrong is that in fact wife and children of deceased Hari Singh had left the deceased since about 8 to 10 months before this incident because of quarrels over the issue of liquor. Another Page No. 14 defence put to witness in cross examination is concerning the identity of accused Puran Chand in the absence of adequate light available on the spot. Witness further deposed that there was street light just a house away from the house of deceased and she further volunteered that light in the house of the deceased Hari Singh was on when Puran Chand came out of the house.
To my considered view and opinion the testimony of PW1 and PW2 has remained unshaken on the fact they have deposed. They have not been questioned on the fact that there was a gathering arranged for bhajan and kirthan in the house of Dal Chand on that night . Their testimony that they were in the gali to call and invite their known family persons to reach and join that programme is quite natural. In that process if they happened to pass in front of the house of deceased, it was in the course of their normal natural act and thus their presence can be believed. Merely that Puran Chand dissuaded witnesses from entering inside the house on a suggestion or to say a ward that deceased had taken overdose of liquor and was not in his senses, witnesses believing and accepting these words from accused Puran Chand again appears to be a normal human behaviour. Witness admitted in cross examination that deceased used to be in habit of taking liquor. It was not a situation that accused Puran Chand prevented witnesses from entering inside the house by any Page No. 15 reason or words which in a situation would have created some abnormality of behaviour had witnesses still persisted in going inside the house. It was quite natural as a human behaviour that PW1 and PW2 proceed towards their destination after being told and informed by accused Puran Chand that deceased was not in senses having taken overdose of liquor. Witnesses being aware that deceased was in a habit of taking liquor and had been seen on earlier occasion to have taken liquor in the company of accused was a circumstance enough for these two witnesses to accept the words spoken by accused Puran Chand and to proceed further. Though it was an occasion that a prayer gathering had been arranged in the house of the brother of the deceased but then considering the situation and status of deceased who was in the habit of taking liquor, if witnesses did not insist to go inside the house, despite being told his condition by accused Puran Chand , their conduct could not be described to be unnatural or a conduct contrary to the normal human behaviour so as to doubt and disbelieve their presence. The fact that deceased had taken liquor on that night of incident is corroborated by FSL report where viscera contents revealed presence of a ethyl alcohol. I could not find anything abnormal either in the behaviour of these two witnesses or from any material in their deposition particular in the cross examination to doubt and disbelieve them. Statement of PW1 Page No. 16 came to be recorded soon after the incident which provides due corroboration and support to her testimony.
Merely that no other occupant of the building got attracted to the incident of this case when PW1 and PW2 have deposed that when they stopped in front of the house of deceased they heard some kind of noise coming from inside ( which has been described by witness as shor sharaba) appears to be a situation when a person heard such a noise paying an attention towards it as PW1 and PW2 stopped to go inside and find out wellbeing of deceased Hari Singh, other persons near around if not attentive to any such 'shor sharaba' was not an occasion to disbelieve PW1 and PW2 particularly in absence of any further material suggesting that 'shor sharaba' was of an extent and volume which would have attracted other persons near around. On this count also presence of PW1 and PW2 cannot be doubt.
Defence counsel pointed out cross examination of PW1 where at page no. 10 witness deposed that when at around 11 AM she heard about death of Hari Singh and as she reached the house, wife and children of Hari Singh were present there already. Counsel submitted that if children of Hari Singh were away to his in law place then how come they could be there present at 11 AM on 7.4.2008. We are dealing with the testimony of an witness who belongs to a labour Page No. 17 class and stated that she had studied upto 5thclass. That cannot be a serious discrepancy in the prosecution case. But then as argued from prosecution side may be it was a little later in that day wife and children of Hari Singh reached who must have heard about death / murder of deceased. No other material could be pointed out or suggested from the cross examination of witnesses whereby they were to be disbelieved.
Ld. counsel argued that if witness had seen accused Puran Chand in a perplexed condition, unable to speaks properly and sweating when Puran Chand dissuaded witness from entering the house, such a condition of accused ought to have generated a curiosity to know the reason for that condition of accused and it creates a serious doubt in the testimony of witness if they did not react accordingly. It is a matter of record that this peculiar condition of accused as observed by PW1 and deposed in this trial had not been mentioned or described in her report Ex. PW1/A. May be it was an improvement though witness had not been confronted by those omission. Still a person reacting in a peculiar manner would depend upon person to person. In the present case, as observed above, it was a situation where witnesses were out to invite the neighbouring known related people to come and attend praying gathering and they being aware of deceased in habit of taking a liquor and some time Page No. 18 even in the company of the accused, unless some other factor created an impression whereby witness could suspect accused Puran Chand to be in some foul play, even if after observing accused Puran Chand in that peculiar state of body and witness proceed towards their place of bhajan kirtan, the conduct fails to suggest that witnesses were unbelivable. Witnesses must have been focused to reach the spot where programme had been arranged.
As regards identity of accused Puran Chand there is nothing to suggest that it was absence of light wherein witness could not have identified him. Identity of a known person does not require much light or efforts and in the present case testimony of PW1 and PW2 cannot be disbelieved when they claimed to have identified Puran Chand .
Accordingly the facts stand proved and established that on the intervening night of 6th / 7th of April 2008 at around 10 or 10.30 PM accused Puran Chand was present inside the house of deceased and he dissuaded PW1 and PW2 from entering inside the house to know wellbeing of deceased. Though witnesses have not deposed presence of deceased but then his presence can be inferred when house belonged to deceased, deceased was ultimately found murdered in this house and accused himself told witnesses that deceased was not in senses because of overdose of liquor taken by him. Page No. 19
Accordingly prosecution succeeds in proving the incriminating circumstance of deceased last seen in the company of accused and further incriminating circumstance about conduct of accused when he dissuaded PW1 and PW2 from entering inside the house to see and know wellbeing of deceased. In absence of any valid explanation this conduct of accused reflects upon his guilt conscious / brain.
Accused when examined to explain this incriminating circumstance against him , he came out with a plea and explanation that in fact on the date of the incident he had taken liquor and since 5.30 or 6 PM, he was not in his senses. He was even unable to recall with whom he had taken liquor, he was not sure that if he had been in the house of deceased or that came out of the house as stated by witness. He further explained that he did not recall as to whether he had stayed out throughout that night or that he had reached his home. He recollected only that when he got up next morning he found himself in his house and then he took his wife to bus stand Dhaula Kaun to get her board bus for her native place in Rajasthan. Explanation lead nowhere and the above stated incriminating circumstance can be held explained for his innocence.
The other incriminating circumstance is the recovery of wearing pant of accused which was found stained with blood. According to police official witnesses including IO ACP Subhash Page No. 20 Tandon PW21 they apprehended accused on 8.4.2008 from jahapanaha jungle spot on a secret information at around 4 PM. They have further deposed that accused led the police team thereafter to his house C2/226 and got recovered a pant and shirt from his 1st floor room and this recovery was witnessesed by public person Madan Lal PW10 who is the brother of the deceased. All these witnesses including PW10 Madan Lal have deposed recovery of clothes of accused Puran Chand i.e., a pant and shirt. It is the prosecution case that pant of cream colour was found bearing stains and accordingly the pant and the shirt when got examined from FSL, stain marks on the pant were reported to be human blood and its group was determined 'A' which matched with the blood group of the deceased.
Defence counsel argued by pointing out testimony of PW10 that this recovery could not be attributed to accused as got effected pursuant to his disclosure or at his instance. PW10 has deposed that on 8.4.2008 police seized some clothes from the living room of accused Puran Chand but then accused Puran Chand was not present there. Contrary to it police official witness SI K. P.Singh PW18, ACP Subhash Tandon PW21 have stated on oath that they apprehended accused Puran Chand on a secret information from jahapahan jungle site at around 8 PM on 8.4.2008. Accused gave disclosure which was recorded as Ex. PW18/C pursuant to this Page No. 21 disclosure accused took the police party to the 1st floor room of his house and got recovered a white / cream colour pant and black colour shirt and those clothes were taken into a pulanda and seal ST was affixed and it were seized through memo Ex. PW10/D. Witness further deposed that pant was found bearing stain marks. Question arises should recovery be disbelieved. Recovery of clothes pursuant to disclosure Ex. PW18/C given by accused Puran Chand , at his instance, would have made that part of the disclosure admissible in terms of section 27 Evidence Act which disclosure led to recovery of these articles and discovery of facts and then was deposed by witness. Accused Puran Chand did tell police in his confession / disclosure Ex. Pw18/C that he could get the clothes recovered from his house. Now if PW10 has not deposed and thereby supported the prosecution story that recovery of these clothes was got effected by accused, he does speak recovery of these clothes from the house of accused Puran Chand . Accused Puran Chand did not come out with any such plea during trial that clothes did not belong to him. PW2 Manju specifically deposed in evidence that clothes which Puran Chand was wearing when this witness had seen accused present in the house of the deceased on 6.4.2008 at around 10.30 PM were white pant and black colour shirt with white dots. There was no challenge to this part of her testimony and Ld. Addl. PP rightly argued and Page No. 22 emphasized that identity of clothes recovered from the house of accused as belonging to accused can be found established from the testimony of PW2 also. Accordingly even if defence contention is taken into consideration that recovery of pant and shirt of accused was not at the instance of accused, he being not present physically with the police party at the time of recovery as deposed by PW10, still fact stands established that clothes were recovered from his house and it belonged to him. It was for accused to explain as to how come human bloodstains which blood group matched with the blood group of the deceased came to appear on his pant. There is no explanation by accused.
PW3 is a witness who called police by phone on number 100 informing presence of dead body of deceased in the house C2/183 and this information was conveyed on 7.4.2008 at 11.15 AM. PW5 had recorded photographs as part of the crime team. Some of these photographs exhibited by the witness showed presence of body lying on the floor of the house and some amount of blood lying nearby the head, as IO has deposed that when he had reached the spot, he had found some amount of blood as if to have come out from the mouth and ear of the deceased. It was not much blood.
PW6 had recorded the FIR and proved its copy along with DD entry 10A recorded separately of the fact and proved those DD entry Page No. 23 also. Registration of the FIR at 14.50 hours at 7.4.2008 stands proved. PW7 had brought original original DD register and proved certain DD entries. PW8 is the special messenger who had taken copy of FIR to Sr. Police officials and to the residence of Ld. MM. PW9 had prepared scaled site plan and proved it. PW10 is public witness Madan Lal. PW11 is the Incharge of the crime team under whom official have conducted their proceedings. PW12 is the doctor from department of forensic medicine of AIIMS Hospital and proved the postmortem report. His testimony is unchallenged. PW 13 is a official witness from FSL who proved report Ex. PW13/A. PW14 is a malkhana munshi and he had released sealed exhibits in this case and got it deposited with FSL on 30.5.2008 as per the instructions of the IO. PW15 is again a police official who had collected certain pulandas from AIIMS Hospital which comprised viscera box and blood in gauze of the deceased duly sealed with the seal of FMT, AIIMS Hospital on 8.4.2008 and handed it over to IO. PW16 Net Ram who had noticed body of the deceased lying in his house when this witness happened to visit to know the wellbeing of the deceased in his house . PW17 is the part investigation officer who only collected the FSL report and made it part of the judicial file record. PW18 and 21 had arrested accused. PW20 is a sniffer bog trainer who made sniffer dog take a smell from the scene of the Page No. 24 crime and this bog led trainer to the house of the accused.
This is in all the evidence.
Question then arises if the charge can be held proved from the incriminating circumstance to found duly established and proved. To my view it stands proved.
Conviction on the incriminating circumstance of last seen can be based where prosecution succeeds in establishing that the time gap since the deceased was seen in the company of accused and till the time of death of the deceased and body of the deceased was found, was so small and short that somebody else intervening and committing the crime could be ruled out. In the present case accused was found in the company of the deceased at around 1010.30 PM on the intervening night of 6th/7th of April 2008. Dead body of the deceased was found and noticed at 11 AM next morning on 7.4.2008. The Autopsy Surgeon while conducting postmortem in this case which was taken on 8.4.2008 at 2.45 PM, opined that time since death was about one and a half day as has been recorded in his report Ex. PW12/A. Death of deceased thereby coincides mid of intervening night of 6th/7th of April 2008. Presence of accused in the company of deceased can thereby be said to be very proximate to the death of the deceased and this proximity and the short and small intervening time to my view rules out a possibility of 3rd person to come in and Page No. 25 commit this crime.
Incriminating conduct of accused when he dissuaded PW1 and PW2 in entering inside the house of deceased and thereby reflecting upon guilty mind of accused provides support and corroboration. Further incriminating circumstance of wearing pant of accused found bearing bloodstain marks also connects accused with this crime. To my view prosecution succeeds in proving from the above stated incriminating circumstances that accused was the perpetrator of this crime.
Question then arises what offence accused has committed. The postmortem report suggests that injuries were due to blunt force impact and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Nature of injury on the person of deceased suggests as if his body was assaulted by a blunt force. No weapon of offence appears to have been used. There appears no circumstance to suggest that the culpable homicide in the present case was a premeditated. Deceased had consumed liquor. Accused also admitted that he had consumed liquor on that evening. Possibility may not be ruled out that after having consumed liquor there happened some altercation between two and that lead to accused inflict injury by that kind of assault upon the deceased and deceased succumb to those blunt force injuries. Accused may not be imputed a necessary intention in Page No. 26 committing murder of the deceased or necessary intention in causing that particular injury which in ordinary course of nature was likely to cause death. He however could be attributed a necessary knowledge that by that assault he was likely to cause death in ordinary course of nature and that particular injury was inflicted. Offence accordingly may not fall within the parameter of murder as defined u/s. 300 IPC.
Offence committed by accused is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder and to my view it falls under section 304 Part II IPC as the culpable homicide appears to have been committed by causing blunt force assault but then with a knowledge that such an assault was likely to cause death and there was no intention to cause death or to cause that particular injury which was likely to cause death. Accordingly accused is convicted for offence punishable u/s. 304 Part II IPC.
Announced in the open (J. R. ARYAN)
court on 14/01/2011. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
NEW DELHI.
Page No. 27
State Vs. Puran Chand
FIR No. 168/2008
Police Station Ambedkar Nagar
Under Section 304 Part II IPC
17/1/2011
Present: Accused Puran Chand produced in J.C and defence
counsel Sh. S.K.Saxena, amicus present.
Addl. PP present for the State.
Arguments heard from both sides on the point of sentence. Vide separate order accused is awarded 7 years R.I U/s 304 Part II IPC and period already undergone will be set off. Sentence warrant be sent to jail for the execution of the sentence. Copy of judgment be provided to the accused and then file be consigned to record room.
(J. R. ARYAN) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE NEW DELHI.
17/01/2011.