Delhi District Court
State vs Sunny @ Parva on 31 May, 2024
-1-
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02( NORTH ):
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 58735/2016)
FIR No. 987/2015
Police Station S.P. Badli
Charge sheet filed 302/397/392/34 IPC &
Under Section 25/27 Arms Act
Charge framed Under 302/392/34/397 IPC
Section
State Vs. Sunny @ Parva
S/o Late Sh. Jagmal Singh
R/o Narender Ka Makan,
Mungfali Wali Galil, Shahbad
Daulatpur, Delhi.
...Accused
Date of institution 11.12.2015
Arguments concluded on 15.05.2024
Judgment Pronounced on 31.05.2024
Decision Acquitted
SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli
State Vs. Sunny @ Parva
Page 1 of 47
-2-
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.
Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion are that on 19.08.2015 an information regarding stabbing of a person had been received at PS S.P. Badli vide DD No. 11A which was entrusted to SI Jai Kumar, who upon reaching the spot i.e. AG-74, SGT Nagar, Delhi, found Ct.Arjun and Rajender along with other staff already present there. On inquiry, he came to know that one injured Mohd. Sadiq S/o Abdul Ajeej had already been shifted to BSA Hospital, Rohini. Thereafter, the IO reached the BSA Hospital and collected the MLC bearing no. 10335/15 where the person was declared brought dead. On inspection of the body, injury marks were found on the forehead, chest and other parts.
Eventually during investigation, the IO recorded statement of one Om Prakash and it transpired that the deceased was sleeping in his truck when he was stabbed by the accused persons, Sunny @ Parva and two more JCLs "A" and "S". Statement of a public person Sayed Sajid and Tanveer Alam had been recorded.
After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 302/397/392/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act was filed in the court against the accused.
SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 2 of 47 -3- CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 15.12.2016 charge under Section 302/392/34 IPC read with Section 397 IPC was framed against the accused Sunny @ Parva. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 30 witnesses in all.
PW1 is Dr. Mukesh Kumar, MD. Forensic Medicine, SR, BSA Hospital. He has deposed that on 20.08.2015, he along with Dr. Vijay Dhankar had conducted the postmortem on the body of Mohd. Sadik S/o Abdul Aziz. That the body was sent by Inspector Naresh Malik in case FIR No. 987/2015 PS S.P. Badli. He further deposed that on examination, they found external & internal injuries which are mentioned in the detail in their postmortem no. 549/2015 dated 20-10-2015. He further deposed that in their opinion, death in this case was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent to penetrating injuries to the chest. That all injuries were anti-mortem and fresh in duration prior to death. That injury No. 1 mentioned in PM report was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. That injuries No. 1 to 3 have been caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries No. 4 to 7 could be caused by blunt force. He further deposed that their detailed PM Report Ex. PW1/A running into 6 pages bears his signatures at point A and that of Dr. Vijay Dhankar are at point B on SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 3 of 47 -4- each page.
He further deposed that clothes of the deceased, blood on gauze and sample seal of the department in seal condition was preserved and handed over to IO. He further deposed that the subsequent opinion was given by Dr. Vijay Dhankar.
PW2 is HC Virender Singh. He has deposed that on 19-08-2015 he was posted as Mobile Crime Team Outer District and working as a photographer. That on that day i.e. 19-08-2015, he along with Incharge Crime Team ASI Ram Kumar and HC Manoj Finger Print Expert and HC Moti Ram reached at the spot i.e. in front of AG-74, Rama Krishna Transport, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi, where IO SI Jai Kumar along with other staff of PS S.P. Badli met us. That at the spot, he took 21 photographs from different angle on the directions of IO. That after developing the photographs, he handed over 21 photographs Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A21 to IO. That the negatives are Ex. PW2/B1 to PW2/B21.
PW3 is ASI Ganga Dhar. He has deposed that on 19.08.2015, he working as a duty officer and on that day, at about 8.22AM, he received a rukka through Ct. Arjun sent by SI Jai Kumar for the registration of FIR. That on the basis of said rukka, he got registered the present FIR No. 987/15 U/S 302 IPC through computer operator Ct. Sandeep and also made endorsement on the rukka vide DD No. 19A. That after registration of the FIR, computerized copy of FIR FIR is Ex.PW3/A and original rukka were sent to Inspector Naresh Malik, SHO, S.P. Badli through Ct. Arjun for investigation.
SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 4 of 47 -5- That his endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW3/B. That the certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act for the correctness of the FIR is Ex. PW3/C. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, computerized copies were handed to Ct. Bijender as special messenger to deliver the same to the Ld. Area MM and senior police officials. That Ct. Bijender left the Police Station with the copy of FIR on a Govt. Motorcycle No. DL-1SS-3402.
PW4 is ASI Ashok Sharma. He has deposed that on 19.08.2015, he received a message through wireless operator regarding the stabbing of one person at AG-74, SGT Nagar, Delhi. That the said message was reduced in writing vide DD No. 11A dated 19-08-2015 and same was intimated to SI Jai Kumar. That the true copy of DD No. 11A dated 19.08.2015 is Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that on the same day, at about 7:00AM, the departure entry of SHO Inspector Naresh Malik was lodged vide DD No. 15A dated 19-08-2015 and true copy of DD No. 15A dated 19.08.2015 is Ex.PW4/B. That the true copy of DD No. 19A & 20A dated 19-08-2015 are Ex. PW4/C & PW4/D. PW5 is Dr. Vijay Dhankar, MD Forensic, Medicine, Specialist & HOD BSA Hospital. He has deposed that On 20.08.2015 he along with Dr.Mukesh Kumar had conducted the postmortem on the body of Mohd. Sadik S/o Abdul Aziz. That the body was sent by Inspector Naresh Malik in case FIR No. 987/2015 PS S.P. Badli. That on examination, they found external & internal injuries which were mentioned in the detail in our postmortem no. 549/2015 dated 20-10-2015. He further deposed that in their our opinion death SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 5 of 47 -6- in this case was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent to penetrating injuries to the chest. That all injuries were anti-mortem and fresh in duration prior to death. That Injury No. 1 mentioned in PM report was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. That Injuries No. 1 to 3 have been caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries No. 4 to 7 could be caused by blunt force. That their detailed PM Report Ex.PW1/A running into 6 pages bears his signatures at point B and that of Dr. Mukesh Kumar are at point A respectively on each page.
He further deposed that clothes of the deceased, blood on gauze and sample seal of the department in seal condition was preserved and handed over to IO.
He further deposed that on 02-11-2015, a sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of NM along with request for seeking subsequent opinion was produced before him. That the pulanda was opened found to contain one knife and he prepared the sketch of Knife, after examination of knife and findings in PM report No. 549/2015, he came to the conclusion that injuries mentioned in the PM report can be caused by the weapon (knife) examined by him. That after examination, the weapon was kept in a pulanda and re-sealed with the seal of department and handed over to the police. That his subsequent opinion is Ex.PW5/A. PW6 is Sh. Om Prakash. He has deposed as under:
"In the year 2015, I was working as a clerk at RKRT Transport Company at AG-74, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi. I used to sleep on the third SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 6 of 47 -7- floor of the company office. In the said company there was about 23 trucks.
Truck no. DL-1GC-5212 was associated with our company and the name of driver was Mohd. Sadiq, R/o J & K. On 18.08.2015, the aforesaid truck was taken for service station at Alipur and after the service of the truck, the truck no. DL-1GC-5212 reached at our company at about 8:00 pm and same was parked by driver Mohd. Sadiq in front of our company and driver Mohd. Sadiq slept inside the truck. Thereafter, I went to third floor of the company and slept there at about 10:00 - 11:00 pm. In the morning at about 4:00 am, another driver Tanveer Alam and Syed Sajid called me and told that the driver of truck no. DL-1GC-5212 namely Mohd. Sadiq was in injured condition and his half of the body was hanging from the door of truck and remaining part of the body was inside the driver seat. I came downstairs and went near the truck no. DL- 1GC-5212 and saw driver Mohd. Sadiq was in injured condition and his half of the dead body was hanging on the door towards the driver side of the truck and his half body below the chest was lying inside the truck.
I made a call at 100 number. One Kishan was working as a security guard in the company and at that time he was not present there. PCR reached at the spot. Local police was also called by the PCR. Thereafter, the body of Mohd. Sadiq was taken out from truck and shifted to hospital in a PCR van. I alongwith other drivers of the company also followed the PCR van to the hospital and there we came to know that Mohd. Sadiq was declared dead. Police made inquiries from me and recorded my statement Ex. PW6/A which bears my signatures at point A. On the basis of my statement, case was registered. Thereafter, I again visited the spot alongwith IO and other police officials and I pointed out the said truck. Thereafter, police prepared the site plan. The blood SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 7 of 47 -8- samples were lifted from the seat cover of the truck as well as from the door and kept in a different plastic boxes and sealed with the seal of NM and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/B which also bears my signatures at point A and the truck was also seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/C which also bears my signatures at point A. Thereafter, photographs of the spot was done and my supplementary statement was recorded by the IO. On 22.08.2015, I was present in my office and at about 11:00 am, IO alongwith other police officials came to our office alongwith one boy, who was sitting inside the gypsy and at the instance of said boy police recovered one knife made in China from the roof of the toilet. The said knife was having blood stains and police prepared the sketch of knife which is Ex. PW6/D which bears my signatures at point A. The said knife was measured and converted into a pulanda and sealed with the seal of NM and pulanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/E which also bears my signatures at point A. Thereafter, police prepared the site plan of the place from where knife was recovered and same is Ex. PW6/F which also bears my signatures at point A. Thereafter, my statement was recorded by the IO in this regard.
At this stage, MHC (M) has produced parcel no. 9 with court seal. Same is opened and found to contain one knife and on the blade of the knife made in China is written. Same is shown to the witness, who correctly identifies it to be the same knife which was got recovered by JCL on 22.08.2015. The said knife is Ex. P1.
At this stage, witness had identified the said truck after seeing the photograph no.1 and the said truck at point X in which deceased Mohd. Sadiq was slept and his body was found."
PW7 is ASI Ram Kumar. He has deposed that on 19.08.2015, he was SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 8 of 47 -9- posted at Mobile Crime Team, Outer District as incharge. That on that day, on receiving an information, he alongwith HC Manoj, fingerprint proficient and Ct. Virender, photographer reached in front of AG-74, Rama Krishna Transport, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi. There he inspected truck no. DL-1GC-5212 and photographer took the photographs from different angles. That no chance prints were available. He further deposed that he prepared his report Ex. PW7/A. PW8 is Inspector Mahesh Kumar. He has deposed that on 01.10.2015, he visited the PS and thereafter, visited the spot i.e. in front of AG-74, RK Transport, SGT Nagar, Delhi along with Inspector Naresh Kumar, where on the pointing out of Inspector Naresh Kumar, he took the measurements and prepared rough notes. That on the basis of measurements and rough notes, he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW8/A on 23.10.2015 and handed over to IO. That thereafter, he destroyed the rough notes and measurements.
PW9 is Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Assistant Clerk, Deputy Secretary Home (General), Delhi Administration. He has proved the Notification No. F- 13/451/70, Home (G) dated 29.10.1980 alongwith attested copy of Notification duly attested by Superintendent of Home Department as Ex. PW9/A. PW10 is Ct. Raju Malik. He has deposed that on 19-08-2015, he was posted at CPCR and on that day at about 04:05 PM, he received a message from mobile phone number 9911116177 by Om Prakash regarding the stabbing of one person at AG-74, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. That the SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 9 of 47 -10- said message was flashed in PCR as well as information was sent to concerned control room. That the attested computerized copy of PCR Form No. 1 running into two pages is Ex. PW10/A. PW11 is Retd. ASI Rajbir Singh. He has deposed that in the intervening night of 18/19-08-2015, he was on night duty from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am in a ERV vehicle no. B23 alongwith driver Ct. Dinesh and the number of vehicle was DL-1LM-4012 and they left the PS vide DD No. 92B. That at about 4:20 am in the morning he received a message from control room that one person was stabbed at AG-74, SGT Nagar, Delhi in a truck no. DL-1GC- 5212. He further deposed that he reached there and found one person was lying injured in the truck no. DL-1GC-5212. That PCR reached at the spot and injured was shifted to hospital. That he preserved the spot and after some time SI Jai Kumar and other staff and beat staff namely Ct. Arjun and Ct. Rajender reached at the spot. That Crime team was also called by SI Jai Kumar. Thereafter, he left the spot after handing over the spot to SI Jai Kumar and during his stay the spot was not tampered and at that time there was a drizzling.
PW 12 is Harpal Singh. He has deposed that he runs his transport business in the name of RKRT at AG-74, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi. That he is the registered owner of truck no. DL1GC-5212 and got released the said truck on superdari by the order of court vide superdignama Ex. PW12/A. That the photographs of the said truck in six number which were taken from different angles are collectively Ex.PW12/B. SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 10 of 47 -11- PW13 is Tanveer Alam. He has deposed as under:
"I am a driver by profession. In the year 2015, I was working with RKRT Transport at AG-74, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi as a driver.
I do not remember the date, month and year, even I do not remember in which truck I was working as a driver as now I left the job of driver from RKRT Transport at AG-74, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi.
In the early morning, I parked my truck in front of the gate of the company. One boy informed me that front portion of the body of one driver of our company was protruding from the truck. I informed the same to munshi of our company, and thereafter, we went near the truck and saw that front portion of the body of one driver of our company was protruding from the truck and he was in injured condition. Our munshi made a call at 100 number. PCR reached there. The injured was taken to hospital and later on I came to know that the said driver had expired and we were taken to police station.
Police made inquiries from me and I stated the above facts, but I do not know whether my statement was recorded in writing. I do not know the name of the said driver even I do not remember the truck number.
He was thoroughly cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State PW14 is Mohd. Rauf. He was the cousin brother and identified the dead body of his cousin brother Mohd. Sadiq S/o Abdul Aziz R/o Village SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 11 of 47 -12- Drall, PO & PS Drall, District Rajori, Jammu & Kashmir. He identified his dead body at mortuary vide identification statement Ex. PW14/A which bears his signatures at point A. He further deposed that deceased was having his two driving license, which was issued from Nagaland and Jharkhand. The driving license of the deceased are shown to the witness, which he identified. The same are Ex. P1 and Ex. P2.
PW 16 Mohd. Rasid also deposed on the similar lines. PW15 is Sh. Vicky. He proved that the knife was recovered in his presence on the roof of the Sulabh Sochalaya. He proved that one steel knife was recovered which was blood stained from the roof of the public toilet. On the knife made in china was engraved. IO prepared the sketch of said knife and measured and the sketch of knife is already Ex.PW6/D. That the said knife was converted into pullnada and seal with the seal of NM and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex PW 6/E. He further deposed that police also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of knife Ex.PW6/F.The said knife is already Ex P-1. However, a categorical court observation has been made by Ld. Predecessor of this Court. The same is reproduced herein for the sake of emphasis:
Court observation: The knife appears to be a new knife which is sparkling and is not rusted.
PW17 is Sayed Sajid Hussain. He has deposed as under:
"I am residing at the aforesaid address alongwith my family. In the year 2015, I was working as a driver at SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 12 of 47 -13- R. K. R. K. Transport, AG-74, SGT Nagar and I used to drive truck no. HR-55M-8438.
In the night of 18.08.2015, I had parked my truck in front of transport office and slept inside the truck. In the early morning, at about 4:00 am, another driver Tanveer Alam, who used to drive the truck no. HR- 38A-0967 came to me and he asked to wake up me and he told me that driver of truck no. 5212 namely Mohd. Sadiq was screaming as he sustained injuries. Thereafter, we went inside the office and informed the munshi Om Prakash. Om Prakash came out of the office and all of us went towards the truck no. 5212, which was parked opposite to the park and we saw 2- 3 persons were running. All of us raised alarm, but they managed to escape from the spot. I saw that the door of the truck of driver side was opened and the body of the driver Mohd. Sadiq was half lying outside the truck and half part of the body was inside the truck and he was hanging. The blood was lying on the ground where driver was hanging from truck and he was in a pool of blood.
Thereafter, Om Prakash made a call to PCR. PCR reached at the spot and they had taken driver Mohd. Sadiq to hospital. Later on, I came to know that Mohd. Sadiq was expired due to injuries sustained by him. Police conducted the proceedings at the spot and made inquiries from me and recorded my statement in this regard.
PW18 is ASI Joginder Singh. He has deposed that on 27.08.2015, he was the investigating officer of e-FIR no. 10765/15 u/s 379/411/34 IPC and on that day, he had effected the arrest of accused Sunny @ Parva and one Satya Narayan in aforesaid FIR as they were found in possession of stolen motorcycle of aforesaid FIR. That during investigation of aforesaid case, he had interrogated both the aforesaid offenders and they had made disclosure SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 13 of 47 -14- statements thereby disclosing their involvements in the commission of offence of the present case alongwith one Amit. That the disclosure made by accused Sunny @ Parva is Ex. PW18/A. He further deposed that he accordingly informed the IO of the present case, who had also made inquiries from him and he had handed over the copies of disclosure statements. That IO Inspector Naresh Malik had also recorded his statement in this regard on 28.02.2015. That thereafter, on 22.09.2015, he went to Rohini Court for extending the judicial remand of accused Sunny @ Parva. He further deposed that eye witness of the present case i.e. Sayed Hafiz had also accompanied him to the Rohini Court and in the Rohini Court, eye witness Sayed Hafiz had identified accused Sunny @ Parva and also stated his role in the commission of the offence of the present case. That after JC, he and Sayed Hafiz returned back to PS and he had produced PW Sayed Hafiz before IO Inspector Naresh Malik. He further deposed that IO had recorded his statement and also that of Sayed. That thereafter, on 02.11.2015, on the instruction of IO, he had collected one sealed pulanda alongwith forwarding letter from MHC (M) vide RC No. 217/21/15 and went to mortuary of BSA Hospital and handed over the said pulanda and forwarding letter to the concerned autopsy surgeon. Thereafter, on 14.11.2015, he again went to the mortuary of BSA Hospital and collected subsequent opinion as well as sealed pulanda of knife. He returned back to PS and produced the subsequent opinion before IO and deposited the sealed pulanda in malkhana. So far as the aforesaid pulanda remained in my possession, the same was not SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 14 of 47 -15- tampered in any manner.
PW19 is ASI Satpal. He has deposed that in the intervening night of 18/19.08.2015, at about 4:20 am, a call was received from the control room to the effect that one person has been caused stab injury at AG-74, SGT Nagar. Accordingly, they rushed to the said place and found one person lying in injured condition in the driver cabin of truck no. DL-1GC-5212. The said person was unconscious and had received many knife injuries. That they immediately took the said injured to BSA Hospital in their PCR van and got him admitted in the said hospital vide MLC no. 10335/15. Thereafter, they returned to our base.
PW20 is Sh. Paramveer Singh, Asstt. Ahlmad from JJB-1, Kingaway Camp. He had brought the original file of case FIR No. 987/2015 adjudicated by Juvenile Justice Board. He has brought the original seizure memo of knife exhibited as Ex.PW6/E, original sketch of knife recovered at the instance of JCL 'A' exhibited as Ex.PW6/D. He had also brought the original original version of JCL 'A' and disclosure statement of another JCL 'SN' and exhibited as Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW20/B respectively.
PW21 is Sh. Ram Phal. He has deposed that he permanently reside at House No. 334, Village Shahbad Daulat Pur, Delhi and he have been residing there along with his family. That he used to let out one of the rooms in the aforesaid house to tenant. He further deposed that though he do not remember the exact date or month but around 3 years ago, one old aged lady approached him for renting the said room to her. That he demanded her SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 15 of 47 -16- identity card and photographs but she could not provide the said documents to him. That on one day two-three police officials came in the street and one person was in their custody. The said police officials enquired if the said person who was in their custody was his tenant. Upon their said enquiry, he replied that the said person never remained as his tenant. He has not identified the accused in the court and resiled from his earlier statement and was thoroughly cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
PW22 is Ct. Nitin. He has deposed that on 31.08.2015 ASI Joginder Singh had effected the arrest of accused Sunny @ Parwa as well as one JCL namely 'SN' in E-FIR No. 10765/15 under Section 379/411/34 IPC. That both the aforesaid offenders had made disclosure statements whereby disclosing their involvements in the commission of offence of the present case. That IO Inspector Naresh Malik in his presence had interrogated accused Sunny as well as JCL 'SN' in the present case vide arrest memos Ex.PW22/A & Ex.PW22/B respectively. He further deposed that IO had also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Sunny @ Parwa Ex.PW22/C as well as disclosure statement of 'S'N Ex.PW20/B. PW23 is Ct. Maninder. He has deposed that on on 27.08.2015, he was present at PS S. P. Badli, ASI Jogender, who was the investigating officer of e-FIR no. 10765/15 u/s 379/411/34 IPC had effected the arrest of accused Sunny @ Parva and one SN in aforesaid FIR, as they were found in possession of stolen motorcycle of aforesaid FIR. That During investigation of aforesaid case, ASI Jogender had interrogated both the aforesaid offenders. That during SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 16 of 47 -17- interrogation they had made disclosure statements thereby disclosing their involvements in the commission of offence of the present case alongwith one Amit. That the disclosure made by accused Sunny @ Parva is Ex. PW18/A and he further deposed that ASI Jogender had informed the IO of the present case. That IO had also made inquiries from them as well as from ASI Jogender had handed over the copies of disclosure statements.
PW24 is ASI Surender. He has deposed that on 27.08.2015, he had joined the investigation of the present case with IO Inspector Naresh Malik and on that day, in his presence, IO had effected the arrest of accused Sunny @ Parva vide arrest memo Ex. PW22/A as well as 'SN @ Shatranj' (declared juvenile) vide memo Ex. PW22/B in the present case at PS S. P. Badli. That thereafter, both i.e. accused Sunny and JCL Satya Narayan were produced. He further deposed that IO had also recorded their disclosure statements, the disclosure made by accused Sunny @ Parva is Ex. PW22/C and by JCL 'SN' is Ex.PW20/B. He further deposed that thereafter, both the said offenders were produced before the concerned court in muffled face.
That thereafter, on 29.08.2015, he had again joined the investigation in the present case and on that day, accused Sunny @ Parva was taken out from the lock-up and led him, ASI Jogender, Ct. Sombir as well as IO Inspector Naresh Malik to his rented room i.e. H. No. 334, house of Ramphal and he took them to the back side of first floor and picked up the key of the lock of the room from near the chokhat and opened the said lock and from inside the said room, from under the gadda/mattress kept on the floor of SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 17 of 47 -18- the said room, accused picked up one half sleeve white shirt which was found to be blood stained and one blue colour lower which was also found to be blood stained. He further deposed that from the pocket of the lower, two DLs were also recovered which were found to be in the name of deceased Mohd. Sadiq and which were found to be made from Nagaland and Jharkhand authority. That IO had kept the said clothes in a cloth pulanda and said pulanda was sealed with the seal of NM and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW24/A. He has also identified the two driving license in the name of Mohd. Sadiq annexed with the said memo and the said Dls are Ex.P24/1 and Ex.PW24/2 respectively. He has also identified the said clothes i.e. one lower and one T-shirt having few light brown stains as Ex.P24/3 (colly) which accused Sunny @ Parva got recovered and seized in this case.
PW25 is Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja, Sr. Scentific Officer (Biology), FSL Rohini. She has deposed that on 18.11.2015, nine sealed parcels were received in FSL, which were duly sealed and tallied with sample seal. That the same were marked to her for examination. That she opened the parcels and examined the exhibits and prepared detailed finger print report Ex. PW25/A. She has also prepared allelic data Ex. PW25/B which is annexed with the report.
PW26 is HC Chander Bhan. He has deposed that in the intervening night of 18/19.08.2015, he alongwith IO SI Jai Kumar were on emergency duty from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. That on receipt of DD No. 11A regarding one person has been stabbed at AG-74, SGT Nagar, they reached SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 18 of 47 -19- there and came to know that injured had already been removed to the hospital by the PCR.
That at the same time, beat staff and ERV staff reached there. That public persons were found at the spot. He further deposed that aomplainant Om Prakash met with IO and gave statement which was recorded by him. That they came to know that injured Mohd. Sadiq had expired in the hospital. That Beat staff and ERV staff remained at the spot for guarding the scene of crime.
He further deposed that they went to BSA Hospital, where SI Jai Kumar collected the MLC of deceased and prepared an application for preserving the dead body of deceased in the mortuary and the dead body was deposited in the mortuary. He further deposed that Inspector Naresh Malik alongwith other staff came to the mortuary of BSA Hospital. That the dead body was identified by Mohd. Rauf and Mohd. Shahid. That after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them. He further deposed that after postmortem, the autopsy surgeon/hospital staff handed over one cardboard box duly sealed alongwith sample seal to SI Jai Kumar, who handed over the same to IO Inspector Naresh Malik, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW26/A. PW27 is Ct. Yashbir. He has deposed that on 18.11.2015, on the instructions of IO Inspector Naresh Kumar, he had collected twelve sealed exhibits and sample seal from MHC(M) vide RC No. 232/21/15 and deposited the same in FSL. That thereafter, he came back to PS and the acknowledgment was handed over to the MHC(M).
SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 19 of 47 -20- PW28 is Inspector Sachin Maan. He has deposed that on 20.08.2015, he joined the investigation with Inspector Naresh Malik / IO. That they reached at the Mortuary of BSA Hospital where the relatives of deceased Mohd. Sadik were present. That the dead body was identified by the relatives of deceased and IO prepared inquest papers and moved an application to Autopsy Surgeon for conducting postmortem on the dead body. That the postmortem was conducted on the dead body by the Autopsy Surgeon. He further deposed that they received exhibits duly sealed by the seal of DEPT. OF FM x DR BSAH x GOVT. OF DELHI. That the exhibits were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/A. He further deposed that on 22.08.2015, he joined the investigation in the present case with IO Inspector Naresh Malik. That they reached at H. No. B-19, MCD Colony, Samaipur Badli, Delhi, where one boy namely 'A' along with his mother came outside the house. That inquiry was made from 'A' who revealed that he was involved in committing murder of a truck driver while committing robbery. He further deposed that JCL 'A' admitted his offence in the presence of his mother and IO apprehended the JCL vide apprehending memo vide Ex.PW28/B and personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW28/C. The version of JCL 'A' Ex.PW20/A was recorded and he led them to B.G. Block, SGT Nagar, Toilet Complex and on the roof of the toilet, he produced one blood stained knife. That IO put the said knife on a piece of paper and prepared the sketch of the same Ex.PW6/D. The knife was measured and wrapped into a piece of cloth which was converted into pulada SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 20 of 47 -21- and sealed with the seal of NM and seizure memo Ex.PW6/E. He further deposed that IO also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of knife Ex.PW6/F. He further deposed that the efforts were made to find out / search other co-accused but they were not found anywhere. That JCL 'A' was sent to OHB-2 Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
He further deposed that on 27.08.2015, accused Sunny @ Parva and 'SN @ Shatranj' were arrested in E-FIR No. 10765/15 U/s 379/411/34 IPC PS S.P. Badli by ASI Jogender and both of them disclosed their involvement in the present case as they had committed the murder of a truck driver while committing robbery. He further deposed that both the accused were produced before Inspector Naresh Malik who interrogated the accused persons and arrested them vide arrest memo Ex.PW22/A. He further deposed that IO collected the copies of disclosure statement and other documents of case E-FIR No. 10765/15 U/s 379/411/34 IPC PS S.P. Badli from ASI Jogender. The personal search of both of them were conducted vide memos Ex.PW28/D and Ex.PW28/E respectively. That both of them made disclosure statement Ex.PW22/C and Ex.PW20/B respectively.
He further deposed that on 28.08.2015 on the directions of the IO, he produced both the accused in the court of Ld. MM, Rohini, Delhi, where he moved an application for TIP of both the accused persons. That accused persons were produced before the Link MM where both the accused refused to participate in the TIP. That both the accused were produced before the concerned Ld. MM where IO moved the application for PC Remand of the SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 21 of 47 -22- accused which was granted. Both the accused got medically examined and interrogated by the IO.
He further deposed that on 29.08.2015, both accused were taken out of the lock-up and custody was handed over to HC Surender Malik, Const. Somveer and ASI Jogender Singh. He further deposed that he alongwith above named police officials and IO left the PS in a government vehicle. That accused Sunny @ Parva led them to his rented room in H. No. 334, Shahbad Daulatpur, in the house of Ramphal where there were four rooms in the back side. That accused led them to the first floor of his room and opened the door with a key lying near the door. That inside the room, bedding was lying on the floor and under the bedding, he produced one half sleeve white colour T-shirt and black colour lower having design which he was wearing at the time of incident. That the clothes were founds blood stained. That inside the pocket of the lower, two driving license in the name of Mohd. Sadik were found. Both the driving license were separately taken in police possession. That the blood stained clothes were wrapped in a piece of cloth which was converted into pulanda and sealed with the seal of NM and taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/A. He further deposed that IO prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of blood stained clothes of accused Sunny @ Parva. He has also identified the two driving license in the name of Mohd. Sadik Ex.P24/1 and Ex.P24/2 respectively.
He has also identified the case property i.e. one lower and one T- shirt having cuts, stated to be recovered at the instance and possession of SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 22 of 47 -23- accused Sunny @ Parva as Ex.P24/3.
PW29 is Retd. SI Jai Kumar. He has deposed that on 19.08.2015, he on receipt of DD No. 11-A Ex.PW4/A regarding one person has been stabbed with knife at AG-74, SGT Nagar, along with Const. Chanderbhan reached at AG-74, SGT Nagar, where Night Patrolling Police Staff Const. Arjun, Const. Vijender and ERV Staff of SI Rajbir met at the spot where in front of office of RKRT Transport Office, complainant Om Prakash with Syed Hafiz, Syed Sajid and Tanveer Alam were present. They came to know that injured Mohd. Sadik had already been removed by PCR Van to the hospital. At the spot, Truck No. DL1LGC5212, HR55N8438 and HR 38A0967 were found stationed. The injured Mohd. Sadik was driver of Truck No. DL1LGC5212. That he inspected the scene of crime. In the cabin of said truck near the driver side window, blood was found and blood was also found on the floor. Crime team was called. He came to know that the injured had been declared brought dead. The crime team reached there and photographer took the photographs from different angles. Crime Team Incharge inspected the scene of crime. He recorded the statement of the complainant Om Prakash Ex.PW6/A. He further deposed that beat Staff was left at the Spot for guarding the scene of crime. He along with Const. Chanderbhan left for BSA Hospital where he collected the MLC of unknown injured who was declared brought dead. He saw the dead body. Deep injury was found on his head, chest and armpit. That he prepared an application for preserving the dead body in the mortuary of BSA Hospital. That he reached at the spot where SHO along with other staff met him. He SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 23 of 47 -24- made endorsement Ex.PW29/A u/s 302 IPC. He handed over the Rukka to Const. Arjun at 8:00 am. Const. Arjun left the spot to the PS for registration of FIR. Const. Chanderbhan handed over the Carton Box duly sealed with sample seal of BSAH Hospital. He further deposed that he took the same in possession. That Inspector Naresh Malik prepared seizure memo Ex.PW26/A. That Blood was lifted from the ground with the help of bandage from the driver side of truck no. DL1LGC5212 and put the same in plastic container which was wrapped with the doctor tape and given Serial No. 1. That from the same side, blood stained earth was lifted and put the same in plastic container which was wrapped with the doctor tape and given Serial No. 2. The strip of truck having blood stains from the driver side of the said truck was taken in possession and put the same in plastic container which was wrapped with the doctor tape and given Serial No. 3. The blood stained seat cover from the driver side of the said truck was taken in possession and put the same in plastic container which was wrapped with the doctor tape and given Serial No. 4. That all the four pulandas were sealed with the Seal of NM and taken in possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW6/B. The Truck No. DL1LGC5212 was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C. He has identified the said truck in Photograph No. 1 of Ex.PW2/A-1 to A-21 and in Ex.PW12/B which are on the record. That the truck is visible in photograph no. 1 and Ex.PW12/B. He has also identified the case property i.e. two dirty brown gauze cloth pieces as Ex.PX-1, blood stained earth Ex.PX-2, small metallic piece/iron shield/patti Ex.PX-3 and one piece of SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 24 of 47 -25- seat cover Ex.PX-4.
PW30 is Inspector Naresh Malik. He has deposed about the manner of investigation. He had deposed that accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW18/A in the E-FIR No. 10765/15 and he collected the copy of the FIR, statement of Deepak, site plan, DD No.9B dated 26.07.2015, arrest and personal search memo of accused, seizure memo of motorcycle bearing no. DL-9SAE-6757, Pulsar 1502 documents.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
4. After closure of PE, the statement of the accused Sunny @ Parva was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 22.04.2024, wherein he denied all the evidence put to him and stated that he is innocent and has been implicated by the police officials. Accused chose not to lead defence evidence .
5. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
6. I have heard Sh. Nishant Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Jai Subhash Thakur, Ld. counsel for the accused.
7. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature and through the testimonies of material witnesses PW6 Om Prakash/complainant and PW17 Sayed Sajid, SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 25 of 47 -26- the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. That through the forensic evidence, the prosecution has been able to prove the complete chain of events beyond reasonable doubt and accused deserves conviction.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelived and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC
625.
8. On the contrary, Sh. Jai Subhash Thakur, Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that accused has been falsely implicated. It was argued that there is no eye witness to the crime and the testimony of last seen witness PW13 Tanveer Alam has not supported the case of the prosecution and the testimony of other material witnesses PW6 Om Prakash and PW17 Sayed Sajid is highly doubtful. That the forensic evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution and benefit of doubt has to be granted to the accused. That there is no public witness examined by the prosecution. There is no motive which has been attributed and accordingly, accused deserves acquittal.
FINDINGS
9. The accused Sunny @ Parva had been charged under Section 392/302/34 IPC read with Section 397 IPC.
SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 26 of 47 -27-
10. Briefly stated, on 19.08.2015 an information regarding stabbing of a person had been received at PS S.P. Badli vide DD No. 11A which was entrusted to SI Jai Kumar, who upon reaching the spot i.e. AG-74, SGT Nagar, Delhi, found Ct.Arjun and Rajender along with other staff already present there. On inquiry, he came to know that one injured Mohd. Sadiq S/o Abdul Ajeej had already been shifted to BSA Hospital, Rohini. Thereafter, the IO reached the BSA Hospital and collected the MLC bearing no. 10335/15 where the person was declared brought dead. On inspection of the body, injury marks were found on the forehead, chest and other parts.
Eventually during investigation, the IO recorded statement of one Om Prakash and it transpired that the deceased was sleeping in his truck when he was stabbed by the accused persons, Sunny @ Parva and two more JCLs "A" and "S". Statement of a public person Sayed Hafij and Tanveer Alam had been recorded.
11. The relevant Sections are reproduced as under:
SECTION 302 IPC "Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine".
SECTION 392 IPC "Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 27 of 47 -28- sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
SECTION 397 IPC "If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, so attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
12. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 28 of 47 -29- "the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved. It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, it is a settled law that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
13. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
MATERIAL WITNESS
14. Complainant PW6 Om Prakash has deposed as under:
"In the year 2015, I was working as a clerk at RKRT Transport Company at AG-74, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi. I used to sleep on the third floor of the company office. In the said company there was about 23 trucks.
Truck no. DL-1GC-5212 was associated with our company and the name of driver was Mohd. Sadiq, R/o J & K. On 18.08.2015, the aforesaid truck was taken for service station at Alipur and after the service of the truck, the truck no. DL-1GC-5212 reached at our company at about 8:00 pm and same was parked by driver Mohd. Sadiq in front of our company and driver Mohd. Sadiq slept inside the truck. Thereafter, I went to third floor of the company and slept there at about 10:00 - 11:00 pm. SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 29 of 47 -30- In the morning at about 4:00 am, another driver Tanveer Alam and Syed Sajid called me and told that the driver of truck no. DL-1GC-5212 namely Mohd. Sadiq was in injured condition and his half of the body was hanging from the door of truck and remaining part of the body was inside the driver seat. I came downstairs and went near the truck no. DL- 1GC-5212 and saw driver Mohd. Sadiq was in injured condition and his half of the dead body was hanging on the door towards the driver side of the truck and his half body below the chest was lying inside the truck.
I made a call at 100 number. One Kishan was working as a security guard in the company and at that time he was not present there. PCR reached at the spot. Local police was also called by the PCR. Thereafter, the body of Mohd. Sadiq was taken out from truck and shifted to hospital in a PCR van. I alongwith other drivers of the company also followed the PCR van to the hospital and there we came to know that Mohd. Sadiq was declared dead. Police made inquiries from me and recorded my statement Ex. PW6/A which bears my signatures at point A. On the basis of my statement, case was registered. Thereafter, I again visited the spot alongwith IO and other police officials and I pointed out the said truck. Thereafter, police prepared the site plan. The blood samples were lifted from the seat cover of the truck as well as from the door and kept in a different plastic boxes and sealed with the seal of NM and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/B which also bears my signatures at point A and the truck was also seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/C which also bears my signatures at point A. Thereafter, photographs of the spot was done and my supplementary statement was recorded by the IO. On 22.08.2015, I was present in my office and at about 11:00 am, IO alongwith other police officials came to our office alongwith one boy, who was sitting inside the gypsy and at the instance of said boy SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 30 of 47 -31- police recovered one knife made in China from the roof of the toilet. The said knife was having blood stains and police prepared the sketch of knife which is Ex. PW6/D which bears my signatures at point A. The said knife was measured and converted into a pulanda and sealed with the seal of NM and pulanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/E which also bears my signatures at point A. Thereafter, police prepared the site plan of the place from where knife was recovered and same is Ex. PW6/F which also bears my signatures at point A. Thereafter, my statement was recorded by the IO in this regard.
At this stage, MHC (M) has produced parcel no. 9 with court seal. Same is opened and found to contain one knife and on the blade of the knife made in China is written. Same is shown to the witness, who correctly identifies it to be the same knife which was got recovered by JCL on 22.08.2015. The said knife is Ex. P1.
At this stage, witness had identified the said truck after seeing the photograph no.1 and the said truck at point X in which deceased Mohd. Sadiq was slept and his body was found."
He had deposed that on 18.08.2015, the truck bearing no. DL1GC- 5212 has reached his company RKRT at about 8.00 P.M. and the same was parked by driver Mohd. Sadiq in front of their company gate and driver Mohd. Sadiq slept inside the truck. Thereafter, even the said witness went to the third floor of his company and slept there. At about 4.00 a.m., he was woken up by one Tanveer Alam and Sayed Sajid, who informed him that the driver of the said truck Mohd. Sadiq in injured conditions and his half body was hanging from the door of the truck. The said witness further deposed that he SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 31 of 47 -32- immediately rushed downstairs and saw the half dead body hanging on the door towards the driver seat and he immediately called at 100 number. However, from his testimony exactly the manner of offence or whether the accused Sunny @ Parva had committed the said offence could not be culled out and in his cross-examination he categorically admitted that he does not even remember the time of incident but it was only after 11.00 p.m. PW17 Sayed Sajid PW17 Sajid Sayed deposed as under:
"I am residing at the aforesaid address alongwith my family. In the year 2015, I was working as a driver at R. K. R. K. Transport, AG-74, SGT Nagar and I used to drive truck no. HR-55M-8438.
In the night of 18.08.2015, I had parked my truck in front of transport office and slept inside the truck. In the early morning, at about 4:00 am, another driver Tanveer Alam, who used to drive the truck no. HR- 38A-0967 came to me and he asked to wake up me and he told me that driver of truck no. 5212 namely Mohd. Sadiq was screaming as he sustained injuries. Thereafter, we went inside the office and informed the munshi Om Prakash. Om Prakash came out of the office and all of us went towards the truck no. 5212, which was parked opposite to the park and we saw 2- 3 persons were running. All of us raised alarm, but they managed to escape from the spot. I saw that the door of the truck of driver side was opened and the body of the driver Mohd. Sadiq was half lying outside the truck and half part of the body was inside the truck and he was hanging. The blood was lying on the ground where driver was hanging from truck and he was in a pool of blood.
Thereafter, Om Prakash made a call to PCR. PCR reached at the spot and they had taken driver Mohd. Sadiq to hospital. Later on, I came to know that SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 32 of 47 -33- Mohd. Sadiq was expired due to injuries sustained by him. Police conducted the proceedings at the spot and made inquiries from me and recorded my statement in this regard.
The next material witness was Sayed Sajid, who as per the prosecution story had come to the complainant Om Prakash and first informed about the offence. Sayed Sajid had been examined as PW17, who although narrated the incident as deposed by PW6 but categorically stated that he was informed by another driver Tanveer Alam, who woke him up and informed that driver of the truck bearing no. DL1GC-5212 namely Mohd. Sadiq was screaming as he had sustained injuries and after immediately informing PW6, they went towards the truck and saw 2-3 persons running. He deposed that he and Om Prakash and Tanveer Alam raised alarm but the said person managed to escape from the spot. However, the said witness PW17 failed to identify the accused and even in his cross-examination categorically stated that he had not seen the faces of those 03 accused persons. Thus, even from the testimony of material witness PW17 no incriminating evidence could be culled out against the accused Sunny @ Parva.
The most material witness was Tanveer Alam, who entered the witness box as PW13. Even, he deposed regarding the half body of one of the drivers Mohd. Sadiq protruding from the truck but he completely reslied from the statement Mark PW13/A made to the police and has not supported the case of the prosecution. The relevant portion of the cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State is reproduced herein:
SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 33 of 47 -34- "It is correct that on 19.08.2015, at about 4:00 am after unloading the goods at Motiya Khan, I had parked my truck no. HR-38A-0967 in front of our company. I had not stated in my statement mark PW13/A to the police that when I was going towards the company, I heard the noise of screaming from the cabin of truck no. 5212, which was being driven by Mohd. Sadiq, who was employed as a driver just 15-20 days prior to the incident. Confronted with the statement mark PW13/A from portion A to A1 where it is so recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated in my statement mark PW13/A to the police that when I was going towards the company, I heard the noise of screaming from the cabin of truck no. 5212, which was being driven by Mohd. Sadiq, who was employed as a driver just 15-20 days prior to the incident.
I had also not stated in my statement mark PW13/A to the police that I knocked the door of driver side of truck no. HR-55M-8434 in which driver Syed Sajid Hussain was sleeping and he opened the door and I informed him that I heard the screaming of driver Mohd. Sadiq. On this, the Syed Sajid Hussain came out of his truck, and thereafter, we went and saw that driver Mohd. Sadiq was lying in unconscious in the cabin of truck and blood was coming out from his body. On seeing his condition, we frieghtened and informed the same to munshi Om Prakash in the office. Confronted with the statement mark PW13/A from portion B to B1 where it is so recorded.
It is wrong to suggest that I had stated in my statement mark PW13/A to the police that I knocked the door of driver side of truck no. HR-55M-8434 in which driver Syed Sajid Hussain was sleeping and he opened the door and I informed him that I heard the screaming of driver Mohd. Sadiq. On this, the Syed Sajid Hussain came out of his truck, and thereafter, we went and saw that driver Mohd. Sadiq was lying in unconscious in the cabin of truck and blood was coming out from his body. On seeing his condition, we frieghtened and informed the same to munshi Om Prakash in the office.
SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 34 of 47 -35- I had also not stated in my statement mark PW13/A to the police that all of us went to truck no. 5212 and when we reached there we saw three boys were standing there. On seeing to us, they ran away from there and, thereafter, Syed Sajid chased them while raising alarm, but all the three persons ran away towards the park and after some time Syed Sajid came the truck and many public persons gathered there. Confronted with the statement mark PW13/A from portion C to C1 where it is so recorded.
It is wrong to suggest that I had also stated in my statement mark PW13/A to the police that all of us went to truck no. 5212 and when we reached there we saw three boys were standing there. On seeing to us, they ran away from there and, thereafter, Syed Sajid chased them while raising alarm, but all the three persons ran away towards the park and after some time Syed Sajid came the truck and many public persons gathered there. I had not stated in my statement mark PW13/A to the police that we saw the door of truck no. DL-1GC-5212 was opened from the side of driver and front portion of the body of Mohd. Sadiq was protruding from the truck and he was in pool of blood and injuries were visible on his body and blood was also lying on the ground. Confronted with the statement mark PW13/A from portion D to D1 where it is so recorded.
It is wrong to suggest that I had stated in my statement mark PW13/A to the police that we saw the door of truck no. DL-1GC-5212 was opened from the side of driver and front portion of the body of Mohd. Sadiq was protruding from the truck and he was in pool of blood and injuries were visible on his body and blood was also lying on the ground.
I had also not stated in my statement Ex. PW13/A to the police that in the meanwhile police reached there. Crime team was called. Photographer took the photographs from different angles and inspected the spot and police also lifted the blood samples from the ground as well as from the seat cover of the truck and we were taken to police station, there my statement was recorded by the SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 35 of 47 -36- police and same was read over and explained to me and found correct. Confronted with the statement mark PW13/A from portion E to E1 where it is so recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated in my statement Ex. PW13/A to the police that in the meanwhile police reached there. Crime team was called. Photographer took the photographs from different angles and inspected the spot and police also lifted the blood samples from the ground as well as from the seat cover of the truck and we were taken to police station, there my statement was recorded by the police and same was read over and explained to me and found correct. It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused or that due to this reason I am deliberately not deposing the true facts in the court. It is wrong to suggest that police has recorded my statement correctly whatever I had stated to the police.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely in order to save the accused from penal punishment."
In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State , he completely denied the fact that he heard the noise of screaming from the cabin of the truck bearing no. DL1GC-5212 which was being driven by Mohd. Sadiq, who had been employed as driver just 15-20 days of the incident. He even denied informing the other driver PW17 Sayed Sajid that he saw the deceased Mohd. Sadiq lying in the cabin of the truck unconscious and that blood was coming out from his body. He further denied that he saw 03 boys run away near the truck towards the park. He has further denied that he saw the half body of Mohd. Sadiq protruding from the truck and has completely relied from his earlier statement despite lengthy cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. Both the material witnesses PW6 and PW17 have deposed that they were informed by PW13 Tanveer Alam about the scream or SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 36 of 47 -37- the half body of deceased hanging from the truck but PW13 Tanveer Alam himself has not supported the case of the prosecution. This puts the entire prosecution story under cloud and even if the testimony of PW6 and PW17 are considered at most they have proved regarding the factum of seeing the half dead body hanging from the truck or that some 03 boys were running on their raising alarm but none of the witness has either named or identified the accused Sunny @ Parva as one of the culprits.
15. Moving forward, I shall delve upon the other evidence.
RECOVERY OF WEAPON OF OFFENCE
16. PW15 Vicky had proved that on 22.08.2015 at about 11.00 a.m., police officials had come with one boy (JCL 'A'), who had disclosed that he had hid the blood stained knife on the roof of the SGT Nagar Toilet Complex. The same was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/E which also bears the signature of witness PW15 Vicky. Firstly, the said knife was not recovered from accused Sunnay @ Parva. Secondly, the said knife was produced in the Court Ex.P1, however, vide orders dated 28.04.2018 during the testimony of PW15 Vicky, a categorical court observation has been made by Ld. Predecessor of this Court that the knife appears to be brand new and sparkling and is not rusted. The same is reproduced herein for the sake of emphasis:
"Court Observation: The knife appears to be a SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 37 of 47 -38- new knife which is sparkling and is not rusted."
In the light of aforesaid observation, the argument raised by ld. Counsel for the accused that the weapon of offence has been falsely planted does not seem to be unfounded and further even if it is believed that it was the same knife as was used in the offence, it is pertinent to mention that it had been shown to be recovered from the JCL 'A' and not the accused herein.
It has been held in the landmark judgment of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sunil 2001 SCC, (Cri) 248, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"when discovery is made pursuant to any facts deposed by the accused, the discovery memo prepared by the IO is necessarily attested by the independent witnesses but if no witness is present, it is difficult to lay down as a proposition that the recovery must be tainted or that or unreliable. But in such a situation, the court has to consider the report of the IO on its own merits".
In Mani Vs. State of Tamilnadu decided on 08.01.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that:
"Discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon discovery".
In the case of Naveen kumar Verma Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 03.07.2013 relying on the landmark judgment of Mohd. Jabbar Vs. State decision 21.05.2010 Crl. A. 1022/18, it has been reiterated that:
SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 38 of 47 -39- "The courts have to be cautioned and to vigilant against the non practice of the police to plaint ordinary objects on the accused persons to prove access by the accused to the place where the crime was allegedly committed".
In Prabhu Vs. State AIR 1963, Supreme Court 1113, recovery of a blood stained shirt and a dhoti as also on an axe on which human blood was detected was held to be a weak evidence as was also held in the case of Narsinghbhai Prajapati Etc. Vs. Chatrasingh & Ors. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1753, where recovery of a blood stained shirt and a dhoti and also a dharia (weapon of offence) were held to be a weak evidence.
In the case of Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1994 Supreme Court 110, the watch of the deceased and a dagger stained with the blood of the same group as that of the deceased was held to be weak evidence.
MEDICAL/FORENSIC EVIDENCE
17. PW1 is Dr. Mukesh Kumar, MD. Forensic Medicine, SR, BSA Hospital has proved the PM report running into 06 pages Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A. PW5 Dr. Vijay Dhankar proved the opinion given by him for the cause of death. As per the PM report, death was caused due to hemorrhagic shock consequent to penetrating injuries to the chest. That all injuries were anti-mortem and fresh in duration prior to death. That injury No. 1 mentioned in PM report was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. That injuries No. 1 to 3 have been caused by sharp edged weapon and SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 39 of 47 -40- injuries No. 4 to 7 could be caused by blunt force.
PW5 further proved that on 02-11-2015, a sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of NM along with request for seeking subsequent opinion was produced before him. That the pulanda was opened found to contain one knife and he prepared the sketch of Knife, after examination of knife and findings in PM report No. 549/2015, he came to the conclusion that injuries mentioned in the PM report can be caused by the weapon (knife) examined by him. The subsequent opinion is proved as Ex.PW5/A. However, as discussed above, the very recovery of knife is under cloud and as such the same was not recovered from accused Sunny @ Parva herein (The same was shown to be recovered from JCL 'A', who as per the submission of IO, already been acquitted by concerned JJB vide orders dated 02.06.2017).
Further, PW25 Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja, Sr. Scentific Officer (Biology), FSL Rohini examined the exhibits and prepared detailed finger print report Ex. PW25/A. She has also prepared allelic data Ex. PW25/B which is annexed with the report. Report Ex.PW25/A dated 22.04.2016 reflects that the alleles from the source exhibit i.e. t-shirt of the accused were accounted for in the alleles from the source exhibit blood stained gauze of the deceased and the knife and the DNA profiling performed on these exhibits are from the same source.
However, in the wake of material witnesses not supporting the case of the prosecution and the recovery of the knife itself be tainted as discussed SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 40 of 47 -41- above, the said FSL result being merely a scientific opinion cannot be deemed to be sole basis of conviction.
NO INDEPENDENT PUBLIC WITNESS
18. There appears to be no sincere efforts were made by police officials concerned to join independent public witnesses in the concerned police proceedings at any of the available stages especially at the time of recovery if alleged weapon of offence or at the time of arrest of accused. In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judgments:-
In case law reported as "Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314(HC), High Court of Delhi had observed as under:-
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
In a case law reported as "Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana"
1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-
"3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 41 of 47 -42- through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses form the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner". "4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
MOTIVE
19. There is no clear motive which has been proved by the prosecution which becomes an essential element in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 42 of 47 -43- Reliance has been placed on in the case titled as NANDU SINGH VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH), Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 7998 of 2021), wherein it is held that by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India that:
".....11.In Anwar Ali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court made the 1(2020) 10 SCC 1665 legal position clear in following words:-
24.Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that in the present case the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the motive and therefore the accused deserves acquittal is concerned, it is true that the absence of proving the motive cannot be a ground tor eject the prosecution case. It is also true and as held by this Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case.
However, at the same time, as observed by this Court in Babu Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189, absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused...........
"38. ... the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or ex-cited them to commit the particular crime.
39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eye- witnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.
'26. This Court has also held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.
SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 43 of 47 -44- In the subsequent decision in Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the decision in Anwar Ali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court made the 1 (2020) 10 SCC 1665 and observed as under:-
"27.Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances."
20. The remaining prosecution witnesses were formal police witnesses who merely deposed regarding the manner of investigation.
21. Analyzing the law on circumstantial evidence in the landmark judgment of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622, it is held that:
"3:3. Before a case against an accused vesting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established the following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in Hanumat's v. State of M.P. [1953] SCR 1091. [163C] and reiterated in Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1969] 3 SCC 198; Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 656; Shivaji Sahabrao Babode & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [1973] 2 SCC 793.
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 44 of 47 -45- one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.
In Madho Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2003 (2) crime 111 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"the last seen together has to be applied cautiously and in such a prudent manner that unless the court get some circumstantial or corroborating evidence the accused should not be convicted on the basis of last seen theory done if the accused provides such a chain of evidence that benefit of doubt arises.
Nizam Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 04.09.2015 Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashiram (2006) 12 SCC 254 held as under:
"Elaborating the principle of "last seen alive"
in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, this Court held as under:- "23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities.
The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 45 of 47 -46- which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd., Re. (AIR 1960 Mad 218)" The above judgment was relied upon and reiterated in Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal, (2015) 5 Scale 319."
In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be safely said that the link which completes the chain of events is broken as the material prosecution witnesses have not only failed to identify the accused but also the last seen witness PW13 Tanveer Alam has completely resiled from his earlier statement. The recovery of weapon of offence was not made from the accused Sunny @ Parva.
SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 46 of 47 -47- CONCLUSION
22. It is a settled law that in case of circumstantial evidence, the paramount requirement is that every possible link in the chain should be complete along with other incriminating circumstances including motive and the recovery of weapon of offence and should unequivocally point towards the guilt of the accused and cannot be solely based on the last seen testimony.
The material witnesses specially PW6, PW13 & PW17 have not supported the case of the prosecution and have failed to identify the accused and infact PW13 Tanveer Alam completely resiled from his earlier statement and despite his lengthy cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, the State could not bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the chain of events is incomplete to point towards the guilt of the accused.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid detailed findings, there is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly the accused Sunny @ Parva deserves a benefit of doubt and hence stands acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
23. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Dictated and announced in the open (Shefali Sharma) Court on 31.05.2024 Addl. Session Judge-02 (running in 47 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi
SC No. 58735/16, FIR No. 987/15, PS S.P. Badli State Vs. Sunny @ Parva Page 47 of 47