Delhi District Court
Criminal Appeal No. 689/2013 Titled As ... vs . State Of on 26 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 114/1
Unique Identification No. 02404RO158742010
State
Versus
1. Noor Islam @ Noora
S/o sh. Swajul
R/o Jhuggi No. N38B/76
Jhuggi CD Park, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
FIR No. 120/2010
PS Jahangir Puri
U/s. 304 Part II/201/34 of IPC
Date of Decision: 24/07/2014
Date of order on sentence: 26/07/2014
ORDER ON SENTENCE
26/07/2014
Present. Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Noor Islam @ Noora from J.C. with counsel.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel has contended that convict Noor Islam @ Noora is
aged about 32 years. He is married. He is having wife and two children, aged about 8 years
and 3 years, to support. He is the only bread earner of his family. He is working as junk
dealer and is earning Rs. 1012,000/ p.m.. He has faced trial of this case since 2010.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that he is not a previous convict nor habitual
offender. It is further contended that he remained in custody in this case from 07/04/2010 to
20/12/2011 and from 24/07/2014 till today.
On the other hand, ld. APP has contended that appropriate sentence be awarded
SC No. 114/1 1
for the offence, which the prosecution has been able to prove against accused Noor Islam @
Noora.
I have considered the submissions of ld. APP and learned defence counsel for
both the convicts. The prosecution has been able to prove offences u/s. 304 PartII of IPC
and u/s. 201/34 of IPC against accused Noor Islam @ Noora.
Offence u/s. 304 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life, or
imprisonment of either description for a term , which may extend to 10 years, and shall also
be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10
years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to
cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death.
Since accused Noor Islam @ Noora is convicted for the offence u/s. 304 of IPC
under PartII/34 of IPC, accordingly, sentence of three years S.I. is awarded u/s. 304 Part
II/34 of IPC upon him with fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine, he shall further
undergo simple imprisonment for nine months.
Offence u/s. 201 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description
which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine, if it is a case of capital offence.
Accordingly, sentence of three years S.I. is awarded u/s. 201/34 of IPC upon
convict Noor Islam @ Noora with fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine, he shall
further undergo simple imprisonment for nine months.
On the point of compensation, it is contended by learned defence counsel that
according to the earning capacity and liabilities of the convict, minimum compensation be
awarded.
It has been held in Delhi Domestic Working Women's forum V. Union of
India and ors. (1995) 1 SCC 14 that:
"Compensation payable by the offender was introduced in the Criminal Justice
Act 1972 which gave the Courts powers to make an ancillary order for compensation in
addition to the main penalty in cases where 'injury, loss, or damage' had resulted. The
Criminal Justice Act 1982 made it possible for the first time to make a compensation order
SC No. 114/1 2
as the sole penalty. It also required that in cases where fines and compensation orders were
given together, the payment of compensation should take priority over the fine. These
developments signified a major shift in penology thinking, reflecting the growing
importance attached to restitution and reparation over the more narrowly retributive aims
of conventional punishment. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 furthered this shift. It required
courts to consider the making of a compensation order in every case of death, injury, loss or
damage and, where such an order was not given, imposed a duty on the court to give
reasons for not doing so. It also extended the range of injuries eligible for compensation.
These new requirements mean that if the court fails to make a compensation order, it must
furnish reasons. Where reasons are given, the victim may apply for these to be subject to
judicial review. The 1991 Criminal Justice Act contains a number of provisions which
directly or indirectly encourage an even greater role for compensation.."
In judgment dated 03/05/2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Criminal Appeal No. 689/2013 titled as "Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of
Maharashtra", it has been held that:
"Amongst others, the following provisions on restitution and compensation
have been made:
12. Restitution shall be provided to reestablish the situation that existed prior to
the violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. Restitution requires inter
alia, restoration of liberty, family life, citizenship, return to one's place of residence, and
restoration of employment or property.
13. Compensation shall be provided for any economically assessable damage
resulting from violations of human rights or international humanitarian law, such as;
(a) Physical or mental harm, including pain, suffering and emotional distress;
(b) Lost opportunities including education;
(c) Material damages and loss of earnings, including loss of earning potential;
(d) Harm to reputation or dignity;
(e) Costs required for legal or expert assistance, medicines and medical
services.
In view of above, on account of physical or mental harm, including pain,
suffering and emotional distress to the family of the deceased Munna, a compensation of Rs.
50,000/ is imposed upon convict Noor Islam @ Noora in favour of family members of
deceased Munna. In default of payment of compensation, he shall undergo six months
simple imprisonment.
Both the substantive sentence shall run concurrently.
Compensation, if deposited and no appeal is preferred within the period of
limitation, then the same be released to the family members of the deceased.
SC No. 114/1 3
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. be given to convict.
Fine and compensation deposited.
Convict is remanded to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open Court
Today on: 26th of July, 2014 ( Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court,
Rohini/Delhi
SC No. 114/1 4
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 114/1
Unique Identification No. 02404RO158742010
State
Versus
1. Vasi Ahmad @ Hosyar
S/o Sh. Innamul Haq
R/o C504/505,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
2. Najrul @ Naiju
S/o Sh. Sheikh Siraj
R/o Jhuggi No. 38B/76,
Jhuggi CD Park, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
FIR No. 120/2010
PS Jahangir Puri
U/s. 201/34 of IPC
Date of Decision: 24/07/2014
Date of order on sentence: 26/07/2014
ORDER ON SENTENCE
26/07/2014
Present. Ld. APP for the State.
Both the convicts from J.C. with counsel.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel has contended that convict Vasi Ahmad @ Hosyar is
aged about 46 years. He is married. He is having wife and six children to support. He is the
only bread earner of his family. He is working as junk dealer and is earning Rs. 1012,000/
p.m.. He has faced trial of this case since 2010. Learned defence counsel has further
contended that he is not a previous convict nor habitual offender. It is further contended that
SC No. 114/1 5
he remained in custody in this case from 04/04/2010 to 22/07/2010 and from 24/07/2014 till
today.
Learned defence counsel has contended that convict Najrul @ Naiju is aged
about 34 years. He is married. He is having wife and three children, aged about 9 and 6
years old. He is the only bread earner of his family. He is working as junk dealer and is
earning Rs. 12,000/ p.m. He has faced trial of this case since 2010. Learned defence
counsel has further contended that he is not a previous convict nor habitual offender. It is
further contended that he remained in custody in this case from 04/05/2010 to 22/12/2011
and from 24/07/2014 till today.
On the other hand, ld. APP has contended that appropriate sentence be awarded
for the offence, which the prosecution has been able to prove against both the accused
persons.
I have considered the submissions of ld. APP and learned defence counsel for
both the convicts. The prosecution has been able to prove offences U/s. 201/34 of IPC
against both the accused persons.
Offence u/s. 201 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description
which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine, if it is a case of capital offence.
Accordingly, sentence of three years S.I. is awarded u/s. 201/34 of IPC upon
each convict Vasi Ahmad and Najrul @ Naiju with fine of Rs. 1,000/ each. In default of
payment of fine, each convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for nine months.
On the point of compensation, it is contended by learned defence counsel that
according to the earning capacity and liabilities of the convicts, minimum compensation be
awarded.
It has been held in Delhi Domestic Working Women's forum V. Union of
India and ors. (1995) 1 SCC 14 that:
"Compensation payable by the offender was introduced in the Criminal Justice
Act 1972 which gave the Courts powers to make an ancillary order for compensation in
addition to the main penalty in cases where 'injury, loss, or damage' had resulted. The
Criminal Justice Act 1982 made it possible for the first time to make a compensation order
as the sole penalty. It also required that in cases where fines and compensation orders were
SC No. 114/1 6
given together, the payment of compensation should take priority over the fine. These
developments signified a major shift in penology thinking, reflecting the growing
importance attached to restitution and reparation over the more narrowly retributive aims
of conventional punishment. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 furthered this shift. It required
courts to consider the making of a compensation order in every case of death, injury, loss or
damage and, where such an order was not given, imposed a duty on the court to give
reasons for not doing so. It also extended the range of injuries eligible for compensation.
These new requirements mean that if the court fails to make a compensation order, it must
furnish reasons. Where reasons are given, the victim may apply for these to be subject to
judicial review. The 1991 Criminal Justice Act contains a number of provisions which
directly or indirectly encourage an even greater role for compensation.."
In judgment dated 03/05/2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Criminal Appeal No. 689/2013 titled as "Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of
Maharashtra", it has been held that:
"Amongst others, the following provisions on restitution and compensation
have been made:
12. Restitution shall be provided to reestablish the situation that existed prior to
the violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. Restitution requires inter
alia, restoration of liberty, family life, citizenship, return to one's place of residence, and
restoration of employment or property.
13. Compensation shall be provided for any economically assessable damage
resulting from violations of human rights or international humanitarian law, such as;
(a) Physical or mental harm, including pain, suffering and emotional distress;
(b) Lost opportunities including education;
(c) Material damages and loss of earnings, including loss of earning potential;
(d) Harm to reputation or dignity;
(e) Costs required for legal or expert assistance, medicines and medical
services.
In view of above, on account of physical or mental harm, including pain,
suffering and emotional distress to the family of the deceased Munna, a compensation of Rs.
50,000/ is imposed upon each convict Vasi Ahmad and Najrul @ Naiju in favour of family
members of deceased Munna. In default of payment of compensation, both the convicts
shall undergo six months simple imprisonment.
Compensation, if deposited and no appeal is preferred within the period of
limitation, then the same be released to the family members of the deceased.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. be given to both the convicts.
SC No. 114/1 7
Fine and compensation deposited.
Convicts are remanded to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open Court
Today on: 26th of July, 2014 ( Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court,
Rohini/Delhi
SC No. 114/1 8
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 114/1
Unique Identification No. 02404RO158742010
State
Versus
1. Vasi Ahmad @ Hosyar
S/o Sh. Innamul Haq
R/o C504/505,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
2. Ashok @ Dudhiya
S/o Sh. Shiv Lal
R/o C953, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
3. Noor Islam @ Noora
S/o sh. Swajul
R/o Jhuggi No. N38B/76
Jhuggi CD Park, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
4. Md. Motibul Rehman
S/o Sh. Sahadat Rehman
R/o Jhuggi No. N/38C/253,
Jhuggi CD Park, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
5. Najrul @ Naiju
S/o Sh. Sheikh Siraj
R/o Jhuggi No. 38B/76,
Jhuggi CD Park, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
FIR No. 120/2010
PS Jahangir Puri
U/s. 302/308/365/342/201/34 IPC
SC No. 114/1 9
Date of institution of the case: 31/05/2010
Arguments heard on: 22/07/2014
Date of reservation of order: 22/07/2014
Date of Decision: 24/07/2014
JUDGMENT
This case was registered on the statement of one Sadiq on 04/04/2010, u/s 308/365/342/34 of IPC. Prior to that, DD no. 12A was recorded at about 09.40 a.m., on receipt of telephonic information that one Sadiq, son of Abdul Khan, R/o Karawal Nagar, Delhi, had been admitted to BJRM hospital in injured condition from CD park Jhuggi, Jahangir Puri, by PCR commander 34 incharge HC Ram Kumar and that IO be sent. Contents of this DD were telephonically informed to HC Ram Kumar.
Accordingly, HC Ram Kumar along with Ct Rinku and Ct Naresh reached at BJRM hospital and collected MLC of Sadiq and recorded his statement, on the basis of which, he got registered FIR of this case. After registration of FIR, investigation was handed over to Inspector Dharam Pal.
During investigation, rough site plan of the place, where complainant Sadiq along with his friend Munna was sleeping and from where, they were lifted, was prepared at the instance of complainant. Rough site plan of the place, where complainant Sadiq and his friend Munna were beaten, from where they were caught hold on suspicion being thieves and where the wall had fallen down, was also prepared at the instance of complainant. Inquiries were made. Involvement of accused Noor Islam @ Noora, Naiju, Ashok Dudhiya and Motibul was revealed, but they were found missing from their respective houses.
Accused Vasi Ahmed was apprehended on the basis of secret information. He disclosed about his involvement and of other coaccused persons in the incident. He was arrested in this case. His personal search was conducted. He also made disclosure statement and pointed out the place, where dead body of Munna SC No. 114/1 10 was thrown. On his pointing, dead body of Munna was recovered. Pointing out cum recovery memo of dead body was prepared in this regard. Crime team was called at the spot, who inspected the spot. Spot was got photographed. Dead body was seized. It was sent to the mortuary. Complainant Sadiq identified the dead body. Small plastic bag and big plastic bag used for keeping the dead body were seized by preparing separate memos. Accused Vasi Ahmad also pointed out the jhuggi of accused Noora, where dead body was kept. He also pointed out the respective houses of coaccused persons. Separate pointing out memos were prepared in this regard.
Brief facts were prepared. Postmortem was got conducted on the body of deceased from BJRM hospital. Dead body identification statements of complainant Sadiq and Anju, wife of deceased, were recorded. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to the claimants. After postmortem, doctor handed over sealed pullanda of clothes of deceased, sealed pullanda of three cloth pieces tied around left leg of deceased, blood sample of deceased alongwith sample seal, which were seized by preparing a memo.
On 05/04/2010, accused Ashok was arrested in this case. His personal search was conducted. He also made disclosure statement. On 07/04/2010, accused Noor Islam @ Noora was arrested in this case on the pointing of complainant. His personal search was conducted. He also made disclosure statement. He also produced one danda, which was used in commission of the offence. Same was seized by preparing a memo. He also pointed the place from where dead body was recovered. Pointing out memo was prepared in this regard. On 12/04/10, accused Motibul Rehman was arrested in this case. His personal search was conducted. He also made disclosure statement. He also pointed out the place, from where dead body was recovered.
During investigation, scaled site plan was got prepared. Opinion regarding weapon of offence i.e. danda was obtained. Postmortem report was collected. Subsequent opinion was also obtained. Accused Najrul @ Naiju was also SC No. 114/1 11 arrested in this case. His personal search was conducted. He also made disclosure statement. He also pointed out the place of recovery of dead body. Complainant Sadiq pointed out the thelarehri on which he and Munna had slept. Same was seized by preparing a memo. Exhibits were sent to FSL.
On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against all the five accused persons u/s. 302/308/365/342/201/34 of IPC on 31/05/2010. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 09/07/2010 and was received on 14/07/2010.
On 20/07/2010, charge u/s. 201 read with Section 34 of IPC was framed against accused Vasi Ahmad @ Hosyar, charge u/s. 365 read with Section 34 of IPC, u/s. 308 read with Section 34 of IPC, u/s. 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and u/s. 201 read with Section 34 of IPC was framed against accused Ashok @ Dudhiya, Noor Islam @ Noora, Mohd. Motibul Rehman and Najrul @ Naiju, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW19 in all. On completion of evidence of the prosecution, statements of all the accused persons were recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the case of the prosecution and have claimed their innocence.
I have heard learned APP for the State, learned defence counsels for the accused persons and have gone through the material placed on record with evidence adduced.
The case was registered on the statement of one Sadiq on complaint Ex. PW5/A, according to which, on 03/04/2010, complainant Sadiq and his friend Munna had gone to meet one Jai Kumar and they had made inquiries in the jhuggies of CD Park. They came to know that Jai Kumar had sold his jhuggi about 1½ year before and due to night time, he along with Munna in front of C Block, Subzi Mandi Road, near Ambedkar Park, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, slept on a rehri lying on the road. He had further told to the police that at about 3.00 a.m. night, four boys came to them and told that they both were thieves and how they dare to enter in the area. Those four SC No. 114/1 12 persons were calling each other by the name of Naiju, Noora, Ashok Bhainswala and Motibul. Ashok Bhainswala asked Naiju and Noora to caught hold both of them and to take them to the jhuggi of accused Vasi Ahmad @ Hosyar, at which, they all four caught both of them and took them to the jhuggi of Vasi Ahmad, which was situated at a distance of 1520 meters from the rehri and they were taken inside the jhuggi. The latch of the jhuggi was closed from inside.
He had further told to the police that Noora caught hold him and pushed him on the ground and sat on him. Other three caught hold Munna and pushed him to the ground. Accused Naiju caught hold both hands of Munna. Accused Ashok Dudhiya caught hold both legs of Munna and accused Motibul started beating Munna with the danda, which was lying there and he was also beaten with the legs and fist blows many times. All these three persons Ashok Dudhiya, Motibul and Naiju changed their position from time to time and continued beating Munna with danda, legs and fist blows. He had further told to the police that thereafter, accused Motibul caught hold him and accused Noora gave legs and fist blows and danda blow to Munna and they had beaten Munna so much that he reached at the verge of dying and thereafter, they all four started beating him from time to time till morning. Due to the beatings of all those four persons, Munna was breathing heavily. Due to the fear of the accused persons, he and Munna could not resist or object the beatings of the accused persons nor they could raise any noise.
He had further told to the police that at about 8.30 a.m. in the morning, they opened the door of the jhuggi and removed Munna in unconscious condition to some unknown place. Thereafter, after about 510 minutes, a truck had hit the wall and it fell down, so, public persons entered there. Police vehicle also came there. He reached in injured condition to the police and was removed to BJRM hospital. So, he requested that necessary action be taken against all these four persons.
Before the Court, PW5 Sadiq has deposed the same facts as of his complaint and has identified all the four accused persons before the Court, who had SC No. 114/1 13 removed both of them to the jhuggi of accused Vasi Ahmad @ Hosyar and also that he and Munna were beaten by the accused persons by holding their hands and feet. He has also deposed that accused persons took Munna out of the jhuggi at about 4/4.30 a.m. He heard the noise of siren and came out of the jhuggi. There was large crowd. He reached to the police and came to know that some wall had fallen. He had come out of the jhuggi after about 30 minutes, when the accused persons had left the jhuggi with Munna. They were given beatings with danda, plastic pipe, kick blows and fist blows by the accused persons. He was removed to the hospital by the police vehicle. His statement was recorded in the hospital by one Head Constable. He was medically examined. He had identified his thumb impression at point A on the statement Ex. PW5/A. On some aspects, PW5 has not supported the case of the prosecution, so, he has been cross examined by ld. APP, wherein he has stated that his statement was recorded by the police, but has voluntarily stated that it was recorded by the police at their own. He has voluntarily stated that accused Motibul was arrested by the police and was shown to him in the PS and at the same time, he has admitted that accused Motibul had pointed out the jhuggi of Hosyar Singh. He has not identified the case property recovered in this case during investigation, which he had witnessed and has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely being won over by the accused persons and intentionally has not identified the exhibits before the court related to this case.
In the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused Motibul, he has stated that he woke up at about 3.00 a.m. in the night. It was dark at that time. he heard the noise of "chorchor" and about 100150 persons were present there. At that time, he had gone to attend the nature's call, when he was apprehended by the public persons. Public persons started giving beatings to him. Munna was also beaten by the public persons at a distance of about 1520 steps from him. Some public persons were pelting stones and some were giving beatings. He and Munna were beaten by SC No. 114/1 14 the public at two different places. He was surrounded by the public persons. He could not see the condition of Munna. He was crying that he was not the thief but public did not hear the same. He was left by the public after about 23 minutes. He received injury and went to hospital in a rickshaw. Doctor gave treatment to him and he remained there for about 1015 minutes. Munna also reached there in a rickshaw. Doctor refused to give first aid to Munna and asked him to leave the hospital as he was under the influence of intoxication. He was also shunted out from the hospital by the doctor after first aid. He had gone in search of Munna and again reached at the same place, where he was beaten. He found a large crowd there as some wall had fallen. PCR van was also there. On seeing bandages on his head, police made him to sit in the van and took him to PS and was kept there for two days and thereafter, he was released after obtaining his signatures on some papers.
PW5 has further stated that police personnel told him the names of the accused persons, which he told in his statement before the Court. The accused persons were shown to him outside the lockup and their names were told to him outside the Court for about two hours. He made statement in the Court as told by the police officials. He is illiterate. Police had read over his statement to him and he deposed before the court due to fear of the police as he was threatened that if he will not depose as told by them, then he will be put in the lockup.
In the last, witness was questioned about his examination on 20/10/2010 and 01/11/2010 as to why he did not tell to the Court that he was under pressure and threat of police, to which, he answered that he did not tell due to fear of police and in reply to further question, he has admitted that on 20/10/2010 and 01/11/2010, he has deposed falsely before the Court after taking oath to depose truly.
Learned defence counsel for accused Noor Islam @ Noora and Najrul @ Naiju has contended that according to the deposition of PW5 Sadiq, incident had taken place at about 3.00 a.m. night and he has not been able to depose that he had seen the faces of the accused persons. It is further contended that after the arrest of SC No. 114/1 15 the accused persons, they were not put to join TIP and regarding the identity of the accused persons, PW5 Sadiq has deposed before the Court that he had deposed about the identity of the accused persons before the Court under pressure and due to fear of the police, at the instance of police.
It is further contended that according to PW3 HC Raj Kumar, on 04/04/2010, he was posted in PCR and at about 8.43 a.m., he received information about a quarrel near Kudedan of DSDC. They reached there. Public persons were present there. They had beaten one person and told that he was a thief. He took that person to PS Jahangir Puri and from there, he took HC Umed Singh with him and removed the injured to BJRM hospital. The said injured had told his name as Sadiq.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW5 Sadiq has stated that he and Munn were beaten in the jhuggi of accused Vasi Ahmad @ Hosyar in the night at about 3.00 a.m. and Munna was taken out from the jhuggi at about 4/4.30 a.m., whereas according to PW3 HC Raj Kumar, PW5 Sadiq was beaten by the public persons at about 8.40 a.m. and public persons handed over to him, so, both these facts are entirely different in nature and context raising doubt about the facts, as deposed by PW5 complainant Sadiq on one hand and by this witnesses on the other hand.
It is further contended that in the cross examination, PW3 HC Raj Kumar has stated that they had received two calls, one was about quarrel and other was about accident, which shows that one of the call of quarrel was actually of incident, in which, PW5 complainant Sadiq was beaten by the public persons assuming that he was a thief and the facts, as deposed by PW5 Sadiq that he and Munna were beaten by four persons in the jhuggi of accused Vasi Ahmad at about 3.00 a.m. night cannot be believed as neither the same is inspiring confidence nor stands corroborated with other evidence brought on record.
Learned defence counsel for accused Ashok @ Dudhiya has contended that according to the deposition of PW5 Sadiq, he had identified the accused persons at the instance of police as he was briefed before his deposition and there could not SC No. 114/1 16 be any possibility of seeing the accused persons at about 3.00 a.m. night, when allegedly both were beaten and further more, no TIP has been conducted of the accused persons in this respect. It is further contended that according to cross of PW19 Inspector Dharampal, neither anything was recovered from the possession of accused Ashok nor on his pointing out, so, prosecution has not been able to prove the case against accused Ashok @ Dudhiya in any manner.
According to PW6 ASI Rajwanti,on 04/04/2010, while she was working as Duty Officer from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. , she had recorded DD no. 12A regarding admission of PW5 Sadiq in BJRM hospital on the basis of information received from Duty Constable, which was marked to HC Ram Kumar for necessary action. Copy of the DD was sent to HC Ram Kumar through Constable Naresh, which is Ex. PW6/A. She has further deposed that on the same day, at about 12.10 p.m., Ct Rinku produced rukka, on the basis of which, he recorded FIR of this case, copy of which is Ex. PW6/B. She made endorsement on the same Ex. PW6/C. Nothing came out from her cross examination to disbelieve her testimony.
PW7 Anju is wife of deceased Munna. On 03/04/2010, in the evening hours, her husband told that he was going to meet Jai Kishore along with his friend PW5 Sadiq Khan. She has also identified the dead body of her husband in the mortuary of BJRM hospital on 05/04/2010. Her statement was recorded to this effect, which is Ex. PW7/A. Learned defence counsel has contended that no plausible reason has been given by PW5 Sadiq Khan as to why they had gone in the night at odd hours to search Jai Kishore and why they did not come back to their houses and slept at a public place, as disclosed by them. It is further contended that it is also not disclosed as to what was the necessity to search Jai Kishore in the said night, for which, he and Munna left in the night at odd hours from Mustafabad near Bhajanpura, Shahdara, Delhi, to Jahangir Puri. It is further contended that there seems to be possibility that both had gone to commit theft in the area of Jahangir Puri but were caught hold by SC No. 114/1 17 the public persons and PW5 Sadiq was beaten,who was removed to BJRM hospital in the morning by the PCR, whereas Munna was not there nor it was disclosed by complainant Sadiq that Munna was also with him, so, PCR official did not search for Munna at that time, hence, in such manner, the facts, as disclosed by the public persons to the PCR officials that Sadiq in injured condition handed over to them seems to be more probable and instead of the facts of the incident, as deposed by PW5 Sadiq before the Court.
According to PW8 HC Ram Kumar, on receipt of information, he reached at BJRM hospital along with Ct Rinku and Ct Naresh and collected MLC of Sadiq and recorded his statement Ex. PW5/A and prepared rukka on the same Ex. PW8/A and handed over the same to Ct Rinku, who got registered the case. He has further deposed that thereafter, Inspector Dharampal, SI Ramesh and PSI Vikas Pannu arrived at the hospital. He handed over MLC, carbon copy of rukka and DD no. 12A to Inspector Dharampal and produced complainant Sadiq before him. Meanwhile, Ct Rinku also came back at the the hospital alongwith rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to Inspector Dharampal. Thereafter, he and Ct Rinku were discharged, so, they left the hospital.
According to cross examination of PW8 HC Ram Kumar, he had received call of this case, while he was present in the area attending another call. He reached at the hospital at about 9.50 a.m. He did not obtain any opinion as to whether Sadiq was fit for statement or not, but he made oral inquiry. He has further admitted that Sadiq had not disclosed the physical appearance of the accused persons. Only suggestion has been given that he had not recorded statement of Sadiq in the hospital, so, considering the statement of PW8 HC Ram Kumar, which is unshaken and inspire confidence, it is proved that statement Ex. PW5/A was made by PW5 complainant Sadiq, wherein he had told the manner, in which, incident had taken place along with the names of the persons, with which, they were calling each other. It is also suggest that the thumb impression on the rukka of PW5 Sadiq is forged and fabricated and SC No. 114/1 18 accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case at the behest of SHO. It is also suggested that accused Motibul has been falsely implicated just to solve an untraced case, but nothing has been suggested as to what was the motive of the police official to falsely implicate the accused persons in this case, so, these suggestions are not material in any manner and they have been denied by the witnesses. Moreover, how the police officials could have come to know the names of the accused persons.
PW13 Ct Rinku has deposed the same facts as of PW8 HC Ram Kumar and has deposed about the facts regarding getting registered the case from duty officer and handing over copy of FIR and rukka to Inspector Dharampal at BJRM hospital. He has also denied that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the SHO. He has also denied that thumb impression of PW5 Sadiq was obtained on blank paper, which was converted into his statement.
In view of the cross examination of this witness and of PW8 HC Ram Kumar, both the suggestions are contradictory. It is suggested to PW8 HC Ram Kumar that thumb impression of Sadiq was obtained on the rukka, whereas according to statement of this witness, thumb impression of Sadiq was obtained on blank paper, which was later on converted into his statement.
PW5 Sadiq has not supported the case of the prosecution and in the cross examination, he has stated that he and Munna were beaten by the public persons and were beaten by public at two different places, but it is not explained as to why they were present at two different places. According to him, Munna reached in a rickshaw to doctor, but he refused to give medical aid to Munna. After treatment, he himself came back to the spot and was detained by the police for two days. He had put his thumb impression, but he does not know on how many documents. Police had obtained his thumb impression on some blank papers and on some written papers. So, in fact, he has not supported the facts of the incident only but identity of the accused persons also, whereas in the examinationinchief, he has stated that his statement was recorded by the police Ex. PW5/A, on which, he had put his thumb SC No. 114/1 19 impression. Strangely, if blank papers were converted into statement of PW5 Sadiq, then no such suggestion has been given to PW6 ASI Rajwanti, who had recorded FIR of this case that it was antidated and antitime or was fabricated later on, rather has been cross examined only about the manner, in which, she got registered the FIR from Computer Operator. So, the cross examination of the witness is not helpful to the accused persons in any manner to the extent that statement of Sadiq was forged and fabricated later on to falsely implicate them. However, the issue of identity of the accused persons is another aspect of the case.
According to PW19 Inspector Dharampal, after receiving the copy of FIR and rukka and other documents from PW8 HC Ram Kumar, he along with SI Ramesh, complainant Sadiq, SI Vikas and Ct Naresh left the hospital and complainant Sadiq took them to the place, where he along with his friend Munna was sleeping on a rehri at main Subzi Mandi Road, Jahangir Puri. He prepared rough site plan of the same, which is Ex. PW19/A. The rehri, on which, both Munna and Sadiq were sleeping, was taken into possession vied memo Ex. PW5/K. After that , PW5 complainant Sadiq led them at Jhuggi No. N38B/171, CD Park, Jahangir Puri and pointed out the same, in which, he and Munna were confined and were beaten by the accused persons i.e. Ashok Dudhiya, Najrul @ Naiju and Motibul. He also prepared rough site plan of the same, which is Ex.PW19/B. Thereafter, he made inquiries to find out other injured Munna and during the course of inquiry, he came to know about the involvement of accused Noor Islam @ Noora, resident of N38B/76, CD Park, Jahangir Puri and also about accused Naiju, who was elder brother of accused Noora, residing together in that jhuggi. He also came to know about the details of accused Ashok @ Dudhiya, son of Shiv Lal. He made efforts to find out the accused persons but none was traceable. While, they were present at Village Bhalswa, from one PCR van, he came to know that PCR incharge HC Raj Kumar had removed complainant PW5 Sadiq to BJRM hospital, so, he recorded his statement.
PW19 has further deposed that one secret informer met him, who told SC No. 114/1 20 that one of the person, who was beaten, had expired due to the beatings given by the accused persons and his dead body was removed to some other jhuggi. Secret informer further told that one person involved in the disposal of dead body of Munna, was roaming near Ambedkar Park, Jahangir Puri. So, on receipt of this information, they along with complainant reached near Ambedkar Park, Jahangir Puri. Secret informer also accompanied them, who pointed out towards that person, who was apprehended by them. He disclosed his name as Vasi Ahmed @ Hosyar. He further disclosed that due to the beatings by accused Noor Islam @ Noora, Najrul @ Naiju, Mohd. Motibul and Ashok Dudhiya, Munna had died. He further disclosed that when Munna died, accused Noora came to his house and told about the same and asked him to remove the dead body from there, on which, he along with other accused persons, after keeping the dead body of Munna in a plastic bora, had taken away the same from his jhuggi and concealed the same in one huge size kabad bag, after removing the kabad from it and had thrown the same near roadside at some distance away from the jhuggi.
PW19 has further deposed that after interrogation, accused Vasi Ahmed was arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/B. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW15/A. He also made disclosure statement Ex. PW15/B and led the police party to main road Ambedkar Nagar Park, where huge bags of kabad were found kept and pointed out one bag and told that it was the same bag, in which, dead body of Munna was concealed after taking the same in a plastic bag. Thereafter, the bag was checked and out of it, one plastic bag was taken out, which was further checked and it was found containing the dead body. It was found tied with cloth pieces. Dead body was identified by complainant Sadiq as of Munna.
PW19 has further deposed that he informed the crime team to reach at the spot. Crime team reached there and inspected the scene of crime. Photographs were taken. The small size plastic bag was of red and white colour and word "Nanak" was found written in Hindi and big size bag was of white colour, on which, words "bayre" SC No. 114/1 21 and words "hi poly carbonate" etc. were printed. He prepared separate pullandas of the bags and sealed the same with the seal of "DP" and seized the same vide memos Ex. PW5/M and Ex. PW5/L. Dead body was removed to the mortuary of BJRM hospital for its preservation and postmortem through Ct Naresh. He had also prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery of dead body, which is Ex. PW19/C. Thereafter, they came back to PS. He deposited the case property in the malkhana. Accused Vasi Ahmad was lockedup.
PW19 has further deposed that thereafter, he along with PW9 SI Ved Prakash reached at the mortuary of BJRM hospital, where Anju, wife of deceased had already arrived. PW5 complainant Sadiq also arrived there. He completed inquest proceedings and prepared brief facts Ex. PW19/D. Form no. 25.35 (1) (b) Ex. PW19/E was filled up. Dead body identification statements were prepared of Anju and Sadiq, which are Ex. PW17/A and Ex. PW5/D respectively. Request for postmortem was made vide Ex. PW19/F. Thereafter, dead body was handed over to wife of the deceased.
PW19 has further deposed that after postmortem, doctor handed over three sealed pullandas containing wearing clothes of deceased, three cloth pieces and blood sample of deceased along with sample seal, which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/A. Thereafter, they came back to PS. Case property was deposited in the malkhana. Accused Vasi Ahmed was produced before the Court and was remanded to J.C. PW19 has further deposed that he received secret information about the presence of accused Ashok Dudhiya in front of his house i.e. C953, Jahangir Puri, so, he along with complainant Sadiq, SI Ramesh and SI Vikas reached there and on the pointing out of secret informer, accused Ashok Dudhiya was apprehended. He was also identified by complainant Sadiq. Accused Ashok Dudhiya was arrested vide memo Ex.P W5/E. He made disclosure statement Ex. PW15/B and then led the police party to the jhuggi of accused Vasi Ahmed @ Hosyar at N38B/171 and SC No. 114/1 22 pointed out the same, where complainant and deceased Munna were beaten by them. Pointing out memo Ex. PW15/F was prepared in this regard. After that, accused Ashok Dudhiya led them to Jhuggi no. N38B/76 and while pointing out the same,, he told that it was the same jhuggi, where dead body of deceased Munna was kept in a plastic bag. Pointing out memo Ex. PW15/G was prepared in this regard. Thereafter, accused Ashok led the police party towards the place, where the dead body was concealed in a big size bag and pointed out that place. Pointing out memo Ex. PW15/E was prepared in this regard. Thereafter, accused was got medically examined and was brought to the PS, where he was put in lockup. On the next day, accused Ashok Dudhiya was remanded to J.C. Learned defence counsel has contended that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused Ashok Dudhiya or on his pointing. It is further contended that PW5 complainant Sadiq has not supported the case of the prosecution regarding identity of the accused persons or that accused persons were arrested in the manner as deposed by the police witnesses or that he had identified the accused persons as the same, who had beaten him and Munna. It is further contended that TIP was not got conducted of accused persons and the place of recovery of dead body already came to the knowledge of police officials as it was pointed out by accused Vasi Ahmed, so, pointing of the same by accused Ashok Dudhiya is of no consequence as no such new fact was discovered. Pointing out of the jhuggi is also irrelevant as same was already within the knowledge of the police officials, so, witnesses cannot be relied upon.
PW19 Inspector Dharampal has further deposed that on 07/04/2010, on the basis of secret information, accused Noor Islam @ Noora was apprehended from near Kushal Cinema, Jahangir Puri, at the instance of complainant. After interrogation, he was arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/F. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW15/H and he also recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW15/I. Thereafter, accused Noor Islam @ Noora led the police party to his jhuggi No. N38/76 and from there, he produced one wooden danda from a room at first SC No. 114/1 23 floor, which was lying beneath the cot and told that it was the same danda, with which, they had beaten Munna. He prepared pullanda of the danda, which was 2 feet and 2 inch in length and sealed the same with the seal of "DP" and it was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/N. He also prepared pointing out memo of the jhuggi of accused Noor Islam Ex. PW15/J. Thereafter, accused Noor Islam @ Noora also pointed out jhuggi no. N38/171, CD Park i.e. jhuggi of accused Vasi Ahmed @ Hosyar, where both complainant and deceased Munna were beaten. He prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW15/L in this regard. After that, accused Noor Islam @ Noora led the police party to the place used by him for keeping kabad articles, situated behind a chicken thiya, in front of Ambedkar Park, and while pointing out the heap of bags at that place, accused Noor Islam told that it was the same place, where dead body of the deceased was concealed. He prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW15/K in this regard. Thereafter, accused was medically examined and was brought to PS. On the next day, he was remanded to J.C. Again, learned defence counsel has contended that pointing out of various places of beating and concealing the dead body is of no consequence as these places were already within the knowledge of the police. It is further contended that recovery of danda on the pointing of accused Noor Islam @ Noora is also of no consequence as PW5 complainant Sadiq has failed to identify the accused persons as the same, who had caused injuries to him and Munna with danda and has also not been able to identify the danda as the same, with which, Munna was beaten.
PW19 Inspector Dharampal has further deposed that on 12/04/2010, on the basis of secret information, he along with PW9 SI Ved Prakash and PW4 HC Rajinder apprehended accused Motibul at the instance of complainant Sadiq from near Shani Mandir, Ambedkar Park, Jahangir Puri, who was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/G. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/B in presence of PW9 SI Ved Prakash. He also recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW9/C. Thereafter, accused Motibul led them and pointed out Jhuggi No. N38/171, where he SC No. 114/1 24 along with other accused persons had beaten the deceased and complainant. Pointing out memo Ex. PW9/E was prepared in this regard. Accused Motibu also pointed out Jhuggi No. N38B/76, CD Park, where he and his associates had brought the deceased in unconscious state and after his death, the dead body was kept in a small bag. PW19 prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW9/D in this regard. Thereafter, accused Motibul led the police party to the heap of Kabar, situated in front of Ambedkar Park, behind chicken selling thiya of one Bhola, where dead body was kept in a huge side kabad bag. He prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW9/F in this regard. After medical examination, accused was brought to PS and on the next day, he was remanded to J.C. Learned defence counsel for accused Motibul has contended that PW5 complainant Sadiq has failed to identify accused Motibul before the Court and has stated that accused Motibul was shown to him in the PS by the police. This also falsifies the depositions of the police witnesses to the extent that accused Motibul was apprehended in presence of complainant Sadiq from Shani Mandir, Ambedkar Park, Jahangir Puri. It also raises doubt about the investigation conducted by the police as to whether the same was conducted at the spot at the time of arrest or documents were prepared, while sitting in the PS. It is further contended that no TIP was got conducted after arrest of the accused persons and nothing has been recovered from the possession of accused Motibul or on his pointing. It is further contended that pointing out of various places was already within the knowledge of the police, so, no new fact was discovered, hence, the witnesses are not inspiring any confidence about the manner in which the accused Motibul was apprehended and further regarding his identity.
PW19 Inspector Dharampal has further deposed that on 14/04/2010, he got prepared scaled site plan through draughtsman SI Manohar Lal by visiting the spot, which is Ex. PW11/A. On 25/04/2010, sealed pullanda of danda and MLC of injured Sadiq were sent to the concerned doctor for obtaining the subsequent opinion SC No. 114/1 25 regarding the injuries sustained by complainant Sadiq, which was given on the backside of the application Ex. PW19/G. The danda was again resealed by the doctor and was deposited in the malkhana. On 02/05/2010, the danda was again sent to the doctor along with postmortem report for obtaining subsequent opinion regarding the injuries sustained by deceased Munna, which was given on the backside of the application Ex. PW19/H. Danda was again resealed and was deposited in the malkhana.
PW19 has further deposed that on 04/05/2010, on the basis of secret information, accused Najrul was apprehended at the instance of complainant Saduiq from CD park, Jahangir Puri. After interrogation, he was arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/H and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW5/J. He also recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW15/H. Thereafter, accused Najrul @ Naiju led the police party to CD park, near the place, from where the dead body was recovered and at that time, one old cycle rickshaw rehri was found there and while pointing out the same, accused Najrul @ Naiju told that it was the same rehri, on which, dead body of Munna was taken after keeping the same in a small bag to the place, where heap of bags were lying. The said rehri was taken into possession vide pointing out cum recovery memo Ex. PW15/N. Thereafter, accused Najrul @ Naiju led them to Jhuggi no. N38B/171 and told that it was the same jhuggi, where deceased and complainant were beaten by them. Pointing out memo Ex. PW15/P was prepared in this regard. After arrest, accused took them to his jhuggi no. N38B/76, CD park and while pointing out the same, he told that it was the same jhuggi, where dead body of Munna was kept in a small bag and was taken away from there in the rehri. Pointing out memo Ex. PW15/Q was prepared in this regard. Thereafter, accused led them to the place, where dead body of Munna was concealed in the heap of kabad bags, after keeping the same in a huge bag. He prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW15/O in this regard. After medical examination, accused was brought to PS and was locked up. On the next day, he was remanded to J.C. SC No. 114/1 26 Learned defence counsel has contended that rehri thela has been decayed due to water logging in the PS as has come in the deposition of PW5 complainant Sadiq, as told by the MHC(M). In this respect, DD no. 9A, DD No. 16B and DD No. 60B were recorded, copies of which are Mark PW5/X1 to X3. It is further contended that PW5 complainant Sadiq has not identified the cycle rickshaw as the same, which was seized in this case i.e. thela rehri, on which, he and Munna had slept in the said night.
According to the seizure memo of cycle rickshawrehri Ex. PW15/N, it was prepared by PW19 Inspector Dharampal and is witnessed by PW15 SI Ramesh. PW19 Inspector Dharampal has identified this cycle rickshawrehri before the Court as Ex. P13.
It is contended by learned defence counsel that according to cross of PW19 Inspector Dharampal, no particular identification mark was put on the rickshawrehri. He has also admitted that such type of rickshawrehri are easily available in the market. There is no public witness to the recovery of rickshawrehri. Owner of rickshawrehri could not be found.
On the other hand, Ld. APP has pointed out that in further cross examination, PW19 Inspector Dharampal has denied that on 04/05/2010, accused Najrul @ Naiju had appeared before him at the PS or that he was not arrested in the manner, as deposed by him. PW19 has also denied that signatures of accused Najrul @ Naiju were obtained on blank papers, which were fabricated into his disclosure statement and other documents. He has also denied that no recovery was got effected by accused Najrul. So, the testimony of PW19 cannot be disbelieved regarding recovery of cycle rickshawrehri, which was used in removing the dead body of Munna from Jhuggi No. N38B/76, CD Park, to the place, where it was concealed.
PW15 SI Ramesh Kumar has also deposed the same facts regarding arrest of accused Najrul @ Naiju and recovery of cycle rickshawrehri on the pointing of accused Najrul @ Naiju, which was used in removing and concealing the dead body SC No. 114/1 27 of Munna. He has also identified the said cycle rickshaw rehri before the Court as Ex. P13.
In the cross examination, PW15 SI Ramesh Kumar has denied that on 04/05/2010, accused Najrul had surrendered in the PS and all the proceedings were conducted in the PS. He has also denied that recovery has been planted upon the accused persons.
In view of above, both the witnesses i.e. PW15 SI Ramesh Kumar and PW19 Inspector Dharampal have corroborated each other regarding the recovery of cycle rickshawrehri, which was used in carrying the dead body of Munna from the place of occurrence to the place, where dead body was concealed in the heap of Kabad and nothing came out from their cross examination to disbelieve their testimonies. No witness has been examined in respect of the fact that accused Najrul had appeared before the police and was not arrested in the manner, as deposed by the police officials. The police officials were not having any motive to falsely implicated accused Najrul @ Naiju in this case or to plant cycle rickshawrehri against the accused persons, so, they cannot be disbelieved in any manner.
PW19 Inspector Dharampal has further deposed that on 10/05/2010, all the exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini through HC Vijender and he has identified the case property before the Court as the same, which was recovered and was received from the hospital.
PW11 SI Manohar Lal has corroborated with PW19 Inspector Dharampal and has stated that on 14/04/2010, on receipt of call from IO Inspector Dharam Pal, he along with the IO reached at the place of occurrence, where he took measurements and prepared rough notes at the instance of the IO, on the basis of which, he prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW11/A. After preparation of scaled site plan, he destroyed the rough notes.
PW14 SI Vikas Pannu has stated that on 25/04/2010, he was posted as SI at PS Jahangir Puri. On that day, PW19 IO Inspector Dharampal had handed over one SC No. 114/1 28 sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of "DP" containing offending danda along with his application and MLC no. 7890/10 of injured Sadiq for seeking subsequent opinion from the concerned doctor at BJRM hospital. Accordingly, he produced the sealed pullanda alongwith application and MLC before Dr. R.S. Mishra, CMO, who gave subsequent opinion on the backside of the application and also handed over the sealed pullanda of danda along with seal of MS BJRM hospital and MLC, which he handed over to the IO.
PW14 has further deposed that on 02/05/2010, IO again handed over sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of MS BJRM hospital along with application and PM report NO. 363/10 of deceased Munna Lal for seeking subsequent opinion from Autopsy Surgeon Dr. V.K. Jha. Accordingly, he produced the sealed pullanda along with application and PM report before the concerned doctor, who gave his opinion on the backside of the application of IO and handed over the sealed pullanda of danda with the seal of Mortuary BJRM hospital along with PM report and application, which he handed over to the IO.
PW16 HC Virender has deposed that on 10/05/2010, he was posted as HC at PS Jahangir Puri. On that day, he had taken six sealed pullandas and one sample seal of FMT BJRM hospital from MHC(M) HC Rajesh vide RC No. 24/21/10 for depositing at FSL Rohini. Accordingly, he deposited the same at FSL Rohini and obtained the acknowledgment receipt, which he handed over to the MHC(M). Till the pullandas remained in his possession, same were not tampered with.
PW17 Seema Nain, SSO (Biology), FSL, has stated that on 10/05/2010, six sealed parcels along with sample seal were received in their office in connection with this case. Same were marked to her for biological and serological examination. Accordingly, she examined the same and found the seals intact and tallied with the specimen seal.
PW17 has further deposed that parcel no. 1 was found containing Ex. 1a i.e. one dirty pant, having dark colour stains, Ex. 1b i.e. one dirty shirt, having dark SC No. 114/1 29 brown stains, Ex. 1c i.e. one dirty banian and Ex. 1d i.e. one dirty underwear. Parcel no. 2 was found containing Ex. 2a and Ex 2b i.e. two dirty blue black white check piece of cloth, having dark brown stains and Ex. 2c i.e. one dirty pink piece of cloth, having dark brown stains Parcel no. 3 was found containing Ex. 3 i.e. blood stains damp/foul smell gauze cloth piece described as blood sample. Parcel No. 4 was found containing Ex. 4 i.e. one dirty wooden stick. Parcel no. 6 was found containing Ex. 6 i.e. one dirty plastic katta and parcel no. 7 was found containing Ex. 7 i.e. one dirty big size plastic bag. On examination, she had found blood on Ex. 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a, 1b, 2c, Ex. 3,4, 6 and 7.
PW17 has further deposed that on serological examination, she had found human blood on all the aforesaid exhibits. Human blood of "O" group was found on Ex. 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b and 2c. Ex. 1c and Ex. 1d were inconclusive for blood grouping and Ex. 3,4,6 and 7 gave no reaction regarding blood group.
PW17 has further deposed that she had prepared her biological and serological reports, which are Ex. PW17/A and Ex. PW17/B. After examination, the remnants were resealed with the seal of "S.Nn. FSL Delhi". PW17 has identified the exhibits before the Court, which were examined by her, as Ex. P1 to Ex. P11.
PW12 Dr. R.S. Mishra has proved the MLC of complainant Sadiq as Ex. PW12/A, who was examined by Dr. Rajan Kumar Mishra, JR, under his supervision on 04/04/2010. After examination, the patient was referred to SR Surgery and SR Orthopedics, where he was examined by Dr. Anil and Dr. Sunil respectively. PW12 has identified the writing and signatures of all these three doctors on MLC Ex.P W12/A. As per MLC, Dr. Sunil, SR Orthopaedics gave opinion regarding nature of injury as grievous on 19/04/2010. As per MLC, Dr. Anil, SR Surgery gave opinion regarding nature of injury as simple on 20/04/2010.
PW10 is Dr. V.K. Jha. On 05/04/2010, he conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Munna Lal, sent by PW19 Inspector Dharampal, which was identified by Ct Naresh Kumar. During postmortem, he observed certain external SC No. 114/1 30 and internal injuries. After postmortem, he opined the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock as a result of laceration of lung consequent to blunt force impact diverted upon chest by other party. All injuries were antemortem in nature and chest injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Postmortem findings were consistent with severe beatings before death. Time since death was approximately 29 hours. After postmortem, inquest papers were returned along with the PM report to the IO. His detailed postmortem report is Ex. PW10/A. Clothes of the deceased and blood gauze piece were sealed with sample seal of mortuary.
PW10 has further deposed that on 02/05/2010, IO moved an application before him for obtaining subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence recovered in respect to the postmortem report. He received one sealed packet with the seal of "MS BJRM Hospital". On opening the packet, it was found containing wooden danda. The length of the danda was 62 cm and breadth was 4 c.m. and thickness was 3 c.m. After examination, he opined that injuries mentioned in PM report could have been caused by this danda or similar such danda. He again resealed the danda with the sample seal of Mortuary. His detailed subsequent opinion is Ex. PW10/B. PW10 has identified the wooden danda as Ex. PW10/1.
In the cross examination, he has admitted that he did not preserve viscera of the dead body. He has denied that such injury could be sustained by fall of wall of brick over the person or if a person fall on the bricks.
PW18 Dr. R.S. Mishra, CMO BJRM hospital, Delhi, has stated that on 25/04/2010, on the request of IO Inspector Dharampal, he had examined the offending weapon i.e. danda, which was produced before him in sealed condition along with MLC no. 7890 of Sadiq. Same was opened by him and after examining the injuries and offending danda, he opined that the injuries mentioned in the MLC could have been caused with the danda examined by him. He gave his subsequent opinion regarding the same on the backside of the application of IO vide Ex. PW18/A. After examination, the offending danda was resealed with the seal of "MS SC No. 114/1 31 BJRM hospital" and was handed over to the police with the opinion. This witness has identified the danda before the court, which was examined by him, as Ex. P9.
Learned defence counsel for accused Vasi Ahmed has contended that PW5 complainant Sadiq has not supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that in his presence, accused Vasi Ahmad was apprehended and arrested and he pointed out the place, from where, dead body of Munna was recovered. It is further contended that during investigation, no evidence has been collected to the extent that the jhuggi, where incident had taken place, was belonging to accused Vasi Ahmad. It is further contended that no TIP was got conducted, so, identity of accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts.
In support of his contentions, learned defence counsel has relied upon Criminal Appeal No.143 of 2007 titled as OMA @ Omprakash & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it has been held that:
"Evidently, the witnesses did not know the accused earlier, hence the accused could be identified only through a test identification parade, which was not done in this case, so far as A2 is concerned. In this connection, we may refer to the judgment of this court in Mohd. Iqbal M. Shaikh V. state of Maharashtra (1998) 4 SCC 494, wherein this Court held that:
"If the witness did not know the accused persons by name but could only identify from their appearance, then a test identification parade was necessary, so that, the substantive evidence in court about the identification, which is held after fairly a long period could get corroboration from the identification parade. But unfortunately the prosecution did not take any steps in that regard and no test identification parade had been held."
This Court in Ravindra Alias Ravi Bansi Gohar V. State of Maharashtra and others (1998) 6 SCC 609 deprecated the practice of showing the photographs for identifying the culprits and held as follows:
"The identification parade belongs to the investigation stage and they serve to provide the investigating authority with materials to assure themselves if the investigation is proceeding on the right lines. In other words, it is through these identification parades that the investigating agency is required to ascertain whether the persons whom they suspect to have committed the offence were the real culprits and not by showing the suspects or their photographs. Such being the purpose of identification parades, the investigating agency, by showing the photographs of the SC No. 114/1 32 suspects whom they intended to place in the TI parade, made it farcical. If really the investigating agency was satisfied that PWs 2 and 12 did not know the appellants before and they were in fact amongst the miscreants, the question of holding the TI parade in respect of them for their identification could not have arisen."
In Ravi alias Ravichandran v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2007) 15 SCC 372, this Court held that:
"A judgment of conviction can be arrived at even if no test identification parade has been held. But when a first information report has been lodged against unknown persons, a test identification parade in terms of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, is held for the purpose of testing the veracity of the witness in regard to his capability of identifying persons who were unknown to him."
Further, it is also held that"
"It was incumbent upon the prosecution to arrange a test identification parade. Such test identification parade was required to be held as early as possible so as to exclude the possibility of the accused being identified either at the police station or at some other place by the witnesses concerned or with reference to the photographs published in the newspaper. A conviction should not be based on a vague identification."
It is further contended that thumb impression appearing on the documents of PW5 complainant Sadiq are not showing whether these are of Sadiq or someone else as nothing is mentioned underneath the memo, whether it is RTI or LTI of Sadiq. In support of his contention, learned defence counsel has relied upon 2002 (1) Crimes 231 (SC) titled as Panchdeo Singh Vs. State of Bihar, wherein it has been held that:
"The Magistrate also did not recollect as to whether the deceased did put his signature or not but since there is no mention of "LTI" before "Ram Singh"
obviously left thumb impression is not there on the dying declaration. This is the declaration which happened to be the only material piece of evidence on the basis of which the trial Court came to a conclusion that the appellant herein ought to be found guilty under Section 302 IPC warranting sentence of life imprisonment."
It is further contended that mere pointing out by accused is not helpful to the case of the prosecution in consequence of the disclosure statement in absence of any recovery and in support of the same, learned defence counsel has relied upon SC No. 114/1 33 1996 JCC 579 titled as Chet Ram Vs. The State, wherein it has been held that disclosure statement leads only to the place of occurrence, no recovery at all, does not help the prosecution at all.
On the other hand, Ld. APP has contended that in the complaint Ex. PW5/A, complainant had not named accused Vasi Ahmad @ Hosyar as one of the assailant, who had given beatings to Munna, so, there was no need to get conduct the TIP of accused Vasi Ahmad @ Hosyar in any manner.
PW5 complainant Sadiq was firstly examined on 25/10/2010, wherein he has deposed the same facts as of his statement. Thereafter, he was further examined on 01/11/10, wherein he tilted his deposition to some extent and deposed that accused Motibul was shown to him in the PS, which means that accused Motibul was not arrested in his presence in the manner, as deposed by the witnesses. He has further deposed on 01/11/2010 that in his presence, none of the accused got recovered anything, so, on 22/11/2011, PW5 was cross examined by ld. APP, in which, he did not support the case of the prosecution and then cross examined by learned defence counsel, wherein he introduced a new story to the extent that he and Munna were beaten by the public persons assuming that they were thieves and he went to hospital in a rickshaw. Munna also reached there in a rickshaw, but he was not provided first aid as he was under intoxication. After treatment, he came back to the place, where he was beaten and large crowd was seen. PCR van was also there and it took him to PS and he was kept in the PS for two days. This story of beating of this witness is based on the testimony of PW3 HC Raj Kumar, who was working in PCR at that time. He reached there and in the cross examination, he has stated that he was informed by the public persons that PW5 complainant Sadiq was a thief, so, he took Sadiq to PS Jahangir Puri and from there, he along with HC Umed removed the injured to BJRM hospital. PW3 has nowhere stated that he had seen any bandage on the hands of PW5, as deposed by PW5 in his cross examination conducted by learned defence counsel. There is no record that he had gone to the hospital in a rickshaw and SC No. 114/1 34 again came back at the spot. It is also not explained as to why he came back at the spot. He has nowhere deposed that he came back to search Munna or for any other purpose.
In the last of the cross examination, the learned Predecessor of this Court had asked certain questions to the witness, in which, witness has admitted that he has deposed falsely on 20/10/2010 and 01/11/2010 after taking oath to depose truly because he was under the threat of police. So, if his examination in chief is false, his cross examination conducted by ld. APP is false, then his cross examination conducted by learned defence counsel also seems to be false. If he has deposed falsely in chief and cross of Ld. APP, then how he can be relied upon for his cross examination conducted by learned defence counsel. Same is against the facts and circumstances of the case, so, he cannot be relied upon entirely regarding his any part of the deposition either of examinationinchief or crossexamination conducted by ld. APP or crossexamination conducted by learned defence counsels.
There is no other witness to the incident, so, now the case turns towards the circumstantial evidence. First of all, accused Vasi Ahmad was apprehended and arrested on the pointing of secret informer. He got recovered the dead body of Munna. Pointing out cum recovery memo was prepared regarding dead body of Munna is Ex. PW5/C. It was prepared by PW19 Inspector Dharampal and is witnessed by PW15 SI Ramesh Kumar and is also bearing the thumb impression of complainant Sadiq. This is the same thumb impression, which he put before the Court in his deposition i.e. his LTI, but as his deposition is disbelieved entirely, so, testimonies of PW19 Inspector Dharampal and PW15 SI Ramesh Kumar are to be seen only in this respect.
According to their testimonies, accused Vasi Ahmad was apprehended on the pointing of secret informer near Ambedkar Park, Jahangir Puri. After his arrest, accused made disclosure statement and in furtherance of the same, he got recovered the dead body of Munna concealed in a kabad bora from the heap of kabad belonging SC No. 114/1 35 to one Noor Islam @ Noora, resident of N38B/76, CD Park, Jahangir Puri. The dead body was found in a small sack, which was further put in a large sack of kabad. Both small sack and large sack were separately seized in this case vide memos Ex. PW5/M and Ex. PW5/L. So, merely that PW5 complainant Sadiq has not supported these proceedings regarding pointing out and recovery of dead body of Munna does not mean that dead body could have been planted against accused Vasi Ahmad. It was not within the knowledge of the police officials. The dead body was found concealed twice, firstly, in a small sack and thereafter, said sack was put in a large sack, which further was concealed in a heap of kabad sacks, so, in no manner, it could be within the knowledge of the police officials to plant the dead body of Munna against accused Vasi Ahmad. Accused Vasi Ahmad has not raised any defence except claiming his innocence, so, prosecution has been able to prove this circumstance of pointing out and recovery of dead body against accused Vasi Ahmad, which was found lying firstly in a small sack and thereafter in a large sack of kabad, which was further put in a heap of kabad sacks belonging to one Noor Islam @ Noora, resident of N38B/76, jhuggi CD park, Jahangir Puri. These sacks have been identified by the witnesses before the Court as the same, in which, dead body of Munna was found kept.
Accused Vasi Ahmad has been charge for offence u/s. 201/334 of IPC. According to the seizure memo Ex. PW5/N, it was prepared by PW19 Inspector Dharampal and is witnessed by PW15 SI Ramesh Kumar and again by PW5 complainant Sadiq, one danda was got recovered by accused Noor Islam @ Noora from Jhuggi No. N38B/76, CD Park, Jahangir Puri. It was sealed and seized in this case. The danda has been identified by the witnesses before the Court as the same, which accused Noor Islam @ Noora got recovered.
According to PW10 Dr. V.K. Jha, who had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Munna, he found four external injuries and on internal examination of head, sub scalp hematoma was found present over frontal region. There was subarach noid hemorrhage on frontal region. According to his opinion, cause of SC No. 114/1 36 death was hemorrhagic shock as a result of laceration of lung consequent to blunt force impact diverted upon chest by other party. Time since death was approximately 29 hours. Postmortem was conducted on 05/04/2010 at about 1.00 p.m., which come to 8.00 a.m. of 04/04/10. According to the opinion of PW10 Dr. V.K. Jha, as given in Ex. PW10/B, after examining the said danda, the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report could have been caused with the danda or similar such danda. According to opinion of Dr. R.S. Mishra, CMO, BJRM hospital, after examining the danda, he opined that the injuries mentioned in MLC of Munna could be possible with the said danda.
Along with blood sample and wearing clothes of deceased Munna, this danda was also examined in the FSL by PW17 Seema Nain. According to FSL report Ex. PW17/A, human blood was found on the wearing clothes of deceased Munna, blood sample and also on danda along with both small and large sacks. According to biological report Ex. PW17/B, no reaction was found regarding blood group on the danda, plastic katta and plastic bag. Hence, only it is proved that human blood was found on the said danda, which accused Noor Islam @ Noora had got recovered after his arrest by the police and no plausible explanation has been given in this respect as to how, the human blood came on the danda, so, in all circumstances, the danda was used in causing injuries to deceased Munna. In the cross examination, PW10 Dr. V.K. Jha has denied the suggestion that injuries sustained by deceased Munna could have been sustained by fall of the wall and bricks or if a person fells on the bricks. So, the possibility of sustaining injuries by Munna due to fall of the wall, as projected, for which, call was received by the police officials, is also not probable.
According to PW3 HC Raj Kumar, they found complainant Sadiq only and they came to know that he was beaten by the public persons on the assumption that he was a thief. PW3 has nowhere deposed about Munna nor he has deposed that complainant Sadiq had told him about Munna to the extent that Munna was also accompanying him and was beaten by the public persons. Even according to PW3 SC No. 114/1 37 HC Raj Kumar, on 04/04/2010, he had received information at about 8.43 a.m. about a quarrel near kudedan of DSIDC, whereas according to the postmortem report, Munna had died at about 8.00 a.m., so, there could not be any possibility of beating Munna by the public persons assuming him as thief and this aspect also does not seem to be probable from the depositions of the witnesses.
One cycle rickshawrehri was also got recovered by accused Najrul @ Naiju, resident of jhuggi no. N38B/76, CD Park, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. It was used in carrying the dead body of Munna to dispose of the same by concealing in sacks. Seizure memo is Ex. PW15/N. Same has been prepared by PW19 Inspector Dharampal and is witnessed by PW15 SI Ramesh Kumar. According to the depositions of the witnesses and as pointed out by the accused persons, the place of causing injuries to Munna was different from the place, from where, his dead body was got recovered, so, there was necessity to remove the dead body from the place of incident.
According to crime team report Ex. PW2/A, clothes of deceased Munna were found torn. He was having head injury. His legs were found tied with a cloth piece. There were scratch injuries on the body. According to postmortem report, cause of death was hemorrhagic shock as a result of laceration of lung consequent to blunt force impact diverted upon chest by other party. Subscalp hemotoma was also found present over frontal region. There was subarach noid hemorrhage on frontal region, which shows that Munna was beaten severely. PW15 SI Ramesh Kumar and PW19 Inspector Dharampal have been cross examined in respect of the recovery of danda on the pointing and possession of accused Noor Islam @ Noora and cycle rickshawrehri on the pointing and possession of accused Najrul @ Naiju, but nothing came out from their crossexaminations to disbelieve their testimonies. There could not be any possibility of planting both these articles against the accused persons and except as disclosed by the accused persons, police officials could not have come to know that Munna was beaten with the help of danda and his dead body was concealed SC No. 114/1 38 in a plastic sack and was removed in a cycle rickshawrehri at the place, from where, it was got recovered. Even complainant Sadiq had also not told about the removal of dead body of Munna to the police, so, even police could not have any knowledge of concealing of dead body by accused persons.
According to postmortem report, Munna died at 8.00 a.m. on 04/04/2010 and on the same day, accused Vasi Ahmad got recovered his dead body from the heap of kabad belonging to accused Noor Islam @ Noora. So, prosecution has been able to prove the circumstances against these three accused persons i.e. Noor Islam Noora, Najrul @ Naiju and Vasi Ahmad @ Hosyar. From the unrebutted and unshaken testimonies of the witnesses, it is proved beyond reasonable doubts that Munna was beaten with the danda, which was got recovered by accused Noor Islam @ Noora. The said danda was found having human blood, for which, no explanation has been given. Nothing came out from the cross examination of the witnesses to disbelieve their testimonies regarding recovery of danda.
From the recovery of cycle rickshawrehri on the pointing of accused Najrul @ Naiju, it has also been proved beyond reasonable doubts that he in furtherance of common intention of other accused Vasi Ahmad assisted in disposing of the dead body of Munna by concealing the same in the plastic sacks and further, accused Vasi Ahmad got recovered the same from the heap of kabad.
In a case of circumstantial evidence, each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistibly conclusion about the guilt of accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. In support of the same, 2002(1) JCC 46 titled as Sudama Pandey and ors Vs. State of Bihar and further 1998 (2) JCC (Delhi) 207 titled as Chander Pal Vs. State are relied upon.
Under such circumstances, it was for the accused persons to explain as to how they came in possession of the dead body of Munna, blood stained danda i.e. SC No. 114/1 39 weapon of offence and cycle rickshawrehri, which was concealed by the accused persons and during investigation got recovered the same. So, the only irresistibly conclusion, which can be safely drawn, is that accused Noor Islam @ Noora had caused injuries to Munna with danda due to which, Munna died. Accused Najrul @ Naiju removed the dead body of Munna in the cycle rickshawrehri, which was concealed in a heap of kabad and in this manner assisted accused Vasi Ahmad in putting the dead body in a small sack, which further was put in a large sack of kabad, which was got recovered by accused Vasi Ahmad from the heap of kabad. Under such circumstances, there could not be any other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Accordingly, the burden was upon the accused persons to explain U/s. 106 of Indian Evidence Act as to how, they came in possession of the dead body, blood stained danda and cycle rickshawrehri and the burden has been shifted upon the accused persons in this respect, which they failed to discharge. The above circumstances clearly indicates, as brought on record, about the disposal of the dead body, blood stained danda and cycle rickshawrehri that Munna was beaten by accused Noor Islam @ Noora and the dead body was concealed and disposed of by accused Najrul @ Naiju and Vasi Ahmad in furtherance of their common intention.
In support of the same, 1997 CRI. L.J. 499(1) titled as Shunmugasundaram Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police is relied upon, wherein it has been held as under:
"We have already mentioned, that the appellant and the deceased were the sole occupants of the house in which the deceased was found dead. We have also found, that the appellant and the deceased, when alive, were found together in the said premises. It is not the case of the appellant, that without any particular avocation, he had gone away from his house, and in his absence, somebody had killed his wife. If some occurrence happens inside the residential portion of the appellant, wherein he was also available, at or about the time of the incident, he is bound to offer his version as to how the occurrence had taken place. The only other SC No. 114/1 40 person who can speak about the occurrence will be the deceased and now that she is dead, if at all, the appellant and the appellant alone can offer an explanation. Section 106 of the Evidence Act states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. It is true that this Section cannot be used, so as to shift the onus of proving the offence, from the prosecution to the accused. However, in the present case there is satisfactory evidence, which fastens or conclusively fixes the liability, for the death of Gandhimathi, on the inmate of the house present therein at the relevant time. So, in the absence of any other explanation, the only possible interference is that the appellant had participated in the act. If he claims contrary, under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving that fact is upon him, since that is within his special knowledge. In Shambho Nath V. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404; (1956 Cri LJ 1794), the scope and object of Section 106 of the Evidence Act came to be considered by the Supreme Court."
It has also been held in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 10 titled as State of Rajasthan V. Parthu that "apart from the fact, as noticed hereinbefore, that the homicidal nature of death was not disputed by the respondent herein and furthermore as he in his statement under Section 313 had raised a positive defence that she died of an accident, we are of the opinion the High Court adopted a wrong approach. It is not disputed that the deceased and the appellant were living separately from their family. It has also not been disputed that at the time when the incident occurred, the respondent was in his house together with the deceased. It is furthermore not in dispute that after the incident took place, the respondent was not to be found. He was arrested only on 20/06/1995. If the deceased and the respondent were together in their house at the time when the incident took place which was at about 10 O'clock in the night, it was for the respondent to show as to how the death of the deceased took place.
In the absence of sufficient or cogent explanations in that behalf the Court SC No. 114/1 41 would be entitled to consider the same as the circumstances against the accused. (See Raj Kumar Prasad Tamakar Vs. State of Bihar, 2007 (1) SCALE 19.
This Court in a large number of decisions in a case of this nature had also applied the principles of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. (See State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram, 2006 (XI) SCALE 440 and State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271."
It is further contended by learned defence counsels that none of injury sustained by deceased Munna was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It is further contended that only four external injuries have been seen during the postmortem, which were lacerated wound, multiple bruises, diffused bruises and abrasions and in fact, case of death is blunt force impact diverted upon chest, due to which, laceration of lung resulted. It is further contended that prosecution has also not been able to prove on record any intention on the part of the accused persons to commit murder of Munna, so, offence u/s. 302/34 of IPC is not proved in any manner.
PW10 Dr. V.K. Jha has not deposed before the court that any of the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, but case is based on the circumstantial evidence. According to the circumstances brought and proved on record, accused Noor Islam @ Noora had given beatings with danda to Munna and thereafter, Munna died, which shows that it was within the knowledge of accused Noor Islam @ Noora that the injuries caused were likely to cause death, so, prosecution has been able to prove offence u/s. 304 of IPC punishable under PartII of the same against accused Noor Islam @ Noora instead of offence u/s. 302/34 of IPC, for which, he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
As PW5 complainant Sadiq has not been relied upon because he has deposed falsely before the Court, so beside his testimony, there is no other evidence brought on record to prove offence u/s. 365/34 of IPC in any manner, so, the SC No. 114/1 42 prosecution has not been able to prove the above offence, for which, all the accused persons are acquitted.
As PW5 complainant Sadiq has not deposed before the Court that he was beaten by the accused persons, so, offence u/s. 308/34 of IPC is also not proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, for which, all the accused persons are acquitted.
Nothing was recovered from the possession of accused Ashok @ Dudhiya and Mohd. Motibul or on their pointing out during investigation. They have not been identified before the Court in any manner nor there is any circumstantial evidence against them, so, both accused Ashok @ Dudhiya and Mohd. Motibul are acquitted for offence u/s. 365/34 of IPC, u/s. 308/34 of IPC, u/s. 302/34 of IPC and u/s. 201/34 of IPC.
In view of above discussion, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of circumstantial evidence brought and proved on record that accused Noor Islam @ Noora caused injuries to Munna with danda and accused Najrul @ Naiju and Vasi Ahmad @ Hosyar disposed of the dead body by concealing the same in plastic sack. Hence, in this manner, all these three accused persons Noor Islam @ Noora, Najrul @ Naiju and Vasi Ahmed caused the evidence of the offence to disappear with intention to save themselves from the legal punishment. Accordingly, all these three accused persons are held guilty for the offence u/s. 201/34 of IPC and convicted for the same.
Announced in the open Court
Today on: 24th of July, 2014 ( Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court,
Rohini/Delhi
SC No. 114/1 43