Delhi District Court
State vs Jabbar Singh on 19 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02:SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
IN RE: ID No. 02406R0189462011
SC No. 37/11
FIR No. 727/11
PS Okhla Industrial Area
State Versus Jabbar Singh
S/o Sh. Murat Singh,
R/o Chawla Kabari Godwan,
F30/05, Okhla Industrial Area,
PhaseII, New Delhi
__________________________________________________________
Date of Institution : 04.07.2011
Date of arguments : 19.02.2016
Date of judgment : 19.02.2016
JUDGMENT
1. As per case of prosecution, on 29.01.11 at about 8:20 AM, an information was received at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area about a dead body lying at Kabari godown, opposite A93, Okhla PhaseII. The said information was recorded vide DD No.2A and was marked to SI Mukesh Kumar (PW15) for necessary action.
2. On receipt of DD No.2A, SI Mukesh Kumar (PW15) SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 1 of 23 alongwith Ct. Onkar and Ct. Muslim (PW20) went to godown of Chawla Kabari situated in front of F93, Okhla Industrial Area PhaseII. There they found a person (male) lying on a cot (takhat) in front of jhuggi, which was in front of godown of Chawla Kabari. His face was imbued with blood. On checking the said person, they found him dead. He was facing West. Zip of his pant and front button of shirt were found open. Face of the said person appeared to have been crushed. Wearing clothes of the said person were found blood stained. SI Mukesh Kumar made endorsement Ex. PW15/A and gave it to Ct. Muslim (PW20) for registration of FIR.
3. PW20 Ct. Muslim went to the Police Station, got the FIR registered in the case and thereafter, came back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and asal tehrir to Inspector Pradeep Kumar (PW24), who was handed over further investigation in the matter. Crime team was called. The owner/proprietor of Chawla Godown namely Shyam Chawla (PW14) was examined. On the pointing out of PW14 Shri Shyam Chawla, photos of spot were taken by the Crime Team from the front angles. One mattress (dari), 2 blankets, one quilt (rajai) one scarf (saffi) and one shawl, all blood stained were seized by IO. Two plastic tumblers and two wrappers of bhujia having Haldiram Bhujiawala written on them SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 2 of 23 were also found lying outside the gate of jhuggi. The said tumblers and wrappers were also seized by IO of the case. Dead body of deceased was sent to mortuary, AIIMS for postmortem. Witnesses were examined.
4. Matter was investigated as per law. PW24 Inspector Pradeep Kumar conducted various stages of investigation in the matter. Accused Jabbar Singh was found involved in the commission of offence in the case. Therefore, on conclusion of investigation, he was charge sheeted to face trial.
5. Accused, on his appearance before the court of learned MM, was supplied copy of charge sheet and complete set of documents and thus, compliance of section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") was made.
6. As the offence u/s 302 of The Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court for trial in accordance with law.
7. Prima facie, sufficient material was found to frame charge against accused for offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. Therefore, charge for the said offence was framed against accused on 29.08.11, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. In order to bring home the guilt against accused, SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 3 of 23 prosecution has examined 25 witnesses. The details of which are given as under:
a) PW1 Dr. Asit Kumar Sikary, is the doctor, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased. He proved the postmortem report which is Ex. PW1/A. He also gave subsequent opinion on the request of IO regarding the weapon of offence. He proved his opinion which is Ex. PW17/B.
b) PW2 R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. produced the relevant record pertaining to Mobile No.9717923464 for the period from 01.01.11 to 31.01.11.
c) PW3 Girish identified the dead body of deceased Ram Avtar in mortuary, AIIMS Hospital. He is a formal witness of the prosecution. He proved his statement Ex. PW3/A given to the police.
d) PW4 Prem Pal, on coming to know about the death of deceased Ram Avtar, went to the spot alongwith Girish (PW3).
e) PW5 Dharmender is the witness, who had obtained the mobile connection No.9717923464 on the basis of his ID proof and handed over the same to deceased, who was using the same.
f) PW6 Ct. Hardeep Singh is a formal witness of the SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 4 of 23 prosecution. He alongwith Inspector Pradeep Kumar (PW24) and SI Mukesh Kumar (PW15) had visited the spot and taken measurement of the spot at the instance of SI Mukesh Kumar (PW15). He prepared rough notes and subsequently, on 04.03.11 prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW14/A.
g) PW7 Ct. Umesh Kumar had taken six sealed pullandas and sample seal pertaining to this case and one sealed box containing viscera and sample seal to FSL Rohini, Delhi and deposited the same there. He took the said pullandas vide Road Certificates bearing No.40/21/11 and 41/21/11. As per the witness, the pullandas and sample seal were not tampered till they remained in his possession.
h) PW8 HC Manbir Singh, the duty officer, is a formal witnesss of the prosecution. He registered FIR No.27/11 Ex. PW8/A on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Mohd. Muslim and sent by SI Mukesh (PW15).
i) PW9 Kunwar Pal is the son of deceased. He identified the mobile phone and the wrist watch worn by his father.
j) PW10 HC Raj Singh, the photographer, went to the spot alongwith SI Vijay Pal (Incharge, Crime Team) and HC Raj Kumar (fingerprint proficient). He took 9 photographs of dead body lying at spot from different angles. As per the witness, SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 5 of 23 the face of dead body was imbued with blood. He developed the photographs and thereafter, gave the same to IO of the case. The photographs are Ex. PW10/A to Ex. PW10/I and the negatives of the photographs are Ex. PW10/J (collectively.).
k) PW11 SI Vijay Pal Singh Kasana, Incharge, Crime Team went to the spot on 29.01.11 alongwith HC Raj Kumar (proficient) and HC Raj Kumar (photographer). On reaching there, they found a dead body lying on a cot (takhat). He prepared his report which is Ex. PW11/A. As per the witness, no chance print could be picked up from the glasses which were found at the spot.
l) PW12 Vinod identified the wrist watch worn by deceased and the mobile phone which was used by deceased at the relevant time.
m) PW13 SI Jatan Singh is a formal witness of the prosecution. On the instructions of the IO of the case, this witness from his mobile No.9999999411 sent SMS on the mobile phone of deceased to ascertain its location.
n) PW14 Shyam Chawla is the owner/proprietor of Chawla Kabari Godown. On 29.01.11, he reached at the spot on receiving phone call from thekedar Prem Pal (PW5). He also SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 6 of 23 identified the wrist watch and the mobile phone belonging to deceased. In the presence of this witness, the police had seized one quilt, two blankets, one dari, one shawl, one scarf, two plastic tumblers and two wrappers vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A.
o) PW15 SI Mukesh Kumar is the first IO of the case, who on receipt of DD No.2A reached at the spot. He prepared rukka and got the FIR registered in the case.
p) PW16 Ct. Pramod Kumar, the motorcycle rider, is a formal witness of the prosecution. He took the copies of FIR on 29.01.11 and served the same upon the Ilaka MM as well as on senior officers of police.
q) PW18 Ct. Amit Yadav, on 29.01.11 was posted in Police Control Room, PHQ, New Delhi. As per the witness, at 8:12 AM, he received a call in Police Control Room and he recorded the same vide Ex. PW18/A and thereafter, passed over the information to concerned police network and senior officers of police.
r) PW19 Ct. Brij Mohan, on receiving the information regarding a person having been murdered at Chawla Kabari Godown at F30/5, Okhla PhaseII, New Delhi went to the spot. He alongwith Ct. Onkar took the dead body of deceased to SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 7 of 23 mortuary of AIIMS for postmortem.
s) PW20 Ct. Mohd. Muslim is the witness, who joined the investigation in the matter alongwith SI Mukesh Kumar (PW15). This is the witness through whom IO got the FIR registered in the case.
t) PW21 Dr. V. Shankar Narayanan is a forensic expert, who examined the exhibits of the case. He proved the biological report Ex. PW21/A and serological report Ex. PW21/B. u) PW22 Smt. Kavita Goel, Senior Scientific Officer, proved chemical examination report which is Ex. PW22/A.
v) PW23 ASI Rajender Singh, MHC (M) is a formal witness of the prosecution. He made various entries in Register No.19 on different dates when pullandas, case property and other things were deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station Okhla Industrial Area.
w) PW24 Inspector Pradeep Kumar is the IO of the case, who conducted investigation in the matter and on conclusion of investigation filed challan in the court; and
x) PW25 Dr. D.S. Paliwal, Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology) FSL, Rohini examined the exhibits of the case. He proved his detailed report which is Ex. PW25/A.
9. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 8 of 23 accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all incriminating material/circumstances was put to him, to which he claimed innocence and alleged false implication. Accused stated that he was lifted by police on 30.01.11 from Bhind, M.P. and falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that Maxima Watch and Nokia mobile was planted upon him by the police. He further stated that he was working under Prem Pal and there was dispute between him and Prem Pal over money. He further stated that Prem Pal wanted to remove him from the job and that is why in connivance with police, he got him implicated in the present false case.
10. Accused opted not to lead evidence in his defence.
11. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri M. Zafar Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Shri Ramesh Rawat, learned Amicus Curiae for accused and carefully perused the record of the case. I have also gone through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the documents proved by them during their deposition.
12. There is no eye witness in the case, who saw the accused murdering Ram Avtar, deceased. Entire case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled principle of law that in case of circumstantial evidence, the court has to SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 9 of 23 examine the entire evidence in its entirety and ensure that the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence is the guilt of the accused. For establishing the guilt on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be firmly established and the chain of circumstances must be completed from the facts.
13. In the present case, dead body of deceased Ram Avtar was found on 29.01.11 at Kabari Godown, opposite A93, Okhla PhaseII, New Delhi. Information regarding the dead body of a male was received which was recorded vide DD No.2A at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area. The said DD was marked to SI Mukesh Kumar (PW15) for necessary action.
14. PW5 Prem Pal is the witness in whose presence, police is reported to have been informed. He deposed that on 29.01.11 in the morning at around 8 AM, he came to know about death of Ram Avtar. He further deposed that on hearing the news of his death, he alongwith Girish (PW3) went to the spot, where police was informed at 100 number and thereafter, police reached at the spot. In his cross examination, Shri Prem Pal stated that Ram Avtar was lying near the entry gate of F30/5 and he saw him from a distance of 56 feet. He further deposed that Ram Avtar was having injury on his forehead of left eye sight. He admitted SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 10 of 23 that his statement was recorded by the police. Thus, it is seen that PW4 Prem Pal is the witness, who after coming to know about the death of Shri Ram Avtar went to the spot.
15. PW9 Kunwar Pal is the son of deceased, who stated that he was employed at Godown of Chawla, scrap dealer, Okhla for last 30 years. In the year 2011, he used to stay with his mother in Dabua Colony, Faridabad. His father i.e. deceased used to stay in the said godown. He testified that on 29.01.11 at about 8 AM, he received information about murder of his father. He came to Delhi and identified the dead body of his father. He proved identification memo Ex. PW9/A, where he had signed at point A.
16. PW9 Kunwar Pal has further deposed that his father used to have a mobile phone make Nokia. He was also wearing a wrist watch and also used to keep his cash/belongings in his pocket in some polythene pouch. He identified the wrist watch and mobile phone of his father i.e. deceased. The wrist watch make Maxima having chain of silver gray colour Ex. P1 and one mobile phone make Nokia of black colour Ex. P2 was shown to the witness during his deposition and he said that the said wrist watch and the mobile phone belonged to his father. Shri Kunwar Pal was cross examined by learned Amicus Curiae for accused and nothing has come in his deposition to doubt his veracity.
SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 11 of 23
17. PW12 Vinod has deposed that he came to Delhi alongwith Anek Pal on 24.01.11 in search of some job. He stated that he alongwith Prem Pal (PW4), his brother in law (Jeeja) came to his house, who was employed at Chawla Kabari Ka Godam. As per the witness, Ram Avtar was his relative. He testified that in the morning of 29.01.11, he received a call from Prem Pal (PW4), who asked him to search Jabbar (accused). Prem Pal (PW4) had also informed to the witness that Jabbar had fled away after killing Ram Avtar. As per the witness, Ram Avtar was residing in a room near godown. He went there and found that he had expired. He further deposed that Ram Avtar used to wear a wrist watch and used to keep a mobile phone with him. He stated that when he went to his room, he did not find any watch on his wrist and mobile phone in his pocket. He stated that in his presence, police had seized two plastic tumblers and empty packet of Bhujia which was lying near the jhuggi of deceased vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A. The witness identified the wrist watch Ex. P1 which deceased Ram Avtar was wearing and the mobile phone Ex. P2 which he was using. He also identified one empty packet of Haldiram Aloo Bhujia Ex. P4 and two small plastic tumblers Ex. P3 (colly.) which was seized by police before him.
SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 12 of 23
18. PW12 Vinod was cross examined by learned Amicus Curiae for accused, but nothing substantial has come in his cross examination to doubt his version. He denied the suggestion that no tumbler or wrapper of Bhujia was seized by police before him. He also denied the suggestion that no such wrist watch or mobile phone was used by deceased. He also denied the suggestion that police did not record his statement in the case or his statement was not read over to him.
19. PW14 Shyam Chawla is the owner/proprietor of a godown of scrap at F30/5, Okhla Industrial Area PhaseII, New Delhi. He stated that accused Jabbar was weighing goods as his profession (chain kuppi) in front of his godown. He deposed that accused as well as some of his friends used to sleep on the roof of his godown. He admitted that Ram Avtar i.e. deceased was his employee. PW14 Shri Shyam Chawla has testified that on 29.01.11, at about 7:30 AM, thekedar Prem Pal (PW4) called him on phone and told that some mis happening had taken place with Ram Avtar at his godown. As per the witness, he went there and found Ram Avtar lying there. According to him, one portion of his face i.e. of deceased was crushed and it was bleeding profusely. He stated that Ram Avtar had a mobile phone bearing No.9717023464. He further stated that he had given Ram Avtar SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 13 of 23 cash of Rs.6,000/ on previous night. The witness is reported to have noticed that wrist watch, mobile phone and cash of Rs. 6,000/ was not with Ram Avtar. He admitted that in his presence, police had seized one quilt, two blankets, one dari, one shawl, one scarf, two plastic tumblers and two wrappers of bhujia having Haldiram written on the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A. He identified the wrist watch Ex. P1, mobile phone Ex. P2 belonging to deceased Ram Avtar. He also identified the other articles i.e. plastic tumblers Ex. P3 (colly.), packets of bhujia Ex. P4 (colly.), quilt Ex. P5, shawl Ex. P6, dari Ex. P7, scarf Ex. P8 and blankets Ex. P9 (colly.) which were seized in his presence by the police.
20. Part examination in chief of PW14 Shri Shyam Chawla was recorded on 23.05.12. His further examination and cross examination was recorded on 16.07.12. In his cross examination, PW14 Shyam Chawla stated that Prem Pal (PW4) had not called him on 29.01.11 telling the incident. He also admitted that his statement was not read over to him by the IO of the case. As cross examination of the witness was conducted after a period of around 2 months from the date of recording of initial examination in chief of PW14 Shri Shyam Chawla, therefore, the part of deposition of the witness that Prem Pal (PW4) had not called SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 14 of 23 him on 29.01.11 telling him about the incident can be ignored. Shri Shyam Chawla (PW14) when examined on 23.05.12 had categorically stated that on 29.01.11 at about 7:30 AM, Prem Pal called him at phone and told that some mis happening took place with Ram Avtar at his godown. On receipt of information, he went to the spot and found Ram Avtar lying. His one portion of the face was crushed and he was bleeding profusely. Had PW14 Shyam Chawla not received the information about mis happening with Ram Avtar, then how he went to the godown. He himself admitted that police had seized the articles i.e. Ex. P1 to P9 in his presence. He did not deny that he was not present when the police came at his godown and nothing was seized in his presence. Thus, the presence of Shri Shyam Chawla (PW14) at the spot is fully established from his own deposition.
21. At the time of alleged incident, Ram Avtar, the deceased was using mobile phone No.9717923464. PW5 Shri Dharmender has stated that he was working at the godown of Hari Narayan in front of C40, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi for last 12 years. Deceased Ram Avtar was also working in the said godown. He testified that since deceased Ram Avtar was not having any ID proof for obtaining mobile phone connection, therefore, on his request, he had taken a mobile phone connection No.9717923464 SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 15 of 23 on the basis of his ID proof and handed over the same to him. In his cross examination, PW5 Dharmender stated that deceased Ram Avtar was known to him for the last 45 years prior to the incident. He testified that he had used the connection on mobile number 9717923464 for 24 days and thereafter, gave the same to Ram Avtar as he was not having any Icard. He was cross examined at length by learned Amicus Curiae for accused, but nothing has come in his cross examination to doubt his veracity. The witness remained consistent and firm throughout his deposition. His testimony remained uncontroverted and un rebutted.
22. The testimony of PW5 Dharmender is further corroborated from the deposition of PW2 Shri R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. As per record brought by PW2 R.K. Singh, the mobile phone No.9717923464 was registered in the name of Shri Dharmender s/o Narad r/o Z271/26, Okhla Industrial Area, DSIDC, ZBlock, Okhla Industrial Area PhaseII. The call detail records of the said mobile phone for the period from 01.01.11 to 31.01.11 Ex. PW2/C (colly.) has been proved from the testimony of PW2 Shri R.K. Singh. He further proved the certificate Ex. PW2/D issued u/s 65B of The Indian Evidence Act.
SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 16 of 23
23. From the testimony of PW2 Shri R.K. Singh and PW5 Shri Dharmender, it stands proved on record that mobile phone No.9717923464 was in the name of Shri Dharmender (PW5), which was being used by deceased Ram Avtar at the relevant time.
24. On arrival of the police, the dead body of deceased was shifted to mortuary, AIIMS Hospital for postmortem. PW1 Dr. Asit Kumar Sikary conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased. He noticed the following injuries present on the dead body of deceased: Injury No.1 : A bone deep lacerated wound about triangular in shape of size 8 x 5 cm present over middle of forehead involving the root of nose. The margins of the bones were ragged and contused. The underline nasal bone and frontal bone were fractured and was associated with haematoma. The wound was 153 cm above the right heel and 11 cm medial to the right tragus.
Injury No.2 : A bone deep lacerated wound semiluner in shape of size 8 x 2 cm present at the outer aspect of right eye. The margins of which were ragged and contused.
Injury No.3 : Three bone deep lacerated wound each of size 2 x 1 cm were present over the right, middle and left side of SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 17 of 23 forehead. The margins of which were ragged and contused. Injury No.4 : A bone deep lacerated wound of size 2 x 1 cm present below the outer aspect of left eye. The margins of which were contused.
Injury No.5 : A bone deep lacerated wound of size 2 x .5 cm present just above the right angle of the mouth. The margins of which were ragged and contused.
Injury No.6 : A lacerated wound of size 2 x 1.5 cm irregular in shape present over the upper lip over right side involving the whole thickness of lips. The margins of which were ragged and contused.
25. As per PW1 Dr. Asit Kumar Sikary, in his opinion, the cause of death in this case was shock due to cranio cerebral injury caused by blunt external force. He further opined that injury no.1 was individually and all the injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The postmortem report Ex. PW1/A has duly been proved by PW1.
26. Thus, from the deposition of PW1 Dr. Asit Kumar Sikary, it is seen that Ram Avtar did not die a natural death. His death was unnatural. The cause of death of Ram Avtar was shock due to cranio cerebral injury caused by blunt external force.
27. PW24 Inspector Pradeep Kumar, IO of the case has SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 18 of 23 deposed that he collected call detail record of mobile phone belonging to deceased, which was bearing No.9717923464. He observed that the instrument was used even after death of deceased. On the basis of call details, PW24 Inspector Pradeep Kumar sent a team of police comprising Inspector Mahender Singh and SI Jatan Singh to Jalon, U.P. He stated that on 31.01.11, on the basis of secret information, accused Jabbar Singh was apprehended from ISBT, Anand Vihar. He was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW15/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW15/D. Accused made disclosure statement Ex. PW15/E. One wrist watch make Maxima Quartz (black dial), one mobile phone make Nokia 1209, cash of Rs.430/ and three bus tickets belonging to deceased were recovered from accused Jabbar Singh and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/G. Accused is reported to have led the police party to the spot and pointed out the place of incident vide pointing out memo Ex. PW15/F. Accused Jabbar Singh is reported to have disclosed that he could get the weight of 10 kg recovered which was used in committing the murder of deceased Ram Avtar. From the spot, accused led the police party to the place i.e. vacant plot in front of plot No.A9091, Okhla PhaseI, New Delhi, where he pointed out the place vide pointing out of memo Ex. PW15/H and he got SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 19 of 23 recovered the weight of 10 kg which was seized and taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW15/I.
28. From the deposition of Kunwar Pal (PW9), Vinod (PW12) and Shyam Chawla (PW14), it stands proved on record that wrist watch Ex. P1 and mobile phone Ex. P2 recovered from the possession of accused belonged to deceased Ram Avtar.
29. The investigating officer sought opinion from the doctor regarding the weapon of offence i.e. the iron weight used in the commission of offence in the case. Dr. Asit Kumar Sikary perused the postmortem report and examined the weapon of offence and thereafter, opined that all the injuries described in PM report Ex. PW1/A could be caused by weapon of offence submitted to him. He prepared sketch of iron weight which is Ex. PW17/A. He proved his subsequent opinion which is Ex. PW17/B. Thus from the subsequent opinion of the doctor, it is noticed that the injuries described in the postmortem report could be caused by the weapon of offence i.e. an iron weight, which was recovered at the instance of accused.
30. The blood was detected on 10 kg. iron weight i.e. the weapon of offence, which was used in the commission of offence in the case (murder of deceased), has matched with the blood found on the clothes of deceased. PW25 Shri D.S. Paliwal SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 20 of 23 examined parcel no.1 (5 exhibits) and parcel no.2 (one exhibit). He deposed that he had examined all the exhibits and found blood on them. As per the witness, the exhibits were subjected to DNA isolation. The DNA was isolated from all the exhibits but the DNA profile was generated for Exhibit 1a (full sleeved shirt), 1b (baniyan) belonging to deceased Ram Avtar and Exhibit 2 (iron weight indicating 10 kg.) and it was found that the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit 2 i.e. iron weight indicating 10 kg. was similar with DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit 1a and 1b. Shri D.S. Paliwal (PW25) proved his detailed report which is Ex. PW25/A. He denied the suggestion that he prepared false report at the instance of police officials. Thus, it stands proved on record that blood found on the weapon of offence i.e. iron weight of 10 kg., which was recovered at the instance of accused was having the blood similar with the blood as found on the clothes of deceased. It also stands proved on record that iron weight which recovered at the instance of accused was used for committing the murder of deceased Ram Avtar.
31. Plea of accused is that on 28.01.11, he was in Delhi and in the evening at 5:00 PM, he boarded bus for his native place i.e. Bhind, M.P. He stated that he was lifted by the police on 30.01.11 from Bhind, M.P. and not from Anand Vihar, ISBT as alleged by SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 21 of 23 police. Accused has failed to produce the ticket of the bus which he is reported to have boarded on 28.01.11. He also failed to produce any material on record to suggest that in fact, he boarded the bus on 28.01.11 and reached at his native place. No witness has been examined by the accused to prove his version that he was lifted from his native place and thereafter, shown arrested in the case from Anand Vihar ISBT.
32. Deceased Ram Avtar was murdered in the night of 28.01.11. Police was informed regarding death of deceased in the morning on 29.01.11. Accused and deceased both used to sleep together at godown of scrap at F30/5, Okhla Industrial Area PhaseII, New Delhi. Accused absconded after the death of deceased. He himself admitted that he was not in Delhi after the death of deceased. The conduct of accused in leaving Delhi or disappearing from the spot of crime is relevant in view of section 8 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The conduct of accused becomes relevant in the face of the fact that he knew deceased very well and used to sleep with him, however, after the death of deceased, he was found absconding and later on apprehended in the case.
33. In view of foregoing reasons, in my considered view, prosecution has succeeded to prove on record that it was accused, SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 22 of 23 who murdered the deceased (Ram Avtar) by iron weight beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. The circumstances brought and proved on record by the prosecution firmly establish that it was the accused Jabbar Singh, who murdered the deceased and none else. Accordingly, accused Jabbar Singh is hereby held guilty and convicted for having committed the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC.
Announced in the open (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
court today i.e. 19.02.2016 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
SC No. 37/11 State Vs. Jabbar Singh 23 of 23