Delhi District Court
Singh And Anr. vs . State Of Punjab [Air 2003 Supreme on 31 May, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS
(NORTH) DELHI
SC NO. 1/10
STATE
versus
1. Nuruddin @ Bundul
S/o Mohd. Raza
R/o village Paigula, PS Vishnupur, Post Nepal Ganj,
District 24 Pargana, West Bengal
2. Vikrant @ Chela
S/o Ramesh Paswan
R/o village Pakhpar, Post Barbiga,
District Seikhpur, Bihar
3.Abdul Wasim @ Majnu
S/o Mohd. Illias
R/o CN245, Takia Kale Khan, Meer Dard road,
New Delhi02
FIR No. : 154/09
Offence U/S : 302/34 IPC
Police Station : IP Estate
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 2.1.2010
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 18.5.2011.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24.5.2011.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely Nurudin @ Bundul, Vikrant @ Chela and Abdul Wasim @ Majnu have been prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC vide S.C.No. 1/10 Page 1 of 18 pages 2 FIR No. 154/09 P.S I.P. Estate.
2. The prosecution has alleged that all the three accused in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Mohd. Wasim on 22.9.09 at about 5 p.m, in gali old Kabristan, Takia Kale Khan, Meerdard road, Delhi. The accused Chela caught hold of deceased and took out a knife and handed over the same to accused Nurudin who gave two knife blows to deceased on his abdomen and chest. Accused Majnu also pulled the deceased and hit him with legs and fists. Finally, accused Nurudin gave third knife blow to the deceased and thereafter all the three accused persons fled away from the spot. The incident was witnessed by brother and father of the deceased who rushed to the rescue of the victim and removed him to the hospital. The deceased however succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.
3. The report about the incident was lodged by brother of deceased Nadeem wherein he specifically named the accused persons being responsible for killing his brother. The FIR was registered on the basis of the report. Accused Chela and Nurudin were apprehended shortly thereafter on the basis of secret information and blood stained clothes were recovered from them. Accused also got recovered the weapon of offence i.e buttondar knife. On 24.9.09, the third accused Majnu @ Abdul Wasim was also apprehended on the basis of secret information and clothes worn by him at the time of incident were seized. All three accused persons were chargesheeted on completion of investigation.
S.C.No. 1/10 Page 2 of 18 pages 3
4. On 15.3.2010, the accused were charged for having committed an offence u/s 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution examined 20 witnesses in all to bring home the guilt of the accused. The substance of the prosecution evidence is as follows:
6. PW1 complainant Nadeem is the real brother of the deceased. He stated that on 22.9.09 at about 5 p.m, he alongwith his father Mohd Salim were going to DDA market. Near old Kabristan, they found his brother Mohd Wasim being chased by three boys who were Bundul, Chela and Majnu. Accused Chela @ Vikrant caught hold of the deceased and took out knife from his pocket and handed over the same to accused Nurudin @ Bundul who assaulted the deceased twice by means of knife on his abdomen and chest. He further stated that Chela also declared ''ye jyada banta hei, aaj isko khatam kar dete hein''. Accused Majnu pulled hair of his brother and hit him with legs and fists. They rushed to the rescue of the victim but before that accused Bundul gave third knife blow to Wasim and thereafter accused fled away from the spot. He took his brother to LNJP hospital where he was declared dead. PW1 proved the report lodged by him with the police EXPW1/A. He also identified the dead body of deceased after postmortem vide EXPW1/B. Complainant also joined the investigation with the police whereby the accused Nurudin and Vikrant @ Chela were arrested vide arrest memos EXPW1/C&D and personal search memos S.C.No. 1/10 Page 3 of 18 pages 4 EXPW1/E&F. The place of incident was inspected by the police. The complainant stated that he was knowing the accused persons prior to the incident. During cross examination, he deposed that deceased was painter by profession. The place of occurrence was at a distance of one k.m from their house. The deceased was working in Goa but had come to Delhi on the occasion of Eid. He was knowing accused Bundul and Vikrant for about 10 years and their house was at a distance of one km. from their house. No one from the public tried to apprehend the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot. His statement and also the statement of his father were recorded at police post. He denied the suggestions that names of the accused persons were told by the police or that accused have been falsely implicated in this case. He denied that deceased used to take smack or alcohol or that he used to gamble. During crossexamination on behalf of Majnu @ Wasim, he admitted that he had not taken the police to the house of accused Majnu and he was not knowing that Majnu was also known as Wasim. Public persons were present at the spot. He removed his brother in three wheeler scooter which he got within five minutes. His clothes were also stained with blood as he lifted the deceased. His father reached the hospital after five minutes of the admission of the victim in the hospital. Accused persons fled away towards Masjid after causing the incident. He denied the suggestion that Majnu was not involved in the occurrence or that he has been falsely S.C.No. 1/10 Page 4 of 18 pages 5 implicated .
7. PW2 Mohd Salim is the father of the deceased and has also been the witness of the occurrence. He also named all the three accused being responsible for assaulting his son my means of knife in the manner that accused Vikrant @ Chela caught hold of him and handed over the knife to Bundul. Accused Bundul assaulted the deceased thrice by means of knife and accused Majnu hit the deceased by means of fists and kicks even after the deceased fell down on the road. He stated that accused persons fled away from the spot. His son Wasim was taken to the hospital by complainant Nadeem where Wasim expired. PW2 identified dead body of his son vide EXPW2/A. He also identified the clothes worn by the deceased at the time of incident shirt and Baniyan EXP1 and EXP2. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Majnu, he stated that his statement was recorded by the police at the police post. He was having mobile phone at the time of incident. Complainant Nadeem lifted injured Wasim and he helped him in placing the injured in three wheeler scooter. His clothes were not stained with blood. He did not see any injury on the person of accused. He knows father of accused Majnu as well as his place of residence. The witness correctly pointed out towards accused Majnu. During cross examination on behalf of accused Bundul and Chela, PW2 stated that his son Nadeem did not try to chase the accused persons. The accused persons were known to him for about three and half years. He denied the suggestion that deceased S.C.No. 1/10 Page 5 of 18 pages 6 was alcoholic. He further denied the suggestion that he received information of the incident at his home or that accused persons have been falsely implicated.
8. PW3 Amar singh is running STD Booth at Meerdard road and phone call was made to the police on 22.9.09 from his shop about the incident.
9. PW4 SI Dhan Singh was incharge crime team and reached the spot for inspection. He gave his report vide EXPW4/A.
10. PW5 Dr. Ravinder, CMO LNJP hospital proved MLC of deceased vide EXPW5/A.
11. PW6 Dr. Nitin posted with department of surgery, LNJP hospital stated that Mohd Wasim was brought to him and he was already dead. He proved his report EXPW6/A.
12. PW7 Dr. Kulbhushan proved postmortem report vide EXPW7/A. The postmortem was conducted by Dr. Amit Sharma (since not available) and PW7 identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Amit Sharma. The opinion given with respect to weapon of offence has also been proved as EXPW7/B.
13. PW8 Ct. Kailash posted with police post JPN hospital handed over two pulandas duly sealed to the IO which were seized vide EXPW8/A.
14. PW9 constable Dinesh Kumar, photographer with Crime Team proved photographs of place of occurrence vide EXPW9/110.
15. PW10 constable Raj Singh joined the investigation of the case and got the FIR registered on the basis of rukka handed S.C.No. 1/10 Page 6 of 18 pages 7 over by Inspector Naresh. He also stated about the arrest of accused Bundul and Chela on the basis of secret information on 22.9.09 itself from Shivaji Bridge, railway station and proved their disclosure statements EXPW10/A&B, recovery of blood stained Jeans of accused Chela vide EXPW10/C, blood stained clothes of accused Nurudin from his jhuggi EXPW10/D, recovery of weapon of offence at instance of accused vide EXPW10/F and sketch EXPW10/E. He further proved pointing out memo EXPW10/G and identified the clothes and knife. He has been crossexamined.
16. PW11 HC Naresh reached the spot of occurrence with ASI Yashpal on receipt of DD no 27. He deposed about preparation of site plan, inspection of spot by the Crime Team and also got conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased.
17. PW12 ASI Yashpal joined the investigation on receipt of DD no. 27 EXPW12/A. He has given details of the investigation and arrest and recovery proceedings at the instance of accused Nurudin and Chela on 22.9.09. He has also been crossexamined.
18. PW13 HC Suresh Kumar working as MHCM at PS I.P. Estate, deposed about deposition of case property in the malkhana and sending of the same to FSL on various dates vide entries EXPW13/A.
19. PW14 HC Shyamsunder joined the investigation of the present case and stated that on 24.9.09 accused Abdul Wasim @ Majnu involved in the case was apprehended on the basis S.C.No. 1/10 Page 7 of 18 pages 8 of secret information and proved his disclosure statement EXPW14/A, arrest memo EXPW14/B, personal search memo EXPW14/D, recovery of clothes EXPW14/E. He has also been crossexamined.
20. PW15 Ct. Pramila posted with PCR filled up the PCR form on 22.9.09.
21. PW16 HC Narender Singh working as duty officer at P.S I.P Estate on 22.9.09 recorded DD no. 27A and FIR of this case vide EXPW16/B&C. He also proved DD no. 28A, sending of FIR copies to senior police officers EXPW16/D.
22. PW17 constable Tejender also proved DD recorded in connection with the incident EXPW12/A.
23. PW18 HC Tarachand recorded DD no. 39 vide EXPW18/A.
24. PW19 SI Mahesh Kumar prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence EXPW19/A.
25. PW20 Inspector Naresh Khanka conducted the investigation of the case and has given the details thereof. He proved various documentary evidence during the investigation. The endorsement is EXPW20/A, site plan EXPW20/B, inquest proceedings EXPW20/C&D. He collected the FSL reports EXPW20/D,E&F and proved the blood report of accused persons EXPW20/G&H. During crossexamination he denied the suggestions that accused persons have been falsely implicated or that he did not fairly investigate the case.
26. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
27. Statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication.
S.C.No. 1/10 Page 8 of 18 pages 9 According to accused Chela @ Vikrant, he was arrested without any reason while he was coming back after watching movie. He admitted that his pant was seized by the police but denied that it was having blood stains. Accused Nurudin pleaded that he was lifted from his house. The blood stains were put on their clothes by the police and prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely due to old rivalry.
Accused Majnu stated that he was lifted from his house and his clothes were taken by the police and he is innocent.
28. In defence, accused Majnu examined DW1 Devraj Chauhan who stated that on 24.9.09, accused Wasim @ Majnu was taken away by the police while they were playing cricket. During crossexamination by Ld APP, he admitted that he was not with the accused on 22.9.09 and he was taken away by the police in connection with some incident dt. 22.9.09.
29. Other two accused have not led evidence in defence.
30. I have heard Ld APP Sh. Ramesh Kumar for the State and amicuscuriae Ms Sadhna Bhatia for the accused persons and given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and the record.
31. It is argued by Ld APP that case of the prosecution stands proved beyond reasonable doubt in view of testimony of complainant Nadeem (PW1) and Mohd Salim (PW2). The accused persons were arrested shortly after the occurrence and weapon of offence was recovered. The investigation and related documents have also been duly proved on record.
S.C.No. 1/10 Page 9 of 18 pages
10
The medical and scientific reports have also supported the
prosecution case. The conviction of the accused persons be recorded forthwith for the offence of murder punishable u/s 302 read with section 34 IPC.
32. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld amicuscuriae that PW1 and PW2 are closed relatives of the deceased and therefore interested witnesses and should not be relied upon. Prosecution has also failed to prove motive for committing such serious offence and therefore giving benefit of doubt, accused persons be acquitted.
33. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides. The present case was registered on the basis of report lodged by complainant Nadeem vide EXPW1/A. He is the real brother of the deceased. The incident took place at about 5 p.m and rukka was sent for registration of the FIR at about 7 p.m. MLC EXPW5/A shows that deceased was taken to hospital at about 5.12 p.m by the complainant.
34. The case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence. The complainant Nadeem (PW1) is the real brother of the deceased and PW2 Mohd Salim is the father of the deceased. Both these witnesses have given consistent and cogent version of the incident in their statements and have spelled out specific role played by each accused during the incident. It is categorically stated by both of them that all the three accused after chasing the deceased in the gali, caused his death in the manner that accused Chela @ Vikrant caught S.C.No. 1/10 Page 10 of 18 pages 11 hold of Wasim and took out a knife from his pocket and handed over the same to accused Nurudin @ Bundul at which accused Nurudin gave two knife blows to Wasim on his abdomen and near the chest. Meanwhile accused Majnu @ Abdul Wasim hit the deceased with legs and fists. Accused Nurudin gave third knife blow to the deceased and then they fled away from the spot. Despite crossexamination, both the witnesses have remained confident and categorical and no infirmities have emerged from their depositions.
35. On the point of identity of the accused persons, PW1 and PW2 have clearly stated that accused persons were known to them prior to the incident. On evaluating their testimony, I find no reason to discredit the same only for the reason that they were related to the deceased. It is evident from the MLC EXPW5/A that complainant had taken the deceased to the hospital shortly after the occurrence which confirms the presence of complainant at the spot. They have no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons and no motive has been attributed to them during their crossexamination for false implication of the accused persons. The arguments advanced by amicuscuriae that PW1 and PW2 are interested witnesses and therefore be disbelieved has no substance. Their testimony is truthful and clear with respect to the occurrence and there is nothing to affect their credibility. The relationship with the deceased is no reason to discard their testimony. It has also been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sucha Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 2003 SUPREME S.C.No. 1/10 Page 11 of 18 pages 12 COURT 3617(1)], that :
"Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent persons. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. It cannot be said that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness should not be relied upon."
36. The investigation and recovery of weapon of offence and blood stained clothes of accused persons stand clearly proved with the testimony of IO and other police officials. Accused Nurudin @ Bundul and Vikrant @ Chela were arrested shortly after the incident whereas accused Majnu was arrested two days after the incident. I find no reason with the police to falsely implicate the accused persons or to create false evidence against them.
37. The sequence of incident shows that all the three accused were acting in furtherance of their common intention and it is clear from the manner in which the incident was caused by the accused persons that they acted in concert and participated in action and were determined to kill the deceased. The declaration made by accused Vikrant @ Chela and handing over knife to accused Nurudin, the assault S.C.No. 1/10 Page 12 of 18 pages 13 made on the person of deceased by accused Nurudin by means of knife and fist and leg blows given by accused Majnu to the deceased clearly demonstrate that all the accused persons had the common intention to kill the deceased and therefore, the accused persons can not escape the rigorous of section 34 IPC.
38. The medical evidence in the form of postmortem report EXPW7/A and opinion about the weapon of offence EXPW7/B have also corroborated the ocular evidence. The deceased died due to hemorrhage and shock consequent to stab injuries to his abdomen and same was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by single edged sharp weapon and nature of injuries were also consistent with the recovered weapon. The expert opinion EXPW7/B is clear and therefore medical evidence has also established the veracity of the witnesses of the occurrence.
39. The scientific evidence has also confirmed and corroborated ocular evidence. The clothes and weapon recovered from accused persons were sent for scientific analysis. It is evident from the reports EXPW20/D&E that weapon of offence/knife recovered at the instance of accused Nurudin was having blood stains. The jeans pants of accused Vikrant @ Chela and clothes of accused Nurudin i.e Baniyan and pant were having blood stains of the blood group of the deceased. According to blood sample/gauze the deceased was having 'O' blood group whereas as per report Ex.PW20/G, S.C.No. 1/10 Page 13 of 18 pages 14 accused Bundul @ Nurudin and accused Vikrant were having blood groups B+ (positive) and A+ (positive) respectively. The blood group of deceased was detected on the clothes of accused Nurudin and Vikrant @ Chela which further confirms their involvement in killing the deceased. On examining the report EXPW20/F, it is further clear that cut marks appearing on the clothes of the deceased were consistent and corresponding to the weapon/knife recovered at the instance of accused. The FSL reports (admissible u/s 293 CrPC) have further corroborated the ocular evidence thereby clearly establishing the guilt of the accused persons.
40. The complainant PW1 and his father Mohd Salim (PW2) are natural and probable witnesses of the occurrence. They have given categorical evidence against the accused persons. They have also stated that accused persons were having rivalry with the deceased. In such circumstances the clear and specific motive to commit the offence is not necessary to be proved. It is well settled that where direct evidence is available, the motive loses its significance (Relied upon, Abu Thakir and Ors Vs State , 2010, Crl. Law Journal 2840).
41. Accused persons have pleaded false implication in their statements u/s 313 CrPC but they have not come out with any specific reason for their false implication. They have also failed to bring any evidence to prove their false implication. It is clear that accused persons have no justification or explanation to their criminal acts.
42. On examining the testimony of material witnesses (PW1 & S.C.No. 1/10 Page 14 of 18 pages 15 PW2), the testimony of police officials, documentary evidence and FSL reports, I conclude that case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is clearly proved that all the three accused persons in furtherance of their common intention inflicted stab injuries on the person of the deceased and thereby caused his death. There is no escape from the conclusion that accused persons sharing common intention killed the deceased. I therefore convict all three accused persons u/s 302 read with section 34 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.5.2011 (ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE DELHI S.C.No. 1/10 Page 15 of 18 pages 16 IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS (NORTH) DELHI SC No. 1/10 STATE Versus
1. Nuruddin @ Bundul S/o Mohd. Raza R/o Village Paigula, PS Vishnupur, Post Nepal Ganj, District 24 Pargana, West Bengal
2. Vikrant @ Chela S/o Ramesh Paswan R/o Village Pakhpar, Post Barbiga, District Seikhpur, Bihar
3. Abdul Wasim @ Majnu S/o Mohd. Illias R/o CN245, Takia Kale Khan, Meer Dard Road, New Delhi 02 FIR No: 154/09 Offence U/S: 302/34 IPC Police Station : IP Estate S.C.No. 1/10 Page 16 of 18 pages 17 Order on Sentence : Present : Ms. Alka Goel. Ld. APP for the State All three convicts from JC They have been convicted U/s 302/34 IPC.
I have heard submissions on the point of sentence. It is submitted by convict Nuruddin @ Bundul that he is 21 years of age and sole bread winner of his family consisting of his aged parents. He is not a previous convict.
It is submitted by convict Vikrant @ Chela that he is 22 years of age and sole bread winner of his family consisting of parents, younger sisters and brothers. He is also not a previous convict.
It is submitted by convict Abdul Wasim @ Majnu that he is 20 years of age and sole bread winner of his family consisting of his wife and two children and aged mother. He is not a previous convict.
They all have prayed for taking lenient view.
S.C.No. 1/10 Page 17 of 18 pages 18 Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and that of the convicts, I sentence each convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/ each in default simple imprisonment of six months each u/s 302/34 IPC.
Copy of the judgment as well as order on sentence be given to all the convicts. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.05.2011 (ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE DELHI S.C.No. 1/10 Page 18 of 18 pages