Delhi District Court
Unknown vs 302 on 30 January, 2009
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
987654321
40.
21.witness
INno
and
instance
hearing
impressions
Bangar
Jafrabad
examination
marks
regarding
seal
deceased
Parvej
memo
as
PW
Board
accused
bears
10.4.2003,
and
witness
does
he
wages
fact
questioned
material
Further,
the
on
against
of
facts
was
The
eye
THE accused
his
1853
and On
identified
Ex.PW15/A-1
Ext.6
statement
20
of
also
which
of
witness
not
7.observations
COURT
possible his
the
office
of
brother-in-law
documents
AK
11.04.2003
was
Ct.
the
Ex.
Gadhewala
in
them.
perusal
witness
this
contradiction
have
Parvez
circumstances
Evidence
out,
have
Section
respectively. and
appear
makes
prudent signature
found
dragging
i.e.
this
also
pointing
getting
after
he
Veersen
case
persons
the
confronting
at
done
arrested
the
PW12/B
at
message
OF
12.4.2003.
statement
assumes
been
Act. hence
itat
person.
302 was
case
dagger/
point
of
case.
wonshown
met
converting
Gokal
Kamruddin
blood
of
that
accused
since
in
and
truthful
SH.
clear
are
Nor
IPC to
The
PW21
by
much
was
ofare
done
the
hand
posted
out
made
over
On
Ifand
at
PW1
arewas
Ex.PW15/R-1.
School.
being
came
endorsement
him
B.
time
ld.
at
This
the on
point
Jagroop
he
case
stains
brought
bearing
Puri.
RAJ
found
that recovery
does
accusedmemo
he
Apsara
He
no
knife.
APP
foot
with
and
He
at
the
recorded
that
or
we postmortem
and
that
persons
has
12.04.03
he
Mohd.
in
tofather
to
as
into
reached
the
stated
C.
aabout
file
reaction
witness
significance
answer
had
day further
the
prints.
KAPOOR,was
reliable.
and
the
having
There
not
They
been
previous
Head
joined
knife
of
on
prosecution
impressedbe
in
Parvej
by sealed
After
instance
reveals
Cinema
and
his
On
citation
of
aforesaid
witness
the
Akhtar
ld.
running
in
appear
record.
which
that
his
got
proved
the
incompatible
succumbed
to
the
the
these
to went
vide
knife
morning
by was
Constable
brother
to
defence
signatures
examination-in-chief
preparing
serological
matched
engineer
the
Dead
has
alreadyplace
Ithas
police.
convict
theThis
in
of
parcel
presence
LD.on
declared
deceased.
that
the
statement
is
accused
are
of
questions
to is
memo
recovered
investigation.
identified
there
box
the
relation
at
the
further
11.06.2003,
also Apart
in
police,
the
two
witness
Ex.PW8/B
body
of
in
spot.
entirely
ofand
the
counsel
ADDITIONAL
not
with
argument
house
threat.
All
Ex.PW13/C. Iand
Kirayana
deceased
this
the
with
incident
the
in
seizure
proved
the
be theGajraj
the
and
cases
inEx.
hostile
at
been
along
Thiswith
from
examination
Parvez
was
PCR,
argued
then
instance
three can
stated
case
sketch
procedure
statement
to
He
Further,
deceased
has
the
different.
identified
from
point
PW13/A
as
culprits
innocence
the this
having
by
on
seized
not
Singh.
memo
A,B,O
at
in
Then,
found
by
shop.
North
there
dead
been
well.
was
cross-
guiltthat
and
the
he
be
ld.
B.
of
ofit
that
302the
inference
it Punishment
would
accused
affirmative,
accused
Lungs-260
with
Accused SI
not
was Ajay
ofbe
persons
drawn
were
the
and
gms
possible
Kumar,
for charge
the
pale
not
onare
evidence
murderthe
and
HC
to
medically
ofpresent
basis
invoke
murder.
Asrool
injury ofofmention
the
Whoeverthe
in
Haq.
PW3's
examined
the
second
witness
Ct.
Court
statement
in injury
commits Billu
part
appears
from(correctly
and
of
noGTB
that
murder 1.
Ct.
SESSIONSS.145 JUDGE
to be
he the
was
of
I :Kumar
identified).
Ashok
Hospital
the
court
severly
North-
Evidence
andto produced
beaten
beof went
East
almost
Actdoubt
oninto
/(Imprisonment
without
the
KARKARDOOMA
flawless,
theChauhan
court
night
putting
andand
previous
Banger
sent relevant
free
fortocircumstances
JC.
from
to
in the File
his
COURTS:
the accused
the shall
accused
accused punished
beyond or the with
reasonable
guilt death,
any or
other and person-
consequently
The life), and fromis
3. indicated
8. said
Statement
presence
PW1
body
Kamruddin
of
the
This
PW6
On
stab
request
subsequent
vide
they
bearing
Accused
cross-examined
on
had
already
said
East
Grouping.This
is
benefit
at
became
recorded
and
APP
are
possession
human
accused
based
blood.
Hon'ble
argued
wooden
DD
other
10.4.2003,
dead
3wounds.
knife
witness
District
careful
along
memo
and
Mohd.
Gajraj
Kamruddin
also
examined. of
that
questionsunless
of
blood
IOs
no.6
Supreme
In
present
of
his
occasion
of
Abid
his
hostile
suspicion,
appearance
shall also u/s
body
consequently
doubt
that
new
was
:be
LeftMaan
light
plank
lying
reached
with
of
handing
SI
testified
Akhtar
signatures
and
IEx.PW12/B
cousin
those
A
further
itwas
161
investigation
was under Dead
from
handedperusal
he
accused
his
witness
PW2
of
Chowkidar
Ajay
converted
entry
have
pale.
liable of
at
taken
may
inbe
near
regarding
informer
in
was
Singh
theanswered
was
Court
as
deceased
detected
in
Cr.
length.
testimony
drain
these
dead
is
have
given
body
Court
to namely
over
testified
that
Ex.PW1/B
has
cross-examination
Kumar
there
posted
the
was
the
posted
PC.
u/s
Abid
has
of
at
are
to
he
happens
DELHI.
perused
accept
in
first
overthe
fine. part
to
as condition
in
bearing
was
of
cousin
neither
been
Govt.
it, conducted
to
reached
wall
into
Ithereof.
point
amade
161
Ajay
identification
has
MHC(R)exfacie
the
GTB
in
have
him
his
deceased
withoutThe
further
and
by
the
Kamruddin
Kamruddin.
in
that
he
in
isidentified
the Exhibits
of
parcel
vehicle.confronted
Cr.P.C.
Police
year
IO
bearing
witness.Police
been
corroborated
Kumar
that
accused
brother
A.
testimony
scope
took
perused
the
and
the
to
on
his
he
hospital
at
in
same.
seeking
for near
indicative
stated
Thebe
2003
Personal
the
10/11.04.2003,
he
the
all
cross-examined
cinema
and
Headquarter
body
signatures
same
Station
had
Ifurther
hadThe1,2,3,4,5A-1,
the
reasonably
as
his
Singh
was
he
of
would
the
in
of
ocular
IOn
school.
instance
investigation
persons.
the
he
itwith
of
the
cross-examination
that
rough
thumb
denied
Mortuary
to
accused
found
corroboration
difficulty
a talk for
also
was
recorded.
Jal
I12.04.2003,
of
Kamruddin.
was
same.
and
investigation
high by
Seelampur.
his
withwas
deceased
issearch
go
the
found
evidence
reports
court,his
Board
some
father.
sealed
at
sent
Hejoined
of
impression
working
some
one notes
seeing
with
suspicious
to
and
fact
statement
prepared.
5A-2,
at
accused
point
persons
medical
testified
Again
of
identify
byof
to
In
that
about
doing
these
some
office
other
have
GTB
who
with
and
him
this
minornor
the
On
No
5B
as
A.
ait
more
from
therefore,
imaginary
Yaseen
as
anyI other
proceeded
took
than
who
source.
thereal.
was
view
on complainant
Since
long
The
thatsecond
leave
perfection
the subsequent
due
in
part
ain
toof
case
this
marriage
S. imperfect
145
attempt
which
ofofwas
my
of
which
entitledantoinference
benefit ofasdoubt.
to the Contrary
guilt of the to accused
the is drawn have toand
submissions be
45. Police
meantime
Charge
came
hospital.
at
witness
9:30
Civil
contradictions
eye
measurements
This
accused
examination
that
investigation
police
already
marked
has
the
persons
case.
himself
and
since
sources
The
circumstantial
clearpointseal
job
accused
Station
Kamruddin
7.
in
motive
day
been
T.I.P.
witness
at
p.m.,
Engineer
witness
sheet
no the
distinction
in
party,
First world
PW1
Evidnece
Sec.34
Exhibits
theof
joined
B.
been
the Stomach
pending
daughter.
Ex.PW2/DA
from
.for
the
of Komal
isThe
IPC
account
he
was His seldom
ActChand
against
clearly
was
On I can
100
witness
joined
he toto
cross-examination
argued
filing
hethe
of
is
Besides
sleeping
through
police
instance
and
on
at be
indicates
identify
create
deceased.
persons.
also
the
a mlfound,
exhibited
one
knife
had
in of sathe
statement
the
evidence
AK
was
5A-1,
of
with
was
had semi
the
doubt
11.04.2003
drain
the
seeing
Brijpuriand
discrete
befiled
was
of
PW8
the case
simple
I digested
the
regarding
also
property
investigation
of
by
conducted
gone
that
team
thewas
these
triedprocedure
evidence
conducted
Constable
involved
box
made
forms
in
whereinisfood
Tewatia
he
available.
the
5-A2
the
spot. the
if shown
medically
of
in
andthe
SI identity
material
of
to local
a to
investigation
the
as
all
was
He
to
pulia.
indicate
and
essential
of
also
particulars.
to
the
was
IO
informer
Satender
two
and
school.
Ext.13/F
of
between
the
this
knife
escape.
SI
hetestified
On
appointed
andtestified
in
the
court
he
vide
Construction
the
not
associates
recorded
Ajay
identified
Veer
clinic
5B
police
of
three
knife
Accused
the
examined
ithas
itdiscussed
produced
version
the
information
this
components
got
He
were
memo
was
accused
and
who
basis
and
Kumar
And
along
Sain
the
of
He
that
deposed
or
that
direct
was
case.
officials
conducted
just
further
taken
the
four
found
during
by
proved
was
the
major
Ext.
this
as
namely
Ex.PW13/B
for
Abid
statement
itofwith
and
sent
byDoctor
Company,
the
8
was
also
proximate
dead
cases.
stated
rough
persons
apprehended
getting
portion
He
PW13/G,
or
into
received
to
MHC(M)
thatare
to
the
and
contradictions
then
the
testified
DD
police
10
the
to
have
came
testified
Dilshad
commit
by
possession
body
isalong
police
notes
by
interested
course
CFSL
no.6/A
IOdays
He
matter
Naushad
the
does
made
accused
thebearing
namely
human
him,
to
of
Ashok
nexus
in
which
in
of
again
case
with
ago
that
and
had
any
I.O.
this
the
not
his
for
as
byof
in
is
29. On regarding
type
Before of Para
reaching -13 learned
contradiction
contradictions Counsel at first
anyargument based
has
which
conclusion been are attributable
let the relevant in case
due to
sectionsTahsildar
the longi.e.
Case
34. ID INumber.
careful
havebeWhen
upon witness,
of
followed.
theperusal
given
the ame.
present
inquiryappellant
criminal
words careful
more
To inNo of
illustrate
in the
so
act his
smell
was
the is of
area an
done testimony
consideration
of
of
manner :A inalcohol
no 02402R0009832003
interested
says
bythe consequence
search
several
provided inpresent.
the reveals
witness, toaccused.
witness-
of
persons
by S.the
since isinbox
145 that
submissions
generally
there
of that
furtherance Nohe
the was
clue the ofmost ld.
proved B beyond
stabbed
fringed
intrinsic came with reasonable
material
C:Evidence forward
before
embellishmentin his the doubt
regarding
ofevidence
police and and
he have
exaggerations,
accused.
toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely
Sessions Case
argumentsof the common
Indian
No. of intention
ld. counsel Act all,95
1872 foreach \ found
07
the suchin stated
accused S.persons the
Hence, that
however
ofpresenceisDliable
the
persons, after
ld. th APP
17. registered.
proceedings
more
effect
testified
son
Vihar
endorsement
measurements
court
Naushad
his
was
PW16
case
were
him
vide
PCR
bears
not
witnesses
examination-in-chief
particularly
found
made
Ex.PW8/A,
examination
blood
Arif
as
act.
which
andstabbed
PW11
accused
12. material
Police
Singh
duration
299 wife
forChowkidar
Codesignatures
in
is
in
memo
minor
got
and
office.
apprehended
identified
Station
IPC,In
Phase-I.
than
true
of inquiry
which
of
mentioned
his
ASI
can
mortuary
on
Dr.
that as
and
witness
of that
of
the this
sent
inOwent
and
Spot
Other record.
Ct.
statement
his
and
S.
Naushad
deputing
C.
act ld.
signatures
when
contradictions
Harbir
Ex.PW12/B
establish
aGroup.
On
his
along
time
300
the
Criminal and
is and
from
Lal,
another
appellant
His
in case
vide
Abid
wife
year
to
main,
Organs
being to
predecessor
Billu
was
At
theat
he
as
hence
Ex.PW1/C
the
In
deceased
and
IPC,of the
GTB
JC.
in
the
Sr.Singh
with
attention
SI point
was
thisEx.PW8/B
him
thethe
in
prepared
Ajay
same
Procedure. The
revealed
who
the
aforesaid
when
same
on
got
was
the
knife
andSingh.
Exhibits
regarding
the
wooden
mortuary
at
the
Thereafter,
they
GTB
month
not
bearing
and
the
element
Demonstrator,
memory
eye Vs
302
amongst
NAD two
court
stageKumar
can
mannerphotographed.
knife
were
statement
A.
is
at point
when
was
guilt
he
which
accused
witnessmay son
feeling
bearing
across-examination
the
accused
State
IPC
ebdrawn
a
Section pointing
recorded
have
thehospital.
ofscaled
He
date,
by
formal
1,2,3,4
on
alongwas
sitting
of
sealed
look
as After
recovered
was
pieces
a his
instance
andof
to
the
Athis
of of
was
April
PW6
has
thewell.
look
deposed
Abid
ifhuman
assailants
in
145 for
to
with accused
they
UPrespectively
signature
Lady
recovered
recorded
present
his
declared
facts;
motive
contradictions
GTB
persons
itthis
of 34
that witness
site
outside
out
apprehending,
court
pullandah
some
were his
DD
andtaken
proved
as
2003,
and
other
the after
He
signature
Gajraj
The
part
case of
constable
Blood
wereof
without
came
statement.
plan
Delhi
being.
IPC
of entry
Ex.P1
assurance,
done
Evidence that
7 further
police.
Hon
staff
of framed
at
neither
against
the
Doctor
informer.
persons
at
out
have
the
who
u/s
Tadipaar
namely
deceased he
be
with
who the
by from
the
on
in
is
arrested
at his
point
from
itHowever,
to
bleno.6
dead
onon
was
blood
office
161
from
collectively,
the at
proved
proved
19.6.2003.
his
has
Bimla
the
disclosure
shown
are
This
shop
re-produced
the
him
was the
Courtboth
exists
separate
Abidaccused
point
different
C.
9
IO
A He
body
beyond
Cr.
looking
by
ganda
material
workingcross-
police
stains
of
minor
drain
been
state
April
Seal
This
was
had
has
two
the
PC
his
andJal
no
A.
onof
in
APP
connected and ld.
with Counsel
the principal Sh N.
fact K.Tyagi
sought to for be accused
inferred Abid,
from thoseSh.
Assigned to alone.
Act, Sessions.
statement
the
Gulab.
it is nature
aforesaid
sealed
said, made
Relying and of before
empowers place,
court,
extent
further produced
the
Iofthe
returned
on which 05/08/03
police
the discovery
accused will
and which
back varysame
to to contradicts
put according
evidence
the is
allopened.
police
relevant toas
his station
the wellThe
9. as has
places,
charges
children
situated
PW7
made
He
Board
statement
station
2003
persons.
and
also
Second
detected
reaction
which
This
nala
Naushad
careful
police
verbatim
of the argued
statement
circumstances
as
questions
externment
Kamruddin.
witness
ascertained
after
reports
examination
substance
reasonable
the affairs
truthfulness
proved
from
denied
earth
use
the
in doing
Maan
inand
was
is
were
witness the
under
dated
back
IO
hisin In find
alongwith
witness
came
night
infurther
perusal
opinion
and
in which my
Ex.PW5/A.
that in
to
construction
goes
was
the
of
control
which
this and
relation
he
thereafter
nor
Brahm
is
not
the
It
the
He
presence
histhey the
aview,
ofidentified
apprehended.
Singh
order
the
this
his
and
doubt
itPW10
the witness
24.03.2004.
place
sent
accused
given
there
has
to
in
had
and
has same
case
that
are submitted
human
witness
wireless
ofdeath
further
of
suggestion
testified
accused
ofwas
same
name
presence.
were the blood
indicate
any
the
documents
etc
different
the
to
Puri.
is
itin
asblood
also
which
and
case
been
who
and
his particular
the
box.
Inspector
to
without
A,B,O
he
to
were
the was
before
exclusive
witness
as
work
discrete
cross-examination
under:- operator.
recorded
This
respect
stated
him
persons
the
had
job
identifiedandblack
due
onhis
informed
When
Ex.PW9/A
stains
most
been
that
as
that Ifthat
property
seized
was
that
They the
he
Grouping. to
color
case,
contradiction
sections
Police
This
of
by started
Ex.PW13/C.
in
cross-examined
had
proved
testimony regarding
that
parentage
cannot
further
Vijay
a there
hemorrhage
weapon
admits
attentionCt.baniyan/T-Shirt,
statement
particular
both
the
of
material
PW
approach
he
not
which
by
conducted
Personal byhad
further
the
witness
school
itwere
vide
that
on from
Veer
Station
deceased
was
IO
asthe
Prakash,
Maan his
exclusively
was
working
it bearingis
is
accused
chowkidarcome
in
PHQ.
be found
11.4.2003,
can
SI
memos sufficient
independent
Singh
Kamruddin
strong previous
called
interrogated
Ex.P5.police
going
reveals
under at
the
his shock
discredited
witness
argued
has
searchof
also
deposited
of
Ajay
and
of
Singh
thethrough
He from
suggest
Chauhan
to
the
this handed
to
employment
The
in
accused
byfollowing
his
not
who wasdue
same
happens
Kamruddin
his
to
Ex.PW1/Athematerial
persons
as
Kumar.
he
Mathura. to
corroboration.
accessible
nature
This
postmortem
section
Maan that witness
had
the
ofsignature
in
been
that
postmortem
the information
Ex.PW2/A.
house
@
proved
brought
Constable
the
was
and
this
inwith
told
Bangar.
Kammu
shop
accusedand
defence
accused
Singh
145 all
witnessforged
match
cross-
words
which
to
were
case
is
This
also
and
himon
are
the
He
no
be
as
on
Cr.of
to
at
Arguments Chowkidar
Mohd.
Careful heard
circumstances-
statement,
perusal
those Iqbal
evidence,
garage partsofon
over
is
antemortem
theinfor
already
of
no
of the
sectionaccused
toCircumstances
circumstantial
the
further
me apremises
appellant
Ex.P6
writing sealed
stab proof
34 with injury
IPC Naushad
which
is or 16.01.2009
parcel
and where
referred
necessary,
reveals
a direct,
to
view on was
ofto
inter histhe
the and the
to
before
seized
pant
clothes
if he
organs.
following
contradict by incident
Abdulwhich the
finding
does
by of
him.InjuryhimSattar,
trial
deceased
important he
not Inthe took
was
from
no court place
1Advocate
ingredients and the on
:
admit
support accused
wearing the and
accused
ofpractice
caused at
guilty
one
this theby Parvej.
sample
on
time
generally
contention the
sharp ofbasisseal
hisedged followed
arrest,
along
of theweapon
reliance th
with
interested
isis
High toplace
oneadmit Court
and sealed
testimony
it came
upon subject
sufficient envelope
the to. theto
Date of record
order.
against
further
He
Doctor,
Jagroop
being
Veer
point
the
MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A.
was
interrogated
arrested
witness
regarding
examined
had
documents
be
accused
material
on
request
of
blood
not
can
Therefore,
contrary
PW1/B. the
counsel.
has
persons
culprits
PC
Naushad phone
has
qualified
Police
brought
suggest
taken
body
of
Section
to
i. beenin
proof
to
conducted
the
A.
Sain
lying
blood
was
eye had
In
the
conclusion
That
hold
correctly
he
for
has
vide
by
was
accused
in
to
Rough
-Abid.
were
the
causethat
murder
by
there Station
witness.
ofaway
found
thegiving
noticed
postmortem
for
light
it
the
This
have
of
made
on
correctly
in
by
accused
that
and
memo
the
cross-examined
In
299
was
containing
by witness
the also
This
when
present
the
IPC the
murder
thegetting
IO
record.
by
notes
some
meantime,
arrested
conducted
that
death
must police
accused
identified
his
of
Khade
having
witness
persons
the
committed
benefit
at
been
These
witness
deceased.
looking
vide
disclosure
it
that
the
For
deceased.theson
Ex.PW3/E
about
clear
murder
persons.
cross-examination
blood
be his
inisa identified
had
and
case
to
officer. other
the
doctor.
arrest
deceased
the
contradictions
examination
in
conviction
gauze
ordinary
criminal prepared
reaction
. of
wala
The
befacts
the persons
30.01.2009
further
has
after
taken
12:20
measurements
It
that
sake
father
his
vide case
doubt
at considerations
has
could
memo
Further,
articles
accordingly
by
On
ofcourse
act. statements
intimation
not
After
and
Chauhan
the
sufficiently
all
Forhe
school,
place
presence.
contradicted
the
memo
deceased
the
was a.m.
of
on
registered.
further
Kamruddin,
stated
been
and to
by
the
other
of 3/Bguilty
have
brevity
had
work
the it.
postmortem,
as
counsel
well Ex.PW13/A
thisthe
i.e.
in
nature.allegedly
are
born
the
inaccused
of for
cross-examined.
Ex.PW10/A
Public
cousin
Ex.PW3/A
hand the
called
to
been
Bangar,
sakeKhaddewala
they
Kamruddin of
four
been
accused
Chauhan
that
Abid
were
witness
founded major
of
police
and
indicate
PW6
on the
watchman
This
for
, night.
for if
the wooden
Abid,
Naushad
of
were Spot
argued
witness
on
his
committed
and
record
his
of
the offence
convenience,
at
the
anddestroyed
persons
which
these
Seelampur,
doctor
witness
and hasofficials
the
persons,
29.5.2003
statement
bearing Gajraj
son
He
Naushad
and
that
was
deceased
brevity Banger.
benefit
Abid. School
time
arrested.pieces
that
in
to
bears
again
affect
denied from u/s
third
was
had
this
the
got
and
hasbyof
to
inI
In
his
abrupt
09.04.03. judgment conclusions
This of this
witness Court
arrived in
isat the Bhagwan
by the direct Singh
trial court testimony Vs State
and theto of High the Court
incident. does
amicus
procedure
ii. dismissed
The curiae
same
act suggested
musthis
were for
appeal.
taken
have accused by into
It
been the may Parvej.
possession
learned
done here bybe counsel
mentioned
by
several Perusal
me mayvidepersons that
be of
seizure thethein case file
FIR No. Punjab
Culpable
(1), 1952
homicide
SCR 812: (AIR 95/03 1952 SC 214). Bose J.
302/34
42. This
IO illustrated
Thereafter,
Mathura
which
school
let
photographed.
him
respectively
testified
exhibits
given
recorded
his
case
Delhi
falsely
considered
witness
statement
and
commission
In
effect
PW7
the
acquit light
his
is State
signature
root
accused
after
Parvez
in IPC
furtherance
describes
Gurcharan
property
was
Maan
him
testimony
were
all
this
of
which
of memo
Time
implicate
is
of
that
were
the
to did
use. thus
these the
recovery
not
by
two
filled
of
the
regard
heand
were
to not
lifted
Jafrabad
of
witness
and
persons
Singh
accused
was
PW2
at already
:ofprefer
since
procedure
trustworthy.
as
got
the
case
sealed
went
be accused
Iftheir
offence
Blood
This
by
facts
pointthedeath
DAss,
be well.
standing
their
the
by
he
under
sent
true
lady
IO
Whoever
witess
an
Ex.PW20/A.
common
Jehruddin.
re-produced
and
about
of witness
to
Maan
the
has
and
for
accused
B. appeal
to
persons
from
parcels
as
personal
This
the
which
knife
the
to
Banyanwas isAbid
be
constable
in
leave
construction.
the
police
been
His
causes
asked
circumstances
his
FSL
there,
then
the
Singh
terms
different
house
witnessagainst
30-36
intention.
followed
conceived
hasis
personal
father
and
an
for
is Ifor got
confronted
persons.
incident
through
onThis
SHO
was did
verbatim
search
PW12
then
not the
death
the
chowkidar
impression
the
Ex.PW3/C
ofBimla
of
one
spotthe
hours.
toyoucontradict
has
places, five
witness
recovered
been
in
the
Kamruddin,
offences offence
by
same
Kamruddin
whoHe search
sample
object.
as
const.
been
doing
saycompanions
My
Islamuddin
law
were
does
of
and
which before
statement
further
In deposited
report
cross-examined
by
proved
Ex.P1
the
earth
ofwas
ofwas
an
a
support
said under
cross-examined
ld.
and
also
not
the
u/s
was
Satender.
case
actis section
untruthfulness
seal
The
from
is APP
told
testified
his
control,
seriously
collectively.
as
302/34
also
school
information
the
reflect
conducted
disclosure
taken
other
who
which
Imade
under:-
accused
younger
him
with
have
of
seizure
31.
State Vs
convenience
Kamruddin
proved
Thereafter,
accused
signature
On
notThis cross-examination
suggestion
perusal
witness
justify
with
reveals that
all
cross-examination
witness
the the
under
at
the the
also
hasof
intention let
police
point relevant
all
hascame
conviction been
mostthematerial
his
section
that A party
depositions
of beeninhe CHARGE
statement
there.
got
causing of
documents
162
Urdu
of hehas PW3
along
declared
the 1) had
Cr.
death,and
cross-examinedTheir
deposed
of
Parvej
be Rahisuddin
with
the
appellants P.C.also
or reproduced
denied with
statements
both
prosecution
partly
s/o
with and in
bearing
.' regard
the
the
this case is by
Mohd.
the the
Ld. the
at
hostile
intention it
accusedverbatim
the to
suggestion
court
fact
were
length.
counsel has the
witnesses
Masrool of having
signature come
arrest
being
recordedIcross-
persons
ld. their
whichwas
have
again
APP.
r/o
IPC
that
and
has
into
last
He
his
he
by
on
not
the
andH.
to
in
ofill
the
witness of police
the in appellant
malkhana.
Ex.PW11/A
under
against officer S.145 who
that
is offollowingwitness
in came
the yumy saw to
hand
Evidence accused in
be a acquitted
and gas
Act is light?
correct.
thus
persons by at the and
p.819 trial
It bearshe
(of court. myPW7 Maan
causing
answers It is1. in such yes
these
signatures bodily
thenIncircumstances
the
at theinjury
point evening
statementA. as isthat likely
hour, which
theHC to cause
appellant
does Ram not death,or
has
Niwas
contain invoked came with
302/34
SCR) at
IPC
p.217
Purvez and
of s/o
27
AIR): Mohd. Arms Masrool;Act No. as J-40,
weapon Gali of No.8,
murder Chauhan
i.e. knife
18. This
27. andbrothers
during
However,
he
after
from
the
vide
present
got
PW17
brought
statement
possession
at
was
Accused
arguments
examination-in-chief.
examined
previous
memo
Parvej
examine
identified
means
scene
and
isof
record
went
their the
length
as
accused
relative
police
found was
the
then
inaccused
exhibited
such
perused
witness 27four
memo
passed
Holi,
witnesses.
under:-
inof
witness
HC
those
and
/54/59
of
standing
thatto
in
knowledge
had
search
this the
statement
by
the
were
places
persons
Ithe
persons
investigation
of
recital
2. communication,
there
the
at
he
of
Ram
had
Naushad
Court's
from
cross-examinations,the
has
Abidthe
vide
ld.
Ex.PW3/D
was
the
persons.
quantum
the
accused
obtained
is clothes
days
oflength
on
Abid
knife
Police
had
Arms
come is
Police
counsel
present
that
statement
deceased.
Banda,
put defence
memo
Niwas
of
with
appears
report
other
jurisdiction
same.
s/obeen
tosealed
to
PW5
which
Md. have
gone
and
to
hetakhat
recorded
at
him was
in
UPAct.
by
Station
the
of
his
Delhi
Abid
his
was In
of
is Station
question
of
Ex.PW13/B.
is
deceased
and
Mohd.
after
defence
this
emphasized
contradictions
in
likely
have
accused
point
as under
along
I
cross-examined
Yusuf; friends
counsel.
also
to
produced
in
concerned
All
FSL
forno
were
a
had
signature
recorded time
marked
He his
contradiction.
have
Iand have his
a
formal
regard
and
3/A
work
by
X.
Art.accused
withseeing
u/s
record
recorded
as
and
pulanda
Siddiqui
made
already
further taken
suchhouse.
native
and
which
handed
respectively.
prior
namely
136
found counsel
161
His Ex.PW13/F
and
on
to
under
Chowkidar
found of he
witness
Hon
Ithree
to
actfurther
He
his
have
place
with
thepolice
Cr.PC
and
denied
This
the that
are
two
been
Addl.
by one
blank
arrest identified
in
place
to
some
so was
also
who
ble
was
by
father-in-law
Parvejover
light
Thereafter,
in
Sh.
monthsseized
defence
regard
perused
disclosure
cause
section
Constitution.
procedure
the
Maan so
sample
and
told
Supreme
in
the
JC
where
recovered
station
mentioned
many SHO. also
interrogated
papers
memo reveals
andthe
ofRashid
gluing
defence this
manyof
death,
infor
that
this
the
IO
This
the
vide
same
G.
to
he
can
this
suggestion
Singhminor161
the case.
seal
more
it
the
witnesses
or judgment
Satender
he
fact
vide
is
the
accused
material
Court
that
had
he
statement
However,
Ex.PW3/B witness
his
memos
Hasmi/
not
above.
Cr.
that
area
type not
same.
would
in
type
counsel. to
along
than
This
also
said
and
son
He
DD
the
left
his
be
PCso
he in
of
submittedthat
Singh commits
involves
Resort who incident
andthe
two was offence
his
fallacies:in
and Sambhaji
working
brother i
of stayed
culpable
onein as
lawin
is it Baanger,
Hindurao
Chowkidar
Delhi
homicide.
Jagroop
enables with my
and
the Delhi.
Deshmukhin
Jija-
accused
engineer the
Jagroop. premises
to Gajraj it My has further
where
3. toNaushad section son 145ofwould Mohd.only Ratifbe necessary if the
was elicitrecovered
witness Jija
by Singh. adenies usedfrom
process I
that toofwork
recorded he his aspossession
cross-examination
made chowkidar
statement the former ofin what
MaanTewatiya
on
statement. the15.04.2003
Singh witness Company.
u/sIn 161and same
younger
left
purse.
return
Maan
Ex.PW1/A
further
Parvez.
namely
Tahsildar
first. as
identified
witness
IO
Mohan
his
I
No.6A,
contradictions
N.K.
recorded.
with
Banyan
as
presence.
does
relied
five found
Sub-Inspector
the
was
that
Chauhan
This follows:
discussed
Inspector
disclosure
for
years,
Tyagi
counsel
contradictions not
one
upon
Singh
He
accused
not
prepared
contradictions to
stated
He
which
dated
has
Mathura.
DW1
Banger
witness On
as brother
the
his
some
Ongo
had In
and
hence
also
for
Singh
present
Tewatiya sealed
due
not
The
13.04.2003
to
thatfound
light
case
to
above
G.C.
house.
Furkan,
is
that
have
statement
10.4.2003.
11.4.2003accused
look
signed
Satender
persons
by has
and
inPW1/B
been
andidentified
toestablish
Ex.PW3/F.
sole
heminor
of
Islamuddin
they
property
the
and
at
the
his
Company Raisuddin,
Das
after
borne
having
all
envelope
and
had
at
notThis
cross-examined
fact
the
IO reason
at
the depositions
be
and
DW2
This
accused
Abid
another
visited
discrepancieshis type
and
about2)
judgment
Ex.PW13/C
thethe
witness
of
on
the
released
The
documents
prepared
not
also
been
cross-examination.
had spot
work goneAbid
sealed
i.e.
blood
work
recovery
witness
After
and
atclothes
record
same
Sitara
that
of
HC
close
ofcontaining
knife
record
10:35
of
bearing
appointed the Parvez
place.Vs
to
cross-examined. s/o
deceased
it
of
material
contradictions
Asrhul
relied
further
of
disclosure
stains
with
forthwith
has
were
recovery.
in the
house
the
my and mohd.
watchman
and
was
as
which
in
this
by
hasof
State
a.m.,
at
his
their of
Jija their
the
Ex.
led
come
accused
upon
knife
school,
It site DW3
witness
proximate
IHaque
recorded
the
taken
deposed
correctly
ofwhich
statement
signature
came
as blood
were
them
ofseal
P5 Yasuf
reached
testimony
spot
statements if statement
conducted
plan
PW2aforesaid
from
by
UP
Other
chowkidar onnot
Anwari.
taken
orin
to by
of
also
worn
persons.
to
itld.
was
and record
the
which
that
On r/o
gauze
wanted
has
by
the
S.M.
the
identified
that
him
link
APP
explaining
Jehruddin
know
atwhich of
out;
school.
no
accused J-36,
signed
heto
the
pointby
which
found
come
place
PW2
carefulform
both
with
that
into
are
the
i.e.
On
one
had
from
which He
his
on
IO
T-
of
in
is
A
30. In incident
So
beenthe Explanation
long
stated
that
That cross-examination
observed
event, as
before
took
on Cr.P.C. the
it 1.
09.04.2003 place
would -
the
postmortem on the bodyGali
A.
question
Inthat person
police
the
be on at 'meantime
the
necessary
High
night
who
officer. of of
night
Court
time
causes
interested
If
to this
the
a
you of
provepolice
can,
of deceased
bodily
police witness
09.04.2003.
all No.
that
in in injury
witnesses
officer team
he
exercise
furtherance
8,
did, did
Kamruddin
to
of
Chaohan
andI
another
not
SI This
of found
is
Ajay such concerned
witness
@ Banger, major
powers, is
who
make
if theyour isformer in
labouring
a Kumar Khadde
record statement cameunder
ofwali a building
ina
was disorder,
witness
the reduced to
Police
s look
disease
statement
tobody after
Station
writing, orthe bodily
his goods
alongwith
thenidentified entire
S.145 lying
infirmity, two in
of Kammu common aged intention
25 Yrs committed
Male murder
being of by
43.
32.
36.
11. has
Iwashed.
Khade
making
son
PW10 have
accused
Since
again
of
Shirt and
possession
were
attributable
No.108/100,
careful
indicate
It
Other
this
on
deceased
which
regard
did
any has
Khujji
else
the
6. contradictions
the PW4
Ex.PW8/C
not
persons
and been
incident
record
same.
other
at
not
witness
as
object
had
statement
mother thereby
arrested
testified
was
bears
Aslam
identified
took
also
requires the
wala
then
to
most
been
enquiry
perusal
Ex.P6
that
find
Inspector
@ and
havehisproved
given
the
persons
case.
provide
The
of
accused
of building
Kamruddin
time
not
that
due
vide
and
He
school
Surendera
signed
bearing
that could accelerates
police
happens
dated
Maan
his
the
Sectionmaterial
observed
appeared
took
son
accused not
the
his taken
that
same
exclusively
of
by
with
further
to
this
notoftheon
careful which
seizure
pointed
signature
namely
mention
his
assistance
the
Vijayfather
Kamruddin,
persons
thebe
attention record
officials
and
the
10.4.2003
their
Singh
his
out
was
witness
162
cross-examined
the
body death
to
long
as was
the
Tiwari
documents
dead
used in
Parvej consideration
testified
witnesses
noticed
IO
son
which
by
Prakash,
of
namely
signature
must memo
Cr.
the
for under
death
testimony
be
also
and
out
already
Parvez, vide
accessible
of
havePC
Kamruddin.
body any
be Delhi.
duration
was
vide
at
i.e.
Kamruddin
thetheto
also
cousin
the
sent
court.
as goesaccused
the
maintained
point
Vs
Abid that
pantthe
held
to
purpose
of
drawn in
well Ex.P5
construction
of
Ex.PW20/A
Hon'ble
just
arrest
looking
cousin.
Crime that
Ex.PW20/A,
witness
place
Abid
does
in
State
him.
and the
Kamruddin
hisit
of
Ontestimony
B.
as
mortuary.
to
accusedto completed
of
to
CFSL
that:- this
time by
to
other,
reveals
Ex.P2,
about
accused
and
deceased
memo
persons
accused
of
presence
indicate
whereas The
not
careful
He
Naushad,
these otherof
Record at PW21
Supreme
after thethat
identified
at andshall
and
case,
M.P. occurrence
This
Naushad.
which
ifPHQ
again
Naushad
parts happens
baniyan
the time.
seizure
of
shirt
that
was be
Ex.PW3/B
the ASI
citations
formalities
memory
it
perusal
Constable
that
aon today
persons also
-Abid
visit
PW7
wrist
Office, part
whileis
also
i.e.
has
deniedbears
being
as
lying
AIRthey
Court
reported
reliancework
at Ashrul
pointed
further
at
memo
of
Ex.P3
watch
to
Maan
came
in
ofbeen
PW2
After
vide
of
1991
PHQ,
Veerin
point as
are
the
his
beof
ina
perusal
are
review
thedeemed attributable
Kamruddin
Hon'ble
directentire ofJahruddin
Onto
hisas@
evidence
Supreme
testimony
20.03.2003,
have
testimony
due
Kammu
at
caused
and and
one toMohd.
Court
to
my
his
the
and
reach it
occasion
the
Jija
death.
long has
thereby
Akhtar.
heldits
had own
incidentgot
clearly
duration
in Bodyhe committed
jobHari was
conclusion-However, come
identified
for in of
Obula
me
young time
question.
in
an
Khadde
male,
Reddi and
the record memory
itv.
accused will
CarefulStatethat
not
police
which
offence average officer
are present to
punishable recorded
be inused
builtcourt.
under a
for few
wrapped (PW sentences
contradiction.
section pointed302/34
inNaushad body IPC by
towards
But this
bag and that process
both
wearing position
within accused
oforange
cross-examination Wala
correctly) School and theas they he
witness had
were 3)
scutgone
identified
oralargued to
statementvillage byon s/p and
chowkidarcould Mohd.
thereafterbepocket
Maan Rafiq I r/ C-
19. SainHaque.
pool
and
this,
human
does
my
discussed
watchman.
there.
out
Ex.PW13/D.
same
PW18
signature
respect
accused
destroyed
formal
Jehruddin
statement
trustworthy
of
that
can
Singh.
deceased
the
Observation:
Laxman
New
first
Supreme
testimony
suggestion
this
factory was
interfere the
case
it
not
ring,
he
the
ofas
Delhi
line
witness
that Pare
not
cognizance.
reveals
type
Ct.
blood
being.
SoHe
withhe
deputedcolour
place
came
blood
be
ofseized.
which
belt
at
Naik above
is
11-
Court
accusedof Ld.
arise
fabricating
house.
also
Billu
vide
who
Kamruddin
of
accused
long
determinative
further
point
unless
On
stated
that stained
also
appears
the On
this
It shirt
witnesses
as
no
to
of is,Vs
all APP
when
downwards.
goes
Singh
was
Order
thereand
happens
10.4.2003,
as
his
occurrence
mark
A.
Ex.P4.
a
1853
acquittal PW4
that stated
witness
therefore,
12.4.2003
the
Parvej some
having
the
the
having
State
formal
to to further
arguments
indirect
house
Naushad
This
Baniyan
has IO
proceedings
be
by wherein
witness
No.2165-77/HAR/PCR
answered
of
indicate
and
documents.
Aslamto
blood
ofdeposed
witness
that
other
at
blood
and
ofone
witness
recorded
seen
safeguard
is it
shaky.
trial be
they
goingdeath
and
vide
This
about
In ofmarks
and
is
Orissa
reveals
that
court he
admits
itof
that
with
next
the
T-Shirt
thedid
the
has
to ld.
accused
him
cogent
a
stained
circumstantial
Ex.PW3/G.
has
witness
with
handed
more
who
it. witness
his
were
unless Ex.PW3/E
this
8 father
the
not
school
day,
leave that
or
that
object
been that
the
Counselbeen
(1994) It
worn
the
witness
blood
relate
statement
Addl. 9
appeared
done
thereor
former
right
type
piece
is
came
of Parvej
AM.
he
forof all
has
who
over
knife
heldless
also
there
the
SHO for
cross-examined
dated
by
3
are deceased
had
and
on
to
hasin
Hydrabad the
This
to
could
been all
belongs
of
Maan
similar
evidence
Parvez
(SCC)argued
the
in
at
that:-
the it
as
respect
filled
strong the material
accused
identity
know
given
evidence
was
09.12.05
question
the
been incident
witness
already
seal
police not
upcross-
police
Singh
facts
381 also
was
courtthat
and
spot.
from
reason be
got
theof
to
is:
in
X.
injuries
PW
26. persons
of
of human
AndhraAccused
25inDr
Explanation
brought
statement. were
the
Singh. Rajender
being.
startedon 2.
Pradesh Naushad
-Icaused
to
record.
Inevaluation
such work
Where
examination-in-chief
wasa handed Kumar,
However,
AIRas
case death by was
chowkidar
1981
allThisover is
that sharp Srinterrogated
205,in
caused
SC
some inScientific
procedure,
is case
Khadde
necessary 82 edged
andby Gali
documents andof
bodily wala
at
therefore, and
weapon
Officer,
isJaskaran
to No.6,
school.
injury,
other
Tameshwar
by look SI his
Ajay FSL,
the In disclosure
occasion and
Chauhan
Singh Rohini
Sahi was Vsin
v.
analysis
person legislature and
corresponding
the
who said
causes throughout
school, such
to CHARGE
injury
there
bodily
of
has this
present
was
injurybeen witness
a big
shall
on to the
ground
be exclude testimony
body
deemed and
and the military
children
to have
reveals that
contravenes
to the Kumar former the regarding
against express
statement the arrest
provision
of which
following of Banger,
bothofaccusedS.the
no 162 accused.
further of the
Delhi. proof Code. is
Before
witnesses
based
personscaused
The
statement
on parting
second
colour
evidence
used
the
and have toof
death,
pant
matter
fallacy
awith
play is
with
witness
correctly
which the
cricket,
althoughthat oncan
leather
made
by judgment
identified
dislodge
gulli
by
record.
the
belt.
before
danda
resorting
illustration the
These
the
the
etc. Ito
Record would
police
findings accusedclothes
I made.
proper
given
during
didprosecution
not
of
by like
arrived
stained
allow
remedies
thethe persons. toatto by bring
proceeding the on
He
trial
officials
same
examined
watchman
Jahiruddin,
further
seized
at
as
accused
taken
by
in
PW5
believed
Ex.PW13/E
deceased.
and
concerned,
comes
PW9
on question
length
deposed
Kamruddin
1994
declared
Apsara
State the its
Modh.
into
to
10.4.2003.
14. cross-examination
inquest
the
PW13
Ld. Police
counsel
necessary
statement
sufficient
appearedAbid the SIon
to
stated
SCC
form
PW1
border.
1997
sonvide
order
recovery
someone.
Abid
bywere
unqualified
the
record.
Ajay
with at
possession
in
father
informed
Mukesh
hostile
of PW2
the
was
Komal
investigation bySiddiqui
length.
memo
This
picture
(Cri.)
Station.
which substance.
that
which
further
because
Ex.PW3/C
to
in the
SCC
Mohd. ofand
PW13
Kumar,
cause
blood. defence
already
On
lying
by Jehruddin
Chand,
Hence,
he of
DCP,
thereto.
656witness
of
court fact
the
is
(Crl)
Yusuf.
A
denied
from the
bears
subsequently
arrest
Ex.PW13/E
that
Heis
the This
and
him
During
SI
dead
argued
was
red by deceased,
counsel.
also
formal
that
ld.
Ex.PW8/DA.
North
however,
death. Ajay
Police
day
strongly
admission
police
and
being the
651
sacret present.
DW3
they
witness
in
APPhis
on
Raisuddin
in
recorded
to memo
who
the
East
that
stated
made IO
Accused
Kumar.
goes
he
thesignatures
telephone
are
is Control
after
witness
on
supported
This that
party
threated
identify it course
happens
had
denied after
absence
I
thei.e.
further
School.
PW4
use thehave
after
District
was itcrucial
by to
of
was
that was
mother
Heconverting
The
after
gone This
point
reached
witness
present
the
of
the
theat are
being
indicate
its
accused
Aslam
the
onperused
ofRoom,
inat
Line
observed categorically
got
accused
the that
let
IO.for
to
cross-examination
use.
the
of
Thiswitness
police
point
in
to
this
of of
off.
be
suggestion
has is
30.05.2003,
around
trial the
converted
other
custody
occurrence
three
accused
Mortuary
at
Accused itDelhi.
He
the
that
Police
C.
witness
identification
conducted
has the case
thepurpose
Parvej
into
proved
by
the
persons took
has
recorded
Personal
piece
father
same.
been
formal orcertain
parcel
stated
of
Apsara
Hon'ble since
party
been
Abid
GTB
beingfour
The
Abidinto
has
eight so
the
got
as
justof
State
Police Station
hisand learned of
testimony Uttar
play
skillfulcounsel
case the
intreatment Pradesh
is
his most
children
Thereafter,
for the the AIR
significant
but
death
examination-in-chief appellants 1976
theSeelampur
despite
might
policehave SC
thiswhich
party
there 59
they
been
but alongwith that
would
used
prevented.
isaround
in nohisself- :-
toboth reflect
play
cross the the vide
in
record
court
as formy
follows:-
which
contradiction
anyneck
the observation
were
accused
and
purpose,
playground.
of the
black
went basis
thefrom
andwith
in
sacret
primary
the amendments
Children
for
search the
regard
thread
statement
present
whodoubt
acquittal-High
ofcases accused
toused the
made
made
namely toinvestigation.
play
Court
in
the
fromin the
Parvej
the has
right
into with
In this
give due
again It
That is examination
unnecessary
argued
on 15.4.2003
wrist. that
Both he to expressed
refer
deceased
eyes to
a other
nallhi
closed, someon Kamruddin
Riger the wherein
road
mortis regarding
about a was
present similar 50 all seen the
over the
Under
22.
23. Section
reveals
photographs
he
persons
the
with
parcel
cross-examined
search
and
PW
hence
determination
evidence.
Ex.PW13/A
outcome
12.04.2003.
deceased,
his
Hospital
that
photocopy
draftsman.
been
accused
37. after
postmortem
defence
well
declared
So
border
was had
postmortem
sealed
Supreme
time
testimony
21
22
statement
sealed
accused
in
long
as
in
Explanation
witness she
with
When
arrestedASI
ofthat
Ct.
the
the
parcels
to
been
andhad
cross-examinedhas
ground
the Abid
Court
box, of
persons.
material
counsel
hostile time
appears
Ld.
examination
as the accused
Further,
the
Asurl
Ashok
it
with
and
of
night
nightthe
report
3.
area came
has
is
of were
contradicted
entered
born
filledseal
and
of
the
-counsel
the
charge
and
-for were
as by
remotely
The
inofthe
said
witness
the that
and only
Haque,
come
personal
Kumar,
interested
witnesses
his
as of
Naushad
the
allscene
on
inquest
known
per
the is
Chauhan Dilshad
guilt
seal intended
cross-examination
to GCD.
the
order
causing
witness sought
HC indefence
threeon
record
further
Consequently,
statement
ld. he
APP
on by
personal
Ex.PW11/A.
following to
forwarding PCR,
in 302/
connected
of
police
No.1925
had the
of
the
me.
of
has
Bangerrecord
by
form
is
to
Asrool the
this andto
searchbe
the and
accused
GCD
witness.
That
were 34
make
incident.
North
the
accused
Markargued
yet of
deadschool
signedregarding
case. station.
counsel
which
ld in
proved
search
death
words:-and
notHaq Arif
IPC
that
T-
and
X.
PW5
letter
clear
taken
defence
then
PCR
APP
in
the memo
hiswith
East
made Shirt
ofon
body byThis
the
on &
persons
of is
andwho
the
deceased
took
and
They
this27/54/59
Both
persons
cross-
aHe
was
were
work the PHQ
into
and
Mohd. said
blank
child
on of reportedly
investigation
regard
at
Zone,
was
committal
as
on
into
length.
witness
are
witness
Ex.PW8/DA,
has
HC point possession
cross-examination
place.
the also
accused
based
gothas
deceased having
the
Ex.PW13/B,
Delhi
inexamination
conducted
received to Arms
possession
Kamruddin
quarreling.
lifted
deposed
a point
(correctly
Iof
categorically
papers.
theSiddiqui
Billu hasreveals
on
Iof
link
medical
declared stated
caughtsome
bears
in Act
were
have the
not
and
vide by
On
theof
isit
case 17 procedure
implications
paces days.
General
identity
there
object
circumstantialahead
the and
isof
isbody the
suggested
regardingfrequent
to of Interested
appellant
and
dispelMCD
evidence,
for
well
the the School and
putting
change evidence
proof
developed.
cloud the
Guddu
questionsof
Seelampur
cast of
conviction on
is stating
guilt
Post
such
no
investigatingunder and
you
mortem
is
necessarily
that
intention.
S. non
got he
145 staining had
officers
proof of in guilt all
mother's
stand
of
importance any
unreliable
seen
the came
Indian womb
their
toone assertion to
evidence.is
backs
Evidence
conclusions not
know at homicide.
from
all
only.Even
Act, which the
for But
mother
can
partisanship
The the it
trial
said may
serve ofCourt amount
accused
as
by
decision the
itself
came to
basis.
of is culpable
Parvej
not
to
this athe as
recovered
The
justified preset
Act
to when of, on knife1898 thewhich
the forofand
back
circumstances was
the trialfirst
and court,
used
fixed time in ifthe
no
found signthey
tocommission
introduced of
be had decompositionbeen anofthere arrived at after
accused
along
15.JUDGEMENT
39. making
his
three
blood homicide
evidenceThe
Thereafter,
marked
produced
PW14
perused
the
vide
that
direct
number
Other
pointing
murder
was
piece IO
Court
identified)
been
done
after
careful
stated
has
concerned,
partly onvalid
taken
memo
on or
signature
postmortem
come with
conclusion
samples
PW ASI
vide
for
of
officers
stains.his
andpersons
On
contradiction,
well
cross-examined
by that
perusal
hostile ground
12.4.2003,
to 12.4.2003
indirect
the
out
ld. that
9cause
th
as
accused
contradictions
deceased
before
Addl.
away
4 statement
Ex.PW13/D
he
Om
the
memo
same.
similar
came
on
on APP that
Aslam
memo the
for
conducted
at On other
from
reached
record at
the
point
medical
12.4.2003
has
of
dead
month
under
evidence
SHO
by
Prakash
purpose
the last
decisionsdeath
discrediting
not 15.4.2003
athe
the
by from also
ld.persons
only
Ex.PW3/D
Constable
accused
the
This
he
his
body the
Abid
Kamruddin
who
of to
Vijay
SHO
A.
by
again
testimony
that time
was
which
APP.inof
joined
spot,
towhich
the
police
the
house ayear
section,
or
witness
and
is
were
He
evidence
the
he the
wasof of
this
police
his by
living
as
Prakash.
furtherthe
rejecting
independent
persons
place
the
and
and
bearsIPW7
witness
therefore
and
also
Beer
the
spot
not
investigation
further
accused
denied
joined
dochild,
should
revealed
consideration
that
by
and
deposition
ld.handed
of formal
has not
factory
sealed
they sworn
obtained
this does aMaan
investigation
3/A
go
accused
as accused
at
his
Sain
considering remember,
ifbe
from any
chance
correctly
He
to
investigation
defence to called
the that
between
Khadde part
respectively.
already
comparison
testifiedwere
signature
witness
the
persons.
identify
witness
over it in
testimony.
public
again
of Singh
handed
his
not in
investigation
has accused
hiswitness
root his
persons
the
hispersons
this
to
counsel a house.
put
of
that that and
identified
Wala
parcel.
testified
of disclosure
Ex.PW13/D,
witness
suggest
stated
it the of
son.being
case
signature
father at
reveals chain
over
this
between
the
thisin he
point
without
accused school
visited
that
ofIn
case.
of casehas
lock.
Both
One
duty
which
dead
They
cross- one
has
the
as
thatB.
this
on
he
accused
memo
FSL,
of the
of
child
what
Whenmurder
Rohini
exceptionParvej
Ex.PW3/D.
established
accused
has
a
was
was the a
witness
Parvej been
of
Delhi
seen.
evidence
enabling
party
is
there.
Kamruddin
against
persons.
brought
asserted
going in ofHis
the first
school
forth,
to
in the IO/SHO
thearrest
@
said
Having
the
leave
informant
though
Kammu
SHO,
statement
accused
between
witness for
memo
perused
the seized
is
Hydrabad
box P and
found
child from
Kamruddin, S
reduced
and
Ex.PW3/E
may
tothe
thereby
Seelampur,
the
what
from
beNaushadtofull
statement
not he
Apsara
blood
have
of was stained
Delhi of also
thisin
proper Nor
but
procedure
committed his
appreciation
contradictions, can
On presence
in
an ita be
case
offence
examination of laid
at
exaggerations where
the the down
punishable scene
evidence-
followingthe as
and of
statement
u/s an
occurrence invariable
27/25/54/59
Hon'ble
antemortem
improvements, in Highwas
writing rule
extremely
Arms
injuries
heCourtwas that
cannot will
were interfere in
writing
complete and to many be
chain used of
other for
evidence
persons impeaching ashadnot not the
attended to credit
leave the ofparty the
shows breathed
stated
intended that
interested
doubtful before or
border.
to the been
as
be theevidence
itused completely
Police
police
preparatory
was for party
officer,
difficult can
contradiction born.
reached
to and
measures
never
believe at
form
under between
thatthe he
S. Apsara
regarding
the had
162 what basiscome
of heinof
border
the day in
investigation
out
28.
44. correctly
body
was
The
accused
persons.
Act
statement
purse
his
Chauhan
he
Personal
officer.
along
sealed
During
the
Similarly
been
disclosure
further
Having be
cross-examination
circumstantial
prepared
house and
any
was
accusedheld
witness
statement
gotwith
was
entrusted identified
within
foundto
corroboration.
parcel
the
discussed
This
personsand
reasonable
Naushad
declared
search
he
Bangar.
and be
in
course
Ct.
also
deposited
persons was
Though,
my
Stab
the
statement
the
was a
with
witness
evidence.
of
totruthful
Billu
his manner
asubsequently
taken
items
site
and accused
cognizance.
wound
ground
cross-examined
PW7
the
hostile
his
and
of
the
He
brought
have
him. by witness
deceased
Singh,
plan
argument
proved
In
in
4.6
provided
for
testimony
facts
further
seal
were
into
Abid
has and
itSIthis
of
murdered
One
the a
andx
vide
to 0.4
of.
the persons
conclusion.
Ct.
of
had
deposited
proved
regard
Satender.
thePW2
their cms
by
accused
deposed
consequently
SL,
son
the
Ex.PW8/C.
public ld. the
remand
possession.
Gajraj
has in
pointed
Police
cross-examination arrest.
one
case,
the size
counsel
by
Jehurrin by
Evidence
accompanied
PW25
also
the ld.
witness and
envelope
with
HeSingh,
that stating
of
Parvej
deceased.
Station arguments
out
been horizontally
Counsel
DD
againSh.
at
the
HeAct.
accused
during
andthe
Blood
Dr
the
Ct. that
demolished
Islamuddin
by MHCM.
had
N no.
with
spot
as
PW5
them.
spot,
deposedK
the
Ld.
done Ashok
the
Sh. accused
Abid
taken
was
Rajender
of
Tyagi
6IO.
the
and
already
course
all
Mohd.
counselpolice
Abdul
AThis
by seal
also
and
wasthe
No
Onfor
by
thatas
ld.
13. deceased.
this
case
had
took
blank
examined
Briefly
Baniyan
prepared.
PW12
connection
witness
said
Codewitness
seen
factswith
his
papers.
of
AsIslamuddin
at he
conviction
that
of
the
theFurther
son
of
time
had
it
present
Kamruddin,
Inspector
him.
hour
Criminal is
theand
accused
withHis
night.
stated
comes
along
unless
phraseology
to formal
case
over
investigation
Again
after son
case
AccusedThis
disclosure
before
purchase
Procedure. G.
with
on
are
right
Abid,
finishing
Parvej
of
corroborated
of
witness
FIR
theC.
the
isthem.
witness
that
Jalaluddin
Parvej Dass.
argued
the
police
vegetables.
Section
record
lower
Naushad
on of
statement
exception
vide
No.95/2003,
wasto
chest,
and
party,
officer
145 this
pertains Other
This
standing
that
gave
that
a10.04.2003 they
seizure
aged
material
Thus
of 3.1
lent
and
the case
andPW5
witness
all staff
his
to
Ex.PW3/F
by
the 32
what
Evidence
this
cms
scope
had
datedParvej
the
extent was
the
trial testimony
Mohd.
on left
memo
years,
heside
witness
centre
was
court
to in makes
further
in facts
receiving
the
of while
also
Siddiqui
was
toBusiness,
10.04.2003, by
that
in
to they
statedwithhe
his
appeal Section against school.
- 300 acquittals,
IPC I was on duty only on where
that day, the so Itrial
remained Court the wrong
were actually not
material
Actrefused is inmidline
defeat upto
wall
made
two
the the
to of
particularsbefore
place
parts: Apsara
andpurpose mark
reliance
the
4.5 him.
Cinema
byfirst as
independent
cms of
In
onpart
belowthe
and
such
theenables
the
onvital
a
evidence
and case
seeing
evidence.
legislature missing
the
inner the the
ofaccused question
tobyAll
the police
three
right link
that
the
isin the ocular
party
eye-
tonipple.
2. Thereafter,
persons
obtainedcould not
necessary
witnesses.
cross-examine were
school.
he to be the
triedput
trace is
a prosecution
quarreling
atOn
tothat
The all;
run
witness 09.04.2003,
them, only
the away.
trial asevidenceis with
questions
court,
to has
HC
also
previous Abid, of examined
deceased
Asrool
to
however,on Naushad,
contradict
interested Haq
record.
statement came and
and 25 Kamru
can
witnesses
made HC witnesses.
be they
Further,
to Billuandmurdered
the After
careful
25. then
DD taken
satisfactory
officials
dead
witness
Ex.PW8/A.
other
document
the
Siddqui
Sattar-
of
Ex.PW13/C,
Kumar,
ld.
defence
on
joined
effect
them.
has
were
that
PW
saw
r/o
PW8 cross-examination
SL
15.4.2003,
no.
10. Ex.PW13/E
recorded.
under counsel
SHOaccused
relied
also
D-56,
assumptions in
24 and
staff.
from
11.04.2003body
inamicus
standing
theSI6/They is
Sr
further
met
the the
that
ACP
Section
Amendment ASh.
been
deceased
Theand Ex.PW3/G
one
necessary
counsel
Chand
Satender
Parvez Scientific
upon
All explanation
They
the
for
he
hadhim
black
of
night,Abid,
He
he curiae
sample
stated
investigation.
Gurucharan
in
got
Gurcharan
Sub-Inspector
of
inner three
vide
material
came spot
hadthe
hedeceased
left
302/34
Act and
further
went
came color
as
he
declared
due
angle
Bagh,is a ld.
the accused
done
also
galiprecisely
was
Officer,
for
and
Maan
requestedthat
seal
citations
Kamruddin
documents
1923,
to the
facts
the
of
sealed itdeposed
to to
counsel
accused
police
Gali baniyan
no.10
IPCto proved
prepared
the
all
joined
Dass,
wound
the
material
or
school. by
has
Brijpuri
onSL
Dass
sudden toSingh
Abid,
know
partly
Satender FSL,
ld.
these
effect
the
persons
i.e.for
to
station
and
with
pullanda
no.1,
and
section
fails I forborne
the
Sub Sh.
APP
isbearing
to Parvej
SHO,
more
objected /T-Shirt,
the
who
i) same
thatpulia
the
hostileon
DelhiRohini,
had
bythat
parcels
mortuary
Mohd.
postmortem he
reasons
Mula
investigation
death
all
27/54/59
witness was
appreciateat the
FIR
was
asking
Division
three
along
acute
with
to which
and
on
not
why
and
near
date,
police
incident
onabout
by
his has
has
redrafted
in
it. ofIO as
Delhi
onofmet
record
DeviArif
were
it
he
the
which
12.4.2003
the
then
Ithis denied
from
with
signature he
ganda
has
already
10:25
daughter
accused Kamlathat
he
testified
Arms
evidence
told this
and
police could
for
there
obtained
ld. of
outer
seal
case.
them has
contentions
seized
of had
taken
also
deceased
examination
& bears
case
Kamruddin
APP. accused
that
Anr.
thisgot
death
Constables
Act,a.m.
of atnala
not
proved
remand
in
that
He joined
Ex.P6
in
come
of
Market,
persons vide
case
GCD.
properly- any
into
the
get
and
point
P on
as
Vs
Ld.
hasonin
of
his S
as
Giving bywell
examination-in-chief
Murder
put and
should support
conclusion
him
defining
incaught
the
angle. as Except
bequestion
writing
the
circumstantial
him.
subjected
that
The or
limits
in
tothe the
reduced
woundofthe
Parvej he
here
the
cases
togoes
appellant has
contentions
is
posed also
careful
to
exception
writing was
inside evidence
identified
hereinafter
present
does scrutiny
absconding
without
withthe not in excepted,
chestof allminor
contradict;
the
precision
and
such court were
and
cavity the
accepted
writing
so
culpable
today.
that itthree
through
a
found
contradictions
he I accused after
homicide
leads withto not is
interrogated to
murder, enter in
if the
the school.
act by which At thatthe time
death I wasis causednear the
is
being
completion
him. had
toInconfine 5thanintercostal
caution.
discovered
shown
support ofanswer toIf him;
the
itthe
on
of
only
the which
such
evidence him
hisweapon
shape the iscutting
and
scrutiny,
contentions
to contradict
contradicted
which
secondof recorded
the was
prosecution
the interested
part
the6 case
th found by his
deals
costal
witness he
the to
again
police
testimony
be
with
side,
cartrilge.
in
disclosure
stained
the
a statements
submittedThe that of
consideration
20. Accused
46. possession
recorded
school.
postmortem
the
Ex.PW14/A.
PW19
Govt.
signature
Naushad
Kamruddin
on
search
which
that
based
contradiction
Besides,
completion
was
memo
morning
reached
with
as
State
A
Two andto record
investigation
on
brother-in-law
Delhi
counsel
reached taken
SI was
why on
gypsy
is Lady
along
isof
at
10/11.04.2003
done
15.4.2003 views
statement.
Seelampur, is
with
situation biological
and
Ajay
Parvej
also
with
found On
Ex.PW20/Athe
this
the
Brijpuri
gate
the
again and
at
on
heseized
Ex.PW10/A.
the
being that
was
outvide
of
through
Uttrakhand
schoolwhile
statement.
human where with
of
most
bears
This
Delhi.
to and
11.4.2003,
done.
HC
arrest
knife
point
fact
case
in
u/s
Thisld.
trial.
blank
Kumar
was from
(Sale),
argued
intention
be seen
he
memo
but
SIof
search
Khadde
possible
he perusal
examination
Bimla
in
145
counsel
by recovered
law
witness
C.
standing
at twothis
knew
his
Ajay
school was
SHO
material
arrested
argument
blood. thewas
I
intrinsically
the Const
him
bearing
theThewith
Cr.
papers.
with
about
of hethat
seized
Thisit relied
statement
he
Afteris
Accused
case
Ex.PW1/A
lockfrom
children.
and of
made
Kumar,
signature
causing
from
alsogoing
of
cross-examination PC
Sh.
had
2008
and other
Wala, 9.30
ld. of
accused
the
accompanied
also
has
Veer
authority
his
there,
that
PW6
witness
vide
the
witness
reliable the
relied accused
upon
fromthe
with
accused
blood
Abdul
Evidence
postmortem
up some
his
death,
to
Counsel accused
been
a
persons
V
blood Gali
p.m. before
Sain
signatures
and
Hence,
staff
HC
arrest
evidence
or
on of
Chauhan
has recorded
Naushad
formal
by
the
Nali/
bearing
persons
Kamruddin
AD(Cr.)
wife
Gajrajor was
Sattar-
should
work cross-examined.
he
Asrool
being them
and
had
No.11,
accused
stained
based
inherently
the had persons.
was
SHO.
Parvej.
memo
stated
factum
assumes is
On
on file
drain
him
Act
persons
the
detected
led the
the
so
gone
upon witness.
oneat and
u/s
Haq.
(S.C.)
to
major
a
Banger reveals
signature
deputed
amicus
and
the
adopt
hepolice
them and
at
Then
dead
point
conduct
told
Chauhan
careful
record,
Baniyan
probable,
of Abid
that 161the
public
towards
leave
formal
Ex.PW13/A
theS.
find fact
SI
to
the
returned
on Abid
due
Ct.
him
677
one
of on
either
atthe
Investigating
as that
officials
this
Cr.P.C.
ld.
curiae
Satender
he
She
appropriate
near body
B. of
instance
there
Exhibits
at
Billu
perusal
Seelampur,
of APP,
to
ofIhouse
taking
witness
that
and
well
Banger
point
favouring
biological along
effect
to have
point
were
This
back two
any
has
was for
the
this
andheto
isI
ii)
as
Y.
of
deposed
persons
33. Hon'ble
Further,145
manner andthat
direction
Supreme
itof
the has rooms. on
deposed
provided
also 10.4.2003
of wound
under
Court
Theybeen that
raised
is
section
in
observedasa
backward
case
the DDsoon145
alarm no.6A
State ofand
by as the
inany Hon'ble
the was
medially
he Evidence
of heard
school. UP entrusted
towards
Supreme Vs
ItimetheBhagwan
went voice to him.
Court he
shape it of
humanmay, theaccused Evidence
by
blood itself,
contradiction: on Parvej
be Act,
the is
sufficient,
pant
in therefore,
vide
otherworn in by
words,seizure
the not
the of
circumstances
appellant
both memo relevance
parts at of
the
deal already
the
measures Act. left Ifregarding
one sidecould perforate guess regulating the theperipherial
intention the part
ofprocess
the the of lower lobe of
legislature of investigation by
accused
statement
the
days 2ndly.
in
with
accused considering
particular
of
PC his persons
- into
cross-examination it the
which
Ifarrest.
Ex.PW13/E
and
remand iscase, one room.
done
the On under
was
to with
express
vide
the
against
was baseNaushad
given
a
bybasis the
way
soughtsection
sealed
athe intention
provisions
convictionwasat
ofaccused-this 313
holding
first
pullandah
contradiction
in of
evidence
respect S. Cr.
instance
causing
ofthereon.High with
162 P.
the
only. back
Court
of such
the
of C.
Although
trial the
The seal
is
accused were
(kamar)
inbodily
court
not the
ofexpected recorded
court
Abid is
to
to
Ct. A.
found.
the
safeguard
with
perused
stated
Mohan
correctly
accused
both
reason
disclosure
1,
am
deceased
of
to
was
and accused
2,
identified
Khadde
witness
witness
Ashok
personal
This
his
he
He village
of
Police
Sambhaji
officer.
hear-say
where From
SHO,
the
3,
standing
also
when
they
noticed
examinationalong
injury
Code
that
the
was
witness4,
that
search the
witnesses
Parvej
wala
Kumar
cross-examination
in framing
as
of
identified
Rt.
of by 5A-1,
is
it.
the
HC
has
requires of
statement
view
Station.
GCD. joined
they
For
with
the
on
Abid
same.
also
Lung
Hindurao
witness.
found crowd not
allMaan
He Ashrul
Zahuruddin
with
blood
Kamruddin,
Criminal
10.04.03
Govt.
memo
the
offender
spot
the
has 5A-2,
that
wentthe
been
and
came have
found
joined
with
in
in
one veryNohave
by
Hence,
his
section
constable
Accused and
Procedure.
Singh
the
police
then
sake
was accused
the
Haque,
School, was
tothem
contradiction
5B
argued
thementioned
presence
friends
back
It
dead
correctly
Ex.PW13/B
Abid
knows
in
joined
Parvej
the been
at
and
party.
in conviction
Chauhan
Deshmukh
iswas of
the and
and
cross-examined
close helifted
recorded
witness
enter
detected
Veer
to
about
investigation
in
argued
body
done
be
was
at
Gali
brevity
manner
giving Const.
Mohd.
and 7
was
the
the at
Brij
discussed
while
persons
the (particulars
blood
length.
Accused
identified
Sain
likely
arrested
of
No.10
which
by
knife 9.31
Puri
in has
in
careful
heBanger PW12
of
they
instructed
pericardcium
of morning,
that
it
on
to and
male
did
ld.
investigation.
andBilloo
in
Akhtar.the
would
&
blow
cause
the
a.m.
all
stains,
pulia.
his
come
most
in are
Ors.
was
APP
Exhibits
vide
with
Chauhanin
were
statement
Abid the
court.
reached
Islamuddin
by Ld.
para
presence.
of
she
examination
both
1923, for
convenience
lying
Constable
at the
arrest
residents
In
return
that
and
theyalso Addl.
SHO
to
andon
death
three
exhibits
itthe
material wooden
returning
APP
this
the
was
timeVs
memo
received
no.
record.
carry
given
had
there.
the
Then
1,2, BangerHe
backhad
SHO.
at
purpose
prepared
ld.
of to recorded
has
4
accused
regard
also
come
State Apsara
defencecannot
outfurther
and
defence
3,4,5A-1,
Satender are
in
of
let plank
given
to
witness from
There
search This
alsothe
He
and
withhis
'1'
he
by7.
of
to
of
raised
AIR in
procedure
in Sukhvinder 1997 anthe
the
convicted alarm
matter
SC the
prescribed in
3292:
Singh of thethat
appreciation
appellant is school
that,
(1997)
Vs under if it he
of
S.302
is
1to went
evidence,
intended
SCC I.P.C. 19into
to no
and room
contradict hard
made sentenced and wherethe he saw
following
isState ofalso Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152
neck in the Rt atrium
issuingthe
would
person
fast
him
a witness proper be
Kamruddin
Ex.PW13/A
rule
to apprx.tolife
by
apparent
whom
can the guidebe
imprisonment.and
the
and
writing, harm
laid line
Parvezit was
personal
his down, orof
caused,
attention had
Khujji
heart.
protect
devising
search
yet, or
in
The
preferred
must, memo
most
the caught
depth
accused
acases,
before Ex.PW13/B
an
of wound
suitable
hold
appeal
the in the policy to
in which
reverse
truthful
trace against
the and they
acquittal
is
weapon the have
reliable merely
user When14.0 denied
of the
of
because
cms.
and
offence the
statements all
There the
it would
is
statement
and allegations
about
of witnesses
to
have 1 ‰ at taken
literthe
made as of leveled
theblood
time view of by
against
cross- the
41.
4. the
him.
was (Lakdi
his
further
Boarder
message
certain
stated
Perusal
neighbourhood.
witness
In
Cotton
persons
also alight
recorded
from
argued
u/s
testimony.
PW2 house,
161
investigation.
them
house. be
there
investigation
counsel.
know
statement
PW7
Maharashtra
persons.
counsel
5A-2, Accused who
Takhat.
writing ka
that
wood
Cr.
at
Jehurrudin
that
Maan
evaluating
against
5B He
asdeceased.
testified
directions
of
being
in
solely
ofheld
was
canTakhat)
and inthe
Man
theirsearch
he
was
be the
on
Ilength.
P
theirhas respect
swab,
have
Singh
He was
And
well,
the be C
7. a
completely
had
He aforesaid
13.4.2003
on
re-produced
also the
said cross-examination
Singh
on
in that
sole
statements.
in
also
son
2008 and
further
proved in
Blood to
the
ofHe
got
view
who
further
prepareda
police
perused
brought
somehas the
'2'
SI
onItof I
statement
ground
met
sealed
further
identified
Govt.
has
between
evidence
conviction.be (1) raised
Flacky
Satender
another
recovered
of
has
happens
notby quarrel
11.6.2003
statements
he
hostile
them
the
remand.
testified
expired.
JCC
testified in the
again
After
been
Vehicle.
the
verbatim
me.supported
contradictions
called
could of Thetothe
an
not with
adopted
for
judgment
all
Accused alarm
material-dry
at
542.
those of
wanted
toat
so
one
same. Mohan
three
that
police
Takhat
interested
High be that
be toascertain
conviction
the
Jhansi
PW7
of joined
SI
JJ
postmortem
argued
Accused then
of
Thereafter
which
Court
parts
detected PW2
seal
knife
was
the
on be
Mukesh
the
Camp,
fatherthe
accused Abid
Maan
accused
informer
I.O.
Ld. No
station
have
of and
or
whileand
Railway
itlooked
Tahsildar
is
brought
the the
ofblood,
from
that
prosecutionas also the
cross-examination
reveals
persons
as
S.M.
thereafter
interrogated
Abid
counsel
even
which of
contradiction
he
same
dead
come
ignoring
on and tried
investigation
Singh
AGCR
the Jainthe
into
witness
the
inthe on
persons.
under:- amet
theled
went associates
Station
'3'
He
Singh
dead that
the
now
took
place
who
drainwith
Flackey
deceased
put
body them,proved
them
submitted
on day case to
inbasis
Indra
SHO
PW1
body
record and
has
this
and
Thisthe
one
both
there asof
to
at
for
reached
overcome
that
observations
:the
194
recovery
3rdly.-
arethe
before
Naushad
SCC
partisan
to be
atpresent
to itthis
Ifevidence
police Khadde
the
give
(Cri)
is witness,
used done
of in
inadequacy.
which police
was
knife
station
for
knife
1376
of
the
with
PW3
the
wala
chest
blow during
itholding
are
and that
the
was
isKishan
purpose to School,
cavity.
very
put
useful me.
intention:
made
investigation
the
inLal
of relevant
Thereafter,
the
as of
and
contradicting
Gali
aback
and
causing
lockup.
first
No.11,
PW4crucial
at(kamar)
step
knife
the
IRamesh
ran
bodily
him.Accused toaway
trial
and
was
Chauhan
injury
focus
The ofExhibit
relied from
was to
taken
Kamruddin,
dominant
6.
Banger On
out
in
accusedpresumably had o the
itstating
tried assumption
thenext case. that the
Ld. said
counsel statements again argued that two
prosecution
namely
any
examination
proviso persons
attention
on the the
identified
to
Dilshad S. by
spot.
onand
cannot
appellant
162 the by On
the
of
and
the
bodily
Chowkidar
question,
as
the be
one
Code
Arif. that of
No
day
injury
considered they
Maan
whether
ofthe at
Criminal intended
proceedings are
about
Singh
assailants the innocent
8
as
in
presence
Procedure to am
policebetrue
notwithstanding I telephoned
inflicted
in station.
of
only and
version
the
respect
is Ithey of in have
boththis
5.
16.
ANNOUNCED
were the
PW3
from
rough
of
PW
Camp
left
this
with
statement
court
material-
identified
recovery
he information.
Akhtar
Anr.
was
35. Yaseen
school
come
lock-up.
accused
during
that
and
from
Besides
where the
memo
case
marks
serological 15
respect
prepared
Kamruddin
Brijpuri
near
witness in Vs
handed
Govt.
on
were
these
sufficientthethere,
will
Rahisuddin
Jhuggies
notes
who spot.
Constable
is
and
the has
was
Accused
the
one
witness
his
sample
of
the
along
Grazw
IN
State
who
record.
hadOn
of
mud
neither
to in
of
aincase
recorded
effort
notexamine
knife
of
THE
School
was
@saw been
this
from
accused
PW2
the
over
hear-say
got Near
he
10.4.2003
coursealso
dragging
contradictions
examination
Gajraj
dead
the
atin the
accused
with
made
of Informer
abrasion
of
informed
Kammu near
his
Mula
ordinary
cross
blood,
regard
OPEN
was
the was
was
sketchis
UP.
to
declaredSunder
him
contradicted
Jehruddin,
Brijpuri
complainant
Khadde
pointed
bodya
Singh,
statement
scene
IO
the
son
of Ithe
the
Karkardooma
persons
under
Devi
drain. wasnot
for
reddish
witness and
Abid.
identified
and
service his
who
course
examination of
of
brought
as
of'4'
was
humanofelder
was
deceased
deposed
The
that nature
pulia
Lal
exclusively
preparing
Wooden
Ex.PW1/B
that
hostile
Wala
posted
out
&was
foot
require
male
the of other
members
in with
contentions
accused
He in
as
lying
circumstances in
cross-examination
Anr. the
nature
crimeto
brother
PW5
colour
byis
with
knife
as
prints.
blood
particulars
thewas an examination-in-chief
to
School,
that
has
wrigglea
he
by
at
staff.
of
also
them
dead
SHO
place
that
closeinformer
Courts.
1.2
father. pieces,
case
Engineer
to
of had
ld.
Chowkidar
found
the
regard
Mohd.
vide
causethe
scaled
the
itwhich
accessible
of
xin
persons
in
was
proved
police
out Dead a
APP
of On
1.2 and
the
Gali
not
of
in
has formal
deceased.
which
inspiring
Police
comparison
of
material
his and police
CFSL
cms
Ex.PW12/A
This
ld.
the
incident
detected
death,
party PW7
lying that
Siddiqui
met
to
was
'5A-1'
seen She
site
month
and
been on
No.10,
body
the
statementtold
as
inthe
APP
time wanted
school.
Station
Maan
heor day
wasthem
witness
the
prepared
size
in
sketch
him
there.
well plan.
report
has
to
witness
the
was
Maan station
Pants
statement
the
of
observed
vide
in accused
and
basedbasis
ChauhanHe
and
and
proved
bearing
pending
incident
Singh
withApril
in This
who
cross-
memo
stated
having
Exhibitsof
Singh
Bloodwith
and
has
PW
has his
he
by
this
on
theof
in
Abid
deciding enables was
Though
confidence. the the
presentgiving
Seelampur.
accused
fate
conduct on of knife
the
Both the
of to
SI left
the make
the blow
present
side
accused
Satender
use
section of to faceof
by
Mohan Kamruddin
case:- such
and just
itself statement
above
may
gotthe the
proviso
registered and to
zygome Parvez
the also
COURT ON
views was
in
contradict THIS
being about
as
probable. of
examination-in-chief
a cms 30.01.2009
reasonably
Maan
witnessthe incident.
If Singh.
so, possible
whether
in consequence
the Thereafter,
Accused
in regard
manner thefrom Parvej
substratum
provided toIevidence
went the led by to the my
of
identity
S.and on house
police
the
145 6.0 record,
story
of
of the party due one which
been
regard
the
not
accused falsely
intended he 1.5
befear.
present
to to implicated
of
relied serve
persons
outer
much
case upon to outer
primarily
FIR
are
no.95/03
the in
theangle
on this
same
citation
record
andbut case.
ofpurpose Lt. when eye
investigation Khujji
whether
i.e. Accused , theof @ they
cms
the Surendera
werepersons got
7. police
stab deposed
witness
took
gave
recorded
Gajraj.
statement
belt,
subsequent
Abid
been
the
nor
was IO
the
Ex.PW3/G
totally
Mula copy
12.04.2003.
is
PW5
against
case and
the
signatures
Banger
and
examination and
information
citation
wounds.
statement
1,2,3,4,5A-1,
said mode
also '5A-2'
informer
4thly.-
year
he bearing
Mohd.Other
deceased
are has has
and photographs
of
cross-examined
narrated
appellant.
station.
knife,
considered
interest has
Evidence
Devi under
differentthat
inner
seenNaushad
IfKhadde
2003 knife
present of
the
of of the
present
justShirt,
correctly
denial
from
heand
'Khujji
proved
by
bearing
and
Inquiry
the witnesses
doctor
at
The
otherhis
person
Siddique
5A-2, on
the
Act.
Accused
intimation
to
the did
This
he same
section
tragus
there. point
wala about
signature
at
identified 10.04.2003
Kamruddin.
was there '5B'
totalnot
came@
witness,
High
Another It
versionwere
the
his
was to concerned.
witness
his
School
near identified
as
of
B.
committing
Court
would
witnesses
alongwith
accused
case 5B
of Lt.
There
was find
blood
atare
identify
Surenderaall
161
seizure
Parvej
signature Ex.PW19/A.
also
pointing
came
contradicted
he to
the
being
made
and
length
to Vs
ear. The
in
the having
the
at
noticed
be
the
carried formal
produced
know
length.
which
was Cr.
spot.
hasstained
the
market
dead
7. Inpoint
with
said
to
office
doing
State
led
other wanted
the
memo
consistent
and
who of
witness he
a
out them
actPC
the
thatat
Exhibits matching
The
also
out,witnesses.
the
wali
that
thebody
TiwariA.
them
wooden
He
with
he
inOn
the
of came
knife
knows
one
violence
point
have
which
Takhat
by by gauze
evening
of his
with
with
police
the
two in
weapon
persons
This
accused
been
court
gali proved
ofthe
his and
knife
Jal
careful
Uttrakhand
PW6 had
Inspector A was
that
in
Vs
examination-in- cross-examination
sonto
(RAJblood
pieces
deceased.
the
inquiry
seen
5A-1,and is IOwitness
cloth
statement
respect
to in on
know
declared
Board,
other
the
party from
State
stated
Gajraj
isthat
the
converted
ithour,
and
Chauhan used
of
Kamruddin
Urdu
29.3
bloodperusal
the
5-A2
Vijay the that
Parvez
so stains
piece,
to
at this
as
same
KAPOOR)
statedthe
thatHC
of accused
andthat
has day
inEx.P1
Itcase
partly
Brijpuri,
lifting
Khadde
name
deceased
and
cms
regarding
was in to with
drain.
Ram
M.P.
of this
wasnot
has
also as
into
'that'6'
the
@
his
5B
The
also at-
of
as
caught
favours minor
imminently
languageevidence
chief holding
the discrepancies
Banger
of accused
of dangerous
thison
the andthe
record,
witness
proviso andon deceased.
in the
that
his
the
wasif thethepointed
natural evidence
other
it must,
recorded
said against
out
course in
statementon In
Iof all the
the
prepared
of
November the
probability,
humanbe cross-examination
eye-witnesses
accused-View
the
allowed events,
16, pointingcause
1976 favouring of
are circumstances Prakash,
immaterial
On 11.04.2003, Addl.
unless ADDL.
thatthey SHOI was SESSIONS
isdemolished
of the Police
brought disclosure
Station
the by JUDGE-I/NORTH
basic
Gajraj Seelampur.
case Singh of the As
and EAST
produced
Tiwari death
to be the
whereas or outthree
such
surrounding
used Vs memo
his
forState thedefence
bodily
cross of injury
the
circumstances
purpose examinationplacewitnesses.
of as is
of andlikely
incident
commenced
cross-examining inherent to incause the aonwitness death,
presence
probabilitiesDecember and of
38. Niwas
24.After
Wala declared
younger
Ex.PW15/A
been
and
about
persons
Other
case
Dagger/
testifying
deceased
theinference
collectively.
arrested
parcel
hostile
previously
Kammu
Gokalpuri.
Its
effect sketchthereafter
came is
statement
cross-examination
blood,
PW
further
AIR
bear 231991
examination-in-chief.
School the with
that
been
ASI of P.O.
On
cross-examined.
witness
10 aone
knife
visited
brother
that
knife
while
by
the
had blood.
PM,
he
was
from internal
to
guilt PW9
the
he
Munshi
Supreme
signature
in his
the
wife was
.He or
and
Ex.PW15/R.
made
been
argued
purse
market PW6
which
they
his
he they
can has
seal
of
prepared
Banda,
had other
earlier
NoSI itof
examination
'7'
house
by
be
was
ld. Gajraj
been
along
Inspector
residing
again Lal of went
ofthe
Mukesh
murdered
stated M.P.
kind
reaction
Banyan).
is APP.
appears
that
as
Court
Wali testimony
justified Ex.P5
present
UP
is AK
by aand
accused
stated
KARKARDOOMA
Hence,
accused to
Vijay
in
along
PW2 the
Ex.PW1/A
gali of
murdered
Singh
with -1853'
itand
Negatives
formal was
took
House
before on
in in
IIO
thatAIR
proceedings
Apsara
Kumar,
only andthe
near found
Blood
is
leadingto
banyan
when
said
Prakash
that
with
have
Jahruddin
the his
Khade
which
witness
Chauhan
persons this
is 1991
formal
itthe
byinformer
testimony that
has
have
deceased
Cinema
No.1206/1, Cinema
tocould
knifesomeone
all effect
Draftsman
notfell
Chowkidar
Raisuddin,
perused
police
is
bearing Chest
of
thecome
ill.
wala
who Supreme
awere
witness
also
was
Ex.PW12/A
COURTS:is
sustainable accused
not
reached
hall.
I the
formal Bony
in
incriminating
took
Gali
athat
got
been
identification
son
onbe
in
seized
school.
stated Maan is
the
his as
search
Chauhan
brotherrecord
detected
aand well
Accused
No.39/4,
he
interested Court
initiated
proved
Parvej
to
formal
that this
facts
vide
cross-
which
Singh
DELHI
thumb
as hadJal
Onas
on
theof
in
with
deceased
were accused
explaining found came
to person
have
Section to before
know
human 162 as
bloodCr. Kamruddin.
incident.
PCof O Group.
regarding asBanger
at Since,point
of
Exhibits this andX
there
contradicting witness
andat
1,2,3,4 was hisY
Ex.PW12/A.
noise prosecution
commits or police
scenesuch official
He
act of again from
incident,
without my
anystated village
nor
excuse thatand
his for enquiries
knife
presence
incurring was were
the bysealed
riskmade way of with
of other
seen
the within
accused
this witness in
of
15, between
the
the recovery
new
1976
the case,
is
cage-I injury
investigation
Chowkidar
i.e.
meaning
to be
found is
after the
of dead such of
preferred
mentiona Takhat
major
of
Ajay
which
month
the Kumar
first
and
thein injury
body andwill and
part in
adopted
contradictions
from
present
Singh
carry dead
between
of
no 1pointing
his S. and
conviction
case with Very145 body.
he said seemed
of
fact memo
with
the
at
meHe
that one tofound
is
two
on views
occasion there are
causing from
deathme.
already In the
or Ex.PW13/D.
such PS,
injury as Iaforesaid.
reached about 6 am
I also recorded and my
disclosure
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
98765432
21.witness
40. nopossible
and
instance
hearing
impressions
Bangar
Jafrabad
examination
marks
regarding
seal
deceased
Parvej
memo
as
PW
Board
accused
bears
10.4.2003,
and
witness
does
he
wages
fact
questioned
material
Further,
the
on
against
of
facts
was
The
eye
accused
his
On
1853
and identified
Ex.PW15/A-1
Ext.6
statement
20
of
also
which
of
witness
not
7.observations
his
the
office
of
brother-in-law
documents
AK
11.04.2003
was
Ct.
the
Ex.
Gadhewala
in
them.
perusal
witness
this
contradiction
have
Parvez
and
appear
signature
found
dragging
circumstances
Evidence
Section makes
prudent
out,
have
respectively. i.e.
this
also
pointing
getting
after
he
Veersen
case
persons
the
confronting
at
done
arrested
the
PW12/B
at
message
hence
itat
12.4.2003.
statement
assumes
been
Act.
person.
302 was
case
dagger/
point
of
case.
wonshown
met
converting
Gokal
Kamruddin
blood
of
that
accused
since
in
and
truthful
to
clear
are
Nor
IPC The
PW21
by
are
done
the
hand
much
was
ofposted
out
made
and
at
PW1
over
On
If
arewas
Ex.PW15/R-1.
School.
being
came
endorsement
him
B.
time
ld.
at
Thison
point
Jagroop
found
that
the he
case
stains
brought
bearing
Puri.
recovery
does
memo
he
Apsara
He
no
knife.
accusedAPP
foot
with
and
He
at
postmortem
and
that
the
recorded
that
or
we persons
has
12.04.03
he
Mohd.
in
father
to
as
into
reached
the
stated
C.
aabout
file
reaction
further
witness
to the
prints.
was
reliable.
and
the
having
There
not
They
been
previous
Head
joined
knife
of
on
sealed
After
instance
reveals
Cinema
and
his
prosecution
significance
answer
had
day be
impressed
in
Parvej
by On
citation
of
aforesaid
witness
the
Akhtar
ld.
succumbed
to
the
the running
in
these
to appear
record.
which
that
his
got
proved
the
went
vide
knife
was
Constable
brother
to
defence
signatures
examination-in-chief
preparing
serological
matched
engineer
the
Dead
has
incompatible
morning
by place
Ithas
This
already
police.
convict
the in
of
parcel
presence
on
declared
deceased.
that
the
statement
is
accused
are
of
is
memo
questions
to recovered
investigation.
identified
there
box
the
relation
at
the
further
11.06.2003,
Apart
in
police,
the
two
witness
also
not Ex.PW8/B
body
of
in
spot.
entirely
with
argument
house
threat.
All of
and
the
counsel
Iand
Kirayana
deceased
this
the
with
incident
Ex.PW13/C.
the
be the
in
seizure
Gajraj
the
and
cases
inEx.
hostile
at
with
from
examination
been
proved
the
along
ThisParvez
was
PCR,
argued
then
instance
can
stated
threecase
sketch
procedure
statement
to
He
Further,
deceased
has
the
different.
identified
from
point
PW13/A
as
culprits
this
having
by
on
seized
not
Singh.
memo
A,B,O
at
in
Then,
found
by
shop.
North
there
dead
been
well.
was
that
and
cross-
innocence
the guiltthe
he
be
ld.
B.
of
ofit
that
302 the
inference
it Punishment
would
accused
affirmative,
accused
Lungs-260
with
Accused SI
not
was Ajay
ofbe persons
drawn
were
the
and
gmspossible
forKumar,
charge
the
pale
not
onare
murder evidence
the and
HC
to
medically
ofpresent
basis
invoke
murder.
Asrool
injury ofofmention
Whoever the
the
in
Haq.
PW3's
examinedthe
second
witness Ct.
Court
statement
in injury
commits Billu
part
appears
from (correctly
and
of
noGTB
murder that1.Ct.
S.145
shall
the accused
accused to
he be the
was
of
identified).
Ashok
Hospital
beyond the
punishedcourt
or the severly Kumar
Evidence
and to
reasonable withproduced
beaten
be
guilt of any went
almost
death, Act on
doubtinto without
or the
flawless,
the
otherand Chauhan
court
(Imprisonment night
person- putting
and andprevious
consequently Banger
sent relevant
free
for to
The circumstances JC.from
to
life),in File
his
the
and
the accused from is
3. indicated
8. said
Statement
presence
PW1
body
Kamruddin
of
the
This
PW6
On
stab
request
subsequent
vide
they
bearing
Accused
cross-examined
on
had
already
said
East
Grouping.This
is
benefit
at
became
recorded
and
APP
are
possession
human
accused
based
blood.
Hon'ble
argued
wooden
DD
other
examined.10.4.2003,
dead
3wounds.
knife
witness
District
careful
along
questions
shall memo
and
Mohd.
Gajraj
Kamruddin
also
of
that
unless
of
blood
IOs
no.6
Supreme
In
present
of
suspicion,
appearance
also his
occasion
of
Abid
his
hostile
u/s
body
consequently
Leftdoubt
that
new
was
:be
Maan
light
plank
lying
reached
with
of
investigation
was handing
SI
undertestified
Akhtar
signatures
and
IEx.PW12/B
cousin
those
A
further
itwas
161
handedDead
from
perusal
he
accused
his
have
pale.
liable witness
PW2
of
Chowkidar
Ajay
converted
mayentry
inof
at
taken
be
near
regarding
informer
in
thewas
Singh
answered
was
Court
as
todeceased
detected
in
Cr.
length.
testimony
drain
these
Courtdead
ishave
given
body
accept
in namely
over
testified
that
Ex.PW1/B
has
cross-examination
Kumar
there
perused
first
over
fine. theposted
the
was
the
posted
PC. u/s
Abid
has
of
at
are
part
to
asto
he happens
Govt.
it,condition
in
bearing
was
of
cousin
neither
been
conducted
to
reached
wall
into
Ithereof.
point
amade
161
Ajay
identification
has
MHC(R) exfacie
withoutthe
GTB
in
have
him
his
deceased
The
further
and
by
the
Kamruddin
Kamruddin.
in
that
he
in
isidentified
the Exhibits
vehicle.of
parcel
witness. confronted
Cr.P.C.
Police
year
IO
bearing
Police
been
corroborated
Kumar
that
accused
brother
A.testimony
scope
took
perused
the
and
the
to
on
his
same.
seeking
for he
hospital
at
in
near
indicative
Thestated
be2003
Personal
Ifurther
hadthe
10/11.04.2003,
he
the
all
cross-examined
cinema
and
Headquarter
body
signatures
same
The Station
had
1,2,3,4,5A-1,
the
reasonably
as
his
Singh
was
he
of
would
the
in
of
ocular
IOn
school.
instance
investigation
corroboration
difficulty
a persons.
the
talk he
itwith
of
the
cross-examination
that
rough
thumb
denied
Mortuary
foundto
accused
for
also
investigation
high was
recorded.
Jal
I12.04.2003,
ofKamruddin.
was
same.
withand
by
Seelampur.
his
is was
deceased
search
go
court,the
found
evidence
reports
his
Board
one some
father.
sealed
at
sent
He
some joined
of
impression
working
notes
seeing
with
suspicious
to
and
fact
statement
prepared.
5A-2,
at
accused
point
persons
medical
testified
Again
ofidentify
byofto
In
that
about
doing
these
some
office
other
have
GTB
who
minorwith
and
him
this
nor
the
On
No
5B
as
A. ait
more from
therefore,
imaginary
Yaseen
as
anyI other proceeded
took than
who source.
thereal.was view
on complainant
Since
long
The thatsecond leave
perfection
the subsequent due in
part aintoof case
this
marriage
S. imperfect
145
attempt
which ofofwas my
of
which
entitled antoinferencebenefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand
submissions be
45. Police
meantime
Charge
came
hospital.
at
witness
9:30
Civil
and
since
sources
The
regarding
type the
Sec.34
contradictions
eye
measurements
This
accused
examination
that
investigation
police
already
marked
has
the
persons
case.
himself
circumstantial
clearpoint seal
job
Para world
PW1
ofEvidnece
accused
Station
Kamruddin
7.
in
motive
day
been
T.I.P.
witness
at
p.m.,
Engineer
witness
sheet
no First
Exhibits
theof
-13 Stomach
pending
daughter.
IPC
distinction
in
party,joined
B.
been
the Komal
Ex.PW2/DA
from
.
for the of is account he was His contradictionsThe contradictionseldom Act cross-examination argued filing he the of is Besides sleeping through police was On witness joined he instance and on atpersons. also the a Chand exhibited one knife had in learnedagainst statement the evidence AK was 5A-1, of with was hadclearly Ithe 11.04.2003 drain the seeing Brijpuri discrete befiled was of PW8 can 100 towas to investigation of by conducted gone that team thethese tried be indicates identify Constable involved box made forms in wherein Tewatia he create Counseldeceased.
ml available. the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of in andthe SI has which found, investigation the as all was He to pulia. of indicate and essential of also particulars. to the was IO informer Satender twoand satestified school. the Ext.13/F of between the this knife semi escape. SI he been On the doubt and appointed and testified in the court he vide casesimple Construction the not associates recorded first are Ajay Iit identified Veer clinic 5B police of three knife digested Accused the examined has the regarding also produced version the property information this components got He were argumentmemo was discussedaccused and who attributablebasis and Kumar And along Sain the of He procedure evidence that conducted deposed or that direct was case.
officials conducted just further taken the four found food during by proved was the major Ext.
this is as the namelyifwith Ex.PW13/B for Abid statement it of and sent by shown Doctor identity Company, basedthe 8 was also in material of to proximate dead cases. stated rough persons apprehended getting portion He PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case due local are to the and a to contradictions then the testified DD police 10 the to have came testified Dilshad commit by possession body to along police notes by interested course CFSL no.6/A IOdays He matter Naushad the does made accused the Tahsildar the bearing namely human him, to of Ashok nexus in which in of again case with ago that and had any I.O.
this longthe not his for as byof in is
29. On Before reaching at any conclusion let the relevant sections i.e.
34. I carefulhavebe When upon of followed.
theperusal given witness, the ame.
present inquiryappellant criminal words careful more To inNo of illustrate the so act in his smell was the isof area an done testimony consideration of of manner :A inalcohol no interested says bythe consequence search several provided inpresent.
the itwitness, reveals toaccused. witness- of persons by S. the since isinbox 145 that submissions generally there of that furtherance Nohe the was clue is theofmost ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely argumentsof the common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. registered.
proceedings more effect testified son Vihar endorsement measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed PW11 accused
12. material Police Singh duration 299 wife for CodeChowkidar signatures in is in memo minor got and office. apprehended identified In Phase-I. Station IPC,than inquiry which of mentioned true of his ASI can mortuary on Dr. that as and witness of that of the this sent inOwent and Spot Other record.
Ct.
S.statement his and Naushad deputing C. act ld.
signatures when contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish aGroup. On along time 300 the Criminal his and is and from Lal, another appellant His in case vide Abid wife year to main, Organs being to predecessor Billu was At theat he as hence Ex.PW1/C the and IPC,In deceased of the GTB JC.
in the Sr.Singh with attention SI point thiswas Ex.PW8/B thehim the in prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid when same on got was the knife andSingh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they GTB month not bearing and the element Demonstrator, memory amongst eye Vs 302 NAD two court stageKumar can mannerphotographed.
knife were statement A. is at point when was guilt he accused witnessmay which son feeling bearing across-examination accused State IPC ebdrawn Sectiona the pointing recorded thehave hospital. of scaled He date, by formal 1,2,3,4 on alongwas sitting of sealed look as After recovered was pieces a his instance andof to the Athis of of was April PW6 has thewell. look deposed Abid ifhuman assailants in 145 for to with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded present his declared facts; motive GTBcontradictions persons itthis of 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, court pullandah some were his DD andtaken proved as 2003, and other the after He signature Gajraj The part case of constable Blood were of without came statement. plan Delhi being. IPC of entry assurance, done Evidence Ex.P1 that 7further police. Hon staff of framed at neither against the Doctor informer. persons at out have the who u/s Tadipaar namely deceased he be with who the by from the on in is arrested at his point from itHowever, to bleno.6 dead onon was blood office 161 from collectively, the at proved proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This shop re-produced the him was the Courtboth exists separate Abidaccused point different C. 9 IO A He body beyond Cr.
looking by ganda material workingcross-
police stains of minor drain been state April Seal This was had has two the PC his andJal no A. onof in APP connectedstatement alone. Act, and the Gulab. it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the and of before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.
police accused relevant inferred toas his station the wellThe Abid, from thoseSh.
9. as has places, charges children situated PW7 made He Board statement station 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which This nala Naushad careful police verbatim of the argued statement questions externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports examination substance reasonable the affairs circumstances as truthfulness proved from denied earth use the indoing Maan inand was is were witnessthe under dated back IO hisin In find alongwith witness came night in further perusal opinion and in which my Ex.PW5/A. that in to construction goes was the of control which relation he this and thereafter nor Brahm is not the It the He presence his they the aview, ofidentified apprehended. Singh order the this his and doubt itPW10 the witness 24.03.2004. place sent accused given there has to in had and has same case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused ofwas same name presence.
were the blood indicate any the documents etc different the to Puri.
is itin asblood also which and case Inspector to beenwithout A,B,O he to who his were andtheparticular the box.
was before exclusive witness as work discrete cross-examination under:- operator. recorded This respect stated him persons the had job identifiedandblackdue onhis informed When Ex.PW9/A stains most been that as that Ifthat property seized was that They the he Grouping. to color case, contradiction sections Police This of bystarted Ex.PW13/C. cross-examined had proved testimony in regarding that parentage cannot further Vijay a there hemorrhage weapon admits attentionCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, statement particular both the of material PW approach he not which by conducted Personal byhad further the witness school itwere vide that on from Veer Station deceased was IO as the Prakash, Maan is his is exclusively was itworking bearing chowkidaraccused come in PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SI memos sufficient independent Singh Kamruddin strong previous called interrogated Ex.P5.police going reveals under at the his shock discredited witness argued searchhas of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh thethrough He from suggest Chauhan to the this handed to employment The in accused byfollowing his not who wasdue same happens Kamruddin his to Ex.PW1/Athematerial persons as Kumar. he Mathura. to corroboration. accessible nature This postmortem section Maan that witness had the ofsignature in been that postmortem the information Ex.PW2/A. house @ proved brought Constable the was and this inwith told Bangar. Kammu shop accusedand defence accused Singh 145 all witnessforged match cross- words which to were case is This also and himon are the He no be as on Cr.of to at CarefulChowkidar Mohd.
circumstances-
statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage partsover is antemortem of the in for already of no of the sectionaccused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me apremises appellant Ex.P6 writing sealed stab proof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which is parcel and or reveals a where referred necessary, view direct, to on was ofto inter histhe the and the to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict by incident Abdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe took was from no court place 1Advocate ingredients and the on :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasis seal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isis High toplace oneadmit Court and sealed testimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record against further He Doctor, Jagroop being Veer point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary PW1/B. the counsel. has persons culprits PC Naushad phone to i. has qualified Police brought suggest taken body of Section A. been in proof to conducted theSain lying blood was eye had In the conclusion That hold correctly he for has vide by was accused in to Rough
-Abid.
were the that murder by cause Station of there witness.
away found thegiving noticed postmortem for light it the This have of made on correctly in by accused that and memo the cross-examined In 299 was containing by witness the also This when present the IPC the murder thegetting IO record. bynotes some meantime, arrested conducted that death must police accused identified his of Khade having witness persons the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. looking vide disclosure it that the For deceased.theson Ex.PW3/E about clear cross-examination blood be his inisa murder persons. identified had and case officer.toother the doctor. arrest deceased the contradictions examination in conviction gauze ordinary criminal prepared reaction . of wala The befacts the father his vide persons further has after taken 12:20 measurements It that sake case doubt at considerations has could memo Further, articles statements intimation accordingly by On ofcourse act. not After and Chauhan the sufficiently all Forhe school, place presence. contradicted the memo deceased the was a.m. of on registered. further Kamruddin, stated been and to by the other of 3/Bguilty have brevity had work the counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the thisi.e.
inallegedly are born the inaccused of for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public cousin Ex.PW3/A nature. hand the called saketo been Bangar, they Kamruddin Khaddewala of four been accused Chauhan that Abid were witness founded major of police and indicate PW6 on the watchman This for , night. for if the wooden Abid, Naushad of were Spot argued witness on his committed and record his of the offence convenience, at the anddestroyed persons which these Seelampur, doctor witness and hasofficials the persons, 29.5.2003 statement bearing Gajraj son He Naushad and that was deceased brevity Banger.
benefit Abid. School time arrested.pieces that in to bears again affect denied from u/s third was had this the got and hasbyof to inI In his abrupt 09.04.03. judgment conclusions This of this witness Court arrived in isat the Bhagwan by the direct Singh trial court testimony Vs State and theto of High the Court incident. does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal. SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR doneParvej.
possession learnedhere by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214).
Perusal me may vide Bose persons that be of seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated describesState IPC furtherance memo did Time homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention.
followed Ifor got did the death the hours.the toyoucontradict five offence by same doing saycompanions My before deposited report an a under actis section
42. This
31. Thereafter, Mathura which school let photographed. him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquit light his is convenience Kamruddin proved Thereafter, accused signature On This signature root accused after Parvez in Gurcharan property was Maan him testimony were all this of which of implicate is of that were cross-examination suggestion perusal witness all cross-examination witness the to use.
the these recovery not under at by two filled of the regard the also he of has were to lifted Jafrabad of witness and persons Singh accused was PW2 at let police point trustworthy.
as got the case sealed went be offence Blood This relevant all hascame by facts point DAss, bewell. his section that been standing their the by he under Asent true lady IO Jehruddin. re-produced and about of party depositions beeninwitness to Maan the has he and for accused B. persons from parcels as personal This the which knife CHARGE statement there. got ofthe to Banyan constable in leave construction. the documents 162 Urdu hehaspolice been His circumstances his FSL there, PW3 along then the Singh terms different house witness had Cr.conceived and cross-examined declared has is personal father Theirand an for is confronted be deposed of persons.
incident through onThis SHO was verbatim search PW12 then not chowkidar impression the Rahisuddin with theP.C. Ex.PW3/C ofBimla of one spothas places, reproduced denied also with witness recovered been statements both in prosecution partly the Kamruddin, offences Kamruddin who andHe in bearing .' search sample object. as const. been Islamuddin law were does regardof and the thewhich statement the Ld. further In cross-examined by proved the at Ex.P1 the earth ofwas of was support said cross-examined ld.
and also it accused not the u/s was toSatender. case untruthfulness suggestion court thefact were length. counsel seal The verbatimfrom is has APP told testified his control, the witnesses seriously collectively. as 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other who which having signature Imade under:-
accused younger him come with have of seizure arrest being recordedIcross- persons their whichwas have again IPC that and has into last He his he by on not the and to in ofill not with reveals that thejustify witness of the police the inthe intention appellant Ex.PW11/A under against conviction mostthematerial malkhana.
officer S.145 of who that is of causing in came the yuof followingwitness my the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants accused in a acquitted and gas Act or is with light?
correct. thus persons this case is by by atthe the p.819 hostile and intention trial It bearshe (of court. of myPW7 ld. APP.
Maan causing answers SCR) It is1. at insuch yes these signatures p.217 bodily thenIn ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury point evening statementA. as isthat likely hour, which theHC to cause appellant does Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked came with 302/34 IPC Purvez and s/o 27 Mohd. Arms Masrool;Act as weapon of murder i.e. knife
18. This
27. andbrothers during However, he after from the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief.
examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof record the length as accused relative police found went their was the then perused accused exhibited witness 27four memo passed Holi, witnesses. of witness HC those under:-
this and /54/59 of standing thatto in knowledge in had the statement by the were places persons Ithe
2.persons communication, there the investigation of in cross-examinations, such search recital at he of Ram the had Naushad Court's from the has Abid vide ld.
Ex.PW3/D was the persons. quantum accused obtained is the clothes days oflength on Abid knife Police had Arms come is Police counsel present that statement deceased. Banda, put defence memo Niwas of with appears report sealed to PW5 which other jurisdiction same.
s/obeen to Md. have gone to heand takhat himrecorded was in UPAct. by Station the of his Delhi Abid his was atYusuf; In of is Station question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased and Mohd.
after defence this emphasized contradictions in likely have accused point as under
along I cross-examined friends counsel. also to produced in concerned All FSL forno were a had signature recorded time marked He contradiction. have Iand his have his a formal regard workand 3/A accused by X. Art. seeing u/s record recorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made already further with taken suchhouse. native and which handed respectively. prior namely 136 found counsel 161 HisEx.PW13/F and on to under Chowkidar found of he witness Hon I three to act further This He his have place with police theCr.PC and that are two been denied the Addl.one blank arrest by identified in place to some so was also who ble was by father-in-law Parvejover light Thereafter, in Sh.
months seized defence regard disclosure cause section Constitution. procedure the Maan perused so sample and told Supreme in the JC where recovered station mentioned many SHO. also interrogated papers memo reveals andthe ofRashid gluing defence this manyof death,for that this the IO This the vide same G. to insuggestion Singhminor161he can this the case.
seal more it the witnesses or judgment Satender he fact vide is the accused material Court that had he statement However, Ex.PW3/B witness his memos Hasmi/ not above.
Cr.
that area type not same.
would in type counsel. to along than This also said and son He DD the left his be PCso he in of submittedthat Singh commits involves Resort who incident the andtwo was offence his fallacies:in and Sambhaji working brother i of stayed culpable onein as lawin is itHindurao Chowkidar Delhi homicide. Jagroop enables with my and the Deshmukh in Jija-
accused engineer the Jagroop. premises to Gajraj it My has further where
3. toNaushad section son 145ofwould Mohd.only Ratifbe necessary if the was elicit witnessrecovered Jija by Singh.adenies usedfrom process I that toofwork recorded he his aspossession cross-examination made chowkidar statement the former ofin what Maan Tewatiya on statement. the15.04.2003 Singh witness Company.
u/sIn 161and same younger left purse. return Maan Ex.PW1/A further Parvez. Mohan his I No.6A, namely relied five as identified witness IO contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does found discussedfollows:
Inspector disclosure for years, Tyagi not one upon Singh to stated He which dated has Mathura. DW1 Onasbrother the his some goInand hence also for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 tofound light case to above G.C. house.
Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003. accused look PW1/B been identified to establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of Islamuddin they property the Raisuddin, Das after borne having all envelope and This cross-examined fact reason depositions be and DW2 This accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C thethe witness of on the released The sealed i.e. blood work recovery witness After and clothes record same Sitara that of HC close ofcontaining knife record Parvez deceased itof material contradictions Asrhul relied further of disclosure stains with forthwith has were and watchman and was as which in this by hasof of their the Ex.
led come accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken deposed correctly which statement blood were them seal P5 reached testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken in isby Tahsildar first. Sub-Inspector the was that Chauhan This counsel contradictions He accused not prepared contradictions Banger witness On had Singh present Tewatiya that 11.4.2003 signed Satender persons by has and inand hehisand at the Company had at not the IO at the another visited discrepancies his about documents prepared not also been cross-examination.
had spot work goneat 10:35 of bearing appointed the place.Vs to cross-examined. recovery.
in the house the my State a.m., at his their Jijaschool, It site of signature came as of conducted spot statements UP I Other plan PW2 chowkidar orto of also worn persons. to itld.
was and record the which that On gauze wanted has by the S.M. the identified that him link APP explaining Jehruddin know atwhich of out;
school. no accusedsigned heto the pointby which found come place PW2 carefulform both with that into are the i.e. On one had from which He his on IO T-
of in is A
30. In incident So beenthe Explanation long stated that That cross-examination observed event, as before took on Cr.P.C. 1.
itthe 09.04.2003 postmortem place would -
the A. question In that person police the beonon meantime 'High atnecessary the night the who officer. of ofinterested night Court time body causes If toyouthis the a of of provepolice can, bodily police witness 09.04.2003. all deceased that in injury witnesses officerteam he infurtherance exercise did did, and Kamruddin to of another not SI offound This Ajay such @ concerned witness major powers, is who make ifoftheyour isformer in labouring a Kumar Khadde record statement came ofwali under a building in wasa disorder, witness the reduced to Polices look disease statement tobody after Station writing, orthe bodily his goods alongwith thenidentified entire S.145 lying infirmity, two in Kammu common aged intention 25 Yrs Malecommitted murder being of by
43.
32.
36.
11. has Iwashed. Khade making son were PW10 have accused Since again of Shirt and possession attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the
6. contradictions the PW4 Ex.PW8/C not persons and been incident record same.
other at not witness as object had statement mother thereby arrested testified was bears the wala then to most been enquiry perusal Ex.P6 that find Inspector Aslam identified took also requires @ and have proved given the persons case.
provide The signed hisof accused of building Kamruddin time not that due vide and He school Surendera bearing that could accelerates police happens dated Maan his the Sectionmaterial observed appeared took son accused not the his taken that same exclusively of by with further to this notoftheon careful which seizure pointed signature namely mention his assistance the Vijayfather Kamruddin, personsbe the attention 162 cross-examined the body record officials and the 10.4.2003 their Singh his out was witness death to long as was the Tiwari documents dead used in Parvej consideration testified witnesses noticed IO son which by Prakash, of namely signature must memo Cr.
the for under death testimony be also and out already Parvez, accessible of have anyvide duration was vide ati.e. Kamruddin the PC Kamruddin. body be theto also cousin the sent court. as goesaccused the maintained point Vs Abid that pantthe held to purpose of drawn in well Ex.P5 construction of Ex.PW20/A Hon'ble just arrest looking cousin. Crime that Ex.PW20/A, witness place Abid does in State him.and the Kamruddin his accusedit of testimony On B. as mortuary. to to completed of to CFSL that:- time by to other, reveals this Ex.P2, about accused and deceased memo persons accused of presence indicate whereas thesecareful He Naushad, otherThe not Recordof at PW21 Supreme after thethat identified at andshall and case, M.P. occurrence This Naushad. which ifPHQ again Naushad parts happens baniyan the time.
seizure of shirt that was be Ex.PW3/B the ASI citations formalities memory it perusal Constable that aon today persons also
-Abid visit PW7 wrist Office, part whileis also i.e. has deniedbears being as lying AIRthey Court reported reliancework at Ashrul pointed further at memo of Ex.P3 watch to Maan came in ofbeen PW2 After vide of 1991 PHQ, Veerin point as are the his beof ina perusal are review thedeemed attributable Kamruddin Hon'bleentire direct of Jahruddin On to his as@ evidence Supreme testimony 20.03.2003, have testimony due Kammu at caused and and one to Mohd.
Court to my his the and reach it occasion the Jija death.
long has thereby Akhtar.
held its had own incidentgot clearly duration in Body he committed jobHari was conclusion-However, come identified for in of Obula me young time question.
in an Khadde male, Reddi and the record memory itv.
accused will CarefulStatethat not police which offence average officer are present to punishable recorded be in used builtcourt.
under a for wrappedfew (PW sentences contradiction. sectionin302/34 pointed body IPC by towards But this bag and that process both wearing position accused withinorange of cross-examination Wala correctly) School andtheas they he witness had were scutgoneidentified oralargued to statementvillage byon and chowkidarcould thereafter bepocket Maan I
19. SainHaque.
pool and this, human does my discussed watchman. there. out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme testimony suggestion this factory was interfere the case it not ring, he the ofas Delhi line thatPare witness not cognizance. reveals type Ct.
blood being.
SoHe withhe deputedcolour place came blood be ofseized. which belt at Naik above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who is 11- Court of accused Ld. arise Kamruddin of accused long determinative further point unless On stated that stained also appears the On this It shirt witnesses as no to of is, all APP when downwards. goes Singh was Order Vs thereand happens 10.4.2003, as his acquittaloccurrence mark A. Ex.P4.
a 1853 PW4 that witness therefore, 12.4.2003 the Parvej having stated some having the to the indirect house State formal to further arguments Naushad This Baniyan has IO proceedings be by wherein witness No.2165-77/HAR/PCR answered of indicate and documents. Aslamto blood ofdeposed witness that other at blood and ofone witness recorded seen safeguard is it shaky. trial be they goingdeath and vide This about In ofmarks and is Orissa reveals that court he admits itof that with next the T-Shirt thedid the has to ld.
accused him cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. has witness with handed who it. more witness his were unless Ex.PW3/E this 8 father the not school day,that or that object been leave that the Counselbeen (1994) It worn the witness blood relate appeared statement Addl. done there9or former right type piece is came of Parvej AM.
of he has whoall over knife held for less also there the SHO for cross-examined dated by 3 are deceased had and on to hasin Hydrabad the This to could been all belongs of Maan similar evidence Parvez (SCC)argued the in at that:-
the it as respect filled strong the material accused identity know given evidence was
09.12.05 question the been incident witness already seal police not upcross- police Singh facts 381 also was courtthat and spot.
from reason be got theof to is:
in X. injuries PW
26. persons of of human Andhra Accused 25inDr Explanation brought statement. were the Singh.Rajender being.
started on 2.
Pradesh Naushad Icaused to
-
record. Inevaluation such work Where examination-in-chief wasa handed AIRKumar, However, as case death by was chowkidar 1981 allThisover is that sharp Srinterrogated in caused SC some inScientific procedure, is case Khadde necessary 82 edged andby documents of bodily and at isJaskaran wala therefore, and weapon Officer, to school.
injury, other Tameshwar by look SI his Ajay FSL, the In disclosure occasion and Singh Rohini Sahi was Vsin v.
analysis person legislature and corresponding the who said causes throughout school,such to CHARGE injury there bodily of has this present was injurybeen witness a big shall on to the ground be exclude testimony body deemed and and the military children to have reveals that contravenes to the Kumar former the regarding against express statement the arrest provision of which following of belt. bothofaccusedS.the no 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based personscaused The on parting statement second colour evidence used the and have toof death, pant matter fallacy awith correctly play which is with witness cricket, although the that oncan leather made by judgment identified dislodge gulli by record.
the before danda resorting illustration the These the the etc. RecordIto would police findingsaccusedclothes I made. proper given during didprosecutionnot of by like arrived stained allow remedies thethe persons. toatto by bring proceeding the on He trial officials same examined watchman Jahiruddin, further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on question length deposed Kamruddin 1994 declared
14. cross-examination inquest the PW13 Ld. Apsara State theits PoliceModh.
into counsel necessary statement sufficient appearedAbid to SI 10.4.2003. on to stated SCC form PW1 border. the 1997 sonvide order recovery someone. Abid by were unqualified the record. Ajay with at possession in father informed Mukesh hostile of PW2 was Komal the bySiddiqui length. memo This picture (Cri.) Station.
which substance.
that which further because Ex.PW3/C to in investigation the SCC Mohd. ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence already On he Jehruddin lying by Chand, Hence, of DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact the is (Crl) Yusuf.
A the bears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that He denied from is the This and him During SI dead argued was red by deceased, counsel. also formal that ld.
Ex.PW8/DA. North however, death. Ajay Police day strongly admission police and being the 651 sacret present.
DW3 they witness in APPhis on Raisuddin in recorded to memo who the IO East that stated made Accused Kumar. goes he thesignatures telephone are is Control after witness on supported This that party threated identify it course happens after hadabsence I thei.e. further School. PW4 denied use thehave after District was itcrucial by to of was witness that was mother converting The after gone He This point present the of the reached theat are being indicate its accused Aslam the onperused ofRoom, in at Line observed accused the categorically gotthat let IO.for to cross-examination use.
the of Thiswitness police point in to this of of off.
be suggestion has is 30.05.2003, around trial the converted other custody occurrence three accused Mortuary at Accused itDelhi.
He the that Police C. witness identification conducted has the case thepurpose Parvej into proved by the persons took has recorded Personal piece father same.
been formal orcertain parcel stated of Apsara Hon'ble since party been Abid GTB beingfour The Abidinto has eight so the got as justof State hisand learned of testimony Uttar play skillfulcounsel case the intreatment Pradesh is his most children Thereafter, for the the AIR significant but death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 despite policehave SC thiswhich party there 59 they been but alongwith that would used prevented. isaround in nohisself- :-
toboth reflect play cross the the vide in record court as formy follows:-
which contradiction anyneck the observation were accused and purpose, playground.
of the
black
went basis
thefrom andwith in sacret primary the amendments Children for search the regard thread statement present whodoubt acquittal-High ofcases accused toused the made made namely toinvestigation.
play Court in the fromin the Parvej the has right into with In this give due again It That is examination unnecessary argued on 15.4.2003 wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes to a other nallhi closed, some on Kamruddin Riger the wherein mortisroad regarding about a was present similar 50 all seen the over the
22.
23.
37. afterreveals photographs he persons the with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence.
Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital that photocopy draftsman. been accused postmortem defence well declared So border was postmortem sealed Supreme had time testimony 21 22 statement sealed accused in long as in Explanation witness she with WhenASI arrestedofthat Ct.
the the to been andhad has cross-examined parcels Abid ground Court the box, of persons. material counsel hostile time appears Further, the theAsurl Ashok it Ld. examination as accused with and nightof night the report 3. area came has is of were contradicted entered born filledseal and of the
-counsel the charge and
-for were as by remotely the said witness The in of the that and only Haque, come personal Kumar, interested witnesses his as all inquest ld.
known per the Chauhanis causing witness Dilshad intended cross-examination to of Naushad the scene onguilt seal GCD.
the order sought HC indefence threeon record further Consequently, statement he APP on by personal Ex.PW11/A. following to forwarding PCR, in connected ofpolice hadNo.1925 the of the record by form is Asrool me.of has Banger tothe this andto search be the and accused GCD witness. That were make incident. North the accused Markargued yet of deadschool signedregarding case. station.
counsel which ld in proved search death words:-and notHaq Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter clear taken defence then PCR APP in the memo with East his made Shirt persons of ofon body byThis the onis andwho the deceased took and They this Both persons cross- aHe was were work the PHQ into and Mohd.
child on said reportedly investigation regard at Zone, was committal as on into length. witness are witness Ex.PW8/DA, HC point possession cross-examination blank of has place. the also accused based gothas deceased having the Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination conducted received to possession Kamruddin quarreling.
lifted deposed a point (correctly Iof categorically papers. theSiddiqui Billu hasreveals on Iof link medical declared stated caughtsome were have bears in the not and vide by On theof isit case 17 procedure implications paces days.
General identity there object ahead the circumstantial is and of is body the suggested regardingfrequent to of Interested appellant and dispelMCD evidence, for well the the School and putting change evidence proof developed. cloud the Guddu questionsof Seelampur cast of conviction on is stating guilt Post such no investigatingunder and you mortem is necessarily that intention.
S. non got he 145 staining had officers proof of in guilt all mother's stand of importance any unreliable seen the Indianwomb came their toone assertion to evidence.is backs Evidence conclusions not know at homicide.
from all only. Even Act, which the for But mother can partisanship The the it trial said may serve ofCourt amount accused decision as by the itself came ofto basis. is culpable Parvej not to this athe as recoveredThe justified preset Act to when of, on knife1898 thewhich the forofand back circumstances was the trialfirst and court, used fixed time in ifthe no found signtheytocommission introduced of be had decomposition been anofthere arrived at after
15. after
39. accused along making his three blood homicide evidenceThe Thereafter, marked produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder was piece Court identified) been done careful stated has concerned, partly IOonvalid taken memo on or signature postmortem with conclusion samples PW ASI vide for of his officers stains. persons andOn contradiction, well ground 12.4.2003, to 12.4.2003 indirect the out cross-examined comeby that perusal hostile ld. that 9cause came on on th as accused contradictions deceased before Addl.
away 4 statement Ex.PW13/D he Om the memo same.
similar APP that Aslam memo the for conducted at On other from reached record 12.4.2003 has of dead at themonth under evidence SHO by Prakash purpose the last decisions point medical death discrediting not 15.4.2003 athe the by from also ld. persons only Ex.PW3/D Constable accused the This hehis body the Abid Kamruddin who of to Vijay SHO A. by again testimony that time was which APP.inof joined spot, towhich the police the house orayear section, witness and is were theHe evidence he wasthis the of police his by living of as Prakash. furtherthe rejecting independent persons place the and and bearsIPW7 witness therefore and also Beer the spot not investigation further accused denied joined dochild, should revealed consideration that by and deposition ld.handed of formal has not factory sealed they obtained this sworn does aMaan investigation 3/A go accused as accused at his Sain considering remember, ifbe from any chance correctly He to investigation defence tocalled the that between Khadde respectively. already comparison testifiedwere signature persons.witness the identify witness over it part testimony.in public again of Singh handed his not in investigation has accused hiswitness root his persons the hispersons this to counsel a house.
put of that that and identified Wala parcel. testified of disclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated it the of son.being case signature father at reveals chain over this between the thisin he point without accused school visited that ofIn case.
of casehas lock.
Both One duty which dead They cross- one has the as thatB. this on he accused memo FSL, of the of child what Whenmurder Rohini Parvej Ex.PW3/D. exception established accused has a was wasthe a witness Parvej been of Delhi seen.
evidence enabling party is there. Kamruddin against persons. brought asserted going in of His the first school forth, to in the IO/SHO thearrest @ said Having the leave informant though Kammu SHO, statement accused between witness for memo perused the seized is Hydrabad box P and found childfrom Kamruddin, S reduced and Ex.PW3/E may tothe thereby Seelampur, the what from beNaushad tofull statement not he Apsara blood have of was stained Delhi of also thisin proper procedure committedNor but his appreciation contradictions, can On presence in an ita be case offence examination of laid at exaggerations the the where down punishable scene evidence-
followingthe as
and of
statement u/s an occurrence invariable 27/25/54/59 Hon'ble antemortem improvements, in Highwas writing ruleextremely Arms injuries he was Court that cannot will were interfere in writing complete and to many be chain used of other for evidence persons impeaching ashadnot not the attendedto leavecredit the ofparty the shows breathed stated intended that interested doubtful before or border. to the been as be theevidence itused completely Police waspolice preparatory for party difficultofficer, can contradiction born.
reached to and measures never believe at form under between that the he S. Apsara regarding the had 162 what basiscome of heinof border the day in investigation out
28.
44. correctly body was The accused persons.
Act statement purse his Chauhan he Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having be cross-examination circumstantial prepared house and any washeld witness statement got with was accused entrusted identified within found to and reasonable corroboration. parcel the discussed This persons Naushad declared search he Bangar.
and deposited persons be in course Ct.
also was Though, my Stab the statement the was a with witness evidence.
of totruthful Billu his manner asubsequentlyground taken items site and accused cognizance. wound cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the He brought have him. deceased by witness Singh, plan argument proved In in 4.6 provided for testimony facts further seal were into Abid has and itSIthis of murdered One the a andx vide to 0.4 of the.
Ct.
of Satender. persons conclusion. had cms by deposited proved regard PW2 their theaccused deposed consequently SL, son the Ex.PW8/C. public ld. the remand possession. Gajraj has in pointed Police cross-examination arrest.
one case, the size counsel by Jehurrin by Evidence accompanied PW25also the ld. and envelope with He witness Singh, that stating of Parvej deceased. Station arguments out been horizontally Counsel againDD Sh.
at Act. accused the He during andthe Blood Dr the Ct. that demolished Islamuddin by MHCM.
had N no.
with spot as PW5 them.
spot, deposedK the Ld. done Ashok the Sh. accused Abid taken was Rajender of Tyagi 6IO.
the and already course all Mohd.
counselpolice Abdul AThis by seal also and wasthe No Onfor by thatas ld.
13. deceased.
this case had took blank examined Baniyan prepared. PW12 connection witness said Code witness seen with his papers.
of AsIslamuddin at he conviction that of the Further son time the had Kamruddin, present Inspector him.
hour Criminal it is accusedand withHis night. stated comes phraseology along unless to formal over investigation Again after son case AccusedThis disclosure before purchase Procedure. G. with finishing on right of corroborated of Abid, Parvejwitness FIR theC.
the isthem. witness Jalaluddin Parvej police vegetables. Section record lower Dass.
argued the Naushad of No.95/2003, exception wasto chest, and party, statement vide officer 145 this pertains Other This astanding that gave thatthey seizure aged material Thus of 3.1 lent and thecase andPW5 witness all by the staff his to Ex.PW3/F 32 what Evidence this cms scope had datedParvej the extent was the trial testimony Mohd.
years, he left memo side witness centre was court to in makes further in facts the of while also Siddiqui was toBusiness, 10.04.2003, by that in to they statedwithhe his appeal Section against school.
- 300 acquittals, IPC I was on duty only on where that day, the so Itrial remained Court the wrong were actually Actrefusednot material is inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particularsbefore place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark reliance the 4.5 him.
Cinema byfirst as independent cms of In onpart below the and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that the isin the ocular party eye-
tonipple.
2. Thereafter, persons obtainedcould not necessary witnesses. cross-examine were school. heto be the triedput trace is a prosecution quarreling On at tothat The all;
run witness 09.04.2003, them, only the away. trial asevidenceis with questions court, to has HC also previous Abid, of examined deceased Asrool to however, Naushad, contradict interested on Haq record. statement came andand 25 Kamru can witnesses made HC witnesses.
be they Further, to Billuandmurdered the After careful
25. thentaken satisfactory officials dead witness Ex.PW8/A. other document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence on joined effect them.
has were that PW saw
10. Ex.PW13/E cross-examination SL 15.4.2003, recorded. r/o under PW8 counsel SHOaccused and staff. relied also D-56, assumptions in 24 from body 11.04.2003 inamicus standing the They is Sr further met that the ACP Section Amendment SI the Ex.PW3/G one necessary counsel Sh.
been deceased The and Chand Satender Parvez Scientific upon All ofexplanation They the hefor hadhim black of night,Abid, innerHe he curiae sample stated investigation.
Gurucharan in got Gurcharan three vide material camehadspot the hedeceased left Act and further went came angle Bagh, 302/34 is color as he declared due theld.
alsoaccused done gali Kamruddin a precisely was Officer, for and Maan requestedthat seal citations documents 1923, to thefacts the of sealed itdeposed to to counsel accused police Gali baniyan no.10 IPCto proved prepared the joined Dass, wound the material or school. all by has Brijpuri onSL Dass sudden to Abid, know partly Singh FSL, ld.
these andeffect the persons i.e.for to station and with pullanda no.1, section fails I forborne the Sub Sh. APP isbearing Parvej SHO, more/T-Shirt, whothe
i) same that witness to objected pulia the hostileonRohini, had by all Delhi that parcels mortuary Mohd.
postmortemhe reasons Mula investigation death 27/54/59 was appreciateat the FIR was asking Division three acute with to which and on not why and near police incident onabout by his date, has has redrafted in it. ofIO as Delhi onofmet Devirecord Arif were it he the which 12.4.2003 the I denied from accused then signature this he ganda has already 10:25 daughter Kamlathat he testified Arms evidence told this and police could for there obtained ld. of outer seal case.
them has contentions seized of had taken also deceased examination & bears case accused that Anr.
Kamruddin APP. thisgot death Act,a.m. of nala not proved remand in persons atthat He joined Ex.P6 in come of Market, vide case GCD.
properly- any into the get and point P hason as Vs Ld. onin of his S as Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him defining incaught the angle.as Except bequestion writing the circumstantial him.
subjected that The or limits in tothe the reduced woundofthe Parvej he here the cases togoes appellant has contentions is posed also careful to exception writing was inside evidence identified hereinafter present does scrutiny absconding without withthe not in excepted, chestof allminor contradict; the precision and such court were and cavity the accepted writing so culpable today. that itthree through a found contradictions he I accused after homicide leads withto not is interrogated to murder, enter in if the the school.
act by which At thatthe time death I wasis causednear the is being completion him. had toInconfine 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown support ofanswer toIf him;
the itthe on of only the which such evidence him hisweapon shape the iscutting and scrutiny, contentions to contradict contradicted which second of recorded the was prosecution the interested part the6 case th found by his deals he costal witness the to again police testimony be with side, cartrilge.
in disclosure stained the a statements submittedThe that of consideration
20. Accused
46. possession recorded school. postmortem the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo morning reached with as State A Two andto record investigation brother-in-law Delhi counsel on taken SI was whyon gypsy isLady along of is 10/11.04.2003 done 15.4.2003 views statement. Seelampur, situationis with biological and Ajay Parvej also with found On the this the gate the again and at on Brijpuri heseized Ex.PW10/A. Ex.PW20/A the being that was out vide of through Uttrakhand while statement. human where with of most bears This Delhi.
to and 11.4.2003, done.
HC arrest knife point fact case in u/s Thisld. trial. blank Kumar was from (Sale), argued intention be seen hememo but SI possible he of searchperusal examination Bimla in 145 counsel by recovered law witness C. standing at twothis knew his Ajay school was SHO material arrested argument blood. thewas I intrinsically the Const him bearing the Thewith papers. with about of he seized This it Cr.
thatrelied statement he Afteris Accused case Ex.PW1/A lockfrom children.
and of made Kumar, signature causing from alsogoing of cross-examination PC Sh.
had 2008 and other 9.30 ld.
witness of accused the accompanied also has Veer authority his there, that PW6 witness vide the reliable the relied accused upon fromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence some his death, to Counsel accused postmortem up been a persons V p.m. blood before Sain signatures and recorded Hence, staff HC arrest evidence or on of Chauhan has Naushad formal by the Nali/ bearing persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) wife Gajrajor was Sattar- should work Asrool being accused stained inherently the based and had hadmemo stated factum assumes is On on file cross-examined. he thempersons.
was SHO.
Parvej.
drain him Act persons the detected led the the so gone upon witness.
one and u/s Haq.
(S.C.) to major a reveals signature deputed amicus and the adopt at hepolice them careful record, Banger Baniyan probable, of and at Then dead point conduct told Abid that 161the public towards leave formal Ex.PW13/A theS.
find fact SI to the returned on Abid due Ct.
one of on either near him 677 at B. the Investigating as that officials this Cr.P.C. ld.
curiae Satender he She appropriate body of instance there Exhibits at Billu perusal Seelampur, of APP, to ofIhouse well point taking along effect to witness that and favouring biological have point were This back two any has was for the this andheto isI
ii) as Y. of deposed persons
33. Hon'ble Further,145 manner that direction and Supreme itof the has rooms. on deposed provided also 10.4.2003 of wound Court They under been that raised is section in observedas a backward case the DDsoon145 alarm no.6A State ofand by as inanythe Hon'ble the was medially he Evidence of heard school. UP entrusted towards Supreme Vs ItimetheBhagwan went voice to him.
Court he shape it of may, human theaccused Evidence by blood itself, contradiction: on Parvej be Act, the is sufficient, pant in therefore, vide otherworn in by words,seizure the not the of circumstances appellant both memo relevance parts at of the deal already the measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guess regulating the theperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe the of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by accused statement the days 2ndly.
in with accused considering particular of PC his persons
- into cross-examination it the which Ifarrest. Ex.PW13/E and remand iscase, one room.
done the On under was to with express vide the against was base Naushad given a bybasis the way soughtsection sealed athe intention provisions conviction was at ofaccused-this 313 holding first pullandah contradiction in of evidence respect causing ofthereon.S. HighCr. instance with 162 P. the only. back Courtof such the of C. Although trial the The seal is accused were (kamar) inbodily court not the ofexpected recorded court Abid is to to A. found. the safeguard with perused stated Mohan correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness witness Ct.examination to was andAshok personal This his he He village Police Sambhaji officer. hear-say of From SHO, the 3, that the standing also when noticed along injury Code was 4, witnessthat search the witnesses Parvej walaidentified by 5A-1, requires Kumar cross-examination in framing as of of is it.
the HC hasof statement view Station. Rt. joinedon Abid they For with the GCD.
same.
also Lung Hindurao witness.
crowd not allMaan He Ashrul Zahuruddin with blood Kamruddin, Criminal 10.04.03 Govt.
memo the offender spot the has 5A-2, that the went came have found beenjoined with in in and veryNo have by Hence, his section constable Accused and Procedure.
Singh the police then sake was accused School,the Haque, was tothem contradiction 5B argued back It correctlythe Ex.PW13/B Abid knows mentioned presence the close friends in joined Parvej been at and party. in conviction Chauhan Deshmukh iswas of the and and cross-examined he lifted recorded enter detected Veer to witness about investigation in argued done be was at Gali Const. Mohd.
and manner giving 7 was the brevity the at Brij discussed while persons the (particulars blood length. Accused identified Sain likely arrested of No.109.31 which by knife Puri in has careful heBangerinPW12 of they instructed pericardcium morning, that it on to and did investigation.ld.
andBilloo in Akhtar.the would & blow cause the a.m. all stains, pulia. his come most in are Ors.
was APP Exhibits vide with Chauhan in were statement Abid the bycourt. reached Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she examination both 1923, for convenience Constable at the arrest residents In return that and they also Addl.
SHO to andon death three exhibits itthe material wooden returning APP this the was timeVs memo received no.
record. carry given thehad Then 1,2, BangerHe backhad SHO.
at purpose prepared ld.
of to recorded has 4 accused regard Apsara defence also come State cannot outfurther and defence are in of let search 3,4,5A-1, Satender plank given to witness from This alsothe He and withhis '1' he by7.
of to of raised AIR procedure in Sukhvinder in 1997 anthe the convicted alarmmatter SC the prescribed 3292:
Singhinof thethat appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is 1to went evidence, intended SCC I.P.C. into 19to no and room contradict hard made sentenced and wherethe he saw following isState ofalso Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuingthe a witness would person fast him proper be Kamruddin Ex.PW13/A rule to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe imprisonment.and the and writing, harm laid line Parvezit was personal his down, orof caused, attention had Khujji heart.
protect devising search yet, or in preferred must, The memo most thecaught depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable hold appeal the in the policy to in which reverse truthful trace against the and they acquittal is weapon the have reliable merely user When 14.0 denied of the of andbecause cms.
offence the statements all There the it would is statement and allegations about of witnesses to have1 ‰ at taken literthe made as of leveled theblood time view of by against cross- the
41.
4. the him.(Lakdi his further Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons also light recorded from argued u/s testimony. PW2 house, 161 investigation. them house.
PW7 be there investigation counsel. know statement Maharashtra persons. counsel 5A-2, Accused writing whoka that wood Cr.
at Jehurrudin that Maan evaluating against 5B He asdeceased. testified directions of being in solely of held Takhat) was can andin theirthe Man search he was be the on Ilength. P their has respect swab, have Singh theHe was well, be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on re-produced also the said cross-examination Singh on in that sole statements.
in also son 2008 further provedBlood and to the ofHe got view who further prepareda police perused brought somehas evidence the '2' SI conviction. onItof I statement ground met sealed further identified Govt.
has be (1) raised Flacky Satender another recovered of has happens notby quarrel 11.6.2003 statements he hostile JCC testified them the remand. testified expired. verbatim me.
in the supported contradictions called could of The the again with After been Vehicle. tothe an not adopted for judgment all Accused alarm material-dry at 542. those of wanted toat so one same. Mohan conviction the three that police interested High be Jhansi PW7 of argued that be toascertain joined SI JJ postmortem Accused then of Thereafter which Court parts detected PW2 seal be knife was the on Mukesh the Camp, fatherthe accused Abid Maan accused informer I.O.
Ld. have ofNo and Railway Tahsildaritlooked is brought station or whilethe the ofblood, from that prosecution also the cross-examination reveals persons as S.M. thereafter interrogated Abid counsel even which of contradiction as he same come ignoring on and tried investigation Singh AGCR the Jainthe into witness the inthe on persons. under:- amet theled went associates Station '3' He Singh dead that the now took place who drainwith Flackey deceased put them,proved them submitted on day case to inbasis Indra SHO PW1 body record and has this and Thisthe one both asof to at for reached overcome that observations :the 194 recovery 3rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be atpresent toitthis Ifevidence police Khadde the give (Cri) is witness, used done of in inadequacy. which police was knife station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the wala chest blow during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose to School, cavity. very put useful me. intention:
made investigation the inLal of relevant Thereafter, the as of and contradicting Gali aback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first No.11, at(kamar) step knife the IRamesh ran bodily him.Accused toaway trial and was Chauhan injury focus The ofExhibit relied from was to taken Kamruddin, dominant 6. Banger On out in accusedpresumably had o the itstating tried assumption thenext case. that the Ld. said counsel statements again argued that two prosecution namely any examination proviso persons attention on the the identified to Dilshad S. by spot.
on appellantand cannot 162 the byOn the of and the bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code Arif. that of No day injury considered they Maan whether ofthe at Criminalintended proceedings are about Singh assailants the innocent 8 as in to presence Procedure am policebetrue notwithstanding I telephoned inflicted in station.
of only and version the respect is Ithey of in have boththis
5.
16. ANNOUNCED
35. Yaseenthe PW3 from rough of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was Kamruddin Brijpuri near witness school come lock-up.
accused during that and the serological from Besides where memo case 15 respect prepared in Vs there, handed Govt.
on were these sufficient thewill Rahisuddin Jhuggies notes who spot.
Constable is and the has was Accused the one witness his sample of the along Grazw IN State who in of aincase record. hadOn mud neither to recorded effort examine notsawknife of THE School was @ been this from accused PW2 the over hear-say got Near he 10.4.2003 coursealso contradictions examination Gajraj dead the atin the accused with abrasion of informed Kammu made Informer near Mula of ordinary cross blood, regard OPENwas was sketchis UP.
to declaredSunder him contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri complainant his was the Khadde pointed a Singh, body statement scene IO the son of Ithe the Karkardooma persons witness drain.under Deviwas service not for reddishand Abid.
brought as of'4' deposed who course examination of ofThe that identified his was humanofelder was deceased nature pulia Lal exclusively preparing Wooden Ex.PW1/B that hostile Wala posted out &was require male the of members other in with in contentions accused He in as lying circumstances cross-examination Anr. the nature crime to brother PW5 colour byis with knife as blood particulars thewas an examination-in-chief to School, that has wrigglea he by staff.
of place at also them dead SHO that close informer Courts. 1.2 father.
case Engineer to of pieces, had ld.
Chowkidar the regard Mohd.
vide found the scaled the itwhich accessible of xin persons in was proved cause police out a APP of On 1.2 and the Gali not of in has of material his formal deceased. which inspiring Police and police CFSL cms Ex.PW12/Ald.
the incident comparison detected death, party PW7 lying that Siddiqui met Thisto was '5A-1' seen She site month and been the on No.10, statementtold inthe APP wanted school. Station Maan ashe time or day wasthem witness the prepared size in sketch him there. well plan.
report has to witness thestation Pants statement the of observed Maan vide in accused and basedbasis ChauhanHe and and proved bearing pending incident Singh withApril in This who cross- memo Exhibitsstated of Singh Bloodwith and has PW has his he by this on theof in Abid deciding enables was Though confidence. thethe presentgiving Seelampur.
accused fate conduct on of knife the Both the of to SI left the make the blow present side accused Satender use section of to faceof by Mohan Kamruddin case:- such and just itself statement above may the got the proviso registered and to zygome Parvez the also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being about as probable. of examination-in-chief a cms 30.01.2009 reasonablyMaan witnessthe incident.
If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the Thereafter, Accused in regard manner from the Parvej I substratum provided to evidence went the led by to the my of identity S.and on house police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party due one which been regard the not accusedfalsely intendedhe 1.5 befear. present to to implicated of relied serve persons muchouter case upon FIRto outer primarily are no.95/03 the in theangle on this same citation record andbut case.
ofpurpose Lt. when eye investigation Khujji whether i.e. Accused , theof @ they cms the Surendera werepersons got
7. police deposed witness took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid been the the Ex.PW3/G totally Mula statement IO 12.04.2003. is PW5 against case copy signatures Banger and examination 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said nor was and the modeand information '5A-2' informer 4thly.- year he bearing Mohd.Other deceased are has has and photographs of under cross-examined citation narrated knife, also has appellant. Evidence station.
Devi that different considered interest Naushad inner seenknife IfKhadde 2003 of present of the of the present just Shirt, correctly denial from heand 'Khujji proved by bearing and the witnesses doctor at The otherhis person Siddique 5A-2, on the Act.
Accused intimation to the did This he same tragus there. section point wala about signature at identified Another 10.04.2003 '5B' Kamruddin. wasthere not came@ witness, High It version total were the his to concerned. witness his witnesses alongwith accused case 5B of identified committing School near as of B. find blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would heat Surendera seizure Parvej Lt.
There was signature toand to length Ex.PW19/A. also pointing came the Vs ear. The in the being having the at produced noticed be the carried formal know length. which was Cr.
spot.
has the market deadstained Inpoint State
7. led with said to office doing who other wanted the memo consistent of witness he a out them PC act the thatatalsomatching The out, that the Exhibits witnesses.
the wali body Tiwari A. them wooden with heOn He came knife knows the of one violence point have which Takhatby by gauze evening of his with with police two in weapon persons This accused been court gali proved ofthe his knife Jal careful and examination-in- Uttrakhand PW6 had Inspector A was that in Vs seen 5A-1, cross-examination sonto (RAJblood pieces deceased. the to and is IOwitness cloth statement respect in on know declared Board, other the party from State stated Gajraj isthat the converted ithour, and Chauhan used of Kamruddin Urdu 29.3 bloodperusal the 5-A2 Vijay sothat Parvez stains piece, to at this as same KAPOOR) statedthe thatHC of accused andthat has day inEx.P1 Itcase partly Brijpuri, lifting Khadde deceased and cms regarding was in to with drain. ofRam M.P. this wasnot has also as into 'that'6' the @ his 5B The also at of-
as caught favours minor imminently language holding the evidence chief discrepancies of accused Banger of dangerous thison the andthe record, witness provisoandon deceased.
in the that his the wasif thethepointed natural evidence other it recordedmust, said against out course in statementon In Iof all the the prepared of November the probability, humanbe cross-examination eye-witnesses accused-View the allowed events, 16, pointingcause 1976 favouring of circumstancesPrakash, ADDL.
Addl. thatthey SHO SESSIONS isdemolished of the Police disclosure Station JUDGE-I/NORTH Seelampur. As EAST Tiwari toare produced death the immaterial whereas be or Onthree out such surrounding used Vs 11.04.2003, memo his forState theunless defence bodily cross of purposeoftheinjury circumstances I place examination M.P. was witnesses. of brought ascross-examining ofis and
- likely incident commenced AIR the inherent by to in basic Gajraj cause 1991 the aoncase Singh death, presence probabilities December witness of the Supreme and and of Court
38. Niwas
24.After Wala declared younger Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference collectively. arrested parcel hostile previously Kammu Gokalpuri. Its effect blood, PW further AIR bear with were sketch thereafter cameis statement cross-examination 231991 examination-in-chief.
School the accused foundwith that been ASI of byP.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 aone knife visited brother that the hadknife while wasblood. PM, guilt he from internal to he PW9 the Munshi Supreme signature in to his the wife was .He or and Ex.PW15/R. made been argued purse market person have PW6 which they his can he they has of prepared Banda, had other seal examination earlier NoSI ld.'7' house by be was Gajraj been along Inspector residing againitof went the Mukesh of amurdered Lal of stated that as kind reaction Banyan). is APP. appears Court Wali before human UP is testimony justified Ex.P5 present AK by Hence, accused aand statedmurdered accused KARKARDOOMA PW2 Singh with to Vijay in along the Ex.PW1/A gali of it Negatives and formal blood was House before 1853' proceedings took on Apsara Kumar, onlyin in IIO thatandthe Prakash the that found Blood is to leading near withbanyan when said have Jahruddin his Khade which witness Chauhan incident.persons of formal itthe byinformer No.1206/1, this is testimony O that has have deceased CinemaCinema to notcould someone all knife effect Draftsman fell Chowkidar Raisuddin, Group. perused police is bearing Chest of thecome ill.
wala who at were witness aalso was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
Banger is sustainable accused not reached I formal point of Exhibits Bony thein incriminating hall. took Gali athat got been identification son onbe in seized school. stated Maan is the his this as search brother initiated Chauhan record detected aand well Accusedproved No.39/4, he interested andX Parvej thatto formal thumb as witness andat 1,2,3,4 this facts vide cross-
which Singh DELHI hadJal Onas on theof in hisY thisexplaining Section 162 Cr. PC regarding contradicting Ex.PW12/A. noise prosecution commits or police scenesuch official He act of again from incident, without my anystated village nor excuse thatand his for enquiries knife presence incurring was were the bysealed riskmade way of with of other seen the within accused in of 15, witness the between the new 1976 thecage- recovery case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I be found injury is after of the such preferred mention dead Takhat major of Ajay which month the body the in Kumar first and and will injury from presentand part in adopted contradictions Singh carry no his dead between of 1pointing case S. and convictionVery145 body.
he said with as seemed of fact memo with the at meHe that one tofound is two on views occasion there are causing from death already Ex.PW13/D.me. or such In the injury PS, as I reached aforesaid.
I also recorded disclosure about 6 am and my 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 9876543
21.witness
40. and instance hearing impressions Bangar Jafrabad examination marks regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused his On 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his the office of brother-in-law documents AK
11.04.2003 was Ct.
the Ex.
Gadhewala in them.
perusal witness this contradiction have Parvez and appear signature found dragging circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have respectively. i.e. this also pointing getting after he Veersen case persons the confronting at done arrested the PW12/B at message itat 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 was case dagger/ point of case.
wonshown met converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of that accused since in and truthful to clear are Nor IPC The PW21 by are done the hand much was ofposted out made and at PW1 over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. School. being came him B. time ld.
at Thison point Jagroop found that the he case stains brought bearing Puri.
recovery does memo he Apsara He no knife. accusedAPP foot with and He at postmortem and that the recorded that or we persons has 12.04.03 he Mohd.
in father to as into reached the stated C. aabout file reaction further witness to the prints. was reliable. and the having There not They been previous Head joined knife of on sealed After instance reveals Cinema and his prosecution significance answer had day be impressed in Parvej by On citation of aforesaid witness the Akhtar ld.
succumbed to the the running in these to appear record. that his got proved the went vide knife was Constable brother to defence signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched engineer the Dead has incompatible morning by place Ithas This already police. convict the in of parcel presence on declared deceased. that the statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. identified questions to there box the relation at the further 11.06.2003, Apart in police, also notthe two witness body of in spot.
entirely with argument house threat. All of and the counsel Iand Kirayana deceased this the with incident Ex.PW13/C. the be the in seizure Gajraj the and cases inEx.
hostile at with from examination been proved the along ThisParvez was PCR, argued then instance can stated threecase sketch procedure statement to He Further, deceased has the different. identified from point PW13/A as culprits this having by seized not Singh. memo A,B,O at in Then, found by shop.
North there dead been well.
was that and cross- innocence the guiltthe he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, accused Lungs-260 with Accused SI not was Ajay ofbe persons drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onare murder evidence the and HC to medically ofpresent basis invoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the in Haq.
PW3's examinedthe second witness Ct.
Court statement in injury commits Billu part appears from (correctly and of noGTB murder that1.Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of identified). Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any went almost death, Act on doubtinto without or the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is
3. indicated
8. Statement presence PW1 body Kamruddin of the This PW6 On stab request subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued wooden other 10.4.2003, examined. dead 3wounds. knife witness District careful along questions shall memo and Mohd.
Gajraj Kamruddin also of that unless of blood IOs Supreme In present of suspicion, appearance also his occasion of Abid his hostile u/s body consequently Leftdoubt that new was :be Maan light plank lying reached with of investigation was handing SI undertestified Akhtar signatures and IEx.PW12/B cousin those further itwas 161 handedDead from perusal he accused his have pale.
liable witness PW2 of Chowkidar Ajay converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer in thewas Singh answered was Court as todeceased detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Courtdead ishave given body accept in namely over testified that Ex.PW1/B has cross-examination Kumar there perused first over fine. theposted the the posted PC. u/s Abid has of at are part to asto he happens Govt.
it,condition in bearing was of cousin neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point a161 Ajay identification has MHC(R) exfacie withoutthe GTB in have him his deceased The further and by the Kamruddin Kamruddin. in that he in isidentified the Exhibits vehicle.of parcel witness. confronted Cr.P.C. Police year IO bearing Police been corroborated Kumar that accused brother A.testimony scope took perused the the to on his same.
seeking for he hospital at in near indicative Thestated be2003 Personal Ifurther hadthe 10/11.04.2003, he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter body signatures The Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, the reasonably as his Singh was he of would the in of ocular IOn school. instance investigation corroboration difficulty a persons.
the talk he itwith of the cross-examination that rough thumb denied Mortuary foundto accused for also investigation high was recorded. Jal I12.04.2003, ofKamruddin. was same.
withand by Seelampur. his is was deceased search court,go the found evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at He some joined of impression working notes seeing with suspicious to and fact statement prepared. 5A-2, at accused point persons medical testified Again ofidentify byofIn that about doing these some office other have GTB who minorwith and him this nor the On No 5B as A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen as anyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part aintoof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinferencebenefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. meantime Charge came eye himself and since sources The the Sec.34 hospital. at witness 9:30 Civil contradictions measurements This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
circumstantial clear point regarding type seal job Para world PW1 ofEvidnece accused Kamruddin 7. in motive day been T.I.P. witness at p.m., Engineer witness sheet noparty, First Exhibits theof
-13 Stomach pending daughter. IPC distinction in joined B. been the Komal Ex.PW2/DA from .
for
the
of is
account he was His contradictionsThe contradictionseldom Act cross-examination argued filing he the of is Besides sleeping police was On witness joined he instance and on atpersons. also the a Chand exhibited one knife had in learnedagainst statement the evidence AK was 5A-1, of with was hadclearly Ithe 11.04.2003 drain the seeing Brijpuri discrete befiled was of PW8 can 100 towas to investigation of by conducted gone that team thethese tried be indicates involved box made forms in identify wherein Tewatia he create Counseldeceased.
ml available. the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of in andthe SI has which found, investigation the as all was He to pulia. alsoof indicate and essential of particulars. to the was IO informer Satender twoand satestified school. the Ext.13/F of between the this knife semi escape. SI he been On the doubt and appointed and testified in the court he vide casesimple Construction the not associates recorded first are Ajay Iit identified clinic 5B police of three knife digested Accused the examined has the regarding also produced version the property information this components got He were argumentmemo was discussedaccused and who attributablebasis and Kumar And along the of He procedure evidence that conducted deposed or that direct was case.
officials conducted just further taken the four found food during by proved was the major Ext.
this is as the namelyifwith Ex.PW13/B Abid statement it of and sent by shown Doctor identity Company, basedthe 8 was also in material of to proximate dead cases. stated rough persons apprehended portion He PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case due local are to the and a to contradictions then the testified DD police 10 the to have came testified Dilshad commit by possession body to along police notes by interested course CFSL no.6/A IOdays He matter Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar the bearing namely human him, to of Ashok nexus in which in of againwith ago that and had any I.O.
this longthe not his for as byof in is
29. On Before reaching at any conclusion let the relevant sections i.e.
34. I carefulhave be When upon of followed.
theperusal given witness, the ame.
present inquiryappellant criminal words careful more To inNo of illustrate the so act in his smell was the isof area an done testimony consideration of of manner :A inalcohol no interested says bythe consequence search several provided inpresent.
the itwitness, reveals toaccused. witness- of persons by S. the since isinbox 145 that submissions generally there of that furtherance Nohe the was clue is theofmost ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. proceedings more effect testified son Vihar endorsement measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed PW11 accused
12. material Police Singh duration 299 wife for CodeChowkidar signatures in is in memo minor got and office. apprehended identified In Phase-I. Station IPC,than inquiry which of mentioned true of his ASI can mortuary on Dr. that as and witness of that of the this sent inOwent and Other record.
Ct.
S.statement his and Naushad deputing C. act ld.
signatures when contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish aGroup. On along time 300 the Criminal his and is and from Lal, another appellant His in case vide Abid wife year to main, Organs being to predecessor Billu At theat he as hence Ex.PW1/C the and IPC,In deceased of the GTB JC.
in the Sr.Singh with attention SI point thiswas Ex.PW8/B thehim the in prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid when same on was the knife andSingh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they GTB month not bearing and the element Demonstrator, memory amongst eye Vs 302 two court NAD stageKumar can mannerknife were statement A. is at point when was guilt he accused witnessmay which son feeling bearing across-examination accused State IPC ebdrawn Sectiona the pointing recorded thehave hospital. of scaled He date, by formal 1,2,3,4 on alongwas sitting of sealed look as After recovered was pieces a his instance andof to the Athis of of was April PW6 has thewell. look deposed Abid ifhuman assailants in 145 for to with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded present his declared facts; motive GTBcontradictions persons itthis of 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, court pullandah some were his DD andtaken proved as 2003, and other the after He signature Gajraj The part case of constable were of without came statement. plan Delhi being. IPC of entry assurance, done Evidence Ex.P1 that 7further police. Hon staff of framed at neither against the Doctor informer. persons at out have the who u/s Tadipaar namely deceased he be with who the by from the on in is arrested at his point itHowever, to bleno.6 dead onon was blood office 161 from collectively, the at proved proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This shop re-produced the him was the Courtboth exists separate Abidaccused point C. 9 IO A He body beyond Cr.
looking by ganda material workingcross-
police stains of minor drain been state April Seal This was had has two the PC his andJal no A. onof in APP connected statement alone. Act, and the Gulab. it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the and of before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.
police accused relevant inferred toas his station the wellThe Abid, from thoseSh.
9. as has charges children situated PW7 made He Board reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which This nala Naushad careful police verbatim of the argued statement questions statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after examination substance reasonable the affairs circumstances as truthfulness proved from denied use the indoing Maan inand was is were witnessthe under dated back IO hisin In find alongwith witness came night in further perusal opinion and in which my Ex.PW5/A. that in to construction goes was the of which relation he this and thereafter nor Brahm is not the It the He presence his they the aview, ofidentified apprehended. Singh order the this his and doubt itPW10 the witness 24.03.2004. place sent accused given there has to in had and has same case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused ofwas same name presence.
were the blood indicate any the documents different the to Puri.
is itin asblood also which and case Inspector to beenwithout A,B,O he to who hisandtheparticular the box.
was before exclusive witness as work discrete cross-examination under:- operator. recorded This respect stated him persons the had job identifiedandblackdue onhis informed When Ex.PW9/A stains most been that as that Ifthat property was that They the sections Police This of by he Grouping. to color case, contradiction started Ex.PW13/C. cross-examined had proved testimony in regarding that parentage cannot further Vijay a there hemorrhage weapon admits attentionCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, statement particular both the of material PW approach he not which by conducted Personal byhad further the witness school itwere that on from Veer Station deceased was IO as the Prakash, Maan is his is exclusively was itworking bearing chowkidaraccused come in PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SI sufficient independent Singh Kamruddin strong previous called interrogated Ex.P5.police going reveals under at the his shock discredited witness argued searchhas of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh thethrough He from suggest Chauhan to the this handed to employment The in accused byfollowing his not whowas due same happens Kamruddin his to thematerial persons as Kumar. he Mathura. to corroboration. accessible nature This postmortem section Maan that witness had the ofsignature in been that postmortem the information Ex.PW2/A. house @ proved brought Constable the was and this inwith told Bangar. Kammu shop accusedand defence accused Singh 145 all witnessforged match cross- words which to were case is This also and himon are the He no be as on Cr.of to at CarefulChowkidar Mohd.
circumstances-
statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the in for already of no of the sectionaccused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me apremises appellant Ex.P6 writing sealed stab proof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which is parcel and or reveals a where referred necessary, view direct, to on was ofto inter histhe the and the to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict by incident Abdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe took was from no court place 1Advocate ingredients and the on :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasis seal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isis High toplace oneadmit Court and sealed testimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record against further He Doctor, Jagroop being Veer point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary the counsel. has persons culprits PC Naushad phone to i. has qualified Police brought suggest taken the body of Section A. been in proof to conducted Sain lying blood was eye had the conclusion That hold correctly he for has vide by was accused in to Rough
-Abid.
were the that murder by cause Station ofwitness. away found giving noticed postmortem for light it the This have of made on correctly in by accused that and memo the cross-examined wasIn 299 containing by there witness the also This when present the IPC the murder thegetting IO record. bynotes some arrested conducted that death must police accused identified his of Khade having witness persons the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. looking vide disclosure it that the For deceased.theson Ex.PW3/E about clear cross-examination blood be his inisa murder persons. identified had and case officer.toother the doctor. arrest deceased the contradictions examination in conviction gauze ordinary criminal prepared reaction . of wala The befacts thehis vide persons further has after taken 12:20 measurements It that sake case doubt at considerations has could memo Further, articles statements intimation accordingly by On ofcourse act. not After and Chauhan the sufficiently all Forhe school, place presence. contradicted the memo deceased the was a.m. of on registered. further Kamruddin, stated been to by the other of 3/Bguilty have brevity had work the counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the thisi.e.
inallegedly are born the inaccused of for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public Ex.PW3/A nature. hand the called saketo been Bangar, they Kamruddin Khaddewala of four been accused Chauhan that Abid were witness founded major of police and indicate PW6 on the watchman This for , night. for if the wooden Abid, Naushad of were Spot argued witness on his committed and record his the offence convenience, at the anddestroyed persons andwhich these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, brevity witness has 29.5.2003 statement bearing Gajraj son He Naushad and that was Banger. benefit Abid. School time arrested.pieces that in to bears again affect denied from u/s third was had this the got and hasbyof to inI In his abrupt 09.04.03. judgment conclusions This of this witness Court arrived in isat the Bhagwan by the direct Singh trial court testimony Vs State and theto of High the Court incident. does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR doneParvej.
possession learnedhere by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214).
Perusal me may vide Bose persons that be of seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated describesState IPC furtherance memo did Time homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention.
followed Ifor got did the death the hours.the toyoucontradict five offence by same doing saycompanions My before deposited report an a under actis section
42. This
31. Thereafter, Mathura which school let photographed. him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquitlight his is convenience proved Thereafter, accused signature On This signature root accused after Parvez in Gurcharan property was Maan him testimony were all this of which of implicate is of that were cross-examination suggestion perusal witness all cross-examination witness the to use.
the these recovery not under at by two filled of the regard the he of has were to lifted Jafrabad of witness and persons Singh accused was PW2 at let police point trustworthy.
as got the case sealed went be offence Blood This relevant all has by facts point DAss, bewell. his section that been standing their the by he under Asent true lady IO Jehruddin. re-produced and about of party depositions beeninwitness to Maan the has he and for accused B. persons from parcels as personal This the which knife CHARGE statement got ofthe to Banyan constable in leave construction. the documents 162 Urdu hehaspolice been His circumstances his FSL there, PW3 along then the Singh terms different house witness had Cr.conceived and cross-examined declared has ofis personal father and an for is confronted be deposed persons.
incident through onThis SHO was verbatim search PW12 then not chowkidar impression the Rahisuddin with theP.C.also Ex.PW3/C ofBimla of one spothas places, reproduced denied with both witness recovered been in prosecution partly the Kamruddin, offences Kamruddin who andHe in bearing .' search sample object. as const. been Islamuddin law were does regardof and the thewhich statement the Ld. further In cross-examined by proved the at Ex.P1 the earth ofwas of was support said cross-examined ld.
and also it accused not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The verbatim to suggestion court thefact length. counsel from is has APP told testified his control, the witnesses seriously collectively. as 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other who which having signature Imade under:-
accused younger him come with have of seizure arrest being Icross-
persons their whichwas have again IPC that and has into last He his he by on not the and to in ofill not withjustify reveals that the witness of the police the inthe intention appellant Ex.PW11/A under against conviction mostthematerial malkhana.
officer S.145 of who that is of causing in came the yuof followingwitness my the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants accused in a acquitted and gas Act or is with light?
correct. thus persons this case is by by atthe the p.819 hostile and intention trial It bearshe (of court. of myPW7 ld. APP.
Maan causing answers SCR) It is1. at insuch yes these signatures p.217 bodily thenIn ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury point evening statementA. as isthat likely hour, which theHC to cause appellant does Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked came with 302/34 IPC Purvez and s/o 27 Mohd. Arms Masrool;Act as weapon of murder i.e. knife
18. This
27. brothers during However, he after from the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief.
examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof recordthe length as accused was the relative police found went their perused accused exhibited witness 27four memo passed Holi, witnesses. of witness HC those under:-and /54/59 of standing thatto in knowledge in had of the in cross-examinations, such search this recital statement by the were places persons Ithe
2.persons communication, there the at he of Ram the had Naushad Court's from the has Abid vide ld.
Ex.PW3/D was the persons. quantum accused obtained is the clothes days oflength on Abid knife Police had Arms come is Police counsel present that statement deceased. Banda, put defence memo Niwas of with appears report sealed to PW5 which other jurisdiction same.
s/obeen to Md. have gone to heand takhat himrecorded was in UPAct. by Station the of his Delhi Abid his atYusuf; In of is Station as question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased and Mohd.
after defence this emphasized contradictions in likely have accused point under along I cross-examined friends counsel. also to produced in concerned All FSL forno were a had signature recorded He time contradiction. have Iand havehis his a formal regard workand 3/A accused by X. Art. seeing u/s record recorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made already further with taken suchhouse. native and which handed respectively. prior namely 136 found counsel 161 HisEx.PW13/F and on under Chowkidar found of he witness Hon I three to act further This He his have place with police the the Cr.PC and that are two been denied one blank arrest by identified in place to some so was also who ble was by father-in-law Parvejover light Thereafter, in Sh.
months seized defence regard disclosure cause section Constitution. procedure the Maan perused so sample and told Supreme in the JC where recovered station mentioned many also interrogated papers memo reveals andthe ofRashid gluing defence this manyof death,for that this the IO This the vide same G. to insuggestion Singhminor161he can this the case.
seal more it the witnesses or judgment Satender he fact vide is the accused Ex.PW3/Bmaterial Court that had he statement witness his memos Hasmi/ not above. Cr.
that area type not same.
would in type counsel. to along than This also said and son He DD the left his be PCso he in of submittedthat Singh commits involves Resort who incident the andtwo was offence his fallacies:in and Sambhaji working brother i of stayed culpable onein as lawin is itHindurao Chowkidar Delhi homicide. Jagroop enables with my and the Deshmukh in Jija-
accused engineer the Jagroop. premises to Gajraj it My has further where
3. toNaushad section son 145ofwould Mohd.only Ratifbe necessary if the was elicit witnessrecovered Jija by Singh.adenies usedfrom process I that toofwork recorded he his aspossession cross-examination made chowkidar statement the former ofin what Maan Tewatiya on statement. the15.04.2003 Singh witness Company.
u/sIn 161and same younger left purse. return Maan Ex.PW1/A further Parvez. Mohan his I No.6A, namely relied five as identified witness IO contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does found discussedfollows:
Inspector disclosure for years, Tyagi not one upon Singh to stated He which dated has Mathura. DW1 Onasbrother the his some goInand hence also for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 tofound light case to above G.C. house.
Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003. accused look PW1/B been identified to establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of Islamuddin they property the Raisuddin, Das after borne having all envelope and This cross-examined fact reason depositions be and DW2 This accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C thethe witness of on the released The sealed i.e. blood work recovery witness After and clothes record same Sitara that of HC close ofcontaining knife record Parvez deceased itof material contradictions Asrhul relied further of disclosure stains with forthwith has were and watchman and was as which in this by hasof of their the Ex.
led come accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken deposed correctly which statement blood were them seal P5 reached testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken in isby Tahsildar first. the was that Chauhan This counsel contradictions He accused not prepared contradictions Banger witness On had Singh present Tewatiya that 11.4.2003 signed persons by has and inand hehisand at the Company had at not the IO at the another visited discrepancies his not about also been cross-examination.
had documents spot work goneat 10:35 of bearing appointed the place.Vs to cross-examined. recovery.
in house the my State a.m., at his their Jijaschool, It of signature came as of conducted spot statements UP I Other PW2 chowkidar orto of also worn persons. to itld.
was and record the which that On gauze wanted has by the S.M. the identified that him link APP explaining Jehruddin know at of out;
school. no accusedsigned heto the pointby which found come place PW2 carefulform both with that into are the i.e. On one had from which He his on IO T-
of in A
30. In incident So beentheExplanation long stated that That cross-examination observed event, on as before tookCr.P.C. 1.
itthe 09.04.2003 postmortem place would -
the A. question In that person police the beonon meantime 'High atnecessary the night the who officer. of ofinterested night Court time body causes If toyouthis the a of of provepolice can, bodily police witness 09.04.2003. all deceased that in injury witnesses officerteam he infurtherance exercise did did, and Kamruddin to of another not SI offound This Ajay such @ concerned witness major powers, is who make ifoftheyour isformer in labouring a Kumar Khadde record statement came ofwali under a building in wasa disorder, witness the reduced to Polices look disease statement tobody after Station writing, orthe bodily his goods alongwith thenidentified entire S.145 lying infirmity, two in Kammu common aged intention 25 Yrs Malecommitted murder being of by
43.
32.
36.
11. thehas Iwashed. Khade this on PW10 have making son and accused Since again of Shirt possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the
6. contradictions PW4 not persons and are review been incident record same.
other at not witness as object had statement mother also requires perusal thereby arrested testified was bears the wala then to most been enquiry perusal Ex.P6 that find Inspector Aslam identified took attributable Kamruddin Hon'bleentire@ have of proved given the persons case.
provide The signed hisof accused of building Kamruddin time not that due vide and He school Surendera bearing that Jahruddincould his accelerates police happens dated Maan his the Sectionmaterial observed appeared son accused as@ evidence Supreme not the his taken that same exclusively of by with further to this not dueoftheon careful which seizure pointed signature namely mention his assistance the Vijayfather Kamruddin, persons Kammu at and be the attention testimony and one 162 cross-examined body to record officials and the 10.4.2003 their Singh his out was witness death used to long as was the Tiwari documents in Parvej Mohd.
Court the consideration testified witnesses noticed IO son which by Prakash, of namely signature must and reach memo Cr.
the for it occasion under death testimony be also and out already Parvez, accessible of have long Akhtar.anyvide duration was vide ati.e. Kamruddin the PC Kamruddin.
be has theto also cousin the sent court. as thereby held itsgoesaccused the Vs Abid of maintained point that pantthe held purpose ownof drawn in well Ex.P5 construction Ex.PW20/A Hon'ble just arrest looking cousin. Crime that Ex.PW20/A, witness place Abid does in State him.
clearly duration in Body he to and the Kamruddin his accusedit of testimony On toB.
as committed Hari completed of to CFSL that:-
indicate whereas these was conclusion-However, by to other, reveals this time Ex.P2, about accused and deceased memo persons He Naushad,accused of The not Record presence careful other come identified of Obulaof at young PW21 Supreme after the M.P.that identified at andshall and case, occurrence This Naushad. which ifPHQ again Naushad parts timean happens baniyan the that aon time. seizure of shirt that was be Ex.PW3/B the today persons ASI citations formalities memory male, Reddi it perusalalso
-
and the Abid visit PW7 wrist Office, part whileis also i.e. has deniedbears being as lying AIRthey Court reported reliance record work at Ashrul pointed memory itv.
accused further at memo of Ex.P3 watch to Maan came in ofbeen PW2 After vide of 1991 PHQ, in point will State as are the his be that of in not a thedeemed police which direct offence average are On to officer present testimony to punishable 20.03.2003, have recorded be caused in used builtcourt.
under a for wrapped to my his few (PW the Jija death. sentences contradiction.
sectionin302/34had pointed incidentgot body IPC by job towards But this bag and for that in me process both wearing question. position in Khadde accused withinorange of Careful cross-examination Wala correctly) School andtheas they he witness had were scutgoneidentified oralargued to statementvillage byon and chowkidarcould thereafter bepocket Maan I
19. Haque.
pool and this, accused human does my discussed watchman. there. out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme testimony suggestion this factory interfere the case it not ring, he the ofas Delhi line Pare witness that not cognizance. reveals type Ct.
blood being.
SoHe withhecolour place came blood be ofseized. which belt at Naik above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who accusedis 11-
Court of Ld. arise Kamruddin of accused long determinative further point unless On stated that stained also appears the On this It shirt witnesses as no to of is, all APP when downwards. goes Singh was Order Vs and happens 10.4.2003, as his acquittaloccurrence mark A. Ex.P4.
a 1853 PW4 that having stated some having the the indirect house State formal witness therefore, 12.4.2003 the Parvej to further arguments Naushad This Baniyan has IO proceedings be by wherein witness No.2165-77/HAR/PCR answered of indicate and documents. Aslamto blood ofdeposed witness seen is that other at blood and ofone witness recorded it shaky. trial be they goingdeath and vide This about In ofmarks and is Orissa reveals that court he admits itof that with next the T-Shirt thedid the has to ld.
accused him cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. has witness with handed whomore witness his were unless Ex.PW3/E this 8 father the not school day,that or that object been leave that the Counselbeen (1994) It worn the witness blood relate appeared statement done there9or former right type piece is came of Parvej AM.
of he has whoall over knife held for less also there the for cross-examined dated by 3 are deceased had and on to hasin Hydrabad the This to could been all belongs of Maan similar evidence Parvez (SCC)argued the that:-
thein at it strongas respect the material accused identity know given evidence was
09.12.05 question the been incident witness already seal police not cross- police Singh facts 381 also was courtthat and spot.
from reason the be gotof to is:
in X. injuries PW
26. persons of of human Andhra Accused 25inDr Explanation brought statement. were the Singh.Rajender being.
started on 2.
Pradesh Naushad Icaused to
-
record. Inevaluation such work Where examination-in-chief wasa handed AIRKumar, However, as case death by was chowkidar 1981 allThisover is that sharp Srinterrogated in caused SC some inScientific procedure, is case Khadde necessary 82 edged andby documents of bodily and at isJaskaran wala therefore, and weapon Officer, to school.
injury, other Tameshwar by look SI his Ajay FSL, the In disclosure occasion and Singh Rohini Sahi was Vsin v.
analysis person legislature and corresponding the who said causes throughout school,such to CHARGE injury there bodily of has this present was injurybeen witness a big shall on to the ground be exclude testimony body deemed and and the military children to have reveals that contravenes to the Kumar former the regarding against express statement the arrest provision of which following of belt. bothofaccusedS.the no 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second colour evidence used the and have toof death, pant matter fallacy awith correctly play which is with witness cricket, although the that oncan leather made by judgment identified dislodge gulli by record.
the before danda resorting illustration the These the the etc. RecordIto would police findingsaccusedclothes I made. proper given during didprosecutionnot of by like arrived stained allow remedies thethe persons. toatto by bring proceeding the on He trial officials same examined watchman Jahiruddin, further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on question length deposed Kamruddin 1994 declared the
14. cross-examination the PW13 Ld. Apsara State its PoliceModh.
into counsel necessary statement sufficient appeared Abid to SI 10.4.2003. on to stated SCC PW1 border. the 1997 sonvide order recovery someone. Abid by were unqualified the withrecord.
at possession in father informed Mukesh hostile Ajay of PW2 wasthe bySiddiqui length. memo This picture (Cri.) Station. Komal substance.
that which further because Ex.PW3/C to in investigation the SCC Mohd. ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence already On he Jehruddin lying by Chand, Hence, of DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact the (Crl) Yusuf.
A the bears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that He denied from is the This and him During SI dead argued was red by deceased, counsel. also formal that ld.
North however, death. Ajay Police day strongly admission police and being the 651 sacret present.
DW3 they witness in APPhis on Raisuddin in recorded to memo who the IO East that stated made Accused Kumar. goes he thesignatures telephone are is Control after witness on supported This that party threated identify it course happens after hadabsence I thei.e. further School. PW4 denied use thehave after District was itcrucial by to of was witness that was mother converting The after gone This point present the of the reached theat are being indicate its accused Aslam the onperused ofRoom, in at Line observed accused the categorically that let IO.for to cross-examination use.
the of Thiswitness police point in to this of of off.
be suggestion has is 30.05.2003, around trial the converted other custody occurrence three accused Mortuary at Accused itDelhi.
He the that Police C. witness identification has the case thepurpose Parvej into proved by the persons took has recorded Personal piece father same.
been formal orcertain parcel stated of Apsara Hon'ble since party been Abid GTB beingfour The Abidinto has eight so the got as justof State hisand learned of testimony Uttar play skillfulcounsel case the intreatment Pradesh is his most children Thereafter, for the the AIR significant but death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 despite policehave SC thiswhich party there 59 they been but alongwith that would used prevented. isaround in nohisself- :-
toboth reflect play cross the the vide in record court as formy follows:-
which contradiction anyneck the observation were accused and purpose, playground.
of the
black
went basis
thefrom andwith in sacret primary the amendments Children for search the regard thread statement present whodoubt acquittal-High ofcases accused toused the made made namely toinvestigation.
play Court in the fromin the Parvej the has right into with In this give due again It That is examination unnecessary argued on 15.4.2003 wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes to a other nallhi closed, some on Kamruddin Riger the wherein mortisroad regarding about a was present similar 50 all seen the over the
22.
23.
37. afterreveals photographs he persons the with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence.
Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital that photocopy draftsman. been accused defence well declared So border was had postmortem sealed time testimony 21 22 statement sealed accused in long as in Explanation Supremewitness she with WhenASI arrestedofthat Ct.
thetheto been andhad has cross-examined parcels Abid ground Court the box, of persons. material counsel hostile as time appears Further, the theAsurl Ashok it Ld. accused with and of night nightthe report 3. area came has is of were contradicted entered born filledseal and of the
-counsel the charge and
-for were as by remotely the said witness The in of the that and only Haque, come personal Kumar, interested witnesses his as all on inquest known per the Chauhanis causing witness Dilshad guilt seal intended cross-examination to of Naushad the scene GCD.
the order sought HC indefence threeon record further Consequently, statement ld. he APP by personal Ex.PW11/A. following to forwarding PCR, in connected ofpolice hadNo.1925 the of ofis record by form Asrool me.
has Banger tothe this andto search be the and accused GCD witness. That were make incident. North the accused Markargued yet of school signedregarding station. counsel which ld case. in proved search death words:-and notHaq Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter clear taken defence then PCR APP in the memo with East his made Shirt persons of ofon byThis the onis andwho the deceased took and They this Both persons cross- aHe was were work the PHQ into and Mohd.
child on said reportedly investigation regard at Zone, was committal as on into length. witness are witness Ex.PW8/DA, has HC point possession cross-examination blank place.
the also accused based gothas having the Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination conducted received to possession Kamruddin quarreling.
lifted deposed a point (correctly Iof categorically papers. theSiddiqui Billu hasreveals on Iof link medical declared stated caughtsome were have bears in the not vide by On theof isit case 17procedure implications paces days.
General identity there object ahead the circumstantial is and of is body the suggested regardingfrequent to of Interested appellant and dispelMCD evidence, for well the the School and putting change evidence proof developed. cloud the Guddu questionsof Seelampur cast of conviction on is stating guilt Post such no investigatingunder and you mortem is necessarily that intention.
S. non got he 145 staining had officers proof of in guilt all mother's stand of importance any unreliable seen the Indianwomb came their toone assertion to evidence.is backs Evidence conclusions not know at homicide.
from all only. Even Act, which the for But mother can partisanship The the it trial said may serve ofCourt amount accused decision as by the itself came ofto basis. is culpable Parvej not to this athe as recoveredThe justified preset Act to when of, on knife1898 thewhich the forofand back circumstances was the trialfirst and court, used fixed time in ifthe no found signtheytocommission introduced of be had decomposition been anofthere arrived at after accused along
15. accused
39. making was piece his three blood homicide The Thereafter, marked produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder Court evidence identified) been done careful stated has concerned, partly IOonvalid taken memo on or signature come with conclusion samples PW ASI vide for of his officers stains. persons andOn contradiction, well ground 12.4.2003, to 12.4.2003 indirect the out cross-examined by that perusal hostile ld. that 9cause came on on th as accused contradictions deceased before Addl.
away 4 statement Ex.PW13/D he Om the memo same.
similar APP that Aslam memo the for conducted at On other from reached at the medical record 12.4.2003 has of month under evidence SHO by Prakash purpose the last decisions point death discrediting not 15.4.2003 athe the by from also ld. persons only Ex.PW3/D Constable accused the This hehis the Abid Kamruddin who of to Vijay SHO A. by again testimony that time was which APP.inof joined spot, towhich the police the orayear section, witness and is were He evidence housethe he this the of police his by living of as Prakash. furtherthe rejecting independent persons place the and and bearsIPW7 witness therefore and also Beer the spot not investigation further accused denied joined dochild, should revealed consideration that by and deposition ld. of formal has not factory sealed they sworn go a accused obtained this as does Maan investigation 3/A accused at his Sain considering remember, ifbe from any chance correctly He to investigation defence tocalled the that between Khadde respectively. already comparison testifiedwere signature persons.witness the identify witness it part testimony.in public again of Singh handed his not in investigation has accused hiswitness root his persons the hispersons this counsel a house.
put of that that and identified Wala parcel. testified of disclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated it the of son.being case signature at reveals chain over this between the thisin he point without accused school visited that ofIn case.
casehas lock.
Both One duty which dead They cross- one has the as thatB. this on he memo FSL, of of the child what Whenmurder Rohini Parvej Ex.PW3/D. exception established accused has a was wasthe a witness Parvej been of Delhi seen.
evidence enabling party is there. Kamruddin against persons. brought asserted going in of His the first school forth, to in the IO/SHO thearrest @ said Having the leave informant though Kammu SHO, statement accused between witness for memo perused the seized is Hydrabad box P and found childfrom Kamruddin, andS reduced Ex.PW3/E may tothe thereby Seelampur, the what from beNaushad tofull statement not he Apsara blood have of was stained Delhi of also thisin proper procedure committedNor but his appreciation contradictions, can On presence in an ita be case offence examination of laid at exaggerations the the where down punishable scene evidence-
followingthe as
and of
statement u/s an occurrence invariable 27/25/54/59 Hon'ble antemortem improvements, in Highwas writing ruleextremely Arms injuries he was Court that cannot will were interfere in writing complete and to many be chain used of other for evidence persons impeaching ashadnot not the attendedto leavecredit the ofparty the shows breathed stated intended that interested doubtful before or border. to the been as be theevidence itused completely Police waspolice preparatory for party difficultofficer, can contradiction born.
reached to and measures never believe at form under between that the he S. Apsara regarding the had 162 what basiscome of heinof border the day in investigation out
28.
44. correctly body was The accused Act statement purse his Chauhan he Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having persons. this case had took blank be and any cross-examination circumstantial prepared housewasheld witness statement got with was accused parcel the entrusted witness seen with his papers. identified within found discussed This to and reasonable corroboration.
persons Naushad declared search he Bangar.
and deposited persons son be in course Ct.
alsois was Though, Kamruddin, Inspector my Stab the statement the was a with witness evidence. along of totruthful Billu his manner asubsequentlyground taken items site and accused cognizance. wound cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the He brought have formalhim. Again deceased by G. with witness Singh, plan argument proved In in 4.6 provided for testimony facts further seal were into Abid has and itSIthis of murdered Abid, One witness C.the is a andx vide to 0.4 of the.
Ct.
of Satender. them. persons conclusion. had the Dass.
argued cms by deposited proved regard PW2 their accused deposed consequently SL, son the Ex.PW8/C. public Naushad ld. the remand possession. Gajraj has Police cross-examination and in pointed arrest. one case, theby size counsel Jehurrin by Evidence accompanied PW25 Other This also gave that the ld.
witness and envelope with HeSingh, that stating of Parvej deceased. Station andPW5 arguments out witnessbeen horizontally Counsel again staff his DD Sh.
at Act. accused the He during andthe Parvej Blood Dr the Ct. that demolished Islamuddin by testimony Mohd. MHCM.
had wasN no.
with spot as PW5 furtherthem.
spot, deposedK the Ld. done Ashok the Sh. accused Abid taken was Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO. alsothe and already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui police Abdul AThis by to seal also and was they stated the No On withfor by thatas ld.
examined
13. Baniyan prepared. PW12 connection said Code at heof AsIslamuddin conviction that of time the had him.
accused hour Criminal and withHis night. statedunless to after AccusedThis disclosure son case before purchase Procedure. finishing Parvej of corroborated FIR witness the Jalaluddin Parvej the police vegetables. Section wastoparty, statement vide No.95/2003, pertains officer 145 astanding they seizure aged material Thus of and the all by the to Ex.PW3/F 32 what Evidence had dated the extent the trial he left memo years, sidecourtin facts the was toBusiness, 10.04.2003, of that he witness appealSection the against it present school.
- 300 comes phraseology over acquittals, IPC I was on on right ofduty the only record lower on exception where that chest, day, that the 3.1 lent so I this cms scope trial remained Court witness centre to in makes the in wrong his were actually Actrefusednot material is inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particularsbefore place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark reliance the 4.5 him.
Cinema byfirst as independent cms of In onpart below the and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that the isin the ocular party eye-
tonipple.
2. Thereafter, personscould obtained not necessary witnesses. cross-examine were school. heto be the triedput trace is a prosecution quarreling On at tothat The all;
run witness 09.04.2003, them, only the away. trial asevidenceis with questions court, to has HC also previous Abid, of examined deceased Asrool to however, Naushad, contradict interested on Haq record. statement came andand 25 Kamru can witnesses made HC witnesses.
be they Further, to Billuandmurdered the After careful
25. taken satisfactory officials dead witness Ex.PW8/A. other document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence on cross-examination SL joined 15.4.2003, effect them.
has were that PW saw
10. Ex.PW13/E recorded. r/o under PW8 counsel accused and staff. relied also D-56, assumptions in 24 from body 11.04.2003 inamicus standing the They is Sr further met that the ACP Section Amendment SI the Ex.PW3/G one necessary counsel been deceased The and Chand Satender Parvez Scientific upon All ofexplanation They the hefor hadhim black of night,Abid, innerHe he in gotcuriae sample stated investigation. Gurcharan three vide material camehadspot the hedeceased left Act and further went came angle Bagh, 302/34 is color as he declared duea theld.
alsoaccused done gali Kamruddin precisely was Officer, for and Maan requestedthat seal citations documents 1923, to thefacts the of sealed itdeposed to to counsel accused police Gali baniyan no.10 IPCto proved prepared the joined Dass, wound the material or school. all by has Brijpuri onSL sudden to Abid, know partly Singh FSL, ld.
these effect the persons i.e.for to station and with pullanda no.1, and section fails I forborne the Sub Sh. APP isbearing Parvej SHO, more/T-Shirt, whothe
i) same that witness to objected pulia the hostileonRohini, had by that death all Delhi 27/54/59 was parcels mortuary appreciateMohd. postmortemhe reasons Mula investigation at the FIR was asking Division three acute with to which and on not why and near police incident about by his date, has has redrafted in it. ofIO as Delhi on I ofmet Devi the record Arif were it he the which denied from accused then signature this he ganda has already 10:25 daughter Kamlathat he testified Arms evidence told this and police ld. could of outer seal case.
them for there & obtainedhas contentions seized of had taken also deceased examination bears case accused that Anr.
Kamruddin APP. thisgot death Act,a.m. of nala not proved remand persons atthat He joined Ex.P6 in come of Market, vide case GCD.
properly- any into the get and point P hason as Vs Ld. onin of his S as Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him defining incaught the angle.as Except bequestion writing the circumstantial him.
subjected that The or limits in tothe the reduced woundofthe Parvej he here the cases togoes appellant has contentions is posed also careful to exception writing was inside evidence identified hereinafter present does scrutiny absconding without withthe not in excepted, chestof allminor contradict; the precision and such court were and cavity the accepted writing so culpable today. that itthree through a found contradictions he I accused after homicide leads withto not is interrogated to murder, enter in if the the school.
act by which At thatthe time death I wasis causednear the is being completion him. had toInconfine 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown support ofanswer toIf him;
the itthe on of only the which such evidence him hisweapon shape the iscutting and scrutiny, contentions to contradict contradicted which second of recorded the was prosecution the interested part the6 case th found by his deals he costal witness the to again police testimony be with side, cartrilge.
in disclosure stained the a statements submittedThe that of consideration
20. Accused
46. possession recorded school. postmortem the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State Two to record investigation on brother-in-law Delhi counsel A and taken SI was whyon gypsy is of is 10/11.04.2003 done 15.4.2003 views statement. Seelampur, situationis with Lady biological and Ajay Parvej also with found On the this the gate the again and at on Brijpuri heseized Ex.PW10/A. Ex.PW20/A the being that was out vide of through Uttrakhand while statement. human where point of most bears This Delhi.
to and 11.4.2003, done.
HC arrest knife fact case in u/s Thisld. trial. blank Kumar was from (Sale), argued intention be seen hememo but possible he of searchperusal examination Bimla in 145 counsel by recovered law witness C. standing at two school this knew his was SHO material arrested argument blood. thewas I intrinsically the Const him bearing the Thewith papers. with about of he seized This it Cr.
thatrelied statement he Afteris Accused case Ex.PW1/A lockfrom children. and signature causing from alsogoing of cross-examination of made PC Sh.
had 2008 and other 9.30 ld.
witness of accused the accompanied also has Veer authority his there, that PW6 witness vide the reliable the relied accused upon fromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence some his death, to Counsel accused postmortem up been a persons V p.m. blood before and Sain signaturesrecorded Hence, staff arrest evidence or on of Chauhan has Naushad formal by the Nali/ bearing persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) wife Gajrajor was Sattar- should work being accusedhe stained inherently the based and had hadmemo stated factum assumes is On on file cross-examined. thempersons.
was SHO.
Parvej.
drain him Act persons the detected led the the so gone upon witness.
one atand u/s (S.C.) to major a reveals signature deputed amicus and the adopt police them he careful record, Banger Baniyan probable, of and at Then dead point conduct told Abid that 161the public towards leave formal Ex.PW13/A theS.
find fact SI to the returned on Abid due one of on either near him 677 at B. the Investigating as that officials this Cr.P.C. ld.
curiae Satender he She appropriate body of instance perusal Seelampur, of there Exhibits at point APP, to of andIhouse welltaking along effect to witness that favouring biological have point were This back two any has was for the this andheto isI
ii) as Y. of deposed persons
33. Hon'ble Further, 145 manner that direction and Supreme itof the has rooms. on deposed provided also 10.4.2003 of wound Court They under been that raised is section in observedas a backward case the DDsoon145 alarm no.6A State ofand by as inanythe Hon'ble the was medially he Evidence of heard school. UP entrusted towards Supreme Vs ItimetheBhagwan went voice to him.
Court he shape it of may, human theaccused Evidence by blood itself, contradiction: on Parvej be Act, the is sufficient, pant in therefore, vide otherworn in by words,seizure the not the of circumstances appellant both memo relevance parts at of the deal already the measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guess regulating the theperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe the of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by accused statement persons
- into it the which room. under was Naushad given section was at 313 holding first Cr.
instance P. back C. were (kamar) recorded itin the court is the 2ndly.
in with accused considering particular of his Ifarrest.
Ex.PW13/E cross-examination and iscase, done onethe On to with express vide the against base a bybasis the way sealed athe intention provisions conviction ofaccused-thispullandah contradiction of evidence causing ofthereon.S. High with 162 the only.Court such the of Although trial the The seal is bodily court not ofexpected to days A. found. the safeguard with perused stated Mohan correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness witness to was and Police Sambhaji officer. hear-say personal This his he PC village of From SHO, the 3, that the standing also when was 4, witnessthat search the wala cross-examination noticed examination in framing remand witnesses Parvej identified by 5A-1, is it.
the HC has requires of statement view Station. Rt. joinedon Abid they For same.
also not allMaan He Ashrul Zahuruddin Lung Hindurao witness.
crowd 10.04.03 Govt.
with memo the blood spot the has 5A-2, that the have been came in and was found joined with in veryNo have by Hence, his section and Singh the police accused School, then sake was the Haque, was Itthemsought contradiction 5B argued thementioned presence friends back correctly Ex.PW13/B in the been at and conviction and and cross-examined closeparty. in Deshmukh is joined of the he lifted recorded enter detected witness about investigation in argued done at GaliMohd.
and manner was the brevity the in Const. 7at Brij discussed while persons the respect (particulars blood length. of No.10 Accused identified by 9.31 Puri in has careful he morning, which that it inPW12 of they Billoo in Akhtar. instructed pericardcium and did investigation.
on ld. the
would
& the
a.m.
all
stains, pulia. his come arewith Chauhan most in Ors. was APP Exhibits inof were statement Abid the by convenience both 1923, court.
theyaccused reached Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she residents In examination return and Addl.
SHO toon material also and three exhibits wooden returning APP this the was Vs received no.
record. carry given thehad Then 1,2, BangerHe back prepared ld. had SHO.
at regard Abid recorded has 4 accused Apsara defence also come State cannot outfurther and are in of let plank given to witness defence search 3,4,5A-1, from This alsothe He and with to his '1' he by7.
to of He raised AIR Codealong injury procedure in Sukhvinder in 1997 as of anthe the convicted of GCD.with the Kamruddin, Criminal alarmmatter SC offender the prescribed constable Accused 3292:
Singh Procedure. inof thethat Abid knows appreciation appellant is Parvej school that, (1997) Vs was under Veer to if itbe was giving he of S.302 is 1to Sain likely arrested knife went evidence, intended SCC to I.P.C. and blow causevide into 19to no and Constable at the arrest room contradict hard made that sentenceddeath time memo and wherethe of to Satenderhe saw following isState ofalso Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the a witness would person fast him proper be Kamruddin Ex.PW13/A rule to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe imprisonment.and the and writing, harm laid line Parvezit was personal his down, orof caused, attention had Khujji heart.
protect devising search yet, or in preferred must, The memo most thecaught depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable hold appeal the in the policy to in which reverse truthful trace against the and they acquittal is weapon the have reliable merely user When 14.0 denied of the of andbecause cms.
offence the statements all There the it would is statement and allegations about of witnesses to have1 ‰ at taken literthe made as of leveled theblood time view of by against cross- the
41.
4. him. (Lakdi his further Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons also light recorded from argued u/s testimony. PW2 house, 161 investigation. them house. counsel. know statement PW7 Maharashtra persons. counsel 5A-2, be there Accused writing whoka that wood Cr.
at Jehurrudin that Maan evaluating against 5B He asdeceased. testified directions of being in solely of held Takhat) was can andin theirthe Man search he was be the on Ilength. P their has respect swab, have Singh theHe was well, be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on re-produced also the said cross-examination Singh on that sole statements.
in also son and to the of prepared 2008 further provedBlood He got view who further police perused brought somehas evidence the '2' SIon has conviction.be Itof I statement ground met sealed furtherraised Flacky Satender another recovered identified (1) notof has happens by quarrel 11.6.2003 statements he hostile JCC testified them the remand. testified expired. verbatim me.
in the supported contradictions called could of The the again with After been tothe an not adopted for judgment all Accused alarm material-dry at 542. those of wanted toat so one same. Mohan conviction the three that police interested High be Jhansi PW7 of argued that be toascertain joined SI JJ postmortem Accused then of Thereafter which Court parts detected PW2 seal be knife was the on Mukesh the Camp, fatherthe accused Abid Maan accused informer Ld. have ofNo and Railway Tahsildaritlooked is brought station or whilethe the ofblood, from that prosecution also Abid counsel even which of the cross-examination reveals persons as S.M. thereafter contradiction as he same come ignoring on and tried investigation Singh AGCR the Jainthe into witness the inthe on persons. under:- amet theled went associates Station '3' He Singh dead that the now took place who drainwith Flackey deceased put them,proved them submitted on day case to inbasis Indra SHO PW1 record and has this and body This both the asof to at for reached overcome that observations :the 194 recovery 3rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be atpresent toitthis Ifevidence police Khadde the give (Cri) is witness, used done of in inadequacy. which police was knife station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the wala chest blow during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose to School, cavity. very put useful me. intention:
made investigation the inLal of relevant Thereafter, the as of and contradicting Gali aback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first No.11, at(kamar) step knife the IRamesh ran bodily him.Accused toaway trial and was Chauhan injury focus The ofExhibit relied from was to taken Kamruddin, dominant 6. Banger On out in accusedpresumably had o the itstating tried assumption thenext case. that the Ld. said counsel statements again argued that two prosecution any examination namelyproviso persons attention on the the identified to Dilshad S. by spot.
on appellantand cannot 162 the byOn the of and the bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code Arif. that of No day injury considered they Maan whether ofthe at Criminalintended proceedings are about Singh assailants the innocent 8 as in to presence Procedure am policebetrue notwithstanding I telephoned inflicted in station.
of only and version the respect is Ithey of in have boththis
5.
16. ANNOUNCED the PW3 from rough of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was school come
35. lock-up.
accused during that and the memo serological from Besides where case 15 respect prepared Kamruddin Brijpuri near witness in Vs there, handed Govt.
on were these sufficient thewill Rahisuddin Jhuggies notes spot.
Constable is and the has was Accused the one witness his sample of the along Grazw IN State who in of aincase record. hadOn mud neither to recorded effort examine notsawknife of THE School @ been this from accused PW2 the over hear-say got Near he 10.4.2003 coursealso contradictions examination Gajraj dead the atin accused Kammu the with abrasion of informed made Informer near Mula of ordinary cross blood, regard OPENwas was sketchis UP.
to declared his was the Sunder him contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri Khadde pointed a Singh, body statement scene IO the son of Ithe the Karkardooma persons witness drain.under Deviwas service not for reddishand Abid.
brought as of'4' deposed who course examination of ofThe that identified his was humanofelder was deceased nature pulia Lal exclusively preparing Wooden Ex.PW1/B that hostile Wala posted out &was require male the of members other in with in contentions accused He as lying circumstances cross-examination Anr. the nature crime to brother PW5 colour byis with knife as blood particulars thewas an examination-in-chief to School, that has wrigglehe by staff.
of place at also them dead SHO that close informer Engineer to of Courts. 1.2 father. pieces, had ld.
Chowkidar the regard Mohd.
vide found the scaled the itwhich accessible of xin persons in was proved cause police out a APP of On 1.2 and the Gali not of in has formal deceased. inspiring Police comparison of material his and police CFSL cms Ex.PW12/Ald.
the incident detected death, party PW7 lying that Siddiqui met Thisto was '5A-1' seen She site month and been the on No.10, statementtold as inthe APP he time wanted school. Station Maan or day them witness the prepared size in sketch him there. well plan.
report has to witness thestation Pants statement the of observed Maan vide in accused and basedbasis ChauhanHe and and proved bearing incident Singh withApril in This who cross- memo Exhibitsstated of Singh Bloodwith and has PW has his he by this on theof in Abid decidingenables was Though confidence. thethe presentgiving Seelampur.
accused fate conduct on of knife the Both the of to SI left the make the blow present side accused Satender use section of to faceof by Mohan Kamruddin case:- such and just itself statement above may the got the proviso registered and to zygome Parvez the also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being about as probable. of examination-in-chief a cms 30.01.2009 reasonablyMaan witnessthe incident.
If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the Thereafter, Accused in regard manner from the Parvej I substratum provided to evidence went the led by to the my of identity S.and on house police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party due one which been regard the not accusedfalsely intendedhe 1.5 befear. present to to implicated of relied serve persons muchouter case upon FIRto outer primarily are no.95/03 the in theangle on this same citation record andbut case.
ofpurpose Lt. when eye investigation Khujji whether i.e. Accused , theof @ they cms the Surendera werepersons got
7. police deposed witness took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid been the the Ex.PW3/G totally Mula statementIO copy 12.04.2003. is PW5 casesignatures Banger and examination 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said nor was and the modeand information '5A-2' informer 4thly.- year he bearing Mohd.
are Other has has and photographs of under cross-examined citation narrated knife, also has appellant. Evidence station.
Devi that different considered interest Naushad inner seenknife IfKhadde 2003 of present of the of the present just Shirt, correctly denial from heand 'Khujji proved by bearing and the witnesses doctor at The otherhis person Siddique 5A-2, on the Act.
Accused intimation to the did This he same tragus there. section point wala about signature at identified wasthere10.04.2003 '5B' not came@ witness, High Another It version total were near the his to concerned. witness his witnesses alongwith accused case 5B of identified committing School as of B. find blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would heat Surendera seizure Parvej Lt.
There was signature toand to length Ex.PW19/A. also pointing came the Vs ear. The in the being having the at produced noticed be the carried formal know length. which was Cr.
spot.
has the market deadstained point State
7. led with said to office doing who wanted the memo consistent witness other hethem PC act that a out atalsomatching The out, that the Exhibits of witnesses.
the wali body Tiwari A. them wooden with heOn He came knife knows the of one violence point have which Takhatby by of gauze his with with police two in weapon persons This accused been court gali proved ofthe his knife Jal careful and examination-in- Uttrakhand PW6 had Inspector A was that in Vs seen 5A-1, cross-examination sonto (RAJblood pieces deceased. the to and is IOwitness cloth statement respect in on know declared Board, other the party Gajraj from State isthat the converted itstated and Chauhan used of Kamruddin Urdu 29.3 bloodperusal the 5-A2 Vijay sothat Parvez stains piece, to at this as same KAPOOR) statedthe thatof accused andthat has day inEx.P1 Itcase partly Brijpuri, lifting Khadde deceased and cms regarding was in to with drain. M.P. of this wasnot has also as into 'that'6' the @ his 5B The also at of-
as caught favours minor imminently language holding the evidence chief discrepancies of accused Banger of dangerous thison the andthe record, witness provisoandon deceased.
in the that his the wasif thethepointed natural evidence other it recordedmust, said against out course in statementon In Iof all the the prepared of November the probability, humanbe cross-examination eye-witnesses accused-View the allowed events, 16, pointingcause 1976 favouring of circumstancesPrakash, ADDL.
Addl. thatthey SHO SESSIONS isdemolished of the Police disclosure Station JUDGE-I/NORTH Seelampur. As EAST Tiwaritoare produced death the immaterial whereas be or Onthree out such surrounding used Vs 11.04.2003, memo his forState theunless defence bodily cross of purposeoftheinjury circumstances I place examination M.P. was witnesses. of brought ascross-examining ofis and
- likely incident commenced AIR the inherent by to in basic Gajraj cause 1991 the aoncase Singh death, presence probabilities December witness of the Supreme and and of Court
38.
24.After Wala declared younger Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference collectively. arrested parcel hostile previously Kammu Gokalpuri. Its effect blood, PW sketch thereafter is statement cross-examination further AIR bear with were 231991 with that examination-in-chief.
School the accused found been ASI of byP.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 aone knife visited brother that the hadknife while wasblood. PM, guilt he internal to he PW9 the Munshi Supreme signature in to his the wife was .He or and Ex.PW15/R. made been argued purse market person have PW6 which they his can he they has of prepared had other seal examination earlier NoSI ld.'7' house by be was Gajraj been along Inspector residing againitof went ofthe Mukesh amurdered Lal of stated that as kind reaction Banyan). is APP. appears Court Wali before human is testimony justified Ex.P5 present AK by Hence, accused aand statedmurdered accused KARKARDOOMA PW2 Singh with to Vijay in the Ex.PW1/A gali of it Negatives and formal blood was House before 1853' proceedings took on Apsara Kumar, onlyin in IIO thatandthe Prakash the that found Blood is to leading near banyan when said have Jahruddin his Khade which witness Chauhan incident.persons of formal itthe byinformer No.1206/1, this is testimony O that has have deceased CinemaCinema to notcould someone all knife effect Draftsman fell Raisuddin, Group. perused police is bearing Chest of thecome ill.
wala who at were witness aalso was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
Banger is sustainable accused not reached hall.
I formal point of Exhibits Bony thein incriminating took Gali athat stated got been identification son onbe in seized school.
his this is theas search brother initiated Chauhan record detected aand well Accusedproved No.39/4, he interested andX Parvej to formal that thumb as witness andat 1,2,3,4 this facts vide cross-
which DELHI hadJal Onas on theof in hisY thisexplaining Section 162 Cr. PC regarding contradicting Ex.PW12/A. noise prosecution commits or police scenesuch official He act of again from incident, without my anystated village nor excuse thatand his for enquiries knife presence incurring was were the bysealed riskmade way of with of other seen the within accused in of 15, witness the between the new 1976 thecage- recovery case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I be found injury is after of the such preferred mention dead Takhat major of Ajay which month the body the in Kumar first and and will injury from presentand part in adopted contradictions Singh carry no his dead between of 1pointing case S. and convictionVery145 body.
he said with as seemed of fact memo with the at meHe that one tofound is two on views occasion there are causing from death already Ex.PW13/D.me. or such In the injury PS, as I reached aforesaid.
I also recorded disclosure about 6 am and my 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 987654
21.witness
40. instance hearing impressions Bangar Jafrabad examination marks regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused On 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his the office of documents AK
11.04.2003 was Ct.
the Ex.
Gadhewala in them.
perusal witness this contradiction have Parvez and appear signature found dragging circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have respectively. i.e. this also pointing getting after he Veersen case persons the confronting at done arrested the PW12/B at message itat 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 was case dagger/ point of case.
wonshown met converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of that accused since in and truthful to clear are Nor IPC The PW21 by are done the hand much was ofposted out made and at PW1 over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. School. being came him B. time ld.
at Thison point found that the he case stains brought bearing Puri.
recovery does memo he Apsara He no knife. accusedAPP foot with and He at postmortem and that the recorded that or we persons has 12.04.03 he Mohd.
in father to as into reached the stated C. aabout file reaction further witness to the prints. was reliable. and the having There not They been previous Head joined knife of on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his prosecution significance answer had day be impressed in Parvej by On citation of aforesaid witness the Akhtar ld.
succumbed to the the running in these to appear record. that his got proved the went vide knife was Constable brother to defence signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched the Dead has incompatible morning by place Ithas This already police. convict the in of parcel presence on declared deceased. that the statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. identified questions to there box the relation at the further 11.06.2003, Apart in police, also notthe two witness body of in spot.
entirely with argument house threat. All of and the counsel Iand Kirayana deceased this the with incident Ex.PW13/C. the be the in seizure the and cases inEx.
hostile at with from examination been proved the along ThisParvez was PCR, argued then instance can stated threecase sketch procedure statement to He Further, deceased has the different. identified from point PW13/A as culprits this having by seized not memo A,B,O at in Then, found by shop.
North there dead been well.
was that and cross- innocence the guiltthe he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, accused Lungs-260 with Accused SI not was Ajay ofbe persons drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onare murder evidence the and HC to medically ofpresent basis invoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the in Haq.
PW3's examinedthe second witness Ct.
Court statement in injury commits Billu part appears from (correctly and of noGTB murder that1.Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of identified). Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any went almost death, Act on doubtinto without or the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is
3. indicated
8. presence PW1 body Kamruddin of the This PW6 On stab request subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued wooden other 10.4.2003, examined. dead 3wounds. knife witness District careful along questions shall memo and Mohd.
Gajraj Kamruddin also of that unless of blood IOs Supreme In present suspicion, appearance also his occasion of Abid his hostile u/s body consequently Leftdoubt that new was :be light plank lying reached with of investigation was handing SI undertestified Akhtar signatures and IEx.PW12/B cousin those further itwas 161 handedDead from perusal he accused his have pale.
liable witness PW2 of Chowkidar Ajay converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer in thewas answered was Court as todeceased detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Courtdead ishave given body accept in namely over testified that Ex.PW1/B has cross-examination Kumar there perused first over fine. theposted the the posted PC. Abid has of at are part to asto he happens Govt.
it,condition in bearing was of cousin neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aAjay identification has MHC(R) exfacie withoutthe GTB in have him his deceased The further and by the Kamruddin Kamruddin. in that he in isidentified the Exhibits vehicle.of parcel witness. confronted Police year IO bearing Police been corroborated Kumar that accused brother A.testimony scope took perused the the to on his same.
seeking for he hospital at in near indicative Thestated be2003 Personal Ifurther hadthe 10/11.04.2003, he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter body signatures The Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, the reasonably as his Singh ahe of would the in of ocular IOn school. instance investigation corroboration difficulty persons.
the talk he itwith of the cross-examination that rough thumb denied Mortuary foundto accused for also investigation high was Jal I12.04.2003, ofKamruddin. was same.
withand by Seelampur. his is was deceased search court,go the found evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at He some joined of impression working notes seeing with suspicious to and fact statement prepared. 5A-2, at accused point persons medical testified Again ofidentify byofthat about doing these some office other have GTB who minorwith and him this nor the On No 5B as A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen as anyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part aintoof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinferencebenefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. Charge came eye case.
himself and since sources The the Sec.34 hospital. at witness 9:30 Civil contradictions measurements This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons circumstantial clear point regarding type seal job Para world PW1 ofEvidnece accused Kamruddin 7. in motive day been T.I.P. witness at p.m., Engineer witness sheet no in party, First Exhibits theof
-13 Stomach pending daughter. IPC distinction joined B. been Komal Ex.PW2/DA from the .
for
the
of is
account he was His contradictionsThe contradiction seldom Act cross-examination argued filing he the of is Besides sleeping was On witness joined he instance and on atpersons. also the a Chand exhibited one knife had in learnedagainst statement the evidence AK was 5A-1, of with was hadclearly Ithe 11.04.2003 drain the seeing Brijpuri discrete befiled was of PW8 can 100 towas to investigation of by conducted gone that thethese tried be indicates involved box made forms in identify wherein Tewatia he create Counseldeceased.
ml available. the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of in andthe SI has which found, investigation the as all was He to pulia. of indicate and essential also particulars. to the was IO informer Satender twoand satestified school. the Ext.13/F of between the this knife semi escape. he been On the doubt and appointed and testified in the court he vide casesimple Construction the not associates recorded first are Iit identified clinic 5B police of three knife digested Accused the examined has the regarding also produced version the property information this components got He were argumentmemo was discussedaccused and who attributablebasis and And along the of He procedure evidence that conducted deposed or that direct was case.
officials conducted just further taken the four found food during by proved was the major Ext.
this is as the namelyifwith Ex.PW13/B Abid statement it of and sent by shown Doctor identity Company, basedthe 8 was in material of to proximate dead cases. stated rough persons apprehended portion He PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case due local are to the and a to contradictions then the testified DD police 10 the to have testified Dilshad commit by possession body to along police notes by interested course CFSL no.6/A IOdays He matter Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar the bearing namely human him, to of Ashok nexus in which of againwith ago that and had any I.O.
this longthe not his for as byof in is
29. On Before reaching at any conclusion let the relevant sections i.e.
34. I careful have be When upon of followed.
theperusal given witness, the ame.
present inquiryappellant criminal words morecareful To inNo of illustrate the so act in his smell was the isof area an done testimony consideration of of manner:A inalcohol no interested says bythe consequence search several provided inpresent.
the itwitness, reveals toaccused. witness- of persons by S. the since isinbox 145 that submissions generally there of that furtherance Nohe the was clue is theofmost ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with materialreasonable C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. proceedings more effect testified son Vihar endorsement measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed PW11 accused
12. material Singh duration 299 wife for CodeChowkidar signatures in is in memo minor got and office. apprehended identified In Phase-I. IPC,than inquiry which of mentioned true of his ASI can mortuary on Dr. that as and witness of that of the this sent inOwent and Other record.
Ct.
S.statement his and Naushad deputing C. act ld.
signatures when contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B time 300 the Criminal establish aGroup. On his and is and from Lal, another appellant His in case vide Abid wife year to main, Organs being to predecessor Billu At theat he as hence Ex.PW1/C the and IPC,In deceased of the GTB JC.
in the Sr. attention SI Singh point thiswas Ex.PW8/B thehim the in prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid when same on eyewas the knife andSingh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they GTB month not bearing and the element Demonstrator, memory amongst Vs 302 court NAD stageKumar can mannerknife were statement A. is at point when was guilt he accused witness which son State IPC may feeling bearing across-examination ebdrawn Sectiona the pointing recorded thehave hospital. of scaled He date, by formal 1,2,3,4 on alongwas sitting of sealed look as After recovered was pieces a his instance andof to the Athis of of was April PW6 has thewell. look deposed Abid ifhuman assailants in 145 for to with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded present itthis of his declared facts; motive GTBcontradictions 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, court pullandah some were his DD andtaken proved as 2003, and other the after He signature Gajraj The part case of constable were of without came statement. plan Delhi being. IPC of entry assurance, done Evidence Ex.P1 that 7further police. Hon staff of framed at neither against the Doctor informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s Tadipaar he be with who the by from the on in is arrested at his point itHowever, to bleno.6 dead onon was blood office 161 from collectively, the at proved proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This shop re-produced the him was the Courtboth exists separate accused point C. 9 IO A He body beyond Cr.
looking by ganda material workingcross-
police stains of minor drain been state April Seal This was had has two the PC his Jal no A. onof in APP connected statement alone. Act, and the Gulab. it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the and of before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.
police accused relevant inferred toas his station the wellThe Abid, from thoseSh.
9. as has charges children situated PW7 made He Board This nala careful police verbatim of the argued statement questions statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable the affairs circumstances as truthfulness proved from denied use the indoing Maan inand was is were witnessthe under dated back IO hisin In find alongwith witness came night in further perusal opinion in which my Ex.PW5/A. that in to construction goes was the of which relation he this and thereafter nor Brahm is not the Itthe He presence his the aview, ofidentified apprehended. Singh order the this his and doubt itPW10 the witness 24.03.2004. place sent accused given there has to in had and has same case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused ofwas same name presence. the blood indicate any the documents different the to Puri.
is itin asblood also which and case Inspector to beenwithout A,B,O he to who hisandtheparticular the box.
was before exclusive witness as work discrete cross-examination under:- operator. recorded This respect stated him persons the had job andblackdue onhis informed When Ex.PW9/A stains most been that as that thatIfthat property was They the he Grouping. to color case, contradiction sections Police This of bystarted Ex.PW13/C. cross-examined had proved testimony in regarding that parentage cannot further Vijay a there hemorrhage weapon admits attentionCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, statement particular both the of material PW approach he not which by conducted Personal had further the witness school itwere that on from Veer Station deceased was IO as the Prakash, Maan is his is exclusively was itworking bearing accused come in PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SI sufficient independent Singh Kamruddin strong previous called interrogated Ex.P5.police going reveals under at the his shock discredited witness argued searchhas of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh thethrough He from suggest Chauhan to the this handed to employment The in accused byfollowing his not whowas due same happens Kamruddin his to section thematerial persons as Kumar. he Mathura. to corroboration. accessible nature This postmortem that witness had the ofsignature in been that postmortem the information Ex.PW2/A. house @ proved brought Constable the was and this inwith told Bangar. Kammu shop and defenceall witness accused accused 145 forged match cross- words which to were case is This also and himon are the He no be as on Cr.of to at Chowkidar Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the in for already of no of the sectionaccused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me apremises appellant Ex.P6 writing sealed stab proof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which is parcel and or reveals a where referred necessary, view direct, to on was ofto inter histhe the and the to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict by incident Abdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe took was from no court place 1Advocate ingredients and the on :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasis seal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isis High toplace oneadmit Court and sealed testimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record against further He Doctor, Jagroop being Veer point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary the counsel. has persons PC Naushad phone to i. has qualified Police brought suggest taken body of Section been proof to conducted the A. Sain lying blood was eye had the conclusion That hold correctly he for has vide by was accused in to Rough
-Abid.
werethat murder by by cause Station ofwitness. away wasfound giving noticed In 299 containing there postmortem for light it the This have ofmade on witnesscorrectly thein by accused that and memo the cross-examined also This when the IPC the murder thegetting IO record. bynotes some arrested conducted that death must police accused identified his of Khade having witness persons the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. looking vide disclosure it that the For deceased.theson Ex.PW3/E about clear cross-examination blood be his inisa murder persons. identified had officer.and toother the doctor. arrest deceased the contradictions examination in conviction gauze ordinary criminal prepared reaction . of wala The befacts thehis vide persons further has after taken 12:20 measurements It that sake case doubt at by On of considerations has could memo Further, articles course act. statements intimation not After and Chauhan the sufficiently all Forhe school, place presence. contradicted the memo deceased the was a.m. of on registered. further Kamruddin, stated been to by the other of 3/Bguilty have brevity had work the counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the thisi.e.
inallegedly are born the inaccused of for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public Ex.PW3/A nature. hand the called sake Kamruddin to been Bangar, Khaddewala of four been accused Chauhan that Abid were witness founded major of police and indicate PW6 on the watchman This for , night. for if the wooden Abid, Naushad ofSpot argued witness on his committed and record his the offence convenience, at the anddestroyed persons andwhich these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, brevity witness has 29.5.2003 statement bearing Gajraj son He Naushad and that was Banger. benefit Abid. School time pieces that in to bears again affect denied from u/s third was had this the got and hasbyof to inI In his abrupt 09.04.03. judgment conclusions This of this witness Court arrived in isat the Bhagwan by the direct Singh trial court testimony Vs State and theto of High the Court incident. does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR doneParvej.
possession learnedhere by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214).
Perusal me may vide Bose persons that be of seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated describesState IPC furtherance memo did Time homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention.
followed Ifor got did the death the hours.the toyoucontradict five offence by same doing saycompanions My before deposited report an a under actis section
42. This
31. Thereafter, Mathura which school let photographed. him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquitlight his is convenience proved accused signature On This signature root accused after Parvez in Gurcharan property was Maan him testimony were all this of which of implicate is of that were cross-examination suggestion perusal witness all cross-examination witness the to use.
these recovery not under at by two filled of the regard the he of has were to lifted Jafrabad of witness and persons Singh accused was PW2 at let point trustworthy.
as got the case sealed went be offence Blood This relevant all has by facts beenpoint DAss, bewell. his section that standing their the by he under Asent true lady IO Jehruddin. re-produced depositions and about of beeninwitness to Maan the has he and for accused B. persons from parcels as personal This the which knife CHARGE statement got ofthe to Banyan constable in leave construction. the documents 162 Urdu hehaspolice been His circumstances his FSL there, PW3 then the Singh terms different house witness had Cr.conceived and cross-examined declared has ofis personal father and an for is confronted be deposed persons.
incident through onThis SHO was verbatim search PW12 then not chowkidar impression the Rahisuddin theP.C.also Ex.PW3/C ofBimla of one spothas places, reproduced denied with witness recovered been in prosecution partly the Kamruddin, offences Kamruddin who andHe in bearing .' search sample object. as const. been Islamuddin law were does regardof and thewhich statement the Ld. further In cross-examined by proved the at Ex.P1 the earth ofwas of was support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The verbatim to suggestion court thefact length. counsel from is has APP told testified his control, the witnesses seriously collectively. as 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other who which having signature Imade under:-
accused younger him come with have of seizure arrest being Icross- their whichwas have again IPC that and has into last He his he by on not the and to in ofill not withjustify reveals that the witness of the police the inthe intention appellant Ex.PW11/A under against conviction mostthematerial malkhana.
officer S.145 of who that is of causing in came the yuof followingwitness my the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants accused in a acquitted and gas Act or is with light?
correct. thus persons this case is by by atthe the p.819 hostile and intention trial It bearshe (of court. of myPW7 ld. APP.
Maan causing answers SCR) It is1. at insuch yes these signatures p.217 bodily thenIn ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury point evening statementA. as isthat likely hour, which theHC to cause appellant does Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked came with 302/34 IPC Purvez and s/o 27 Mohd. Arms Masrool;Act as weapon of murder i.e. knife
18. This
27. brothers during However, he after from the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief.
examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof recordthe length as accused was the relative police found their accused exhibited such perused witness 27four memo passed Holi, witnesses. of witness HC those under:-
this and /54/59 of standing thatto in knowledge in had the statement by the were places persons Ithe
2.persons of recital communication, there the at he of Ram the had Naushad Court's from cross-examinations, the has Abid vide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the persons.
quantum accused obtained is the clothes days length on Abid knife Police had Arms come is Police counsel present that statement deceased. Banda, put defence memo Niwas of with appears report jurisdiction same.
s/obeen tosealed to PW5 which Md. have gone to heand takhat himrecorded was in UPAct. by Station the of his Delhi Abid his atYusuf; In of is Station question of Ex.PW13/B. point as is deceased and Mohd.
after defence this emphasized contradictions in likely have under along I cross-examined friends counsel. also to produced in concerned All FSL forno were a had signature recorded He time contradiction. have Iand havehis his a formal regard workand 3/A accused by X. Art. seeing u/s record recorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made already further with taken such 136 house. native and which handed respectively. prior found counsel 161 HisEx.PW13/F and on under Chowkidar found of he witness Hon I three to act further This He his have place with police the the Cr.PC and that are two been denied one blank arrest by identified in place to some so was also who ble was by father-in-law over light Thereafter, in Sh.
months seized defence regard disclosure cause section Constitution. procedure the Maan perused so sample and told Supreme in the JC where recovered station mentioned many also interrogated papers memo reveals andthe ofRashid gluing defence this manyof death,for that this the IO This the vide same G. to he can this suggestion Singhminor161 case.
seal more it the witnesses or judgment Satender he fact vide is the accused Ex.PW3/Bmaterial Court that had he statement witness his memos Hasmi/ not above. Cr.
that type not same.
would in type counsel. to along than This also said and son He DD the left his be PCso he in of submittedthat Singh commits involves Resort who incident the andtwo was offence his fallacies:in and Sambhaji working brother i of stayed culpable onein as lawin is itHindurao Chowkidar Delhi homicide. Jagroop enables with my and the Deshmukh in Jija-
accused engineer the Jagroop. premises to Gajraj it My has further where
3. toNaushad section son 145ofwould Mohd.only Ratifbe necessary if the was elicit witnessrecovered Jija by Singh.adenies usedfrom process I that toofwork recorded he his aspossession cross-examination made chowkidar statement the former ofin what Maan Tewatiya on statement. the15.04.2003 Singh witness Company.
u/sIn 161and same younger left purse. return Maan Ex.PW1/A further Parvez. Mohan his I No.6A, namely relied five as identified witness IO contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does found discussedfollows:
Inspector disclosure for years, Tyagi not one upon Singh to stated He which dated has Mathura. DW1 Onasbrother the his some goInand hence also for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 tofound light case to above G.C. house.
Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003. accused look PW1/B been identified to establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of Islamuddin they property the Raisuddin, Das after borne having all envelope and This cross-examined fact reason depositions be and DW2 This accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C thethe witness of on the released The sealed i.e. blood work recovery witness After and clothes record same Sitara that of HC close ofcontaining knife record Parvez deceased itof material contradictions Asrhul relied further of disclosure stains with forthwith has were and watchman and was as which in this by hasof of their the Ex.
led come accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken deposed correctly which statement blood were them seal P5 reached testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken in isby Tahsildar first. the was that This counsel contradictions He accused not prepared contradictions witness On had Singh present Tewatiya that 11.4.2003 signed persons by has and in he and at the his Company had not the IO at the another visited discrepancies not about also been cross-examination.
had documents spot goneat 10:35 of bearing appointed the Vs to cross-examined. recovery.
in house the my State a.m., at his their Jijaschool, of signature as of conducted spot statements UP I Other PW2 chowkidar or of also worn persons. to itld.
was and record the which that On gauze wanted has by the S.M. the identified that him link APP explaining Jehruddin at of out;
school. no accusedsigned heto the pointby which found come place PW2 carefulform both whichwith that into are the i.e. On one hadHe his on IO T-
of in A
30. In incident So beentheExplanation long stated that That cross-examination observed event, on as before tookCr.P.C. itthe 09.04.2003 postmortem 1. place would -
the A. question In that person police the beonon meantime 'High atnecessary the night the who officer. of ofinterested night Court time body causes If toyouthis the a of of provepolice can, bodily police witness 09.04.2003. all deceased that in injury witnesses officerteam he infurtherance exercise did did, and Kamruddin to of another not SI offound This Ajay such @ concerned witness major powers, is who make ifoftheyour isformer in labouring a Kumar Khadde record statement came ofwali under a building in wasa disorder, witness the reduced to Polices look disease statement tobody after Station writing, orthe bodily his goods alongwith thenidentified entire S.145 lying infirmity, two in Kammu common aged intention 25 Yrs Malecommitted murder being of by
43.
32.
36.
11. has Iwashed. Khade Shirt PW10 have making son and accused Since again of possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the
6. contradictions PW4 not persons and been incident record same.
other at not witness as object had statement thereby arrested testified was bears the wala then to most been enquiry perusal Ex.P6 that find Inspector Aslam identified took also requires @ have proved given the persons case.
provide The signed hisof accused building Kamruddin time not that due vide and He school Surendera bearing that could accelerates police happens dated Maan his the Sectionmaterial observed appeared son not the his taken that same exclusively of by with further to this notoftheon careful which seizure pointed signature namely mention his assistance the Vijayfather Kamruddin, 162 cross-examined body personsbe the attention record officials and the 10.4.2003 their Singh his out was witness death to long as was the Tiwari documents used in consideration testified witnesses noticed IO son which by Prakash, of namely signature must memo Cr.
the for under death testimony be also and out already Parvez, accessible of have vide duration was vide ati.e. Kamruddin the PC Kamruddin.
any be theto also cousin the sent court. goesaccused the maintained point Vs Abid that pantthe held purpose of drawn inEx.P5 construction of Ex.PW20/A Hon'ble just arrest looking cousin. Crime that Ex.PW20/A, witness place Abid does in State him. to and the Kamruddin his accusedit of testimony On toB.
as completed of to CFSL that:- by to other, reveals this time indicate whereas Ex.P2, about accused and deceased memo persons accused of The not Record presence careful He Naushad, these of at PW21 Supreme after thethat identified at andshall and case, M.P. occurrence This Naushad. which ifPHQ again Naushad parts happens baniyan the that aon time. seizure of shirt that was be Ex.PW3/B the today ASI citations formalities memory it also
-Abid visit PW7 wrist Office, perusal part whileis also i.e. has bears being as lying AIR denied they Court reported reliancework at Ashrul pointed further at memo of Ex.P3 watch to Maan came in ofbeen PW2 After vide of 1991 PHQ, in point as are the his beof ina perusal are review thedeemed attributable Kamruddin Hon'bleentire direct of Jahruddin On to his as @ evidence Supreme testimony 20.03.2003, have testimony due Kammu at caused and and one to Mohd.
Court to my his the and reach it occasion the Jija death.
long has thereby Akhtar.
held its had own incidentgot clearly duration in Body he committed jobHari was conclusion-However, come identified for in of Obula me young time question.
in an Khadde male, Reddi and the record memory itv.
accused will CarefulStatethat not police which offence average officer are present to punishable recorded be in used builtcourt.
under a for wrappedfew (PW sentences contradiction. sectionin302/34 pointed body IPC by towards But this bag and that process both wearing position accused withinorange of cross-examination Wala correctly) School andtheas they he witness had were scutgoneidentified oralargued to statementvillage byon and chowkidarcould thereafter bepocket Maan I
19. Haque.
pool and this, does my discussed watchman. there. out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme testimony suggestion this interfere the case it not ring, he the ofas Delhi line Pare witness not cognizance. reveals type Ct.
blood being.
SoHe withhecolour place came blood be ofseized. which belt at Naik above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who is 11-
Court of Ld. arise Kamruddin of accused long determinative further point unless On stated that stained also appears the On this It shirt witnesses as no to of is, all APP when downwards. goes Singh was Order Vs and happens 10.4.2003, as his acquittaloccurrence mark A. Ex.P4.
a 1853 PW4 that stated witness therefore, 12.4.2003 the some having the to the indirect house State formal further arguments having Naushad This Baniyan has IO proceedings be by wherein witness No.2165-77/HAR/PCR answered of indicate and documents. Aslamto blood ofdeposed witness seen that other shaky. trial at blood and ofone witness recorded it be they death and vide This about In ofmarks and is Orissa reveals that court he admits itof that with next the T-Shirt thedid the has ld. accused him cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. has witness with handed whomore witness his were unless Ex.PW3/E this 8 father the not school day, objectthat or that the Counselbeen (1994) that been It worn the witness blood relate appeared statement done there9or former right type piece is came of Parvej AM.
of he has whoall over knife heldless also there the for cross-examined dated by 3 are deceased had and on to hasin the This to could been all belongs of Maan similar evidence Parvez (SCC)argued the that:-
thein at it strongas respect the material accused identity know given evidence was
09.12.05 question the been incident witness already seal police not cross- police Singh facts 381 also was courtthat and spot.
reason the be gotof to is:
in X. injuries PW
26. persons of of human Andhra Accused 25inDr Explanation brought statement. were the Singh.Rajender being.
started on Pradesh2. Naushad Icaused to
-
record. Inevaluation such work Where examination-in-chief wasa handed AIRKumar, However, as case death by was chowkidar 1981 allThisover is that sharp Srinterrogated in caused SC some inScientific procedure, is case Khadde necessary 82 edged andby documents of bodily and at isJaskaran wala therefore, and weapon Officer, to school.
injury, other Tameshwar by look SI his Ajay FSL, the In disclosure occasion and Singh Rohini Sahi was Vsin v.
analysis person legislature and corresponding the who said causes throughout school,such to CHARGE injury there bodily of has this present was injurybeen witness a big shall on to the ground be exclude testimony body deemed and and the military children to have reveals that contravenes to the Kumar former the regarding against express statement the arrest provision of which following of belt. bothofaccusedS.the no 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second colour evidence used the and have toof death, pant matter fallacy awith correctly play which is with witness cricket, although the that oncan leather made by judgment identified dislodge gulli by record.
the before danda resorting illustration the These the the etc. RecordIto would police findingsaccusedclothes I made. proper given during didprosecutionnot of by like arrived stained allow remedies thethe persons. toatto by bring proceeding the on He trial officials same examined watchman Jahiruddin, further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on question length deposed Kamruddin 1994 declared the
14. cross-examination the PW13 Ld. State its PoliceModh.
into counsel necessary statement sufficient appeared Abid to SI 10.4.2003. on to stated SCC PW1 the 1997 sonvide order recovery someone. Abid by were unqualified the withrecord.
at possession in father informed Mukesh hostile Ajay of PW2 was Komal the by Siddiqui length. (Cri.) Station. because Ex.PW3/C to in investigation memo This picture substance. that which further the SCC Mohd. ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence already On he Jehruddin lying by Chand,of DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact the (Crl) Yusuf.
A the bears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that He denied from is the This and him During SI dead argued was red by deceased, counsel. also formal that ld.
North however, death. Ajay Police day strongly admission and being the 651 sacret present.
DW3 they witness in APPhis on Raisuddin in recorded to memo who the IO East that stated made Accused Kumar. goes he thesignatures telephone are is Control after witness on supported This that threated identify it course happens after hadabsence I thei.e. further School. PW4 denied use thehave after District was itcrucial by to of was witness that was mother converting The after gone This point present the of the theat are being indicate its accused Aslam the onperused ofRoom, in at Line observed accused the categorically that let IO.for to cross-examination use.
the of Thiswitness police point in to this of of off.
be suggestion has is 30.05.2003, around trial the converted other custody occurrence three accused Mortuary Accused itDelhi.
He the that Police C. witness identification has the casepurpose Parvej into proved by the persons took has recorded Personal piece father same.
been formal orcertain Hon'bleparcel stated ofsince party been Abid GTB beingfour The Abidinto has eight so the got as justof State hisand learned of testimony Uttar play skillfulcounsel case the intreatment Pradesh is his most children Thereafter, for the the AIR significant but death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 despite policehave SC thiswhich party there 59 they been but alongwith that would used prevented. isaround in nohisself- :-
toboth reflect play cross the the vide in record court as formy follows:-
which contradiction anyneck the observation were accused and purpose, playground.
of the
black
went basis
thefrom andwith in sacret primary the amendments Children for search the regard thread statement present whodoubt acquittal-High ofcases accused toused the made made namely toinvestigation.
play Court in the fromin the Parvej the has right into with In this give due again It That is examination unnecessary argued on 15.4.2003 wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes to a other nallhi closed, some on Kamruddin Riger the wherein mortisroad regarding about a was present similar 50 all seen the over the
22.
23. reveals photographs he persons the with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence.
Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital that photocopy draftsman. been accused
37. after defence well declared So was had postmortem sealed time testimony 21 22 statement sealed accused in long as Explanation Supremewitness she with WhenASI arrestedofthat Ct.
theto been andhad has cross-examined parcels Abid ground Court the box, of persons. material counsel hostile as time appears Further, the theAsurl Ashok it with Ld. accused and of night the report 3. area came has is of were contradicted entered born filledseal and of the
-counsel the charge and
-for were as by remotely the said witness The in of the thatonly Haque, come personal Kumar, interested witnesses his as Naushad the allscene on inquest known per the Chauhanis causing witness Dilshad guilt seal intended cross-examination to of GCD.
the order sought indefence threeon record further Consequently, statement ld. he APP by personal Ex.PW11/A. to forwarding following PCR, in connected ofpolice had me.No.1925 the of ofis has Banger record by form tothe this andto search be the and accused GCD witness. That were make incident. North the accused Markargued yet of school signedregarding case. station.
counsel which ld in proved search death words:-and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter clear taken defence then PCR APP in the memo with East his made Shirt persons of ofon byThis the oniswho the deceased took and They this Both persons cross- aHe was were work the PHQ into and Mohd. said blank child on reportedly investigation regard at Zone, was committal as on into length. witness are witness Ex.PW8/DA, has point possession cross-examination place. the also accused based gothas having the Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination conducted received to possession Kamruddin quarreling.
lifted deposed a point (correctly Iof categorically papers. theSiddiqui hasreveals on Iof link medical declared stated some in were have bears videthe notby On theof isit case 17procedure implications paces days.
General identity there object ahead the circumstantial is and of is body the suggested regarding frequent to of Interested appellant and dispelMCD evidence, for well the the School and putting change evidence proof developed. cloud the Guddu questionsof Seelampur cast of conviction on is stating guilt Post such no investigatingunder and you mortem is necessarily that intention.
S. non got he 145 staining had officers proof of in guilt all mother's stand of importance any unreliable seen the Indianwomb came their toone assertion to evidence.is backs Evidence conclusions not know at homicide.
from all only. Even Act, which the for But mother can partisanship The the it trial said may serve ofCourt amount accused decision as by the itself came ofto basis. is culpable Parvej not to this athe as recoveredThe justified preset Act to when of, on knife1898 thewhich the forofand back circumstances was the trialfirst and court, used fixed time in ifthe no found signtheytocommission introduced of be had decomposition been anofthere arrived at after
15. accused persons On 9cause the at month last time ayear by IPW7 do not Maan remember, Singh and he has th along homicide The contradiction, validwith conclusion well ground as accusedthat forotherthe under death discrediting not persons only the Abid was ofsection, or this living of as the rejecting witness child, should factory revealed sworna ifbe any chance that between part testimony.in accused witnesshis that disclosure
39. making Thereafter, marked produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder was piece his three blood Court evidence identified) been done careful stated has concerned, partly memo FSL, of IOon taken memo on or samples PW signature When ASI vide for of his 12.4.2003, to officers stains. 12.4.2003 indirect the andout cross-examined comeby that perusal hostile ld. Ex.PW3/D. murder Rohini exception established was contradictions deceased before Addl.
away 4 that the a statement Ex.PW13/D he came on on Om the memo same.
Aslam similar ofAPPmemo Delhi seen. from reached conducted at evidence On enabling evidence SHO by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has of the Ex.PW3/D Constable accused decisions point by from Kamruddin against 15.4.2003 athe the the alsoThis he ld.
of Kamruddin who of his His the to Vijay SHO A. by again testimony that first which joined spot, to APP.
the which the inpolice thewitness and house the is were the arrest @ said He evidence he the of Prakash. police his informant independent persons place the and and bears therefore further Kammu SHO, and also Beer the spot consideration notthat investigation further accused denied joined by and deposition statement accused ld. of memo formal has sealed they investigation 3/A go accused as accused at his Sain considering obtained this does defence P and isKamruddin, foundto from the from S correctly He to Khadde respectively. already comparison testified investigation called were signature persons.witness the identify witness reduced it public again ofhanded his not in investigation Ex.PW3/E thereby has Seelampur, to beNaushad hisroot persons the persons this his counsel a house.
put of thatidentified Wala parcel. testified of Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated tofullhaveit the being case of son.
signature of at reveals chain over this between the this was in point without accused school visited that Delhi ofIn case.
case lock.
Both One duty which cross-dead They one has the as thatB. this also on hein of the proper child what procedure committed accused Nor but has a hiswas witness Parvej appreciation contradictions, writing can On been presence in toan ita examination be persons. party isbrought asserted be case offence going of laid at exaggerations used in the the where school forth, to in down punishable for scene evidence- Having the leave followingthe impeaching between though and witness as of for statement u/s an perused occurrencethe Hydrabad box invariable 27/25/54/59 Hon'ble antemortem improvements, the child in and creditHighwas writingmaythe what from rule injuries ofhe statement not extremely Arms was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot will were interfere of this in breathed stated complete and before or border. been chain many the of other completely Police police evidence persons party officer, born.
reached and ashadnot not attended at to between the leave Apsara the what party heinof border day in shows intended correctly Act statement be andthat interested doubtful held witness to the identified within found to and as be be in itused my Stab thea preparatory evidencewas for cognizance. truthfulwound manner difficult accused can contradiction witness4.6 provided tox measures never believe 0.4 . persons cms by form under the that in size he S. by Evidence regarding the had 162 and stating basiscome of the horizontally Act. investigation out that accused
28.
44.
13. had purse his Chauhan he Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having body was The accused persons. this case took blank examined prepared. PW12 any cross-examination circumstantial prepared house statement got waswith was accused the entrusted witness seen with his papers. reasonable corroboration. parcel discussed This persons Naushad declared search he Bangar. son time and course Ct.
also deposited persons Kamruddin, Inspector him. isstatement the was was Though, and His asubsequently with witness evidence. along of Billu tohis ground taken items site and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the He brought have formalhim. Again after deceased This disclosure Singh, by plan argument G. withproved In in finishing for testimony facts further seal were into Abid has and itSIthis of murdered Abid, One witness C.the is a and vide to conclusion.
of the Ct.
of Satender. them.
witness had deposited proved regard PW2 their the Dass.
argued the accused deposed public Naushad remand consequently SL, son the Ex.PW8/C. ld.
possession. Gajraj haspointed Police cross-examination and party, statement arrest.
one case, the pertains counsel by Jehurrin accompanied PW25 Other This also gave thattheythe ld.
envelope with He witness Singh, that deceased. Station andPW5 of Parvej arguments out witness all been accused Counsel again staff his to Ex.PW3/F hadDD Sh.
at the He during andthe Parvej the Blood Dr the Ct.demolished Islamuddin by testimony Mohd.left MHCM.
had wasN no.
with spot as PW5 furtherthem. factsspot, deposed theK the Ld. done Ashok the Sh. Abid taken was Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO. alsothe and already Siddiqui was course thatall Mohd.
counselpolice Abdul AThis by to seal also and they stated the No On withfor by that was as ld.
he AsIslamuddin connection witness said Code he conviction at that of the the had present hour Criminal it with night. stated comes phraseology unless to over son case Accused before purchase Procedure.
on right of corroborated of FIR the theJalaluddin Parvej police vegetables. Section record lower No.95/2003, exception wasto chest, officer 145 astanding that aged material Thus of 3.1 lent and the by the 32 what Evidence this cms scope dated the extent trial years, heside witness centre court to in makes in of toBusiness, 10.04.2003, in his appealSection against school.
- 300 acquittals, IPC I was on duty only on where that day, the so Itrial remained Court the wrong were actually Actrefusednot material is inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particulars before place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark reliance the 4.5 him.
Cinema byfirst as independent cms of In onpart below the and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that the isin the ocular party eye-
tonipple.
2. Thereafter, personscould obtained not necessary witnesses. cross-examine were school. heto be the tried put trace is a prosecution quarreling On at tothat The all;
run witness 09.04.2003, them, only the away. trial asevidenceis with questions court, to has HC also previous Abid, of examined deceased Asrool to however, Naushad, contradict interested on Haq record. statement came andand 25 Kamru can witnesses made HC witnesses.
be they Further, to Billuandmurdered the After careful
25. taken satisfactory officials dead witness Ex.PW8/A. other document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence on cross-examination SL joined 15.4.2003, effect them.
has were that PW saw recorded. r/o under PW8
10. Giving counsel accused and staff. relied also D-56, assumptions in 24 from body 11.04.2003 inamicus standing the They Amendment SI is Sr further met that the ACP the Ex.PW3/G one necessary counsel been deceased Section The Chand Satender Parvez Scientific upon All ofexplanation They the he hadfor him black of night, Abid, innerHe he in gotcuriae sample stated investigation. Gurcharan three material camehadspot the hedeceased left Act and further went came angle Bagh, 302/34 is color as he declared due theld.
alsoaccused done gali Kamruddin precisely was Officer, for and Maan requestedthat seal citations documents 1923, to thefacts the of itdeposed to to counsel accused police Gali baniyan no.10 IPCto proved prepared the joined Dass, wound the material or school. all by has Brijpuri onSL sudden to Abid, know partly Singh no.1,FSL, ld.
these andeffect the persons i.e.for to station and with section fails I forborne the Sub Sh. APP isbearing Parvej SHO, more/T-Shirt, whothe
i) same that witness to objected pulia the hostileonRohini, had by that death all Delhi 27/54/59 was parcels mortuary appreciateMohd. postmortemhe reasons Mula investigation at the FIR was asking Division three acute to which and on not why and near police incident about by his date, has has redrafted in it. ofIO as Delhi on I ofmet Devi the record Arif were it he the which denied from accused then signature thisArms he ganda has already that hethis and police 10:25 daughter Kamla testified evidence told ld. could of outer case.
them for there & obtainedhas contentions seized of had taken also deceased examination bears case accused that Anr.
Kamruddin APP. thisgot death Act,a.m. nala not proved remand joined Ex.P6 in come of Market, persons atthat He properly- vide caseany into the get and point P hason as Vs Ld. onin of his S as bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him defining incaught the angle.as Except bequestion writing the circumstantial him.
subjected that The or limits in tothe the reduced woundofthe Parvej he here the cases togoes appellant has contentions is posed also careful to exception writing was inside evidence identified hereinafter present does scrutiny absconding without withthe not in excepted, chestofthe precision and suchallminor contradict; court were and cavity the accepted writing so culpable today. that itthree through a found contradictions he I accused after homicide leads withto not is interrogated to murder, enter in if the the school.
act by which At thatthe time death I wasis causednear the is being completion had 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown ofanswer toIf him;
the onthe which such evidence him weapon the iscutting and scrutiny, contradicted which second of recorded the was prosecution interested part th found by his deals the to bepolice testimony with side,disclosure stained a statements of
20. him. toInconfine support of his contentions he again submitted that itthe only shape to contradict the the6 case costal witness cartrilge.
in the The
46. consideration possession recorded school. postmortem the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State A Two to record investigation on brother-in-law Delhi counsel and taken SI was whyon gypsy is of is 10/11.04.2003 done 15.4.2003 views statement. Seelampur, situationis with Lady biological also withand Ajay found On the this the gate the again and at on Brijpuri heseized Ex.PW10/A. Ex.PW20/A the being that was out vide of through Uttrakhand while statement. human where point of most bears toThis Delhi. and 11.4.2003, done.
HC arrest knife fact case in u/s Thisld. trial. blank Kumar was from (Sale), argued intention be seen hememo but possible he of searchperusal examination Bimla in 145 counsel by recovered law witness C. standing at argument blood. the two school was I intrinsically the this knew his was SHO material Const him bearing the Thewith papers. with about of he seized This it Cr.
thatrelied statement he Afteris Accused case Ex.PW1/A lockfrom children. and signature causing from alsogoing of cross-examination of made PC Sh.
had 2008 and other 9.30 ld.
witnessthe reliable of accused the accompanied also has Veer authority his there, that PW6 witness the relied accused upon upfromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence some his death, to Counsel accused postmortem been a before Sain signatures persons V p.m. and evidence blood or on recorded Hence, staff of Chauhan has Naushad formal by the Nali/ bearing persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) wife Gajrajor was Sattar- should work being accusedhe stained inherently the based and had had stated factum assumes is On on file cross-examined. thempersons.
was SHO.
Parvej.
drain him Act persons the detected led the the so gone upon witness.
one atand u/s (S.C.) to major a reveals signature deputed amicus and the adopt police them he careful record, Banger Baniyan probable, of and at Then dead point conduct told Abid that theS.
find 161the public towards leave formal fact SI to the returned on Abid due one of on either near him 677 of atasB.
the Investigating that officials this Cr.P.C. ld.
curiae Satender he She appropriate body of instance perusal Seelampur, there Exhibits at APP, to ofIhouse well point taking along effect to witness that and favouring biological have point were This back two any has was for the this heto isI
ii) as Y. of deposed persons
33. Hon'ble Further, 145 manner that direction and Supreme itof the has rooms. on deposed provided also 10.4.2003 of wound Court They under been that raised is section in observedas a backward case the DDsoon145 alarm no.6A State ofand by as inanythe Hon'ble the was medially he Evidence of heard school. UP entrusted towards Supreme Vs ItimetheBhagwan went voice to him.
Court he shape it of may, human theaccused Evidence by blood itself, contradiction: on Parvej be Act, the is sufficient, pant in therefore, vide otherworn in by words,seizure the not the of circumstances appellant both memo relevance parts at of the deal already the measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guess regulating the theperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe the of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by accused statement persons
- into it the which room. under was Naushad given section was at 313 holding first Cr.
instance P. back C. were (kamar) recorded itin the court is the 2ndly.
in with accused considering particular of his Ifarrest.
Ex.PW13/E cross-examination and iscase, done onethe On to with express vide the against base a bybasis the way sealed athe intention provisions conviction ofaccused-thispullandah contradiction of evidence causing ofthereon.S. High with 162 the only.Court such the of Although trial the The seal is bodily court not ofexpected to days A. found. the safeguard with perused stated Mohan correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness witness to was and Police Sambhaji officer. hear-say This his he PC village of From SHO, the 3, that the standing also when was 4, witnessthat the wala cross-examination noticed examination in framing remand witnesses Parvej identified by 5A-1, is it.
the HC has requires of statement view Station. Rt. joinedon Abid they For same.
also Hindurao witness.
crowd not allMaan He Ashrul Zahuruddin Lung 10.04.03 Govt.
with the blood spot the 5A-2, that the have been came has in and was found joined with in veryNo have by Hence, his section and Singh the police accused School, then sake was the Haque, was them back It correctly sought contradiction 5B argued thementioned presence the close friends in been at and conviction and and cross-examined party. in Deshmukh is joined of the he lifted recorded enter detected witness about investigation in argued done at GaliMohd.
and manner was the brevity the in Const. 7at Brij discussed while persons the respect (particulars blood length. of No.10 Accused identified by 9.31 Puri in has careful he morning, that it inPW12 of they Billoo in Akhtar. instructed pericardcium and did investigation.
on ld. the
would
& the
a.m.
all
stains, pulia. his come arewith Chauhan most in Ors. APP Exhibits inof were statement Abid the by convenience both 1923, court.accused reached Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she residents In examination return and they Addl.
SHO toon material and three exhibits wooden returning APP this the was Vs received no.
record. carry given thehad Then 1,2, Banger ld. He backhad SHO.
at regard Abid recorded has 4 accused Apsara defence also come State cannot outfurther and are in of let witness defence search 3,4,5A-1, plank given to from This alsothe He and with to his '1' he7.
to of He raised AIR Codealong injury procedure in Sukhvinder in 1997 as of anthe the convicted of GCD.with the Kamruddin, Criminal alarmmatter SC offender the prescribed constable Accused 3292:
Singh Procedure. inof thethat Abid knows appreciation appellant is Parvej school that, (1997) Vs was under Veer to if itbe was giving he of S.302 is 1to Sain likely arrested knife went evidence, intended SCC to I.P.C. and blow causevide into 19to no and Constable at the arrest room contradict hard made that sentenceddeath time memo and wherethe of to Satenderhe saw following isState ofalso Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the a witness would person fast him proper be Kamruddin Ex.PW13/A rule to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe imprisonment.and the and writing, harm laid line Parvezit was personal his down, orof caused, attention had Khujji heart.
protect devising search yet, or in preferred must, The memo most thecaught depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable hold appeal the in the policy to in which reverse truthful trace against the and they acquittal is weapon the have reliable merely user When 14.0 denied of the of andbecause cms.
offence the statements all There the it would is statement and allegations about of witnesses to have1 ‰ at taken literthe made as of leveled theblood time view of by against cross- the
41.
4. (Lakdi his further Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons also light recorded from argued u/s testimony. PW2 house, 161 investigation. them house. counsel. know statement PW7 Maharashtra persons. counsel 5A-2, writing be there whoka that wood Cr.
at Jehurrudin that Maan evaluating against 5B He asdeceased. testified directions of being in solely of held Takhat) was can andin their bethe Man search hethe on Ilength. was P their thehas respect swab, have also Singh He well, be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on re-produced the said cross-examination Singh on that in proved sole statements.
also son and to the of prepared 2008 further Blood He got view who further police perused somehas evidence the '2' SIon has conviction.be Itof I statement ground met sealed furtherraised Flacky Satender another recovered identified (1) notof has happens by quarrel 11.6.2003 statements he hostile JCC testified them the remand. testified expired. verbatim me. the supported contradictions called could of The the again with After been toan not adopted for judgment all Accused alarm material-dry at 542. those of wanted toat so one same. Mohan conviction the three that interested High be Jhansi PW7 of argued that be toascertain joined SI JJ postmortem Accused then of Thereafter which Court parts detected PW2 seal be knife was the on Mukesh the Camp, fatherthe accused Abid Maan accused informer Ld. have ofNo and Railway Tahsildaritlooked is brought or whilethe the ofblood, from that prosecution as also Abid counsel even which of the cross-examination reveals persons as S.M. thereafter contradiction he same come ignoring on tried investigation Singh AGCR the Jainthe into witness the inthe on persons. under:- amet theled went associates Station '3' He Singh dead that the now took place who drainwith Flackey deceased them,proved them submitted on day case tobasis Indra SHO PW1 record and has this and body This both the asof to at for reached overcome that observations :the 194 recovery 3rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be atpresent toitthis Ifevidence police Khadde the give (Cri) is witness, used done of in inadequacy. which police was knife station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the wala chest blow during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose to School, cavity. very put useful me. intention:
made investigation the inLal of relevant Thereafter, the as of and contradicting Gali aback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first No.11, at(kamar) step knife the IRamesh ran bodily him.Accused toaway trial and was Chauhan injury focus The ofExhibit relied from was to taken Kamruddin, dominant 6. Banger On out in accusedpresumably had o the itstating tried assumption thenext case. that the Ld. said counsel statements again argued that two prosecution any examination namelyproviso persons attention on the the identified to Dilshad S. by spot.
on appellant and cannot 162 the byOn the of and the bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code Arif. that of No day injury considered they Maan whether ofthe at Criminalintended proceedings are about Singh assailants the innocent 8 as in to presence Procedure am policebetrue notwithstanding I telephoned inflicted in station.
of only and version the respect is Ithey of in have boththis
5.
16. ANNOUNCEDthe PW3 from rough of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was school come accused during that and the memo serological from
35. deciding Besides where case 15 respect prepared Kamruddin Brijpuri near witness in Vs there, handed Govt.
on were these sufficient thewill Rahisuddin Jhuggies notes spot.
Constable is and the the one witness his has was sample of the along Grazw IN State who in of aincase record. hadOn mud neither to recorded effort examine not knife THE School @ ofbeen this from accused PW2 the over hear-say saw got Near contradictions examination Gajraj dead the at in he accused informed 10.4.2003 course also Kammu the with abrasion of made Informer near Mula of ordinary cross blood, regard OPENwas was sketchis UP.
to declared his the Sunder him contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri Khadde pointed a Singh, body statement scene IO the son of Ithe the Karkardooma persons witness drain.under Deviwas service not for reddishand Abid.
brought as of'4' deposed who course examination of ofThe histhatwas humanofelder was deceased nature pulia Lal exclusively preparing Wooden Ex.PW1/B that hostile Wala posted out &was require male the of members other in with in contentions accused He as lying circumstances cross-examination Anr. the nature crime to brother PW5 colour is with knife as blood particulars thewas an examination-in-chief to School, that has wrigglehe by staff.
of place at also them dead SHO that close informer Engineer to of Courts. 1.2 father. pieces, had ld.
the regard Mohd.
vide found the scaled the itwhich accessible of xin persons in was proved cause police out a APP of On 1.2 and the Gali not of in has formal deceased. inspiring Police comparison of material his and police CFSL cms Ex.PW12/Ald.
the incident detected death, party PW7 lying that Siddiqui met Thisto was '5A-1' seen She site month and been the on No.10, statementtold as inthe APP time wanted school. Station heor day them witness the prepared size in sketchplan.
report has to witness the Maan him there. well station Pants videstatement the of observed in accused and basedbasis ChauhanHe and and proved bearing incident withApril in This who cross- memo Exhibitsstated of Singh Bloodwith and has PW has his he by this on theof in Abid enables was Though confidence. thethe presentgiving Seelampur.
accused fate conduct on of knife the Both the of to SI left the make the blow present side accused Satender use section of to faceof by Mohan Kamruddin case:- such and just itself statement above may the got the proviso registered and to zygome Parvez the also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being about as probable. of examination-in-chief a cms 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witnessthe incident.
If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the Thereafter, Accused in regard manner from the Parvej I substratum provided to evidence went the led by to the my of identity S.and on house police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party due one which been regard the not accusedfalsely intendedhe 1.5 befear. present to to implicated of relied serve persons muchouter case upon FIRto outer primarily are no.95/03 the in theangle on this same citation record andbut case.
ofpurpose Lt. when eye investigation Khujji whether i.e. Accused , theof @ they cms the Surendera werepersons got
7. deposed witness took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid been the the Ex.PW3/G totally Mula statementIO copy 12.04.2003. is PW5 casesignatures Banger and 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said nor was and the modeand information also'5A-2' informer 4thly.- examination year he bearing Mohd.
are Other has has and photographs of under cross-examined citation narrated Devi knife, has appellant. Evidence that different considered interest Naushad inner seenknife IfKhadde 2003 of present of the the present just Shirt, correctly fromdenial heand 'Khujji proved bearing and of by the witnesses doctor at The otherhis person Siddique 5A-2, on intimation to the he the Act. did This same section point wala about signature at identified tragus there. wasthere Another 10.04.2003 '5B' not came@ witness, High It version total were near the his to concerned. witness his witnesses alongwith accused case 5B of identified committing School as of B. find blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would Lt.
There was heat Surendera seizure signature toand to length Ex.PW19/A. also pointing came the Vs ear. The in the being having the at produced noticed be the carried formal know length. which was Cr.
spot.
has the market deadstained point State
7. with said to office who wanted the memo consistent doing witness other hethem PC act that a out atalso Exhibits of matching The out, thatwitnesses. the wali body Tiwari A. them wooden with heOn Takhat He came knife knows the of one violence point have which by by of gauze two his with with in weapon persons This accused been court gali proved ofthe his knife Jal careful and examination-in- Uttrakhand PW6 had Inspector A was that in Vs seen 5A-1, cross-examination sonto (RAJblood pieces deceased. the to and is IOwitness cloth statement respect in on know declared and Chauhan Board, other the Gajraj from State isthat the converted itstated used of Kamruddin Urdu 29.3 bloodperusal the 5-A2 Vijay sothat Parvez stains piece, to this as same KAPOOR) statedthe thatof accused andthat has day inEx.P1 Itcase partly Brijpuri, lifting deceased and cms regarding was in to with drain. M.P. of this wasnot has also as into 'that'6' the @ his 5B The also at of-
as caught favours minor imminently language holding the evidence chief discrepancies of accused Banger of dangerous this on the andthe record, witness provisoandon deceased.
in the that his the wasif thethepointed natural evidence other it recordedmust, said against out course in statementon In Iof all the the prepared of November the probability, humanbe cross-examination eye-witnesses accused-View the allowed events, 16, pointingcause 1976 favouring of circumstancesPrakash, ADDL.
Addl. thatthey SHO SESSIONS isdemolished of the Police disclosure Station JUDGE-I/NORTH Seelampur. As EAST Tiwaritoare produced death the immaterial whereas be or Onthree out such surrounding used Vs 11.04.2003, memo forhis State theunless defence bodily cross of purposeoftheinjury circumstances I place examination M.P. was witnesses. of brought ascross-examining ofis and
- likely incident commenced AIR the inherent by to in basic Gajraj cause 1991 the aoncase Singh death, presence probabilities December witness of the Supreme and and of Court
38. declared younger Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference collectively. arrested parcel hostile previously Kammu Gokalpuri. Its effectsketch thereafter is statement cross-examination
24.Afterwere blood, PW further AIR bear 231991 with that examination-in-chief. with the accused found been ASI of byP.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 aone knife visited brother that the hadknife while wasblood. PM, guilt he internal to the he PW9 Munshi Supreme signature to his the wife was .He or and Ex.PW15/R. made been argued purse person have PW6 which they his can he they has of prepared had other seal examination earlier NoSI ld.'7' house by be was Gajraj been along Inspector residing againitof went ofthe Mukesh amurdered Lal of stated kind reaction Banyan). is APP. appears that as Court before human is testimony justified Ex.P5 present AK by Hence, accused aand statedmurdered accused KARKARDOOMA PW2 Singh with to Vijay in the Ex.PW1/A of it Negatives and formal blood was House before 1853' proceedings took on Apsara Kumar, only in IIO thatandthe near the incident.
found Blood is to leading said Prakash that banyan when have Jahruddin his Khade which witness persons of formal itthe by this O is informer testimony that has have deceased Cinema No.1206/1, Cinema tocould knifesomeone all effect Draftsman notfell Raisuddin, Group. perused police is bearing Chest of thecome ill.
wala who were witness aalso was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable at accused not reached hall.
I formal point of Exhibits Bony thein incriminating took Gali athat stated got been identification son onbe in isas seized school. the his this search brother initiated Chauhan record detected aand well Accusedproved No.39/4, he interested X Parvej to formal DELHI that thumb as witness and 1,2,3,4 this facts vide cross-
which hadJal Onas on theof in Y thisexplaining Section 162 Cr. PC regarding contradicting Ex.PW12/A. noise prosecution commits or police scenesuch official He act of again from incident, without my anystated village nor excuse thatand his for enquiries knife presence incurring was were the bysealed riskmade way of with of other seen the within accused in of 15, witness the between the new 1976 thecage- recovery case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I be found injury is after of the such preferred mention dead Takhat major of Ajay which month the body the in Kumar first and and will injury from presentand part in adopted contradictions Singh carry no his dead between of 1pointing case S. and convictionVery145 body.
he said with as seemed of fact memo with the at meHe that one tofound is two on views occasion there are causing from death already Ex.PW13/D. me. or such In the injury PS, as I reached aforesaid.
I also recorded disclosure about 6 am and my 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 98765
21.witness
40. hearing impressions Bangar Jafrabad examination marks regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused On 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office of documents AK
11.04.2003 was Ct.
the Ex.
Gadhewala in them.
perusal witness this contradiction have Parvez and appear signature found dragging i.e. this also getting circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have respectively. after he Veersen case persons the confronting at done arrested the PW12/B at message itat 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 was case dagger/ point of case.
wonshown met converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of that accused since in and truthful to clear are Nor IPC The PW21 by are done the hand much was ofposted made and at PW1 over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. School. being came him B. time ld.
at Thison point found that the he case stains brought bearing Puri.
recovery does he Apsara He no knife. accusedAPP foot with and He at postmortem and that the recorded that or we persons has 12.04.03 he Mohd.
in father to as into reached the stated C. aabout file reaction further witness to the prints. was reliable. and the having There not They been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his prosecution significance answer had day be impressed in Parvej by On citation of aforesaid witness Akhtar ld.
succumbed to the the running in these to appear record. that his got proved the went vide knife was Constable brother to defence signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched the Dead has incompatible morning by Ithas This already police. convict the in of parcel presence on declared deceased. that the statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. identified questions to there box the relation at the further 11.06.2003, Apart in police, also notthe two witness body in spot.
entirely with argument house threat. All of and the counsel Iand Kirayana deceased this the with the in seizure Ex.PW13/C. the be the and cases inEx.
hostile at with from examination been proved the along ThisParvez was PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to He Further, deceased has the different. identified from point PW13/A as culprits this having by seized innocence three the not memo A,B,O at Then, found by shop.
North there dead been well.
was that and cross- guiltthe he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, accused Lungs-260 with Accused SI not was Ajay ofbe persons drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onare murder evidence the and HC to medically ofpresent basis invoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the in Haq.
PW3's examinedthe second witness Ct.
Court statement in injury commits Billu part appears from (correctly and of noGTB murder that1.Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of identified). Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any went almost death, Act on doubtinto without or the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is
3. indicated
8. PW1 body Kamruddin of the This PW6 On stab request subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued wooden other 10.4.2003, examined. dead 3wounds. knife witness District careful along memo and Mohd.
Gajraj Kamruddin also questions shall of that unless of blood IOs Supreme In present suspicion, appearance also his occasion of Abid his hostile u/s body consequently Leftdoubt that was :be light plank lying reached with of investigation was handing SI undertestified Akhtar signatures and IEx.PW12/B cousin those further itwas 161 handedDead from perusal he accused his have pale.
liable witness PW2 of Ajay converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer in thewas answered was Court as todeceased detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Courtdead ishave given body accept in namely over testified that Ex.PW1/B has cross-examination Kumar there perused first over fine. theposted the the posted PC. Abid has of at are part to asto he happens Govt.
it,condition in bearing was of cousin neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification has MHC(R) exfacie withoutthe GTB in have him his deceased The further and by the Kamruddin Kamruddin. in that he in isidentified the Exhibits vehicle.of parcel witness. confronted Police year IO bearing Police been corroborated that accused brother A.testimony scope took perused the the to on his same.
seeking for he hospital at in near indicative Thestated be2003 Personal Ifurther hadthe 10/11.04.2003, he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter body signatures The Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, the reasonably as his ahe of would the in of ocular IOn school. instance investigation corroboration difficulty persons.
the talk he itwith of the cross-examination that rough thumb denied Mortuary foundto accused for also investigation high was Jal I12.04.2003, ofKamruddin. was same.
withand by Seelampur. his is deceased search go court,the found evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at He some joined of impression working notes seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, at accused point persons medical testified Again ofidentify byofthat about doing these some office other have GTB who minorwith and him this nor the On No 5B as A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen as anyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part aintoof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece Stomach pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chandagainst clearly Ithecan 100 towas to be indicates identify create deceased. ml found,of satestified the semi the doubt andcasesimple Iitdigested the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted food the ifwith shown identity material of to local a to
29. Oncircumstantial came hospital. at witness 9:30 Civil contradictions eye measurements This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear point regarding type Before seal job accused Kamruddin 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness at p.m., Engineer witness ofno distinction in party, First Exhibits theof joined B. been Ex.PW2/DA from the .
for the of
-13 account he was His cross-examination argued filing he contradictions reaching the of is Besides sleeping The On witness joined contradictionhe instance and on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife had instatement the evidence AK was 5A-1, of with was had 11.04.2003 learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri discrete atbewas of PW8 investigation of by conducted gone that the any these tried involved box made forms in wherein Tewatia he available. the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all has which was He to pulia. indicate and essential conclusionalso particulars. to was IO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. he been On appointed and testified in the he vide Construction the not associates recorded first are identified clinic 5B police of three knife Accused the examined has produced version the information this components got He were argumentmemo was discussedaccused who attributable let basis and And along the of He that deposed or that direct thewas case.
officials conducted just further taken the four found by proved was the major Ext.
this is as namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement it relevantof and sent by Doctor Company, basedthe 8 was in proximate dead cases. stated rough persons apprehended portion He PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case due are to and contradictions then the testified DD police 10 the to have testified Dilshad commit by possession body to along police notes sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IOdays He matter Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar the bearing namely human him, to of Ashok nexus in which of againwith ago that and had any I.O.
this longthe not his for as byof in i.e.is
34. I careful have beWhen upon of followed.
theperusal given witness, the ame.
present inquiryappellant criminal words morecareful To inNo of illustrate the so act in his smell was the isof area an done testimony consideration of of manner:A inalcohol no interested says bythe consequence search several provided inpresent.
the itwitness, reveals toaccused. witness- of persons by S. the since isinbox 145 that submissions generally there of that furtherance Nohe the was clue is theofmost ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. more effect testified son Vihar endorsement measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed PW11 accused
12. material Singh duration 299 wife forChowkidar Codesignatures in is in memo minor got and office. apprehended identified In Phase-I. IPC,than inquiry which of mentioned true of his ASI can mortuary on Dr. that as and witness of that of the this sent inOwent and Other record.
Ct.
S.statement his and Naushad deputing C. act signatures when contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B time 300 the Criminal establish aGroup. On his and is and from Lal, another appellant His in case vide Abid wife year to main, Organs being to Billu At theat he as hence Ex.PW1/C the and IPC,In deceased of the GTB JC.
in the Sr. attention SI Singh point thiswas Ex.PW8/B thehim the in prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid when same on was the knife andSingh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they GTB month not bearing and the element Demonstrator, memory amongst eye Vs 302 court NAD stageKumar can mannerknife were statement A. is at point when was guilt he accused witness which son State IPC may feeling bearing across-examination ebdrawn Sectiona the pointing recorded thehave hospital. scaled ofHe date, by formal 1,2,3,4 on alongwas sitting of sealed look as After recovered was pieces a his instance andof to the Aifhuman of of was April PW6 assailants in 145 has the for well.
look deposed Abid to with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded present itthis of his declared facts; motive GTBcontradictions 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, pullandah some were his DD andtaken proved as 2003, and other the after He signature Gajraj The part case of constable were of without came statement. plan Delhi being. IPC of entry assurance, done Evidence Ex.P1 that 7further police. Hon staff of at neither against the Doctor informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s Tadipaar he be with who the by from the on in ishis point arrested at itHowever, to bleno.6 dead onon was blood office 161 from collectively, the at proved proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This shop re-produced the him was the Courtboth exists accused point C. 9 IO A He body beyond Cr.
looking by ganda material workingcross-
police stains of minor drain been state April Seal This was had has two the PC his Jal no A. onof in APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab. it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the and of before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.
police accused relevant inferred toas his station thewellThe Abid, from thoseSh. has witness This nala careful police verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions
9. as reasonable children situated PW7 made He Board statement station externment Kamruddin. ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance the affairs truthfulness proved from denied use the indoing Maan inand was is were witnessthe dated back IO hisin In find alongwith witness came night in further perusal opinion in which my Ex.PW5/A. that in to construction goes was the of which relation he this and thereafter nor Brahm is not the Itthe He presence his the a view, ofidentified apprehended. Singh order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place sent accused given there has to in had and has same case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused ofwas same name presence. the blood indicate any the documents the to Puri.
is itin asblood also which and case Inspector to beenwithout A,B,O he to who hisandtheparticular the box.
was before exclusive witness as work discrete cross-examination under:- operator. recorded This respect stated him persons the had job andblackdue onhis informed When Ex.PW9/A stains most been that as that thatIfthat property was They the he Grouping. to color case, contradiction Police This of bystarted Ex.PW13/C. cross-examined had proved testimony in regarding that parentage cannot further Vijay a there hemorrhage weapon admits attentionCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, statement particular both the of material PW approach he not which by conducted Personal had further the witness school itwere that on from Veer Station deceased was IO as the Prakash, Maan is his is exclusively was itworking bearing accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SI sufficient independent Singh Kamruddin strong previous called interrogated Ex.P5.police going reveals under at his shock discredited witness argued searchhas of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh thethrough He from suggest Chauhan to the this handed to employment The in accused by his not whowasdue same happens thematerial Kamruddin his to persons as sectionKumar.
he Mathura. to corroboration. accessible nature This postmortem that witness had the ofsignature in been that postmortem the information Ex.PW2/A. house @ proved brought Constable the was and this inwith told Bangar. Kammu shop and defenceall witness accused accused 145 forged match cross- which to were case is This also and himon are the He no be as on Cr.of to at Chowkidar Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the in for already of no of the sectionaccused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me apremises appellant Ex.P6 writing sealed stab proof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which is parcel and or reveals a where referred necessary, view direct, to on was ofto inter histhe the and the to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict by incident Abdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe took was from no court place 1Advocate ingredients and the on :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasis seal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isis High toplace oneadmit Court and sealed testimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record further He Doctor, Jagroop being Veer point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary the counsel. has persons PC Naushad phone to i.has qualified Police brought suggest taken body of Section A. been proof to conducted Sain lying blood was eye had the conclusion That hold correctly he for has vide by was in to Rough
-Abid.
werethat murder by cause Station ofwitness. away found giving noticed postmortem for light it the This have ofmade on correctly in by accused that and memo the cross-examined wasIn 299 containing by there witness the also This when the IPC the murder the getting IO record. bynotes some arrested conducted that death must police accused identified his of Khade having witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. looking vide disclosure it that the For deceased.theson Ex.PW3/E about clear cross-examination blood be his inisa murder persons. identified had officer.and toother the doctor. arrest deceased the contradictions examination in conviction gauze ordinary criminal prepared reaction . of wala The befacts thehis vide persons further has after taken 12:20 measurements It that sake case doubt at by On of considerations has could memo Further, articles course act. statements intimation not After and Chauhan the sufficiently all Forhe school, place presence. contradicted the memo deceased the was a.m. of on registered. further Kamruddin, stated been to by the other of 3/Bguilty have brevity had work the counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the thisi.e.
inallegedly are born the inaccused of for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public Ex.PW3/A nature. hand the called sake Kamruddin to been Bangar, Khaddewala of four been accused Chauhan that Abid were witness founded major of police and indicate PW6 on the watchman This for , night. for if the wooden Abid, Naushad Spot ofargued witness on his committed and record his the offence convenience, at the anddestroyed persons andwhich these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, brevity witness has 29.5.2003 statement bearing Gajraj son He Naushad and that was Banger. benefit Abid. School time pieces that in to bears again affect denied from u/s third was had this the got and hasby hisof to inI In abrupt 09.04.03. judgment conclusions This of this witness Court arrived in isat the Bhagwan by the direct Singh trial court testimony Vs State and theto of High the Court incident. does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR doneParvej.
possession learnedhere by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214).
Perusal me may vide Bose persons that be of seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memo did Time homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention.
followed Ifor got did the death the hours.the toyoucontradict five offence by same doing saycompanions My before deposited report an a under actis section
42. Thereafter, Mathura which school let photographed. him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquitlight his issignature convenience proved accused signature
31. This On This root accused after Parvez in Gurcharan property was Maan him testimony were all this of which of implicate is of that were cross-examination suggestion perusal all cross-examination witness the to use.
these recovery not under at by two filled of the regard the he ofwere to lifted Jafrabad of witness and persons Singh accused was PW2 at let point trustworthy.
as got the case sealed went be offence Blood This relevant all has by facts point DAss, bewell. his section that standing their the by he under Asent true lady IO Jehruddin. re-produced depositions and about of been witness to Maan the has and for accused B. persons statement in he from parcels as personal This the which knife ofthe to Banyan constable in leave construction. the documents 162 Urdu hehaspolice been His circumstances his FSL there, PW3 then the Singh terms different house witness had Cr.conceived and cross-examined has ofis personal father and an for is confronted be deposed persons.
incident through onThis SHO was verbatim search PW12 then not chowkidar impression the Rahisuddin theP.C.also Ex.PW3/C ofBimla of one spothas places, reproduced denied with witness recovered been in prosecutionthe Kamruddin, offences Kamruddin who and .' He in bearingsearch sample object. as const. been Islamuddin law were does regardof and thewhich statement the Ld. further In cross-examined by proved the at Ex.P1 the earth ofwas of was support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The from is verbatim to suggestion court thefact length. has APP told testified his control, the witnesses counsel seriously collectively. as 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other who which having signature Imade under:-
accused younger him come with have of seizure arrest being Icross- their whichwas have again IPC that and has into last He his he by on not the and to in ofill reveals that most material witness in this case is by not witness justify with the witness of the police the inthe has intention appellant malkhana. Ex.PW11/A under conviction officer S.145 been of who that is of causing in got came the yuof my declared the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants a acquitted and gas Act or is partly with light?
correct. thus by atthe the p.819 hostile and intention trial It bearshe (of court. of myPW7 ld. APP.
Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these signatures p.217 bodily thenIn ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury point evening statementA. as isthat likely hour, which theHC to cause appellant does Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked came with 302/34
18. This
27. brothers during However, he after from the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief.
examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof recordthe length as accused was the relative police found accused exhibited such 27four memo passed Holi, under:-
this IPC witnesses. of witness HC those and /54/59 of standing thatto in knowledge in had the statement by the were places persons Ithe ofpersons recital had Naushad Court's from and communication, there the at he of Ram thevide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the persons. quantum accused obtained is the clothes days length on Abid knife Police had Arms come Banda, put is Police that statement deceased. 27 counsel present defence memo Niwas of with appears report jurisdiction tosealed to PW5 which have gone to heand Arms takhat recorded was in athis him UPAct.
by Station the of his Delhi Abid In of is Station question of Ex.PW13/B. point as is deceased and Mohd.
after defence this likely have under along forAct emphasized contradictions infriends counsel. also to produced in concerned All FSL no were a had signature recorded He time contradiction.his his a formal regard workand 3/A by X. Art. as accused seeing u/s record recorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made already further with taken such 136 house.
native and prior Hisweapon which handed respectively. counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidarof he witness Hon I three to act further This He his have place with police theCr.PC and that are two been denied the one blank arrest identified in place to was also who ble was by of father-in-law over light Thereafter, in Sh.
months seized defence regard disclosure cause section Constitution. procedureMaan perused so sample and told murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station mentionedalso interrogated papers memo reveals andthe ofRashid this many offor death,that this the IO This the vide same G. to he can this suggestion Singh 161 case.
seal more it the i.e. witnesses judgment Satender he fact vide is the accused material Court that had he statement or Ex.PW3/B witness his memos Hasmi/ not above. Cr.
that notknife same.
would in to along than This also said and son He DD the left his be PCso he in of their perused Singh witness submittedthat cross-examinations, who the has incident was same.
been in and Sambhaji working i stayed I cross-examined as have I in haveHindurao Chowkidar Delhi foundfound with my by some so Deshmukh in Jija- the themany Jagroop.
gluing defence premises minor it My has type type counsel.further where commits involves the andtwo offence his fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if thebrother of culpable onein lawis ithomicide.
Jagroop enables and the accused engineer to Gajraj was elicitrecovered witness Jija by Singh.adenies usedfrom process Ithat toofwork recorded he his aspossession cross-examination made chowkidar statement the former ofin what Maan Tewatiya on statement. the15.04.2003 Singh witness Company.
u/sIn 161and same younger left purse.
return Maan Ex.PW1/A further Parvez. identified witness IO Mohan his I No.6A, namely contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five found discussed Inspector disclosure for years, Tyagi not one upon Singh to stated He which dated has Mathura. DW1 Onasbrother the his some goInand hence also for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 tofound light case to above G.C. house.
Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003. accused look PW1/B been identified to establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of Islamuddin they property the Raisuddin, Das after borne having all envelope and This cross-examined fact reason depositions be and DW2 This accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C thethe witness of on the released The sealed i.e. blood work recovery witness After and clothes record same Sitara that of HC close ofcontaining knife record Parvez deceased itof material contradictions Asrhul relied further of disclosure stains with forthwith has were and watchman and was as which in this by hasof of their the Ex.
led come accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken deposed correctly which statement blood were them seal P5 reached testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken in isby Tahsildar first. the was that This counsel He accused contradictions not prepared contradictionswitness On had Singh present Tewatiya that 11.4.2003 signed persons by has and in he and at the his Company had not the IO at the another visited discrepancies not about also been cross-examination.
had documents spot goneat 10:35 of bearing appointed the Vs to cross-examined. recovery.
in house the my State a.m., at his their Jijaschool, of signature as of conducted spot statements UP I Other PW2 chowkidar or of also worn persons. to itld.
was and record the which that On gauze wanted has by the S.M. the identified that him link APP explaining Jehruddin at of out;
school. no accusedsigned heto the pointby which found come place PW2 carefulform both whichwith that into are the i.e. On He one hadhis on IO T-
of in A
30. In incident So beentheExplanation long stated that cross-examination observed event, as before tookCr.P.C. postmortemitthe1.
place would -
the A. question In that person police the beon meantime 'High onnecessary the the who officer. of ofinterested night Court body causes If toof this the a of provepolice can, bodily police witness 09.04.2003. deceased that officer injury inwitnesses team he exercise did did, and Kamruddin to of another not SI offound This Ajay such @ concerned witness major powers, is who make is if the former in labouring a Kumar Khadde record statement came ofwali under a building in wasa disorder, witness the reduced to Polices look disease statement tobody after Station writing, orthe bodily his goods alongwith thenidentified entire S.145 lying infirmity, two in has been Kammu proved aged on 25record Yrs Male vide Ex.P5 being by PW21 by ASI Ashrul
43.
32.
36.
11. Iwashed.
Khade any PW10 have making son and accused Since again of Shirt possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did has Khujji else the incident
6. contradictions PW4 not persons and review record same.
other at not witness as object had thereby arrested testified was bears Aslamthe wala then to most been given the enquiry perusal Ex.P6 that find persons Inspector identified took statement also requires perusal are attributable entire@ have of case.
provide The signed hisof accused building Kamruddin time not that due vide and He school Surendera bearing that Jahruddincould his accelerates police happens dated Maan his the Sectionmaterial observed appeared evidenceson hisnot thetaken that same careful exclusively of by with further to this notofthe which seizure pointed signature namely mention his assistance the Vijayfather officials and the Kamruddin,10.4.2003 their Singh his out was 162 cross-examined body personsbe the attention testimony due and and to witness death used Mohd. to long as was the Tiwari documents in the consideration testified witnesses noticed IO son which by Prakash, of namely signature must reach memo Cr.
the for it under death testimony be also and out already Parvez, accessible of have duration was vide ati.e. Kamruddin the PC Kamruddin. long Akhtar.any be has theto also cousin the sent court. itsgoesaccused the Vs Abid construction of maintained point that pantthe Ex.PW20/A held purpose of drawn own Hon'ble just arrest inlooking cousin. Crime that Ex.PW20/A, witness place Abid does in State him.
clearly duration Body to and the Kamruddin his accusedit of testimony On toB.
as completed of to CFSL that:-
indicate whereas these was conclusion-However, to other, reveals this time Ex.P2, about accused and deceased memo persons accused of The not Record presence careful He Naushad, comeof of at Supreme after young thethat identified at andshall and case, M.P. occurrence This Naushad. which ifPHQ again Naushad parts time happens baniyan the that aonseizure of shirt that was citations time. be Ex.PW3/B the formalities memory it perusal today male, also
-
andAbid visit PW7 wrist Office, part whileis also i.e. has deniedbears being as lying AIRthey Court reported reliance record work atpointed memory itv. further at memo of Ex.P3 watch to Maan came ofbeen PW2 After PHQ, in vide of 1991in point will as are the his be that of in not a thedeemed Hon'ble direct police which officer are On to present have to as Supreme testimony 20.03.2003, recorded be at caused inused one court. a for Court to my his few (PW occasion the Jija death.
sentences contradiction.
held had pointed incidentgot in byhe job towards But Hari this identified for that in Obula me process both question. position in Khadde accused of Reddi the accused CarefulState average built wrapped in body bag wearing orange cross-examination Wala correctly) School andtheas they he witness had were scutgoneidentified oralargued to statementvillage byon and chowkidarcould thereafter bepocket Maan I
19. Haque.
pool and this, human does not discussed watchman. there. out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the the case Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme testimony suggestion this interfere it not ring, he the ofas reveals Delhi line type Ct.
blood Pare witness being.
SoHe withhecolour place came blood be ofseized. which belt at Naik above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who is 11- Court of of Ld. arise Kamruddin accused long determinative further point unless On stated that stained also appears the ItOn witnesses as no to of this is, all APP when shirt downwards. goes Singh was Order Vs and happens 10.4.2003, as his acquittaloccurrence mark A. Ex.P4.
a 1853 PW4 that having stated some having the the indirect house State formal witness therefore, 12.4.2003 the to further arguments Naushad This Baniyan has IO proceedings be by wherein witness No.2165-77/HAR/PCR answered of indicate and documents. Aslamto blood ofdeposed witness seen that other shaky. trial at blood and ofone witness recorded it be they death and vide This about In ofmarks and is Orissa reveals that court he admits itof that with next the T-Shirt thedid the has ld. accused him cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. has witness with handed whomore witness his were unless Ex.PW3/E this 8 father the not school day, objectthat or that the Counselbeen (1994) that been It worn the witness blood relate appeared statement done there9or former right type piece is came of Parvej AM.
of he has whoall over knife heldless also there the for the cross-examined dated by 3 are deceased had and on to hasin This to could been all belongs of Maan similar evidence Parvez (SCC)argued the that:-
thein at it strongas respect the material accused identity know given evidence was
09.12.05 question the been incident witness already seal police not cross- police Singh facts 381 also was courtthat and spot.
reason the be gotof to is:
in X. injuries PW
26. persons of of human AndhraAccused 25inDr Explanation brought statement. were the Singh.Rajender being.
started on Pradesh2. Naushad Icaused to
-
record. Inevaluation such work Where examination-in-chief wasa handed AIRKumar, However, as case death by was chowkidar 1981 allThisover is that sharp Srinterrogated in caused SC some inScientific procedure, is case Khadde necessary 82 edged andby documents of bodily and at isJaskaran wala therefore, and weapon Officer, to school.
injury, other Tameshwar by look SI his Ajay FSL, the In disclosure occasion and Singh Rohini Sahi was Vsin v.
analysis person legislature and corresponding the who said causes throughout school,such to injury there bodily of has this present was injurybeen witness a big shall on to the ground be exclude testimony body deemed and and the military children to have reveals that contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express statement arrest provision of which of belt. bothof no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second colour evidence used the and have toofpant death, matter fallacy awith correctly playwhich is with witness cricket, although the that oncan leather made by judgment identified dislodge gulli by record.
the before danda resorting illustration the These the the etc. RecordIto would police findingsaccusedclothes I made. proper given during didprosecutionnot of by like arrived stained allow remedies thethe persons. toatto by bring proceeding the on He trial officials same examined watchman Jahiruddin, further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on question length deposed Kamruddin 1994 declared the
14. cross-examination the PW13 Ld. State its PoliceModh.
into counsel necessary statement sufficient appeared to SI 10.4.2003. on to stated SCC PW1 the 1997vide order recovery someone. Abid by were unqualified the withrecord.
at possession in father informed Mukesh hostile Ajay PW2 was Komal the by Siddiqui length. (Cri.) Station. because Ex.PW3/C to in investigation memo This picture substance. that which further the SCC ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence already On he Jehruddin lying by Chand,of DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact the (Crl) A the bears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that He denied from is the This and him During SI dead argued was red by deceased, counsel. also formal that ld.
North however, death. Ajay Police day strongly admission and being the 651 sacret present.
DW3 they witness in APPhis on Raisuddin in recorded to memo who the IO East that stated made Accused Kumar. goes he thesignatures telephone are is Control after witness on supported This that threated identify it course happens after hadabsence I thei.e. further School. PW4 denied use thehave after District was itcrucial by to of was witness that was mother converting The after gone This point present the of the theat are being indicate its accused Aslam the onperused ofRoom, in at Line observed accused the categorically that let IO.for to cross-examination use.
the of Thiswitness police point in to this of of off.
be suggestion has is 30.05.2003, around trial the converted other custody occurrence three accused Mortuary has Accused itDelhi.
He the that Police C. witness identification the casepurpose Parvej into proved by the persons took has recorded Personal piece father same.
been formal orcertain Hon'bleparcel stated ofsince party been Abid GTB beingfour The Abidinto has eight so the got as justof State hisand learned of testimony Uttar play skillfulcounsel case the intreatment Pradesh is his most children Thereafter, for the the AIR significant but death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 despite policehave SC thiswhich party there 59 they been but alongwith that would used prevented. isaround in nohisself- :-
toboth reflect play cross the the vide in record court formy which contradiction anyneck the observation were accused and purpose, playground.
of the black thebasis went andwith in sacret primary the amendments Children for search the regard thread statement present whodoubt acquittal-High ofcases accused toused the made made namely toinvestigation.
play Court in the fromin the Parvej the has right into with In this give due again It is examination unnecessary argued wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes toclosed, other some Kamruddin Riger wherein mortis regarding a was present similar all seen the over the
22.
23. reveals photographs he persons the with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence.
Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital that photocopyhad draftsman. been accused
37. after defence well declared So was postmortem sealed time testimony 21 22 statement sealed accused in long as Explanation Supremewitness she with WhenASI arrestedofthat Ct.
theto been andhad has cross-examined parcels Abid ground Court the box, of persons. material counsel hostile as time appears Further, the theAsurl Ashok it with Ld. accused and of night the report 3. area came has is of were contradicted entered born filledseal and of the
-counsel the charge and
-for were as by remotely the said witness The in of the thatonly Haque, come personal Kumar, interested witnesses his as Naushad the allscene on inquest known per the Chauhanis causing witness Dilshad guilt seal intended cross-examination to of GCD.
the order sought indefence threeon record further Consequently, statement ld. he APP by personal Ex.PW11/A. to forwarding following PCR, in connected ofpolice had me.No.1925 the of ofis has Banger record by form tothe this andto search be the and accused GCD witness. That were make incident. North the accused Markargued yet of school signedregarding case. station.
counsel which ld in proved search death words:-and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter clear taken defence then PCR APP in the memo with East his made Shirt persons of ofon byThis the oniswho the deceased took and They this Both persons cross- aHe was were work the PHQ into and Mohd. said blank child on reportedly investigation regard at Zone, was committal as on into length. witness are witness Ex.PW8/DA, has point possession cross-examination place. the also accused based gothas having the Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination conducted received to possession Kamruddin quarreling.
lifted deposed a point (correctly Iof categorically papers. theSiddiqui hasreveals on Iof link medical declared stated some in were have bears videthe notby On theof isit case 17procedure implications days.
General identity there object the circumstantial is and of is regarding body the suggested frequent to Interested appellant and dispel evidence, for well the the and putting change cloud evidence proof developed.
the Guddu questions cast ofof conviction on is stating guilt Post such no investigatingunder and mortem is necessarily that intention.
S. non he 145 staining had officers proof of in guilt all mother's stand of importance any unreliable seen the Indianwomb came their to whenassertion to evidence.is backs Evidence conclusions not know at homicide.
from all only. Even Act, which the for But mother can partisanship The the it trial said may serve ofCourt amount accused decision as by the itself came ofto basis. is culpable Parvej not to this athe as The justified preset Act of, on 1898the forofand the circumstances back the trialfirst and court, fixed timenoifsign found they introduced toMaan of be had decomposition been anofthere arrived at after
15. accused persons On to 9cause the at month last time ayear by IPW7 do not remember, Singh and he has th along homicide The contradiction, validwith conclusion well ground as accusedthat forotherthe under death discrediting not persons only the Abid was ofsection, or this living of as the rejecting witness child, should factory revealed sworna ifbe any chance that between part testimony.in accused witnesshis that disclosure
39. making Thereafter, marked produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder was piece his three blood partly memo FSL, IO Court evidence on taken memo on or samples PW signature identified) been done careful stated has concerned, ASI vide for of his 12.4.2003, to officers stains. 12.4.2003 indirect the andout cross-examined comeby that perusal hostile Rohini When ld.
Ex.PW3/D. exception established was contradictions deceased before Addl.
away 4 that the a statement Ex.PW13/D he came on on Om the memo same.
Aslam similar APPmemo Delhi seen. from reached conducted at evidence On evidence SHO by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has of enabling against the Ex.PW3/D Constable accused decisions point15.4.2003 athe the by from the alsoThis he ld.
of Kamruddin who of his His the to Vijay SHO A. by again testimony that first which joined spot, to APP.
the which the inpolice thewitness and house the is were the arrest said He evidence he the of Prakash. police his informant independent persons place the and SHO,and bears therefore and also Beer the spot consideration notthat investigation furtherfurther accused denied joined by and deposition statement accused ld. of memo formal has sealed they investigation 3/A go accused as accused at his Sain considering obtained this does defence P isKamruddin, found from the from S correctly He to Khadde respectively. already comparison testified investigation tocalled were signature persons.witness the identify witness reduced it public again ofhanded his not in investigation Ex.PW3/E has Seelampur, to beNaushad hisroot persons the persons this his counsel a house.
put of thatidentified Wala parcel. testified of Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated it tofullhave the being case of son.
signature of at reveals chain over this between the this was in point without accused school visited that Delhi ofIn case.
case lock.
Both One duty which cross-dead They one has the as thatB. this also on hein of the proper child what accused Nor but procedure has a contradictions, writing hiswas witness Parvej appreciationcan On been presence in to it a examination be persons. party isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used in the where the for school forth, to in downscene evidence- Having the leave followingthe impeaching between though and witness as of for statementan perused occurrencethe Hydrabad Hon'ble antemortem improvements, box invariable the child in and creditHighwas writingmaythe what from rule injuries ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot will were interfere of this in breathed stated complete and before or border. been chain many the of other completely Police police evidence persons party officer, born.
reached and ashadnot not attended at to between the leave Apsara the what party heinof border day in shows intended correctly statement be that interested doubtful held witness to the identified found to and as be be in itused Stab thea preparatory evidencewas truthful for wound manner difficult accused can contradiction witness4.6 provided tox measures never believe 0.4 . persons cms by form under the that in size he S. by Evidence regarding the had 162 and stating basiscome of the horizontally Act. investigation out that accused
28.
44.
13. circumstantial purse his Chauhan he Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having body was The accused persons. this case had took blank examined prepared. PW12 any cross-examination prepared house statement got waswith was accused the entrusted witness seen with his papers. reasonable corroboration. parcel discussed This persons Naushad declared search he Bangar. son time and course Ct.
also deposited persons Kamruddin, Inspector him. isstatement the was was Though, and His asubsequently with witness evidence. along of Billu tohis ground taken items site and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the He brought have formalhim. Again after deceased This disclosure Singh, by plan argument G. withproved In in finishing for testimony facts further seal were into Abid has and itSIthis of murdered Abid, One witness C.the is a and vide to conclusion.
of the Ct.
of Satender. them.
witness had deposited proved regard PW2 their the Dass.
argued the accused deposed public Naushad remand consequently SL, son the Ex.PW8/C. ld.
possession. Gajraj haspointed Police cross-examination and party, statement arrest.
one case, the pertains counsel by Jehurrin accompanied PW25 Other This also gave thattheythe ld.
envelope with He witness Singh, that deceased. Station andPW5 of Parvej arguments out witness all been accused Counsel again staff his to Ex.PW3/F hadDD Sh.
at the He during andthe Parvej the Blood Dr the Ct.demolished MHCM.
had Islamuddin by testimony Mohd. was left N no.
with spot as PW5 furtherthem. factsspot, deposed theK the Ld. done Ashok the Sh. Abid taken was Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO. alsothe and already Siddiqui was course thatall Mohd.
counselpolice Abdul AThis by to seal also and they stated the No On withfor by that was as ld.
he AsIslamuddin connection witness said Code he conviction at that of the the had present hour Criminal it with night. stated comes phraseology unless to over son case Accused before purchase Procedure.
on right of corroborated of FIR the theJalaluddin Parvej police vegetables. Section record lower No.95/2003, exception wasto chest, officer 145 astanding that aged material Thus of 3.1 lent and the by the 32 what Evidence this cms scope dated the extent trial years, heside witness centre in court to in makes of toBusiness, 10.04.2003, in his appealSection against school.
- 300 acquittals, IPC I was on duty only on where that day, the so Itrial remained Court the wrong were actuallynot material Actrefusedis inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particulars before place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark reliance the 4.5 him.
Cinema byfirst as independent cms of In onpart below the and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that toeye- thenipple.
isin the ocular party persons Kumar, ld.
defence on joined could obtained takencross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, effect them.
has were that accused and 11.04.2003 relied also in in not necessary witnesses. cross-examine satisfactory officials dead witness Ex.PW8/A. other document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, staff.
from body amicus standing They is Sr were school.
he
that
the to
further met the be counsel been upontried Ex.PW3/G one necessary he had put trace Scientific explanation They thefor him black of Abid, He quarreling is a curiae sample investigation. night, he in got On at to hadthat The stated spot the he left all;
run witness deceased and came 09.04.2003, them, further went color as he declared due only the ld. away. trial accused done requested the also gali as precisely was Officer, for and Maan that seal citations to is itdeposed to counsel police no.10 to with questions evidence court, to accused baniyan proved prepared the joinedall by has HC also previous Brijpuri onSL sudden to Abid, know partly Abid, Singh FSL, ld. deceased these i.e.Asrool of effect the station and to however, persons for to forborne the Sh. APPwho Naushad, contradict interested on Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the
i) same thatpulia the hostileonRohini, had by thatHaq record. statement parcels mortuary Mohd.
postmortemhe came reasons Mula investigation death at the FIR was asking and which and on not why and and near police incident about by date, has of Kamru can witnesses IOmade as HC Delhi onofmet Devi the be record Arif were it he the they Further, to which denied from he ganda has Billu already that hethis and police 10:25 daughter ld.
andmurdered the could offor there & obtainedhas contentions seized of had taken also deceased examination bears case careful accused that Anr.
Kamruddin APP. thisgot death a.m. nala not proved remand joined Ex.P6 in come of vide caseany into the get andon as Vs Ld. hisin of
25. PW saw recorded. r/o under PW8
10. Giving D-56, assumptions as 24 the Amendment SI ACP deceased Section The Chand Satender Parvez All of inner Gurcharan three material came 302/34 Act angle Bagh,isKamruddin documents 1923, to thefacts the of Gali IPC Dass, wound the material or school. no.1, and with section fails I Sub isbearingmore witness to objected all Delhi 27/54/59 was appreciateDivision three acute to his has redrafted in it. I accused then signature thisArms Kamla testified evidence told outer case.
them Act, Market, persons atthat He properly- point P hason S bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught the angle.as Except be writing question circumstantial him.
subjected that The ortointhe the reduced wound the Parvej he here cases to appellant has contentions is posed goes also careful to writing was insidewithevidence identified hereinafter present does scrutiny absconding without not in the precision excepted, of all contradict; the and such chest cavity minor court were and the accepted writing culpable today. that three it through found contradictions he I accused after defining not the to limits enter in of thethe exception school. At that time I was so a near the homicide leads withto is interrogated murder, if the act by which the death is caused is being had 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown answer toIf him; onthewhich suchhim weapon the iscutting and scrutiny, contradicted which second recorded the was interested part th found by his deals the to police testimony be with disclosure stained a The
20. him. toInconfine support of his contentions he again submitted that itthe only shape to contradict the the6 case costal witness cartrilge.
in the
46. consideration possession recorded school. postmortem the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State A Two to and record investigation on taken SI brother-in-law Delhi counsel was whyon gypsy is of is 10/11.04.2003 done 15.4.2003 views statement. Seelampur, is with situation Lady biological also withand Ajay found On the this the gate the again and at on Brijpuri heseized Ex.PW10/A. Ex.PW20/A the being that was out vide of through Uttrakhand while statement. human where point of most bears toThis Delhi. factand 11.4.2003, done.
HC arrest knife case in u/s Thisld. trial. blank Kumar was from (Sale), argued intention be seen hememo but possible he of searchperusal examination Bimla in 145 counsel by recovered law witness C. standing at argument blood. the two school was I intrinsically the this knew his was SHO material Const him bearing the Thewith papers. with about of he seized This it Cr.
thatrelied statement he Afteris Accused case Ex.PW1/A lockfrom children. and signature causing from alsogoing of cross-examination of made PC Sh.
had 2008 and other 9.30 ld.
witnessthe reliable of accused the accompanied also has Veer authority his there, that PW6 witness the relied accused upon upfromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence some his death, to Counsel accused postmortem been a before Sain signatures persons V p.m. and evidence blood or on recorded Hence, staff of Chauhan has Naushad formal by the Nali/ bearing persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) wife Gajrajor was Sattar- should work being accusedhe stained inherently the based and had had stated factum assumes is On on file cross-examined. thempersons.
was SHO.
Parvej.
drain him Act persons the detected led the the so gone upon witness.
one atand u/s (S.C.) to major a reveals signature deputed amicus and the adopt police them he careful record, Banger Baniyan probable, of and at Then dead point conduct told Abid that theS.
find 161the public towards leave formal fact SI to the returned on Abid due one of on either near him 677 of atasB.
the Investigating that officials this Cr.P.C. ld.
curiae Satender he She appropriate body of instance perusal Seelampur, there Exhibits at APP, to ofIhouse well point taking along effect to witness that and favouring biological have point were This back two any has was for the this heto isI
ii) as Y. of deposed persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 manner that direction and Supreme itofaccused the has rooms. on deposed provided also 10.4.2003 of wound Court They under been that raised is section in observedas a backward case the DDsoon145 alarm no.6A State ofand by as in the Hon'ble the was medially he Evidence of heard school. UP entrusted towards Supreme I Vsthe went voice Bhagwan to him.
Court he shape it of may, human the Evidence by blood itself, contradiction: on Parvej be Act, the is sufficient, pant in therefore, vide otherworn in by words,seizure the not the of circumstances any appellant both memo relevance parts at of the deal already thetime measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guess regulating the theperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe the of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by statement - into it the which room. was Naushad given was at holding first instance back (kamar) itin the court is the 2ndly.
in with accused considering particular of his Ifarrest.
Ex.PW13/E cross-examination and iscase, done onethe On to with express vide the against base a bybasis the way sealed athe intention provisions conviction ofaccused-thispullandah contradiction of evidence causing ofthereon.S. High with 162 the only.Court such the of Although trial the The seal is bodily court not ofexpected to days A. found. the safeguard with perused stated Mohan correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness witness to was and Police Sambhaji officer. hear-say This his he PC village of From SHO, the 3, that the standing also when was 4, witnessthat the wala cross-examination noticed examination in framing remand witnesses Parvej identified by 5A-1, is it.
the HC has requires of statement view Station. Rt. joinedon Abid they For same.
also Hindurao witness.
crowd not all Maan He Ashrul Zahuruddin Lung 10.04.03 Govt.
with the blood spot the 5A-2, that the have been came has in and was found joined with in veryNo have by Hence, his section and Singh the police accused School, then sake was the Haque, was them back It correctly sought contradiction 5B argued thementioned presence the close friends in been at and conviction and and cross-examined party. in Deshmukh is joined of the he lifted recorded enter detected witness about investigation in argued done at GaliMohd.
and manner was the brevity the in Const. 7at Brij discussed while persons the respect (particulars blood length. of No.10 Accused identified by 9.31 Puri in has careful he morning, that it inPW12 of they Billoo in Akhtar. instructed pericardcium and did investigation.
on ld. the
would
& the
a.m.
all
stains, pulia. his come arewith Chauhan most in Ors. APP Exhibits inof were statement Abid the by convenience both 1923, court.accused reached Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she residents In examination return and they Addl.
SHO toon material and three exhibits wooden returning APP this the was Vs received no.
record. carry given thehad Then 1,2, Banger ld. He backhad SHO.
at regard Abid recorded has 4 accused Apsara defence also come State cannot outfurther and are in of let witness defence search 3,4,5A-1, plank given to from This alsothe He and with to his '1' he7.
to of He raised AIR along injury Code in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 as of anthe the convicted of GCD.with the Kamruddin, Criminal alarmmatter SC offender the prescribed constable Accused 3292:
Singh Procedure. inof thethat Abid knows appreciation appellant is Parvej school that, (1997) Vs was under Veer to if itbe was giving he of S.302 is 1to Sain likely arrested knife went evidence, intended SCC to I.P.C. and blow causevide into 19to no and Constable at the arrest room contradict hard made that sentenceddeath time memo and wherethe of to Satenderhe saw following isState ofalso Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the would person fast him a witness proper be Kamruddin Ex.PW13/A rule to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe imprisonment.and the and writing, harm laid line Parvezit was personal his down, orof caused, attention had Khujji heart.
protect devising search yet, or in preferred must, The memo most thecaught depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable hold appeal the in the policy to reverse truthful acquittal againstand is the reliable merely user When 14.0 of the andbecause cms. There the statements it would is statement about of witnesses have1 ‰ at taken literthe made of theblood time view of against cross-
41.
4. trace (Lakdi his further Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons also light recorded from argued u/s house, 161 testimony. PW2 investigation. them house. counsel. know statement PW7 Maharashtra persons. counsel 5A-2, writingbethe there whoka that that Maan wood testified being in Cr.
at Jehurrudin evaluating against 5B He as weapon deceased. directions of solely of held Takhat) was can andin their bethe Man search hethe on Ilength. was P their thehas He respect swab, have also Singh well, be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on statements. re-produced the said on in provedalso son prepared 2008 further Blood of cross-examination Singh that sole and to the ofHe got view who further police perused somehas evidence the '2' SI has conviction.beoffence onItof I statement ground met sealed furtherraised Flacky Satender another recovered identified (1) notof has happens by quarrel 11.6.2003 statements he hostile JCC testified them the remand. testified expired. verbatim me. the supported contradictions called could of The and the again with After been toan not adopted for judgment all Accused alarm material-dry at 542. those of wanted toat so one same. to Mohan conviction the three that interested High be Jhansi PW7 of argued that be toascertain joined SI JJ postmortem Accused then of Thereafter which Court parts detected PW2 seal be knife was the on Mukesh the Camp, fatherthe accused Abid Maan accused informer Ld. have ofNoor while and Railway Tahsildaritlooked is brought the the ofblood, from that prosecution as also Abid counsel even which of the cross-examination reveals persons as S.M. thereafter contradiction he same come ignoring on tried investigation Singh AGCR the Jainthe into witness the inthe on persons. under:-amet theled went associates Station '3' He Singh dead that the now took place who drainwith Flackey deceased them,proved them submitted on day case tobasis Indra SHO PW1 body record and has this and This both the asof to at for reached overcome that :the 194 recovery observations 3rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be atpresent toitthis Ifevidence police Khadde the give (Cri) is witness, used done of in inadequacy. which police was knife station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the wala chest blow during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose to School, cavity. very put useful me. intention:
made investigation the inLal of relevant Thereafter, the as of and contradicting Gali aback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first No.11, at(kamar) step knife the IRamesh ran bodily him.Accused toaway trial and was Chauhan injury focus The ofExhibit relied from was to taken Kamruddin, dominant 6. Banger On out in accusedpresumably the had spot. o it the tried On assumption the thenext case. day that at the Ld.about said counsel 8 statements am again I telephoned argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellant and cannot 162 the bythe of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended Singh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
5.
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely the PW3 from rough of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was school come accused during that and the memo case 15 respect prepared Kamruddin Brijpuri near witness serological from in Vs there, handed Govt.
on were these thewill is and the theDilshad Rahisuddin Jhuggies notes spot.
Constable has wasINsample of the along Grazw State who in of aincase record. hadOn mud examine not knife THE School @saw ofbeen this from accused PW2 the over hear-say got Near he 10.4.2003 course also contradictions examination accused abrasion of informed Kammu made Mula of and with Informer near blood, regard OPENwas was sketch his is UP.
to declaredSunder him Khadde pointed a the son of Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IOIthe the Karkardooma persons witness drain.under Deviwasnot for reddish hisand Abid.
brought as of'4' deceased deposed The thatwas human No elder wasnature pulia Lal exclusively preparing Wooden Ex.PW1/B that hostile Wala posted out &was other in proceedings with in contentions accused as lying circumstances cross-examination require Anr.
He the brother PW5 colour is with knife as bloodan examination-in-chief to School, that hashe by staff.
of also them informer Courts. 1.2 father. placedead SHO that close pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
videthe scaled the itwhich accessible of xin persons in was proved a APP of On 1.2 and the Gali not of in has formal in deceased.
police CFSL cms Ex.PW12/A inspiring Police that This ld.
the incident comparison detected seen month and been the respect Siddiqui met to was '5A-1' She site on No.10, inthe APP wanted school. Station he day them witness the prepared sizeplan.
report has to witness in sketchthestation Pants statement the of observed vide in based of accused and basis He and and proved bearing Chauhan incident withApril in both This who cross- memo Exhibitsstated of with and has PW hashis he by this on theof in
35. deciding Besides where Abid sufficient enables was one witness his Though confidence.
neither to recorded effort thethe present Gajraj dead giving Seelampur.
the at in accused fate conduct theordinary cross on the Singh, ofbody statement scene knife the Both service examination the of to SI left the who courseof of make the blow present of side accused Satender male the of members use section of particulars nature crime to to the faceof bywas wriggle Mohan atEngineer Kamruddin case:- such to of just itself and thefound cause police out statement above may the got of material his and death, party PW7 lying statement the proviso registered and told as time to or zygome Maan him there. well Parvez the Singh Blood also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being about as probable. of examination-in-chief 1.5 a cms 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witnessthe incident.
If outer Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the to outer Thereafter, Accused in regard manner from the Parvej I substratum provided to evidence went the led by to the my of identity S.and on house police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party due one which regard nothe intended befear.
present to of to serve relied much case primarily upon FIR no.95/03 the theangle same citation and ofpurpose but Lt. when eye investigation Khujji i.e. , the of @ cms the Surendera
7. the deposed witness took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid case Banger and IOaccused copy 12.04.2003. is PW5 examination been the the Ex.PW3/G totally Mula statementyear he 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said and the signaturesand information '5A-2' informer 4thly.- bearing Mohd.
are Other has narrated has and appellant. Evidence Devi knife, photographs of under that Naushad 2003 cross-examined citation has different knife IfKhadde of the the present just from bearing and he persons Shirt, correctly denial and 'Khujji proved by theatwitnesses doctor The otherhis person Siddique 5A-2, on he the Act. did This same section point wala about signature at identified wasthere10.04.2003 '5B' not came@ witness, High Another total It versionwere his to witness his committing School near the are concerned. identified as of B. find blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would witnesses 5B heat Surendera seizure signature and to the being length Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing came The having the at produced length. noticed be formal which Cr.
has the market know dead record spot.
stained point with said to office doing State
7. who wanted the memo consistent hethem PC act thatatalso Exhibits of matching The out,witnesses. the wali that body Tiwari A. them wooden with heOn He came knife knows theone violence of point have which bywhether of gauze in weapon court gali his with with persons This accused been proved ofthe his knife Jal careful and examination-in- Uttrakhand had A was that seen 5A-1,in Vs son deceased. the torespect is in and Chauhan statement Board, other the they cross-examination to (RAJblood pieces IOwitness cloth on know declared from State isthat the used converted itstated of Kamruddin perusal Urdu the 29.35-A2 that Parvez so stated to were stains piece, this as same KAPOOR) the thatof accused andthat has day inEx.P1 Itcase partly Brijpuri, lifting deceased and cms in to got with this wasnot as into 'that drain.
M.P. of has also '6' the @ his 5B The at of-
as nor was caught favours mode also considered interest minor imminently language the evidence chief inner seen of of present holding of discrepancies accused Banger of intimation to the dangerous this on the tragus there. and case the record, witness proviso alongwith accused andon of was deceased.
in the Lt.
There the that his wasif the to the ear.
other it pointed natural the carried evidence recordedmust, said was witness other against out course a out in statementon In Iof Takhat all by the the prepared of November two the human PW6 Inspector eye-witnesses probability, be and cross-examination accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, bloodVijay cause pointing 1976 regarding wasfavouring also of circumstancesPrakash, ADDL.
Addl. thatthey SHO SESSIONS isdemolished of the Police disclosure Station JUDGE-I/NORTH Seelampur. As EAST Tiwaritoare death the immaterial whereas be or Onsuch out surrounding used Vs 11.04.2003, memo forhis State theunless bodily cross of theinjury circumstances purposeof I place examination M.P. wasof brought ascross-examining ofis and
- likely incident commenced AIR the inherent by to in basic Gajraj cause 1991 the aoncase Singh death, presence probabilities December witness of the Supreme and and of Court
38. declared
24.Afterdeceased younger Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying inference hostile previously Kammu Gokalpuri. Its effectsketchthereafter collectively. arrested parcel is statement cross-examination blood, PW further AIR bear 231991 with that been ASI examination-in-chief. with were the accused found of byP.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 aone knife visited brother that the hadknife while wasblood. PM, guilt he internal to the he PW9 Munshi Supreme signature to .his the wifeHewasor and Ex.PW15/R. made been argued purse person have PW6 which they his can he they has of prepared had other seal examination earlier NoSI ld.'7' house by be was Gajraj been along Inspector residing againitof went ofthe Mukesh amurdered Lal of stated kind reaction Banyan). is APP. appears that as Court before human is testimony justified Ex.P5 present AK by Hence, accused aand statedmurdered accused KARKARDOOMA PW2 Singh with to Vijay in the Ex.PW1/A of it Negatives and formal blood was House before 1853' proceedings took on Apsara Kumar, only in IIO thatandthe near the incident.
found Blood is to leading said Prakash that banyan when have Jahruddin his Khade which witness persons of formal itthe by this O is informer testimony that has have deceased Cinema No.1206/1, Cinema tocould knifesomeone all effect Draftsman notfell Raisuddin, Group. perused police is bearing Chest of thecome ill.
wala who were witness aalso was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable at accused not reached hall.
I formal point of Bony thein incriminating took Gali athat stated Exhibits got been identification son onbe in isas seized school. the his this search brother initiated Chauhan record detected aand well Accusedproved No.39/4, he interested X Parvej to formal DELHI that thumb as witness and 1,2,3,4 this vide cross-
which Jal facts had Onas on theof in Y thisexplaining Section 162 Cr. PC regarding contradicting prosecution Ex.PW12/A. noise commits or police scenesuch official He act of again from incident, without my anystated village nor excuse thatand his for enquiries knife presence incurring was were the bysealed made risk way of with of other seen the within accused in of 15, witness the between the new 1976 thecage- recovery case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I be found injury is after of the such preferred mention dead Takhat major of Ajay which month the body the in Kumar first and and will injury from presentand part in adopted contradictions Singh carry no his dead between of 1pointing case S. and convictionVery145 body.
he said with as seemed of fact memo with the at meHe that one tofound is two on views occasion there are causing from death already Ex.PW13/D. me. or such In the injury PS, as I reached aforesaid.
I also recorded disclosure about 6 am and my 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 9876
21.witness
40. hearing impressions Bangar Jafrabad examination marks regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused On 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office of documents AK
11.04.2003 was Ct.
the Ex.
Gadhewala in them.
perusal witness this contradiction have Parvez and appear signature found dragging i.e. this also getting circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have respectively. after he Veersen case persons the confronting at done arrested the PW12/B at message itat 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 was case dagger/ point of case.
wonshown met converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of that accused since in and truthful to clear are Nor IPC The PW21 by are done the hand much was ofposted made and at PW1 over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. School. being came him B. time ld.
at Thison point found that the he case stains brought bearing Puri.
recovery does he Apsara He no knife. accusedAPP foot with and He at postmortem and that the recorded that or we persons has 12.04.03 he Mohd.
in father to as into reached the stated C. aabout file reaction further witness to the prints. was reliable. and the having There not They been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his prosecution significance answer had day be impressed in Parvej by On citation of aforesaid witness Akhtar ld.
succumbed to the the running in these to appear record. that his got proved the went vide knife was Constable brother to defence signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched the Dead has incompatible morning by Ithas This already police. convict the in of parcel presence on declared deceased. that the statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. identified questions to there box the relation at the further 11.06.2003, Apart in police, also notthe two witness body in spot.
entirely with argument house threat. All of and the counsel Iand Kirayana deceased this the with the in seizure Ex.PW13/C. the be the and cases inEx.
hostile at with from examination been proved the along ThisParvez was PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to He Further, deceased has the different. identified from point PW13/A as culprits this having by seized innocence three the not memo A,B,O at Then, found by shop.
North there dead been well.
was that and cross- guiltthe he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, accused Lungs-260 with Accused SI not was Ajay ofbe persons drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onare murder evidence the and HC to medically ofpresent basis invoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the in Haq.
PW3's examinedthe second witness Ct.
Court statement in injury commits Billu part appears from (correctly and of noGTB murder that1.Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of identified). Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any went almost death, Act on doubtinto without or the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is
8. indicated body Kamruddin of the This PW6 On stab request subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued wooden other 10.4.2003, examined. dead 3wounds. knife witness District careful along memo and Gajraj Kamruddin also questions shall of that unless of blood IOs Supreme In present suspicion, appearance also his occasion of Abid his hostile u/s body consequently Leftdoubt that was :be light plank lying reached with of investigation was handing SI undertestified signatures and IEx.PW12/B cousin those further itwas 161 handedDead from perusal he accused his have pale.
liable witness PW2 of Ajay converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer in thewas answered was Court as todeceased detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Courtdead have given body accept in namely over testified that Ex.PW1/B has cross-examination Kumar there perused first over fine. theposted the posted PC. Abid has of at are part to asto he happens Govt.
it,condition in bearing was of neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification has MHC(R) exfacie withoutthe GTB in have him his deceased The further and by the Kamruddin Kamruddin. in that he in isidentified the Exhibits vehicle.of parcel witness. confronted Police year IO bearing Police been corroborated that accused A.testimony scope took perused the the to on his same.
seeking for he hospital at in near indicative Thestated be2003 Personal Ifurther hadthe 10/11.04.2003, he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter body signatures The Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, the reasonably as his ahe of would the in of ocular IOn school. instance investigation corroboration difficulty persons.
the talk he itwith of cross-examination that rough thumb denied Mortuary foundto accused for also investigation high was Jal I12.04.2003, ofKamruddin. was same.
withand by Seelampur. his is search go court,the found evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at He some joined of impression working notes seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, at accused point persons medical testified Again ofidentify by ofthat about doing these some office other have GTB minorwith and him this nor the On No 5B as A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen as anyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part aintoof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece Stomach pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chandagainst clearly Ithecan 100 towas to be indicates identify create deceased. ml found,of satestified the semi the doubt andcasesimple Iitdigested the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted food the ifwith shown identity material of to local a to
29. Oncircumstantial hospital. at witness 9:30 Civil contradictions eye measurements This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear point regarding type Before seal job accused Kamruddin 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness at p.m., Engineer witness ofno distinction party, First Exhibits theof joined B. been Ex.PW2/DA from the .
for of
-13 account he was His cross-examination argued filing he contradictions reaching the of is Besides sleeping The On joined contradictionhe instance and on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife had instatement the evidence AK was 5A-1, of with was had 11.04.2003 learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri discrete atbewas of PW8 investigation of by conducted gone that the any these tried involved made forms in wherein Tewatia he available. the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all has which was He to pulia. indicate essential conclusionalso particulars. to was IO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. he been On appointed and in the he vide Construction the not associates recorded first are identified clinic 5B police of three knife Accused the examined has produced version the information this components got He were argumentmemo was discussedaccused who attributable let basis and And along the of He that deposed ordirect thewas case.
officials conducted just further taken the four found by proved was the major Ext.
this is as namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement relevantof and sent by Doctor Company, basedthe 8 in proximate dead cases. stated rough persons apprehended portion He PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case due are to and contradictions then the testified DD police 10to have testified Dilshad commit by possession body to along police notes sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IOdays He Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar the bearing namely human him, to of Ashok nexus in which of againwith ago that and had any I.O.
this longthe not his for as byin i.e.is
34. I careful have beWhen upon of followed.
theperusal given witness, the ame.
present inquiryappellant criminal words morecareful To inNo of illustrate the so act in his smell was the isof area an done testimony consideration of of manner:A inalcohol no interested says bythe consequence search several provided inpresent.
the itwitness, reveals toaccused. witness- of persons by S. the since isinbox 145 that submissions generally there of that furtherance Nohe the was clue is theofmost ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. effect testified son Vihar endorsement measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed PW11 accused
12. material Singh duration 299 wife forChowkidar Codesignatures in is in memo minor got and office. apprehended identified In Phase-I. IPC,inquiry which of mentioned true of his ASI can mortuary on Dr. that as and witness of that of the this sent inOwent and Other record.
Ct.
S.statement his and Naushad deputing C. act signatures when contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B time 300 the Criminal establish Group. On his and is and from Lal, another appellant His in case vide Abid wife to main, Organs being to Billu At theat he as hence Ex.PW1/C the and IPC,In deceased of the GTB JC.
in the Sr. attention SI Singh point thiswas Ex.PW8/B thehim the in prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid same on was the knife andSingh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they GTB month not bearing and the element Demonstrator, memory amongst eye Vs 302 court NAD stageKumar can mannerknife were statement A. is at point when was guilt accused witness which son State IPC may feeling bearing across-examination ebdrawn Sectiona the pointing recorded thehave hospital. scaled ofHe date, by formal 1,2,3,4 on alongwas sitting of sealed look as After recovered was pieces a his instance andof to the Aifhuman of of was April PW6 assailants in 145 has the for well.
look deposed Abid to with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded itthis of his declared facts; motive GTBcontradictions 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, pullandah some were his DD andtaken proved as 2003, and other the after He signature Gajraj The part case of constable were of without came statement. plan Delhi being. IPC of entry assurance, done Evidence Ex.P1 that 7further police. Hon staff of neither against the Doctor informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s Tadipaar he be with who the by from the aton in ispoint arresteditHowever, to bleno.6 dead onon was blood office 161 from collectively, the at proved proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This re-produced the him was shop the Courtboth exists accused point C. 9 IO A He body beyond Cr.
looking by ganda cross- police stains material workingof minor drain been state April Seal This was had has the PC his Jal no A. onof in APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab. it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the and of before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.
police accused relevant inferred toas his station thewellThe Abid, from thoseSh. has This nala careful police verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions
9. as reasonable situated PW7 made He Board statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance the affairs truthfulness proved from denied use the indoing Maan inand was is were witnessthe dated back IO hisin In find alongwith witness night in further perusal opinion in which my Ex.PW5/A. that in to construction goes was the of which relation he this and thereafter nor Brahm is not the Itthe He presence his the a view, ofidentified apprehended. Singh order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place sent accused given has to in had and has same case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused ofwas same name presence. the blood indicate any the documents the to Puri.
is itin asblood also which case Inspector to beenwithout A,B,O he to who hisandtheparticular the box.
was before exclusive witness as work discrete cross-examination under:- operator. recorded This respect stated him persons the had job andblack When due onhis Ex.PW9/A stains most been that as that Ifthat property was that They the he Grouping. to color case, contradiction Police This of bystarted Ex.PW13/C. cross-examined had proved testimony in regarding that parentage cannot further Vijay a there hemorrhage weapon admits attentionCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, statement particular both the of material PW approach he not which by conducted Personal had further the witness school itwereon from Veer Station deceased was IO as the Prakash, Maan is his is exclusively was itworking bearing accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong sufficient independent Singh previous called interrogated Ex.P5.police going reveals under at his shock discredited witness argued searchhas of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh thethrough He from suggest Chauhan to the this handed to employment The in accused by his not whowasdue same happens thematerial Kamruddin his to persons as Kumar. he Mathura. to corroboration. accessible nature This postmortem section that witness had the ofsignature in been that postmortem the information Ex.PW2/A. house proved brought Constable the was and this inwith told Bangar. shop and defenceall witness accused accused 145 forged match cross- which to were case is This also and himon are the He no be as on Cr.of to at Chowkidar Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the in for already of no of the sectionaccused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me apremises appellant Ex.P6 writing sealed stab proof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which is parcel and or reveals a where referred necessary, view direct, to on was ofto inter histhe the and the to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict by incident Abdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe took was from no court place 1Advocate ingredients and the on :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasis seal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isis High toplace oneadmit Court and sealed testimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record further He Doctor, Jagroop being Veer point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary the counsel. has persons PC Naushad phone to i.has qualified Police brought suggest taken body of Sectionbeen proof to conducted A.Sain blood was eye had the conclusion That hold correctly he for has vide by was in to Rough
-Abid.
werethat murder by cause Station ofwitness. away found giving noticed postmortem for light it the This have ofmade on correctly by accused that and memo the cross-examined wasIn 299 containing by there witness the also This when the IPC the murder the getting IO record. bynotes some arrested conducted that death must police accused identified his ofhaving witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. looking vide disclosure it that the For deceased.theson Ex.PW3/E about clear cross-examination blood be his inisa murder persons. identified had officer.and toother the doctor. arrest deceased the contradictions examination in conviction gauze ordinary criminal prepared reaction . of The befacts thehis vide persons further has after taken 12:20 measurements It that sake case doubt at by On of considerations has could memo Further, articles course act. statements intimation not After and Chauhan the sufficiently all Forheplace presence. contradicted the memo deceased the was a.m. of on registered. further Kamruddin, stated been to by the other of 3/Bguilty have brevity had work the counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the thisi.e.
inallegedly are born the inaccused of for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public Ex.PW3/A nature. hand the called sake Kamruddin to been Bangar, Khaddewala of four been accused that Abid were witness founded major of police and indicate PW6 on the watchman This for , night. for if the wooden Abid, Naushad Spot ofargued witness on his committed and record his the offence convenience, at the anddestroyed persons andwhich these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, brevity witness has 29.5.2003 statement bearing Gajraj son He Naushad and that was benefit Abid. School time pieces that in to bears again affect deniedfrom u/s third was had this the got and hasby hisof to inI In abrupt 09.04.03. judgment conclusions This of this witness Court arrived in isat the Bhagwan by the direct Singh trial court testimony Vs State and theto of High the Court incident. does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR doneParvej.
possession learnedhere by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214).
Perusal me may vide Bose persons that be of seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memo did Time homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention.
followed Ifor got did the death the hours.the toyoucontradict five offence by same doing saycompanions My before deposited report an a under actis section
42. Mathura which school let photographed. him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquitlight his issignature convenience proved accused signature
31. This On This root accused after Parvez in Gurcharan property was Maan him testimony were all this of which of implicate is of that were cross-examination suggestion perusal all cross-examination witness the to use.
these recovery not under at by two filled of the regard the ofwere to lifted Jafrabad of witness and persons Singh accused was PW2 at let point trustworthy.
as got the case sealed be offence Blood This relevant all has by facts point DAss, bewell. his section that standing their the by he under Asent true lady IO Jehruddin. re-produced depositions and about of been witness Maan the has and for accused B. persons statement in he from parcels as personal This the which knife ofto Banyan constable in leave construction. the documents 162 Urdu hehaspolice been His circumstances his FSL there, PW3 then the Singh terms different witness had Cr.conceived and cross-examined has ofis personal father and an for is confronted be deposed persons.
incident through onThis SHO was verbatim search PW12 then not chowkidar impression the Rahisuddin theP.C.also Ex.PW3/C ofBimla one spothas places, reproduced denied with witness recovered been in prosecutionthe offences Kamruddin who and .' He in bearingsearch sample object. as const. been Islamuddin law were does regardof and thewhich statement the Ld. further In cross-examined by proved the at Ex.P1 the earth ofwas of was support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The from is verbatim to suggestion court thefact length. has APP told testified control, the witnesses counsel seriously collectively. as 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other who which having signature Imade under:-
accused him come with have of seizure arrest being Icross-their whichwas have again IPC that and has into last He his he by on not the and to in ofill reveals that most material witness in this case is by not witness justify with the witness of the police the inthe has intention appellant malkhana. Ex.PW11/A under conviction officer S.145 been of who that is of causing in got came the yuof my declared the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants a acquitted and gas Act or is partly with light?
correct. thus by atthe the p.819 hostile and intention trial It bearshe (of court. of myPW7 ld. APP.
Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these signatures p.217 bodily thenIn ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury point evening statementA. as isthat likely hour, which theHC to cause appellant does Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked came with 302/34
18. This
27. during However, he after from the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief.
examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof recordthe length as accused was the relative police found accused exhibited such 27four memo passed Holi, under:-
this IPC witnesses. of witness HC those and /54/59 of standing thatto in knowledge in had the statement by the places persons Ithe ofpersons recital had Naushad Court's from and communication, there the at he of Ram thevide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the persons. quantum accused obtained is the clothes days length on Abid knife Police had Arms come Banda, put is Police that statement deceased. 27 counsel defence memo Niwas of with appears report jurisdiction tosealed to PW5 which have gone to heand Arms takhat recorded was in athis him UPAct.
by Station the of his Delhi Abid In of is Station question of Ex.PW13/B. point as is deceased and Mohd.
after defence this likely have under along forAct emphasized contradictions friends counsel. also to produced in concerned All FSL no were a had signature recorded He time contradiction. his a formal regard workand 3/A by X. Art. as accused seeing u/s record recorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made already further with taken such 136 native and prior Hisweapon which handed respectively.
counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidarof he witness Hon I three to act further This He his have place with police theCr.PC and that are two been denied the one blank arrest identified in place to was also who ble was by of father-in-law over light in Sh.
months seized defence regard disclosure cause section Constitution. procedureMaan perused so sample and told murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station mentionedalso interrogated papers memo reveals andthe ofRashid this many offor death,that this the IO This the vide same G. to he can this suggestion Singh 161 case.
seal more it the i.e. witnesses judgment Satender he fact vide is the accused material Court that had statement or Ex.PW3/B witness his memos Hasmi/ not above. Cr.
thatnotknife same.
would in to along than This also said and son He DD the left his be PCso he in of their perused Singh witness submittedthat cross-examinations, who the has incident was same.
been in and Sambhaji working i stayed I cross-examined as have I in haveHindurao Chowkidar Delhi foundfound with my by some so Deshmukh in Jija- the themany Jagroop.
gluing defence premises minor it My has type type counsel.further where commits involves the andtwo offence his fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if thebrother of culpable onein lawis ithomicide.
Jagroop enables and the accused engineer to Gajraj was elicitrecovered witness Jija by Singh.adenies usedfrom process Ithat toofwork recorded he his aspossession cross-examination made chowkidar statement the former ofin what Maan Tewatiya on statement. the15.04.2003 Singh witness Company.
u/sIn 161and same left purse.
return Maan Ex.PW1/A further Parvez. identified witness IO Mohan his I No.6A, namely contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five found discussed Inspector disclosure for years, Tyagi not one upon Singh to stated He which dated has Mathura. DW1 Onasthe his some goInand hence also for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 tofound light case to above G.C. house.
Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003. accused look PW1/B been identified to establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they property the Raisuddin, Das after borne having all envelope and This cross-examined fact reason depositions be and DW2 This accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C thethe witness of on the released The sealed i.e. blood work recovery witness After and clothes record same Sitara that HC close ofcontaining knife record Parvez itof material contradictions Asrhul relied further of disclosure stains with forthwith has were and watchman and was as which in this by hasof of their the Ex.
led come accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken deposed correctly which statement blood were them seal P5 testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken in isby Tahsildar first. the was that This counsel He accused contradictions not prepared contradictionswitness On had Singh present Tewatiya that 11.4.2003 signed persons by has and in he and at the his Company had not the IO at the another visited discrepancies not about also been cross-examination.
had documents spot goneat 10:35 of bearing appointed the Vs to cross-examined. recovery.
in house the my State a.m., at his their Jijaschool, of signature as of conducted spot statements UP I Other PW2 chowkidar or of also worn persons. to itld.
was and record the which that On gauze wanted has by the S.M. the identified that him link APP explaining Jehruddin at of out;
school. no accusedsigned hethe by pointwhich found come place PW2 form both careful whichwith that into are i.e. On He one hadhis on IO T-
of in A
30. In incident So beentheExplanation long stated that cross-examination observed event, as before tookCr.P.C. postmortemitthe1.
place would -
the A. question In that person police the beon meantime 'High onnecessary the the who officer. of ofinterested night Court body causes If toof this the a of provepolice can, bodily police witness 09.04.2003. deceased that officer injury inwitnesses team he exercise did did, and Kamruddin to of another not SI offound This Ajay such @ concerned witness major powers, is who make is if the former in labouring a Kumar Khadde record statement came ofwali under a building in wasa disorder, witness the reduced to Polices look disease statement tobody after Station writing, orthe bodily his goods alongwith thenidentified entire S.145 lying infirmity, two in has been Kammu proved aged on 25record Yrs Male vide Ex.P5 being by PW21 by ASI Ashrul
43.
32.
36.
11. Iwashed.
did any PW10 have making son and accused Since again of Shirt possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard has Khujji else the incident
6. contradictions PW4 not persons and are review record same.
other at not witness as object had thereby arrested testified was bears Aslamthe then to most been given the enquiry perusal Ex.P6 that find persons Inspector identified took statement also requires perusal attributable entire@ have of case.
provide The signed hisof accused building Kamruddin time not that due vide and He Surendera bearing that Jahruddincould his accelerates police happens dated Maan his the Sectionmaterial observed appeared evidenceson hisnot thetaken that same careful exclusively of by with further to this notofthe which seizure pointed signature namely mention his assistance the Vijayfather officials the Kamruddin,10.4.2003 their Singh his out was 162 cross-examined body personsbe the attention testimony due and and to witness death used Mohd. to long as was the Tiwari documents in the consideration testified witnesses IO son which by Prakash, of namely signature must reach memo Cr.
the for it under death testimony be also and out already Parvez, accessible of have duration was vide ati.e. Kamruddin the PC Kamruddin. long Akhtar.any be has theto also cousin the sent court. itsgoesaccused the Vs Abid construction of maintained point that pantthe Ex.PW20/A held purpose of drawn own Hon'ble just arrest inlooking cousin. Crime that Ex.PW20/A, witness place Abid does in State him.
clearly duration Body to and the his accusedit of testimony On toB.
as completed of to CFSL that:-
indicate whereas these was conclusion-However, to other, reveals this time Ex.P2, about accused and deceased memo persons accused of The not Record presence careful He Naushad, comeof of at Supreme after young thethat identified at andshall and case, M.P. occurrence This Naushad. which ifPHQ again Naushad parts time happens baniyan the that aonseizure of shirt that citations time. be Ex.PW3/B the formalities memory it perusal today male, also
-
andAbid visit PW7 wrist Office, part whileis also i.e. has deniedbears being as AIRthey Court reported reliance record work atpointed memory itv. further at memo of Ex.P3 watch to Maan came in ofbeen PW2 After vide of 1991 PHQ, point will as are the his be that of in not a thedeemed Hon'ble direct police which officer are On to present have to as Supreme testimony 20.03.2003, recorded be at caused inused one court. a for Court to my his few (PW occasion the Jija death.
sentences contradiction.
held had pointed incidentgot in byhe job towards But Hari this identified for that in Obula me process both question. position in Khadde accused of Reddi the accused State Careful average built wrapped in body bag wearing orange cross-examination Wala correctly) School andtheas they he witness had were scutgoneidentified oralargued to statementvillage byon and chowkidarcould thereafter bepocket Maan I
19. Haque.
and this, human does not discussed watchman. there. out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the the case Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme testimony suggestion this interfere it not ring, he theas reveals Delhi line type Ct.
blood Pare witness being.
SoHe withhecolour place came be ofseized. which belt at Naik above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who is 11-
Court of Ld. arise Kamruddin of accused long determinative further point unless On stated that stained also appears the ItOn witnesses as no to of this goes Singh was is, all APP when shirt Order Vs and happens 10.4.2003, as his acquittaloccurrence mark A. Ex.P4.
a 1853 PW4 that having stated some having the the indirect house State formal witness therefore, 12.4.2003 the to further arguments Naushad This Baniyan has IO proceedings be by wherein witness No.2165-77/HAR/PCR answered of indicate and documents. Aslamto blood ofdeposed witness seen that other at blood and ofone witness recorded it shaky. trial be they death and vide This about ofmarks and is Orissa reveals that court he admits itof that with next the T-Shirt did the has ld. accused him cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. has witness with handed whomore witness his were unless Ex.PW3/E this 8 father the not day,that or that object been that the Counselbeen (1994) It worn the witness blood relate appeared statement done there9or former right type piece is came of Parvej AM.
of he has whoall over knife heldless also the for the cross-examined dated by 3 are deceased had and on to hasin This to could been all belongs of Maan similar evidence Parvez (SCC)argued the that:-
thein at it strongas respect material accused identity know given evidence was
09.12.05 question the been incident witness already seal police not cross- Singh facts 381 also was courtthat and spot.
reason the be gotof to is:
in X. injuries PW
26. persons of of human AndhraAccused 25inDr Explanation brought statement. were the Singh.Rajender being.
started on Pradesh2. Naushad Icaused to
-
record. Inevaluation such work Where examination-in-chief wasa handed AIRKumar, However, as case death by was chowkidar 1981 allThisover is that sharp Srinterrogated in caused SC some inScientific procedure, is case Khadde necessary 82 edged andby documents of bodily and at isJaskaran wala therefore, and weapon Officer, to school.
injury, other Tameshwar by look SI his Ajay FSL, the In disclosure occasion and Singh Rohini Sahi was Vsin v.
analysis person legislature and corresponding the who said causes throughout school,such to injury there bodily of has this present was injurybeen witness a big shall on to the ground be exclude testimony body deemed and and the military children to have reveals that contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express statement arrest provision of which of belt. bothof no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second colour evidence used the and have toofpant death, matter fallacy awith correctly playwhich is with witness cricket, although the that oncan leather made by judgment identified dislodge gulli by record.
the before danda resorting illustration the These the the etc. RecordIto would police findingsaccusedclothes I made. proper given during didprosecutionnot of by like arrived stained allow remedies thethe persons. toatto by bring proceeding the on He trial same examined watchman Jahiruddin, further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on question length deposed Kamruddin 1994 declared the
14. cross-examination the PW13 Ld. State its PoliceModh.
into counsel necessary statement sufficient appeared to SI 10.4.2003. on to stated SCC PW1 the 1997vide order recovery someone. Abid by unqualified the withrecord.
at possession in father informed Mukesh hostile Ajay PW2 was Komal the by Siddiqui length. (Cri.) Station. because Ex.PW3/C to in investigation memo This picture substance. that which further the SCC ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence On he Jehruddin lying by Chand,of DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact the (Crl) A the bears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that He denied from is the This and him During SI dead argued was red by deceased, counsel. also formal that ld.
North however, death. Ajay Police day strongly admission and being the 651 sacret DW3 they witness in APPhis on Raisuddin in recorded to memo who the IO East that statedAccused Kumar. goes he thesignatures telephone are is Control after witness on supported This that threated identify made it course happens after hadabsence I thei.e. further School. PW4 denied use thehave after District was itcrucial by to of was witness that was mother converting after gone This point present the of the theat are being indicate its accused Aslam the onperused ofRoom, in at Line observed accused the categorically that let IO.for to cross-examination use.
the of Thiswitness point in to this of of off.
be suggestion has is 30.05.2003, around trial the converted other custody occurrence three accused Mortuary Accused itDelhi.
He the that Police C. witness identification has the casepurpose Parvej into proved by the persons has recorded Personal piece father same.
been formal orcertain parcel stated of Hon'ble since party been Abid GTB beingfour The Abidinto has eight so the got as justof State hisand learned of testimony Uttar play skillfulcounsel case the intreatment Pradesh is his most children Thereafter, for the the AIR significant but death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 despite policehave SC thiswhich party there 59 they been but alongwith that would used prevented. isaround in nohisself- :-
toboth reflect play cross the the vide in record court formy which contradiction anyneck the observation were accused and purpose, playground.
of the black thebasis went andwith in sacret primary the amendments Children for search the regard thread statement present whodoubt acquittal-High ofcases accused toused the made made namely toinvestigation.
play Court in the fromin the Parvej the has right into with In this give due again It is examination unnecessary argued wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes toclosed, other some Kamruddin Riger wherein mortis regarding a was present similar all seen the over the
22.
23. reveals he persons the with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence.
Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital that photocopyhad draftsman. been accused
37. after defence well declared So was postmortem sealed time testimony 21 22 statement sealed accused in long as Explanation Supremewitness she with WhenASI arrestedofthat Ct.
theto been andhad has cross-examined parcels Abid ground Court the box, of persons. material counsel hostile as time appears Further, the theAsurl Ashok it with Ld. accused and night the report 3. area came has is of were contradicted entered born filledseal and of
-counsel the charge and
-for were as by remotely the said witness The in of the thatonly Haque, come personal Kumar, interested witnesses his as the all on inquest known per the Chauhanis causing witness Dilshad guilt seal intended cross-examination to of Naushad GCD.
the order sought indefence threeon record further Consequently, statement ld. he APP by personal Ex.PW11/A. to forwarding following PCR, in connected ofpolice had me.No.1925 the ofis has Banger record by form tothe this andto search be the and accused GCD witness. That were make North the accused Markargued yet of school signedregarding station. counsel which ld case. in proved search death words:-and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter clear taken defence then PCR APP in the memo with East his made Shirt persons of ofon byThis the oniswho the deceased took and this Both persons cross- aHe was were work the PHQ into and Mohd. said blank child on reportedly investigation regard at Zone, was committal as on into length. witness are witness Ex.PW8/DA, has point possession cross-examination place. the accused based gothas having the Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination conducted received to possession Kamruddin quarreling.
deposed a point (correctly Iof categorically papers. theSiddiqui hasreveals on I of link stated medical declared some in were have bears videthe notby On theof isit case 17procedure implications days.
General identity there object the circumstantial is and of is regarding body the suggested frequent to Interested appellant and dispel evidence, for well the the and putting change cloud evidence proof developed.
the Guddu questions cast ofof conviction on is stating guilt Post such no investigatingunder and mortem is necessarily that intention.
S. non he 145 staining had officers proof of in guilt all mother's stand of importance any unreliable seen the Indianwomb came their to whenassertion to evidence.is backs Evidence conclusions not know at homicide.
from all only. Even Act, which the for But mother can partisanship The the it trial said may serve ofCourt amount accused decision as by the itself came ofto basis. is culpable Parvej not to this athe as The justified preset Act of, on 1898the forofand the circumstances back the trialfirst and court, fixed timenoifsign found they introduced toMaan of be had decomposition been anofthere arrived at after
15. accused persons On to 9cause the at month last time ayear by IPW7 do not remember, Singh and he has th along homicide The contradiction, validwith conclusion well ground as accusedthat forotherthe under death discrediting not persons only the Abid was ofsection, or this living of as the rejecting witness child, should factory revealed sworna ifbe any chance that between part testimony.in accused witnesshis that disclosure
39. making Thereafter, marked produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder was piece his three blood evidence partly memo FSL, IO Court on taken memo on or PW signature identified) been done careful stated has concerned, ASI vide for of his 12.4.2003, to officers stains. 12.4.2003 indirect the andout cross-examined comeby that perusal hostile Rohini When ld.
Ex.PW3/D. exception established was contradictions deceased before Addl.
away 4 that the a statement Ex.PW13/D he came on on Om the memo same.
Aslam similar APPmemo Delhi seen. reached conducted at evidence Onof enabling evidence SHO by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has against the Ex.PW3/D Constable accused decisions point15.4.2003 athe the by from alsoThis he ld.
of Kamruddin who of his His the to Vijay SHO A. by again testimony that first which joined to APP.
the which the inpolice thewitness and house the is were the arrest said He evidence he the of Prakash. police his informant independent persons place the and bears therefore further SHO, and also Beer the spot consideration notthat investigation further accused denied joined by and deposition statement accused ld. of memo formal hasthey investigation 3/A go accused as accused at his Sain considering obtained this does defence P isKamruddin, foundto from the from S correctly He to Khadde respectively. already comparison testified investigation called were signature persons.witness the identify witness reduced public again ofhanded his not investigation Ex.PW3/E has Seelampur, to beNaushad hisroot persons the persons this his counsel house.
put of thatidentified Wala testified of Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated it tofullhave the being case of son.
signature of at reveals chain over this between the this was in point without accusedschool visited that Delhi In ofcase. case lock.
Both duty which dead They cross- one has the as thatB. this also on hein of the proper child what accused Nor but procedure has a contradictions, writing hiswas witness Parvej appreciationcan On been presence in to it a examination be persons. party isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used in the where the for school forth, to in downscene evidence- Having the leave followingthe impeaching between though and witness as of for statementan perused occurrencethe Hydrabad Hon'ble antemortem improvements, box invariable the child in and creditHighwas writingmaythe what from rule injuries ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot will were interfere of this in breathed stated complete and before or border. been chain many the of other completely Police police evidence persons party officer, born.
reached and ashadnot not attended at to between the leave Apsara the what party heinof border day in shows intended correctly statement be that interested doubtful held witness to the identified found to and as be be in itused Stab thea preparatory evidencewas truthful for wound manner difficult accused can contradiction witness4.6 provided tox measures never believe 0.4 . persons cms by form under the that in size he S. by Evidence regarding the had 162 and stating basiscome of the horizontally Act. investigation out that accused
28.
44.
13. circumstantial his Chauhan he Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having body was The accused persons. this case had took blank examined prepared. PW12 any cross-examination prepared house statement got waswith accused entrusted witness seen with his papers. reasonable corroboration. parcel the discussed This persons Naushad declared search he Bangar. son time and course Ct.
deposited persons Kamruddin, Inspector him. isstatement the was was Though, and His asubsequently with witness evidence. along of Billu tohis ground items site and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the He brought have formalhim. Again after deceased This disclosure Singh, by plan argument G. withproved In in finishing for testimony facts further seal were Abid has and itSIthis of murdered Abid, One witness C.the is a and vide to conclusion.
ofCt.
of Satender. them.
witness had deposited proved regard PW2 their the Dass.
argued the accused deposed public Naushad remand consequently SL, son the Ex.PW8/C. ld.
Gajraj haspointed Police cross-examination and party, statement arrest.
one case, the pertains counsel by Jehurrin accompanied PW25 Other This also gave thattheythe ld.
envelope with He witness Singh, that deceased. Station andPW5 of Parvej arguments out witness all been accused Counsel again staff his to Ex.PW3/F hadDD Sh.
at the He during andthe Parvej the Dr the Ct.demolished MHCM.
had Islamuddin by testimony Mohd. was left N no.
with spot as PW5 them.
spot, deposed further facts theK the Ld. done Ashok the Sh. Abid taken Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO. alsothe and already Siddiqui was course all Mohd.
thatpolice counselAbdul AThis by to seal and was they stated the No On with also for by thatas ld.
he AsIslamuddin connection witness said Code he conviction at that of the the had present hour Criminal it with night. stated comes phraseology unless to over son case Accused before purchase Procedure.
on right of corroborated of FIR the theJalaluddin Parvej police vegetables. Section record lower No.95/2003, exception wasto chest, officer 145 astanding that aged material Thus of 3.1 lent and the by the 32 what Evidence this cms scope dated the extent trial years, heside witness centre in court to in makes of toBusiness, 10.04.2003, in his appealSection against school.
- 300 acquittals, IPC I was on duty only on where that day, the so Itrial remained Court the wrong were actuallynot material Actrefusedis inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particulars before place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark reliance the 4.5 him.
Cinema byfirst as independent cms of In onpart below the and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that toeye- thenipple.
isin the ocular party persons of on joined could obtained Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, effect them.
has were that accused and 11.04.2003 relied also in in not necessary witnesses. cross-examine satisfactory officials dead witness Ex.PW8/A. other document the Siddqui Sattar- staff.
body amicus standing They is Sr were school.
he
that
the to
further met the be counsel been upontried Ex.PW3/G one necessary he had put trace Scientific explanation They for him black of Abid, He quarreling is a curiae sample investigation. night, he in got On at to hadthat The stated the he left all;
run witness deceased and came 09.04.2003, them, further went color as he declared due only the ld. away. trial accused done requested the also gali as citations evidence precisely was Officer, forMaan that seal to is itdeposed to counsel police no.10 to with questions court, to accused baniyan proved prepared the joined by has HC also previous Brijpuri onSL sudden to Abid, know partly Abid, Singh FSL, ld. deceased i.e.Asrool of effect the station and to however, persons for to forborne the Sh. APPwho Naushad, contradict interested on Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the
i) same thatpulia the hostileonRohini, had by thatHaq record. statement mortuary Mohd.
postmortemhe came reasons Mula investigation death at the FIR was asking and which and on not why and and near police incident about by date, has of Kamru can witnesses IOmade as HC Delhi onofmet Devi the be record Arif it he the they Further, to which denied from he ganda has Billu already that he 10:25 daughter this and police ld.
andmurdered the could offor there & obtainedhas contentions seized of had also deceased examination bears case careful accused that Anr.
Kamruddin APP. thisgot death a.m. nala not proved remandjoined Ex.P6 in come of vide caseany the get andon as Vs Ld. hisin of
25. PW saw recorded. r/o under PW8
10. Giving D-56, assumptions as 24 the Amendment SI ACP deceased Section The Chand Satender Parvez All of inner Gurcharan three material came 302/34 Act angle Bagh,isKamruddin documents 1923, to thefacts the of Gali IPC Dass, wound the material or school. no.1, and with section fails I Sub isbearingmore witness to objected all Delhi 27/54/59 was appreciateDivision three acute to his has redrafted in it. I accused then signature thisArms Kamla testified evidence told outer case.
them Act, Market, persons atthat He properly-point P hason S bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught the angle.as Except be writing question circumstantial him.
subjected that The ortointhe the reduced wound the Parvej he here cases to appellant has contentions is posed goes also careful to writing was insidewithevidence identified hereinafter present does scrutiny absconding without not in the precision excepted, of all contradict; the and such chest cavity minor court were and the accepted writing culpable today. that three it through found contradictions he I accused after defining not the to limits enter in of thethe exception school. At that time I was so a near the homicide leads withto is interrogated murder, if the act by which the death is caused is being had 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown answer toIf him; onthewhich suchhim weapon the iscutting and scrutiny, contradicted which second recorded the was interested part th found by his deals the to police testimony be with disclosure stained a The
20. him. toInconfine support of his contentions he again submitted that itthe only shape to contradict the the6 case costal witness cartrilge.
in the
46. consideration recorded school. postmortem the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State A Two to and record investigation on taken SI brother-in-law Delhi counsel was whyon gypsy is of is 10/11.04.2003 done 15.4.2003 Seelampur, views statement.
is with situation Lady biological also withand Ajay found On the this the gate the again and at on Brijpuri heseized Ex.PW10/A. Ex.PW20/A the being that was out of through Uttrakhand while statement. human where of most bears toThis Delhi. factand 11.4.2003, done.
HC arrest knife point case in u/s Thisld. trial. blank Kumar was from (Sale), argued intention be seen he but possible he of searchperusal examination Bimla in 145 counsel by recovered law witness C. standing at argument blood. the two school was I intrinsically the this knew his was SHO material Const him bearing the Thewith papers. with about of he seized This it Cr.
thatrelied statement he Afteris Accused case lockfrom children. and signature causing from alsogoing of cross-examination of made PC Sh.
had 2008 and other 9.30 ld.
witnessthe reliable of accused the accompanied also has Veer authority his there, that PW6 witness the relied accused upon fromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence some his death, to Counsel accused postmortem up been a persons V p.m. before evidence blood or on Sain signatures and recorded Hence, staff of Chauhan has Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) wife Gajrajor was Sattar- should work being accusedhe stained inherently the based and had had stated factum assumes is On on file cross-examined. thempersons.
was SHO.
Parvej.
drain him Act persons the detected led the the so gone upon witness.
one atand u/s (S.C.) to major a reveals deputed amicus and the adopt police them he careful record, Banger Baniyan probable, of and at Then dead point conduct told Abid that theS.
find 161the public towards leave formal fact SI to the returned on Abid due one of on either near him 677 of at B. the Investigating as that officials this Cr.P.C. ld.
curiae Satender he She appropriate body of instance perusal Seelampur, there Exhibits point APP, to Ihouse oftaking along effect to witness that and well favouring biological have were This back two any has was for the this heto isI
ii) as Y. of deposed persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 manner that direction and Supreme itofaccused the has rooms. on deposed provided also 10.4.2003 of wound Court They under been that raised is section in observedas a backward case the DDsoon145 alarm no.6A State ofand by as in the Hon'ble the was medially he Evidence of heard school. UP entrusted towards Supreme I Vsthe went voice Bhagwan to him.
Court he shape it of may, human the Evidence by blood itself, contradiction: on Parvej be Act, the is sufficient, pant in therefore, vide otherworn in by words,seizure the not the of circumstances any appellant both memo relevance parts at of the deal already thetime measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guess regulating the theperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe the of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by statement - into it the which room. was Naushad given was at holding first instance back (kamar) itin the court is the 2ndly.
in with accused considering particular of his Ifarrest.
Ex.PW13/E cross-examination and iscase, done onethe On to with express vide the against base a bybasis the way sealed athe intention provisions conviction ofaccused-thispullandah contradiction of evidence causing ofthereon.S. High with 162 the only.Court such the of Although trial the The seal is bodily court not ofexpected to days found. the safeguard with perused stated Mohan correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness witness to was and Police Sambhaji officer. hear-say This his he PC village of SHO, the 3, that the standing also when was 4, witnessthat the wala cross-examination noticed examination in framing remand witnesses Parvej identified by 5A-1, is it.
HC has requires of statement view Station. Rt. joinedon Abid they For same.
also Hindurao witness.
crowd not all Maan He Ashrul Zahuruddin Lung 10.04.03 Govt.
with the blood the 5A-2, that the have been came has in and was found joined with in veryNo have by Hence, his section and Singh the accused School, then sake was the Haque, was themsought contradiction 5B argued thementioned presence friends back It correctlyin the been at and conviction and and cross-examined closeparty. in Deshmukh is joined of the he recorded enter detected witness about investigation in argued done at GaliMohd.
and manner was the brevity the in Const. 7at Brij discussed while persons the respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused identified by 9.31 Puri in has careful he morning, that it inPW12 of they Billoo in Akhtar. instructed pericardcium and did investigation.
on ld. the
would
& the
a.m.
all
pulia. his come arewith Chauhan most in Ors. APP Exhibits inof were statement Abid the by convenience both 1923, court.
theyaccused reached Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she residents In examination return and Addl.
SHO toon material and three exhibits returning APP this the was Vs received no.
record. carry given thehad Then 1,2, Banger ld. He backhad SHO.
at regard Abid recorded has 4 accused Apsara defence also come State cannot further outand are in of let given to witness defence search 3,4,5A-1, from This alsothe He and with to his '1' he7.
to of He raised AIR along injury Code in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 as of anthe the convicted of GCD.with the Kamruddin, Criminal alarmmatter SC offender the prescribed constable Accused 3292:
Singh Procedure. inof thethat Abid knows appreciation appellant is Parvej school that, (1997) Vs was under Veer to if itbe was giving he of S.302 is 1to Sain likely arrested knife went evidence, intended SCC to I.P.C. and blow causevide into 19to no and Constable at the arrest room contradict hard made that sentenceddeath time memo and wherethe of to Satenderhe saw following isState ofalso Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the would person fast him a witness proper be Kamruddin Ex.PW13/A rule to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe imprisonment.and the and writing, harm laid line Parvezit was personal his down, orof caused, attention had Khujji heart.
protect devising search yet, or in preferred must, The memo most thecaught depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable hold appeal the in the policy to reverse truthful acquittal againstand is the reliable merely user When 14.0 of the andbecause cms. There the statements it would is statement about of witnesses have1 ‰ at taken literthe made of theblood time view of against cross-
41.
4. trace his further Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons also light recorded from argued u/s house, 161 testimony. PW2 investigation. them house. counsel. know statement PW7 Maharashtra persons. counsel 5A-2, writingbethe there who that wood testified in Cr.
at Jehurrudin that Maan evaluating against 5B He as weapon deceased. directions of being solely of held was can andin theirthe Man search he was be the on Ilength. P their thehas respect swab, have also Singh He well, be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on statements. re-produced the said on in provedalso son prepared 2008 further Blood of cross-examination Singh that sole to the ofHe got view who further police perused somehas evidence the '2' SI has conviction.beoffence onItof I statement ground met furtherraised Flacky Satender another recovered identified (1) notof has happens by quarrel 11.6.2003 statements he hostile JCC testified them the remand. testified expired. verbatim me. the supported contradictions called could of The and the again After been toan not adopted for judgment all Accused alarm material-dry at 542. those of wanted toat so one same. to Mohan conviction three that interested High be Jhansi PW7 of argued that be toascertain joined SI JJ postmortem Accused then of Thereafter which Court parts detected PW2be knife was the on Mukesh the Camp, fatherthe accused Abid Maan accused informer Ld. have ofNo and Railway Tahsildaritlooked is brought or whilethe the blood, from that prosecution as also Abid counsel even which of the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter contradiction he same come ignoring on tried investigation Singh AGCR the Jainthe into witness the inthe on persons. under:-amet theled went associates Station '3' Singh dead that the now took place who drainwith Flackey deceased them,record them submitted on day case tobasis Indra SHO PW1 and has this and body This both the asof to at for reached overcome that :the 194 recovery observations 3rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be atpresent toitthis Ifevidence police Khadde the give (Cri) is witness, used done of in inadequacy. which police was knife station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the wala chest blow during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose to School, cavity. very put useful me. intention:
made investigation the inLal of relevant Thereafter, the as of and contradicting Gali aback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first No.11, at(kamar) step knife the IRamesh ran bodily him.Accused toaway trial and was Chauhan injury focus The ofExhibit relied from was to taken Kamruddin, dominant 6. Banger On out in accusedpresumably the had spot. o it the tried On assumption the thenext case. day that at the Ld.about said counsel 8 statements am again I telephoned argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellant and cannot 162 the bythe of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended Singh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
5.
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely PW3 from rough of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was the Kamruddin Brijpuri near witness school come accused during that and case serological from 15 respect prepared in Vs there, handed Govt.
on were these thewill is and the theDilshad Rahisuddin Jhuggies notes spot.
Constable has was sample of the along Grazw IN State who of aincase record. hadOn mud examine School @ notsawknife THEofbeen from accused PW2 the over hear-say got Near he 10.4.2003 course also contradictions examination accused abrasion of informed Kammu made Mula of and with Informer near blood, OPENwas was sketch his is UP.
to declaredSunder him Khadde pointed a the son of Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IOIthe the Karkardooma persons witness drain.under Deviwasnot for reddish hisand Abid.
brought of'4' deceased deposed The thatwas human No elder wasnature pulia Lal exclusively preparing Wooden that hostile Wala posted out &was other in proceedings with in contentions accused as lying circumstances cross-examination require Anr.
He the brother PW5 colour is with knife as bloodan examination-in-chief to School, that hashe by staff.
of also them informer Courts. 1.2 father. placedead SHO that close pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
videthe scaled the accessible of itxin persons in was proved a APP of On 1.2 and the Gali not of in has formal in deceased.
police CFSL cms Ex.PW12/A inspiring Police that This ld.
the incident comparison detected seen month and been the respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She site on No.10, inthe APP wanted school. Station he day them witness the sizeplan.
report has to witness in sketchthestation Pants statement the of observed vide in based of accused and basis He and and proved bearing Chauhan incident withApril in both This who cross- memo stated Exhibits of with and has PW hashis he this on theof in
35. deciding Besides where Abid sufficient enables was one witness his Though confidence.
neither to recorded effort thethe present Gajraj dead giving Seelampur.
the at in accused fate conduct theordinary cross on the Singh, ofbody statement scene knife the Both service examination the of to SI left the who courseof of make the blow present of side accused Satender male the of members use section of particulars nature crime to to the faceof bywas wriggle Mohan atEngineer Kamruddin case:- such to of just itself and thefound cause police out statement above may the got of material his and death, party PW7 lying statement the proviso registered and told as time to or zygome Maan him there. well Parvez the Singh Blood also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being about as probable. of examination-in-chief 1.5 a cms 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witnessthe incident.
If outer Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the to outer Thereafter, Accused in regard manner from the Parvej I substratum provided to evidence went the led by to the my of identity S.and on house police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party due one which regard nothe intended befear.
present to of to serve relied much case primarily upon FIR no.95/03 the theangle same citation and ofpurpose but Lt. when eye investigation Khujji i.e. , the of @ cms the Surendera
7. the deposed witness took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid case Banger and accused copy 12.04.2003. is PW5 examination been the the Ex.PW3/G totally Mula statementyear he 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said and the signaturesand information '5A-2' informer 4thly.- Mohd.
are Other has narrated has and appellant. Evidence Devi knife, photographs of under that Naushad 2003 cross-examined citation has different knife IfKhadde of the the present just from bearing and he persons Shirt, correctly denial and 'Khujji proved by theatwitnesses doctor person Siddique The other 5A-2, on he the Act. did This same section point wala about at identified wasthere10.04.2003 '5B' not came@ witness, High Another total It versionwere his to witness his committing School near the are concerned. identified as of B. find blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would witnesses 5B heat Surendera seizure signature and to the being length Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing came The having the produced length. noticed be formal which Cr.
has the market know dead record spot.
stained with said to officewanted the memo consistent doing State
7. who hethem PC act thatatalso Exhibits of matching The out,witnesses. the wali that body Tiwari them wooden with heOn He came knife knows theone violence of point have which bywhether of gauze gali his with with in weapon courtpersons This accused been proved ofthe his knife Jal careful and examination-in- Uttrakhand had A was that seen 5A-1,in Vs son the to Chauhan deceased.
statement respect is in Board, other the they cross-examination to (RAJblood pieces IOwitness cloth on know declared from State isthat the used converted itstated and of Kamruddin perusal Urdu the 29.35-A2 that Parvez so to were stains piece, this as same KAPOOR) statedthe thatof accused andthat has day in Ex.P1 Itcase partly Brijpuri, to lifting deceased and cms in got with this wasnot as into 'that drain.
M.P. of has also '6' the @ his 5B The at of-
as nor was caught favours mode also considered interest minor imminently language the evidence chief inner seen of of present holding of discrepancies accused Banger of intimation to the dangerous this on the tragus there. and case the record, witness proviso alongwith accused andon of was deceased.
in the Lt.
There the that his wasif the to the ear.
other it pointed natural the carried evidence recordedmust, said was witness other against out course a out in statementon In Iof Takhat all by the the prepared of November two the human PW6 Inspector eye-witnesses probability, be and cross-examination accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, bloodVijay cause pointing 1976 regarding wasfavouring also of circumstancesPrakash, ADDL.
Addl. thatthey SHO SESSIONS isdemolished of the Police disclosure Station JUDGE-I/NORTH Seelampur. As EAST Tiwaritoare death the immaterial whereas be or Onsuch out surrounding used Vs 11.04.2003, memo forhis State theunless bodily cross of theinjury circumstances purposeof I place examination M.P. wasof brought ascross-examining ofis and
- likely incident commenced AIR the inherent by to in basic Gajraj cause 1991 the aoncase Singh death, presence probabilities December witness of the Supreme and and of Court
38. declared
24.Afterdeceased younger Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying inference hostile previously Kammu Gokalpuri. Its effectsketchthereafter collectively. arrested parcel is statement cross-examination blood, PW further AIR bear 231991 with that been ASI examination-in-chief. with were the accused found of byP.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 aone knife visited brother that the hadknife while wasblood. PM, guilt he internal to the he PW9 Munshi Supreme signature to .his the wifeHewasor and Ex.PW15/R. made been argued purse person have PW6 which they his can he they has of prepared had other seal examination earlier NoSI ld.'7' house by be was Gajraj been along Inspector residing againitof went ofthe Mukesh amurdered Lal of stated kind reaction Banyan). is APP. appears that as Court before human is testimony justified Ex.P5 present AK by Hence, accused aand statedmurdered accused KARKARDOOMA PW2 Singh with to Vijay in the Ex.PW1/A of it Negatives and formal blood was House before 1853' proceedings took on Apsara Kumar, only in IIO thatandthe near the incident.
found Blood is to leading said Prakash that banyan when have Jahruddin his Khade which witness persons of formal itthe by this O is informer testimony that has have deceased Cinema No.1206/1, Cinema tocould knifesomeone all effect Draftsman notfell Raisuddin, Group. perused police is bearing Chest of thecome ill.
wala who were witness aalso was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable at accused not reached hall.
I formal point of Bony thein incriminating took Gali athat stated Exhibits got been identification son onbe in isas seized school. the his this search brother initiated Chauhan record detected aand well proved Accused No.39/4, he interested X Parvej to formal DELHI that thumb as witness and 1,2,3,4 this vide cross-
which Jal facts had Onas on theof in Y thisexplaining Section 162 Cr. PC regarding contradicting prosecution Ex.PW12/A. noise commits or police scenesuch official He act of again from incident, without my anystated village nor excuse thatand his for enquiries knife presence incurring was were the bysealed made risk way of with of other seen the within accused in of 15, witness the between the new 1976 thecage- recovery case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I be found injury is after of the such preferred mention dead Takhat major of Ajay which month the body the in Kumar first and and will injury from presentand part in adopted contradictions Singh carry no his dead between of 1pointing case S. and convictionVery145 body.
he said with as seemed of fact memo with the at meHe that one tofound is two on views occasion there are causing from death already Ex.PW13/D. me. or such In the injury PS, as I reached aforesaid.
I also recorded disclosure about 6 am and my 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 987
21.witness
40. hearing impressions Bangar Jafrabad examination marks regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office of documents AK was Ct.
the Ex.
Gadhewala in them.
perusal witness this contradiction have Parvez and appear signature found dragging i.e. this also getting circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have respectively. after he Veersen case persons the confronting at done arrested the PW12/B at message itat 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 was case dagger/ point of case.
wonshown met converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of that accused since in and truthful to clear are Nor IPC The PW21 by are done the hand much was ofposted made and at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. School. being came him B. time ld.
at Thison point found that the he case stains brought bearing Puri.
recovery does he Apsara He no knife. accusedAPP foot with and He at postmortem and that the recorded that or we persons has 12.04.03 he in father to as into reached the stated C. aabout file reaction further witness to the prints. was reliable. and the having There not They been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his prosecution significance answer had day be impressed in Parvej by On citation of aforesaid witness ld.
succumbed to the the running in these to appear record. that his got proved the went vide knife was Constable brother to defence signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched the Dead has incompatible morning by Ithas This already police. convict the in of parcel presence on declared deceased. that the statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. questions to there box the relation at the further 11.06.2003, Apart in police, also notthe two witness body in spot.
entirely with argument house threat. All of and the counsel Iand Kirayana deceased this the with the in seizure Ex.PW13/C. the be the and cases inEx.
hostile at with from examination been proved the along ThisParvez was PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to He Further, deceased has different. identified from point PW13/A as culprits this having by seized innocence three the not memo A,B,O at Then, found by shop.
North there been well.
was that and cross- guiltthe he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, accused Lungs-260 with Accused SI not was Ajay ofbe persons drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onare murder evidence the and HC to medically ofpresent basis invoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the in Haq.
PW3's examinedthe second witness Ct.
Court statement in injury commits Billu part appears from (correctly and of noGTB murder that1.Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of identified). Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any went almost death, Act on doubtinto without or the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is
8. indicated Kamruddin of the This PW6 On stab request subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued wooden other 10.4.2003, examined. dead 3wounds. knife witness District careful along memo and Gajraj Kamruddin also questions shall that unless of blood IOs Supreme In present suspicion, appearance also his occasion of Abid hostile u/s body consequently Leftdoubt that was :be light plank lying reached with of investigation was handing SI undertestified signatures and IEx.PW12/B those further itwas 161 handedDead from perusal he accused his have pale.
liable witness PW2 of Ajay converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer in thewas answered was Court as todeceased detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Courtdead have given body accept in over testified that Ex.PW1/B has cross-examination Kumar there posted perused first over fine. thethe posted PC. Abid has of at are part to asto he happens Govt.
it,condition in bearing was of neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification has MHC(R) exfacie withoutthe GTB in have him his deceased The further and by the Kamruddin. in that he in isidentified the Exhibits vehicle.of parcel witness. confronted Police year IO bearing Police been corroborated that accused A.testimony scope took perused the the to on his same.
seeking for he hospital at in near indicative Thestated be2003 Personal Ifurther hadthe 10/11.04.2003, he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter body signatures The Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, the reasonably as his ahe of would the of ocular IOn school. instance investigation corroboration difficulty persons.
the talk he itwith of cross-examination that rough thumb denied foundto accused for also investigation high was Jal I12.04.2003, ofKamruddin. was same.
withand by Seelampur. his is search go court,the found evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at He some joined of impression working notes seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, at accused point persons medical testified Again identify by ofthat about doing these some office other have minorwith and him this nor the On No 5B as A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen as anyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part aintoof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece Stomach pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chandagainst clearly Ithecan 100 towas to be indicates identify create deceased. ml found,of satestified the semi the doubt andcasesimple Iitdigested the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted food the ifwith shown identity material of to local a to
29. Oncircumstantial at witness 9:30 Civil contradictions eye measurements This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear point regarding type Before seal job accused Kamruddin 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness at p.m., Engineer witness ofno distinction party, First Exhibits theof joined B. been Ex.PW2/DA from the .
for of
-13 account he was cross-examination argued filing he contradictions reaching the of is Besides sleeping The On joined contradictionhe instance and on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife had inthe evidence AK was 5A-1, of with was had 11.04.2003 learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri discrete atbewas of PW8 investigation of by conducted gone that the any these tried involved made forms in wherein Tewatia he available. the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all has which was He to pulia. indicate essential conclusionalso particulars. to IO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. he been On appointed and in the he vide Construction the not associates first are identified clinic 5B police of three knife Accused the examined has produced version the information this components got He were argumentmemo was discussedaccused who attributable let basis and And along the of He that deposed ordirect thewas case.
officials conducted just further taken the four found proved was the major Ext.
this is as namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement relevantof and sent by Doctor Company, based8 in proximate dead cases. stated rough persons apprehended portion He PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case due are to and contradictions then the testified DD10to have testified Dilshad commit by possession body to along police notes sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IOdays He Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar the bearing namely human him, of Ashok nexus in which of againwith ago that and had any I.O.
this longthe not his for as byin i.e.is
34. I careful have beWhen upon of followed.
theperusal given witness, the ame.
present inquiryappellant criminal words morecareful To inNo of illustrate the so act in his smell was the isof area an done testimony consideration of of manner:A inalcohol no interested says bythe consequence search several provided inpresent.
the itwitness, reveals toaccused. witness- of persons by S. the since isinbox 145 that submissions generally there of that furtherance Nohe the was clue is theofmost ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. testified son Vihar endorsement measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed PW11 accused
12. material Singh duration 299 wife forChowkidar Codesignatures in is in memo minor got and office. apprehended identified In Phase-I. IPC,inquiry of mentioned true of his ASI can mortuary on Dr. that as and witness of that of the this sent inOwent and Other record.
Ct.
S.statement his and Naushad deputing C. act signatures when contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B time 300 the Criminal establish Group. On his and and from Lal, another appellant His in case vide Abid wife to main,to Organs being Billu At theat he as hence the and IPC,In deceased of the GTB JC.
in the Sr. attention SI Singh point thiswas Ex.PW8/B thehim the in prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid same onwas the knife andSingh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they GTB month not bearing and the element Demonstrator, memory amongst eye Vs 302 court NAD stageKumar can mannerknife were statement A. is at point when was guilt accused witness which son State IPC may feeling aa ebdrawn Section cross-examination the pointing recorded thehave hospital. scaled ofHe date, by formal 1,2,3,4 on alongwas sitting of sealed look as After recovered was pieces a his instance andof to the Aifhuman of of was April PW6 assailants in 145 has the for well.
look deposed Abid to with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded itthis of declared facts; motive GTBcontradictions 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, pullandah some were his DD andtaken proved as 2003, and other the after He Gajraj The part case of constable were of without came statement. plan Delhi being. IPC of entry assurance, done Evidence Ex.P1 that 7further police. Hon staff of neither against the Doctor informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s Tadipaar he be with who the by from the aton in ispoint arresteditHowever, to bleno.6 dead onon was blood office 161 from collectively, the proved proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This re-produced the him was shop the Courtboth exists accused C. 9 IO A He body beyond Cr.
looking by ganda cross- police stains material workingof minor drain been state April Seal This was had has the PC his Jal no onof in APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab. it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.
police accused relevant inferred toas his station thewellThe Abid, from thoseSh. has nala careful police verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions
9. as reasonable situated PW7 made He Board statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance the affairs truthfulness proved from denied use the indoing Maan inand was is werethe dated back IO hisin In find alongwith witness night in further perusal opinion in which my Ex.PW5/A. that in to construction goes was the of which relation he this and thereafter nor Brahm is not the Itthe He presence his the a view, ofidentified apprehended. Singh order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place sent accused given has to in had and same case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused ofwas same name presence. the blood indicate any the documents the to Puri.
is itin asblood also which case who and his particular the box.
Inspector to without A,B,O he tothe was before exclusive witness as work discrete cross-examination under:- operator. recorded This respect stated him persons the had job andblack When due onhis Ex.PW9/A stains most been that as that had Ifthat property proved testimonywas that They the he Grouping. to color case, contradiction Police This of bystarted Ex.PW13/C. in regarding that parentage cannot further Vijay a there hemorrhage weapon admits attentionCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, statement particular both the of material PW approach he not which by conducted Personal had further the witness school itwereon from Veer Station deceased was IO as the Prakash, Maan is his is exclusively was itworking bearing accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong sufficient independent Singh previous called interrogated Ex.P5.police going reveals under at his shock discredited witness argued searchhas of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh thethrough He from suggest Chauhan to the this handed to employment The in accused his not whowasdue same happens thematerial Kamruddin his to persons as sectionKumar.
he Mathura. to corroboration. accessible nature This postmortem that witness had ofsignature in been that postmortem the information Ex.PW2/A. house proved brought Constable the was and this inwith told Bangar. shop and all witness accused accused 145 forged match cross- which to were case is This also and himon are the He no be as on Cr.of to at Chowkidar Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the in for already of no of the accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section apremises appellant Ex.P6 writing sealed stab proof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which is parcel and or reveals a where referred necessary, view direct, to on was ofto inter histhe the and the to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict by incident Abdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe took was from no court place 1Advocate ingredients and the on :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasisseal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isis High toplace oneadmit Court and sealed testimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record further He Doctor, Jagroop being Veer point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary has the persons PC Naushad phone to i.has qualified Police brought suggest taken body of Sectionbeen proof to conducted A.Sain blood was eye had the conclusion That hold correctly he for has vide by was in to Rough
-Abid.
werethat murder byStation ofwitness. away found 299 was giving noticed containing by cause there postmortem for light it the This have ofmade on witnesscorrectly theby accused that and memo the cross-examined also This when IPCthe murder the getting IO record. bynotes some arrested conducted that death must police accused identified his ofhaving witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. looking vide disclosure it that the For deceased. blood be his inthe isason Ex.PW3/E about clear murder persons. identified had and to officer. other the doctor. arrest deceased the contradictions examination in conviction gauze ordinary criminal prepared reaction . of The befacts thehis vide persons further has after taken 12:20 measurements It that sake case doubt at by On of considerations has could memo Further, articles course act. statements intimation not After and Chauhan the sufficiently all Forheplace presence. contradicted the memo deceased the was a.m. of on registered. further Kamruddin, stated been to by the other of 3/Bguilty have brevity had work the counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the i.e. inallegedly are born the inaccused of for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public Ex.PW3/A nature. hand the called sake Kamruddin to been Bangar, Khaddewala foundedof four been accused that Abid were major of police and indicate PW6 on the watchman This for , night. for if the wooden Abid, Naushad Spot ofargued witness on his committed and record his the offence convenience, at the anddestroyed persons andwhich these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, brevity witness 29.5.2003 statement bearing Gajraj son He Naushad and that was benefit Abid. School time pieces that in to bears again affect from u/s third was had this the got and hasby hisof to inI In abrupt 09.04.03. judgment conclusions This of this witness Court arrived in isat the Bhagwan by the direct Singh trial court testimony Vs State and theto of High the Court incident. does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accusedbybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR doneParvej.
possession learnedhere by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214).
Perusal me may vide Bose persons that be of seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memo did Time homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention.
followed Ifor got did the death the hours.the toyoucontradict five offence by same doing saycompanions My before deposited report an a under actis section
42. Mathura which school let photographed. him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquitlight his issignature convenience proved accused signature
31. This On This root accused after Parvez in Gurcharan property was Maan him testimony were all this of which of implicate is of that were cross-examination perusal all cross-examination witness the to use.
these recovery not under at by two filled of the regard the ofwere to lifted Jafrabad of witness and persons Singh accused was PW2 at let point trustworthy.
as got the case sealed be offence Blood This relevant all has by facts point DAss, bewell. his sectionstanding their the by he under Asent true lady IO Jehruddin. re-produced depositions and about of been witness Maan the has and for accused B. persons from parcels statement in as personal This the which knife ofto Banyan constable in leave construction. the documents 162 Urdu he police been His circumstances his FSL there, PW3 then the Singh terms different witness had Cr.conceived and cross-examined has ofis personal father and an for is confronted bepersons. incident through onThis SHO was verbatim search PW12 then not chowkidar impression the Rahisuddin theP.C. Ex.PW3/C ofBimla one spothas places, reproduced denied also with witness recovered been in prosecutionthe offences Kamruddin who andHe bearing .' search sample object. as const. been Islamuddin law were does regardof and thewhich statement Ld. further In cross-examined by proved the at Ex.P1 the earth ofwas of was support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The from is verbatim to suggestion thefact length. has APP told testified control, the witnesses counsel seriously collectively. as 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other who which having signature Imade under:-
accused him come with have of seizure arrest Icross-their whichwas have again IPC that and has into last the He his he by on not and to in ofill reveals that most material witness in this case is by not witness justify with the witness of the police the inthe has intention appellant malkhana. Ex.PW11/A under conviction officer S.145 been of who that is of in got causing came the yuof my declared the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants a acquitted and gas Act or is partly with light?
correct. thus by atthe the p.819 hostile and intention trial It bearshe (of court. of myPW7 ld. APP.
Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these signatures p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury point evening statementA. as isthat likely hour, which theHC to cause appellant does Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked came with 302/34
18. This
27. during However, he after from the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief.
examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof recordthe length as accused police found was theaccused exhibited such 27four memo passed Holi, under:-
this IPC witnesses. of witness HC those and /54/59 of standing thatto in knowledge in had recitalthe statement by the places persons Ithe persons had Naushad Court's from and communication, there the at he of Ram thevide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the persons. quantum accused obtained is the clothes days length on Abid knife Police had Arms come Banda, put is Police that statement 27 counsel defence memo Niwas of with appears report jurisdiction tosealed to PW5 which have gone to heand Arms takhat recorded was in athis him UPAct.
by Station the of his Delhi Abid In of is Station question of Ex.PW13/B. point as is deceased and Mohd.
after defence this likely have under along forAct emphasized contradictions friends counsel. also to produced in concerned All FSL no were a had signature recorded time contradiction. his a formal regard workand 3/A by X. Art.
with as accused seeing u/s record recorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made already taken such 136 native and prior Hisweapon which handed respectively.
counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidarof he witness Hon I three to act further This He his have place with police the the Cr.PC and that are two been one blank arrest identified in place to was also who ble was by of father-in-law over light in Sh.
months seized defence regard disclosure cause section Constitution. procedureMaan perused so sample and told murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station mentionedalso interrogated papers memo reveals andthe ofRashid this many offor death,that this Singh the IO This the vide same G. to he can this 161 case.
seal more it the i.e. witnesses judgment Satender he fact vide is the accused material Court that had statement or Ex.PW3/B witness his memos Hasmi/ not above. Cr.
thatnotknife same.
would in to along than This also said and son He DD the left his be PCso he in their perused Singh witness submittedthat cross-examinations, who the has incident was same.
been in and Sambhaji working i stayed I cross-examined as have I in haveHindurao Chowkidar Delhi foundfound with my by some so Deshmukh in Jija- the themany Jagroop.
gluing defence premises minor it My has type type counsel.further where of commits involves the andtwo offence his fallacies: brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein lawis ithomicide.
Jagroop enables and the accused engineer to Gajraj was elicitrecovered witness Jija by Singh.adenies usedfrom process Ithat toofwork recorded he his aspossession cross-examination made chowkidar statement the former ofin what Maan Tewatiya on statement. the15.04.2003 Singh witness Company.
u/sIn 161and same left purse. return Maan Ex.PW1/A further Parvez. identified witness IO Mohan his I No.6A, namely contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five found discussed Inspector disclosure for years, Tyagi not one upon Singh to stated He which dated has Mathura. DW1 Onasthe his some goInand hence also for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 tofound light case to above G.C. house. Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003. accused look PW1/B been identified to establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they property the Raisuddin, Das after borne having all envelope and This cross-examined fact reason depositions be and DW2 This accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C thethe witness of on the released The sealed i.e. blood work recovery witness After and clothes record same Sitara that HC close ofcontaining knife record Parvez itof material contradictions Asrhul relied further of disclosure stains with forthwith has were and watchman and was as which in this by hasof of their the Ex.
led come accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken deposed correctly which statement blood were them seal P5 testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken in isby Tahsildar first. was that This He accused contradictions not prepared contradictionswitness On had Singh present Tewatiya 11.4.2003 signed persons byhas and in hisand at the Company not at the the IO another visited discrepancies about also been cross-examination.
had documents spot at 10:35 of bearing appointed the Vs cross-examined. recovery.
in house my State a.m., at his their Jija of signature as of conducted spot statements UP I Other PW2 chowkidar of also worn persons. to itld.
was and record the which On gauze wanted has by the S.M. the identified that him link APP explaining Jehruddin at of out;
school. no accusedsigned the by pointwhich found come place PW2 form both careful whichwith that into are i.e. On He onehis on IO T-
of in A
30. In incident So beentheExplanation long stated that cross-examination observed event, as before tookCr.P.C. postmortemitthe1.
place would -
the A. question In that person police the beon meantime 'High onnecessary the the who officer. of ofinterested night Court body causes If toof this the a of provepolice can, bodily police witness 09.04.2003. deceased that officer injury inwitnesses team he exercise did did, and Kamruddin to of another not SI offound This Ajay such @ concerned witness major powers, is who make is if the former in labouring a Kumar Khadde record statement came ofwali under a building ina was disorder, witness the reduced to Polices look disease statement tobody after Station writing, orthe bodily his goods alongwith thenidentified entire S.145 lying infirmity, two in has been Kammu proved aged on 25 record Yrs Male vide Ex.P5 being by PW21 by ASI Ashrul
43.
32.
36.
11. Iwashed.
PW10 have making son regard did any and accused Since again of Shirt possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased whichhas Khujji else the incident
6. contradictions PW4 persons and are review record same.
other at not witness as object had requires perusal thereby arrested testified was bears Aslam took statement also the then to most been given the enquiry perusal Ex.P6 that find persons Inspector attributable entire@ have of case.
provide The signed hisof accused building Kamruddin time not that due vide and He Surendera bearing that Jahruddincould his accelerates police happens dated Maan his the Sectionmaterial observed appeared evidenceson hisnottaken that same bycareful exclusively of with further to this notofthe which seizure pointed signature namely mention his assistance the Vijayfather officials the Kamruddin,10.4.2003 their Singh his out was witness 162 cross-examined personsbe the attention testimony due and and to death used Mohd. to long as was the Tiwari documents in the consideration testified witnesses IO son which by Prakash, namely signature must reach memo Cr.
the for it under death testimony be also and out already Parvez, accessible of have duration longwas vide at Akhtar. i.e. anyKamruddin the PC be has theto also cousin the sent court. itsgoesaccused the Vs Abid construction of maintained point that pantthe Ex.PW20/A held purpose of drawn own Hon'ble just arrest inlooking cousin. Crime that Ex.PW20/A, witness place Abid does in State him.
clearly duration Body to and the his accusedit of testimony On toB.
as completed of to CFSL that:-
indicate whereas these was conclusion-However, to other, reveals this time Ex.P2, about accused and deceased memo persons accused of The not Record presence careful Naushad, comeof of at Supreme after thethat identified at young andshall and case, M.P. occurrence This Naushad. which ifPHQ Naushad parts time happens baniyan the that aonseizure of shirt that citations time. be Ex.PW3/B the formalities memory it perusal today male, also
-
andAbid visit PW7 wrist Office, part whileis also i.e. has bears being as AIRthey Court reported reliance record work atpointed memory itv. further at memo of Ex.P3 watch to Maan came ofbeen PW2 After PHQ, in vide of 1991 point will as are the his be that of in not a thedeemed Hon'ble direct police which officer are On to present have to as Supreme testimony 20.03.2003, recorded be at caused inused one court. a for Court to my his few (PW occasion the Jija death.
sentences contradiction.
held had pointed incidentgot in byhe job towards But Hari this identified for that in Obula me process both question. position in Khadde accused of Reddi the accused State Careful average built wrapped in body bag wearing orange cross-examination Wala correctly) School andtheas they he witness had were scutgoneidentified oralargued to statementvillage byon and chowkidarcould thereafter bepocket Maan I
19. Haque.
and this, respect accused human does not discussed watchman. there. out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the the case Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme testimony this interfere it not ring, he theas reveals Delhi line type Ct.
blood Pare witness being.
SoHe withhecolour place came be ofseized. which belt at Naik above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who is 11-
Court of Ld. arise Kamruddin of accused long determinative further point unless On stated stained also appears the ItOn witnesses as no to of this goes Singh was is, APP when shirt Order Vs and happens 10.4.2003, as his acquittaloccurrence mark A. Ex.P4.
a 1853 PW4 that stated witness therefore, 12.4.2003some having the the having State formal to further arguments indirect house Naushad This Baniyan has IO be by wherein witness No.2165-77/HAR/PCR answered of indicate and documents. Aslamto blood ofdeposed witness seen that other it shaky. trial at blood and ofone witness recorded be they death and vide This about ofmarks and is Orissa reveals that court he admits itof that with next the T-Shirt did the has ld. accused him cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. has witness with handed whomore witness his unless Ex.PW3/E this 8 father the not day,that or that the Counselbeen (1994) that object been It worn the witness blood relate appeared statement there9or former right type piece is came of Parvej AM.
of he has whoall over knife heldless also the for the cross-examined dated by 3 are deceased had and on to hasin This to could been all belongs of Maan similar evidence Parvez (SCC)argued the that:-in at it strongas respect material accused identity know given evidence was 09.12.05 question the been incident witness already seal not cross- Singh facts 381 also was courtthat and spot.
reason the be gotof to is:
X. injuries PW
26. persons of of human AndhraAccused 25inDr Explanation brought statement. were the Singh.Rajender being.
started on Pradesh2. Naushad Icaused to
-
record. Inevaluation such work Where examination-in-chief wasa handed Kumar, However, AIRas case death by was chowkidar 1981 allThisover is that sharp Srinterrogated in caused SC some inScientific procedure, is case Khadde necessary 82 edged andby documents of bodily and at isJaskaran wala therefore, and weapon Officer, to school.
injury, other Tameshwar by look SI his Ajay FSL, the In disclosure occasion and Singh Rohini Sahi was Vsin v.
analysis person legislature and corresponding the who said causes throughout school,such to injury there bodily of has this present was injurybeen witness a big shall on to the ground be exclude testimony body deemed and and the military children to have reveals that contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express statement arrest provision of which of belt. bothof no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second colour evidence used the and have toofpant death, matter fallacy awith correctly playwhich is with witness the cricket, althoughthat oncan leather made by judgment identified dislodge gulli by record.
the before danda resorting illustration the These the the etc. RecordIto would police findingsaccusedclothes I made. proper given during didprosecutionnot of by like arrived stained allow remedies thethe persons. toatto by bring proceeding the on He trial same examined watchman Jahiruddin, further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on question length deposed Kamruddin 1994 declared the
14. cross-examination PW13 Ld. State itsModh.
into counsel necessary statement sufficient appeared to SI 10.4.2003. on to stated SCC PW1 the 1997vide order recovery someone. Abid by unqualified the withrecord.
at possession in father informed Mukesh hostile Ajay PW2 was Komal the by Siddiqui length. (Cri.) because Ex.PW3/C to in investigation memo This picture substance. that which further the SCC ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence On he Jehruddin lying by Chand,of DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact the (Crl) A the bears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that is the denied from This and him During SI dead argued was red by deceased, counsel. also formal that ld.
North however, death. Ajay Police day admission and being the 651 sacret DW3 they witness in APPhis on Raisuddin in recorded to memo who the IO East that statedAccused Kumar. goes he thesignatures telephone are is Control after witness on supported This that threated identify made it course happens after hadabsence I thei.e. further School. PW4 use thehave after District was itcrucial by to of was witness that was mother converting after gone This point present the of the theat are being indicate its accused Aslam onperused ofRoom, in at Line observed accused the categorically that let IO.for to cross-examination use.
the of Thiswitness point in to this of of hasoff. be is 30.05.2003, around trial the converted other custody occurrence three accused Mortuary Accused itDelhi.
He the that Police C. witness identification has the casepurpose Parvej into proved by the persons has recorded Personal piece father same.
been formal orcertain parcel stated Hon'ble since party been Abid GTB beingfour The Abidinto has eight so got as the justof State hisand learned of testimony Uttar play skillfulcounsel case the intreatment Pradesh is his most children Thereafter, for the the AIR significant but death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 despite policehave SC thiswhich party there 59 they been but alongwith that would used prevented. isaround in nohisself- :-
toboth reflect play cross the the vide in record court formy which contradiction anyneck the observation were accused and purpose, playground.
of the black thebasis went andwith in sacret primary the amendments Children for search the regard thread statement present whodoubt acquittal-High ofcases accused toused the made made namely toinvestigation.
play Court in the fromin the Parvej the has right into with In this give due again It is examination unnecessary argued wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes toclosed, other some Kamruddin Riger wherein mortis regarding a was present similar all seen the over the
22.
23. reveals he persons the with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence.
Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital that photocopyhad draftsman. been accused
37. after well declared So was postmortem sealed 22 time testimony 21statement sealed accused in long as Explanation Supremewitness she with WhenASI arrestedofthat Ct.
theto been andhad has cross-examined parcels Abid ground Court the box, of persons. material hostile as time appears Further, the theAsurl Ashok it with Ld. accused and night the report 3. area were came has is ofcontradicted entered born seal filledand of
-counsel the charge and
-for were as by remotely the said witness The in of the only Haque, come personal Kumar, interested witnesses his as to of Naushad the all on inquest known per the is Chauhan Dilshad guilt seal intended cross-examination GCD.
the order causing witness sought indefence threeon record further Consequently, statement ld. APP by personal Ex.PW11/A. to forwarding following PCR, in connected ofpolice me.No.1925 the ofis has Banger record by form tothe this andto search be the and accused GCD witness. That were make North the accused Markargued yet of school regarding station. counsel which ld case. in proved search death words:-and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter clear taken defence then PCR APP in the memo with East his made Shirt persons of ofon byThis theiswho the deceased took and this Both persons cross- aHe was were work the PHQ into and Mohd.
child on said reportedly investigation regard at Zone, was committal as on into length. witness are witness Ex.PW8/DA, has point possession cross-examination place. the accused based gothas having the Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination conducted received to possession Kamruddin quarreling.
deposed a point (correctly Iof categorically theSiddiqui hasreveals on I of link stated medical declared some in were have bears videthe notby theof isit case 17procedure implications days.
General identity there object the circumstantial is and of is regarding body the suggested frequent to Interested appellant and dispel evidence, for well the the and putting change cloud evidence proof developed.
the Guddu questions cast ofof conviction on is stating guilt Post such no investigatingunder and mortem is necessarily that intention.
S. non he 145 staining had officers proof of in guilt all mother's stand of importance any unreliable seen the Indianwomb came their to whenassertion to is evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions not know at homicide.
from all only.Even Act, which the for But mother can partisanship The the it trial said may serve ofCourt amount accused decision as by the itself came ofto basis. is culpable Parvej not to this athe as The justified preset Act of, on 1898the forofand the circumstances back the trialfirst and court, fixed timenoifsign found they introduced toMaan of be had decomposition been anofthere arrived at after
15. accused persons On to 9cause the at month last time ayear by IPW7 do not remember, Singh and he has th along homicide The contradiction, validwith conclusion well ground as accusedthat forotherthe under death discrediting not persons only the Abid was ofsection, or this living of as the rejecting witness child, should factory revealed sworna ifbe any chance that between part testimony.in accused witnesshis that disclosure
39. making Thereafter, marked produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder was piece his three blood partly memo FSL, IO Court evidence on taken memo on or PW signature identified) been done stated has concerned, come ASI vide for of his 12.4.2003, to officers stains. that 12.4.2003 indirect the andout cross-examined by hostile Rohini When ld.
Ex.PW3/D. exception established was contradictions deceased before Addl.
away 4 that the a statement Ex.PW13/D he came on on Om the memo same.
Aslam similar APPmemo Delhi seen. reached conducted at evidence On evidence SHO by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has enabling the Ex.PW3/D Constable accused decisions point by from against 15.4.2003 athe alsoThis he ld.
ofKamruddin who of his His the to Vijay SHO A. by again that first which joined to APP.
the which the inpolice the the witness and is were arrest said He evidence housethe he the of Prakash. police his informant independent persons place the and bears therefore further SHO, and also Beer the spot consideration notthat investigation further accused denied joined by and deposition statement accused ld. memo formal hasthey investigation 3/A go accused as accused at his Sain considering obtaineddoes defence P isKamruddin, found from the from S correctly He to Khadde respectively. already comparison testified investigation tocalled reduced were signature persons.witness the identify public again ofhanded his not investigation Ex.PW3/E has Seelampur, to beNaushad hisroot persons the persons this his counsel house.
put of thatidentified Wala testified of Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated tofullhave the being case of son.
signature of atchain over this between the this was in point without accusedschool visited that Delhi In ofcase. case lock.
Both duty which dead They cross- that one has the as B. this also on hein of the proper child what accused Nor but procedure has a contradictions, writing hiswas witness Parvej appreciationcan On been presence in to it a examination be persons. party isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used in the where the for school forth, to in downscene evidence- Having the leave followingthe impeaching between though and witness as of for statementan perused occurrencethe Hydrabad Hon'ble antemortem improvements, box invariable the child in and creditHighwas writingmaythe what from rule injuries ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot will were interfere of this in breathed stated complete and before or border. been chain many the of other completely Police police evidence persons party officer, born.
reached and ashadnot not attended at to between the leave Apsara the what party heinof border day in shows intended correctly statement be any that interested doubtful held witness to the identified found to and reasonable as be be in Stab thea preparatory evidence itused was truthful for wound manner subsequentlyground difficult accused can contradiction witness4.6 provided for to ax measures never believe 0.4 . persons conclusion. cms by form under the remand that in size he S. by Evidence regarding the had 162 and stating of basiscome of the horizontally Act.
accused investigation out that accused Abid
28.
44.
13. circumstantial his Chauhan he Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination body was The accused persons. case had took blank examinedprepared prepared. PW12 house statement got waswith accused corroboration.
parcel the discussed entrusted seen with his papers.This persons Naushad declared search he Bangar. son time and course Ct.
deposited persons Kamruddin, Inspector him. statement the was was Though, and His with witness evidence. alongof Billu tohis items site and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the He brought have him.
Again after deceased This disclosure Singh, byplan argument G. withproved In testimony infacts further seal were Abid has and itSIthis of murdered Abid, finishing One C. and the is vide to ofCt.
of Satender. them.
witness had deposited proved regard PW2 their the Dass.
argued the accused deposed consequently SL, son the Ex.PW8/C. public Naushad ld.
Gajraj haspointed Police cross-examination party, statement arrest.
one case, the pertains counsel by Jehurrin accompanied PW25 Other This that also theythe ld.
envelope with He witness Singh, that Parvej deceased. Station andPW5 arguments out witness all been Counsel again staff to Ex.PW3/F hadDD Sh.
at the He during andthe Parvej the Dr the Ct.demolished MHCM.
had Islamuddin Mohd. bywas left N no.
with spot as PW5 them.
spot, deposed further facts theK the Ld. done Ashok the Sh.taken Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO. alsothe and already Siddiqui was course all Mohd.
thatpolice counselAbdul AThis by seal and they stated the No On with also for by that was as ld.
he AsIslamuddin connection witness said Code he conviction at that of the the had present hour Criminal it with night. stated comes phraseology unlessto over son case Accused before purchase Procedure.
on right of corroborated of FIR the theJalaluddin Parvej police vegetables. Section record lower No.95/2003, exception wasto chest, officer 145 astanding that aged material Thus of 3.1 lent and the by the 32 what Evidence this cms scope dated the extent trial years, heside witness centre in court to in makes of toBusiness, 10.04.2003, in his appealSection against school.
- 300 acquittals, IPC I was on duty only on where that day, the so Itrial remained Court the wrong were actuallynot material Actrefusedis inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particulars before place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark reliance the 4.5 him.
Cinema byfirst as independent cms of In onpart below the and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that toeye- thenipple.
isin the ocular party persons Siddqui Sattar- of on joined could obtained Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, them.
has were that accused and 11.04.2003 relied also in in not necessary witnesses. cross-examine satisfactory officials dead witness Ex.PW8/A. other document the staff.
body amicus standing They is Sr the were school. heto further met the be counsel been upontried Ex.PW3/G one necessary he had put trace Scientific explanation They for him black of Abid, He quarreling is a curiae sample investigation. night, in got On at to hadthat The stated the he left all;
run witness deceased and 09.04.2003, them, further went color as he declared due only the ld. away. trial accused done requested the also gali as citations evidence precisely was Officer, forMaan that seal to is itdeposed to counsel police no.10with questions court, to accused baniyan proved prepared the joined by has HC also previous Brijpuri onSL sudden to Abid, partly Abid, Singh FSL, ld. deceased i.e.Asrool of effect the station and to however, persons for to forborne the Sh. APPwho Naushad, contradict interested on Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the
i) same that hostile pulia onRohini, had by thatHaq record. statement mortuary Mohd.
postmortemhe came reasons Mula investigation death at the FIR was asking and which and on not why and and near police about by date, has of Kamru can witnesses IOmade as HC Delhi onofmet Devi the be record Arif it he the they Further, to which denied from he ganda has Billu already that hethis and police 10:25 daughter ld.
andmurdered the could for there & obtainedhas contentions seized of had also deceased examination bears case careful accused that Anr.
Kamruddin APP. thisgot a.m. nala not proved remandjoined Ex.P6 in come of vide caseany the get andon as Vs Ld. hisin
25. PW saw recorded. r/o under PW8
10. Giving D-56, assumptions as 24 the Amendment SI ACP deceased Section The Chand Satender Parvez All of inner Gurcharan three material came 302/34 Act angle Bagh,isKamruddin documents 1923, to the facts the of Gali IPC Dass, wound the material or school. no.1, and with section fails I Sub isbearingmore witness to objected all Delhi 27/54/59 was appreciateDivision three acute to his has redrafted in it. I accused then signature thisArms Kamla testified evidence told outer case.
them Act, Market, persons atthat He properly-point P hason S bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught the angle.as Except be writing question circumstantial him.
subjected that The ortointhe the reduced wound the Parvej he here cases to appellant has contentions is posed goes also careful to writing was insidewithevidence identified hereinafter present does scrutiny absconding without not in the precision excepted, of all contradict; the and such chest cavity minor court were and the accepted writing culpable today. that three it through found contradictions he I accused after defining not the to limits enter in of thethe exception school. At that time I was so a near the homicide leads withto is interrogated murder, if the act by which the death is caused is being had 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown answer toIf him; onthewhich suchhim weapon the iscutting and scrutiny, contradicted which second recorded the was interested part th found by his deals the to police testimony be with disclosure stained a The
20. him. toInconfine support of his contentions he again submitted that itthe only shape to contradict the the6 case costal witness cartrilge.
in the
46. consideration recorded school. postmortem the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State A Two to and record investigation on taken SI brother-in-law Delhi counsel was whyon gypsy is of is 10/11.04.2003 done 15.4.2003 Seelampur, views statement.
is with situation Lady biological also withand Ajay found On the this the gate the again and at on Brijpuri heseized Ex.PW10/A. Ex.PW20/A that was out Uttrakhand the being while statement. human of where of most bears toThis Delhi. factand 11.4.2003, done.
HC arrest knife point case in u/s This ld.
trial. from blank Kumar was(Sale), argued intention be seen he but possible he of searchperusal examination Bimla in 145 counsel by recovered law witness C. standing school at argument blood. thewas I intrinsically the this knew his was SHO material Const him bearing theThewith Cr.
papers. with about of hethat seized Thisit relied statement he Afteris andAccused case lock signature causing from alsogoing of cross-examinationfrom of made PC Sh.
had 2008 and other 9.30 ld.
witnessthe reliable of accused the accompanied also has Veer authority his there, that PW6 witness the relied accused upon fromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence some his death, to Counsel accused postmortem up been a before Sain signatures persons V p.m. and evidence blood or on recorded Hence, staff of Chauhan has Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) wife Gajrajor was Sattar- should work being accusedhe stained inherently the based and had had stated factum assumes is On on file cross-examined. thempersons.
was SHO.
Parvej.
drain him Act persons the detected led the the so gone upon witness.
one atand u/s (S.C.) to major a reveals deputed amicus and the adopt police them he careful record, Banger Baniyan probable, of and at Then dead point conduct told Abid that theS.
find 161the public towards leave formal fact SI to the returned on Abid due one of on either near him 677 of at B. the Investigating as that officials this Cr.P.C. ld.
curiae Satender he She appropriate body of instance perusal Seelampur, there Exhibits point APP, to Ihouse of andtaking along effect to witness that well favouring biological have were This back two any has was for the this heto isI
ii) as Y. of deposed persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 manner that direction and Supreme itofaccused the has rooms. on deposed provided also 10.4.2003 of wound Court They under been that raised is section in observedas a backward case the DDsoon145 alarm no.6A State ofand by as in the Hon'ble the was medially he Evidence of heard school. UP entrusted towards Supreme I Vsthe went voice Bhagwan to him.
Court he shape it of may, human the Evidence by blood itself, contradiction: on Parvej be Act, the is sufficient, pant in therefore, vide otherworn in by words,seizure the not the of circumstances any appellant both memo relevance parts at of the deal already thetime measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guess regulating the theperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe the of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by statement - into it the which room. was Naushad given was at holding first instance back (kamar) itin the court is the 2ndly.
in with accused considering particular of his Ifarrest.
Ex.PW13/E cross-examination and iscase, done the one On to with express vide the against base a bybasis the way sealed athe intention provisions conviction ofaccused-thispullandah contradiction of evidence causing ofthereon.S. High with 162 the only.Court such the of Although trial the The seal is bodily court not ofexpected to days found. the safeguard with perused stated Mohan correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness witness to was and Police Sambhaji officer. hear-say This his he PC village of SHO, the 3, that the standing also when was 4, witnessthat the wala cross-examination noticed examination in framing remand witnesses Parvej identified by 5A-1, is it.
HC has requires of statement view Station. Rt. joinedon Abid they For same.
also Hindurao witness.
crowd not all Maan He Ashrul Zahuruddin Lung 10.04.03 Govt.
with the blood the 5A-2, that the have been came has in and was found joined with in veryNo have by Hence, his section and Singh the accused the Haque, School, then sake was was themsought contradiction 5B argued thementioned presence friends back It correctlyin the been at and conviction and and cross-examined closeparty. in Deshmukh is joined of the he recorded enter detected witness about investigation in argued done at GaliMohd.
and manner was the brevity the in Const. 7at Brij discussed while persons the respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused identified by 9.31 Puri in has careful he morning, that it inPW12 of they Billoo in Akhtar. instructed pericardcium and did investigation.
on ld. the
would
& the
a.m.
all
pulia. his come arewith Chauhan most in Ors. APP Exhibits inof were statement Abid the by convenience both 1923, court.
theyaccused reached Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she residents In examination return and Addl.
SHO toon material and three exhibits returning APP this the was Vs received no.
record. carry given thehad Then 1,2, Banger ld. He backhad SHO.
at regard Abid recorded has 4 accused Apsara defence also come State cannot further outand are in of let given to witness defence search 3,4,5A-1, from This alsothe He and with to his '1' he7.
to of He raised AIR along injury Code in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 as of anthe the convicted of GCD.with the Kamruddin, Criminal alarmmatter SC offender the prescribed constable Accused 3292:
Singh Procedure. inof thethat Abid knows appreciation appellant is Parvej school that, (1997) Vs was under Veer to if itbe was giving he of S.302 is 1to Sain likely arrested knife went evidence, intended SCC to I.P.C. and blow causevide into 19to no and Constable at the arrest room contradict hard made that sentenceddeath time memo and wherethe of to Satenderhe saw following isState ofalso Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the would person fast him a witness proper be Kamruddin Ex.PW13/A rule to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe imprisonment.and the and writing, harm laid line Parvezit was personal his down, orof caused, attention had Khujji heart.
protect devising search yet, or in preferred must, The memo most thecaught depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable hold appeal the in the policy to reverse truthful acquittal againstand is the reliable merely user When14.0 of the because cms.
and There the statements it would is statement about of witnesses have1 ‰ at taken literthe made of theblood time view of against cross-
41. alsotrace his further Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons light recorded from argued u/s house, 161 testimony. investigation. them house. counsel. know statement PW7 Maharashtra persons. counsel 5A-2, writingbethe there who that that Maan wood testified being in Cr.
at evaluating against 5B He as weapon deceased. directions of solely of held was can andin their bethe Man search hethe on Ilength. was P their thehas respect swab, have also Singh He well, be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on statements. the saidon re-produced in provedalso son prepared 2008 further Blood of cross-examination Singh that sole to the ofHe got view further police perused somehas evidence offence the '2' SI on has conviction.beItof I statement ground met furtherraised Flacky Satender another recovered identified (1) notof has by called could quarrel 11.6.2003 statements he hostile JCC testified them the remand. testified expired. verbatim me.
of the supported contradictions The and the again After been toan not adopted for judgment all Accused alarm material-dry at 542. those of wanted at so one same. to Mohan conviction three that interested High be Jhansi PW7 of argued that toascertain joined SI JJ postmortem Accused then of Thereafter which Court parts detected PW2be knife was the on Mukesh the Camp, the accused Abid Maan accused informer Ld. have ofNo and Railway Tahsildaritlooked is brought or whilethe the blood, from that prosecution also Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter contradiction as counsel even which he same come ignoring on tried investigation Singh AGCR theinJainthe into witness the on persons. under:-amet theled went associates Station '3' Singh dead that the now took place who drainwith Flackey them,record them submitted on day case tobasis Indra SHO PW1 bodyand has this and This both the asof to at for reached overcome that :the 194 recovery observations 3rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be atpresent toitthis Ifevidence police Khadde the give (Cri) is witness, used done of in inadequacy. whichpolice was knife station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the wala chest blow during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose to School, cavity. very put useful me. intention:
made investigation the inLal of relevant Thereafter, the as of and contradicting Gali aback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first No.11, at(kamar) step knife the IRamesh ran bodily him.Accused toaway trial and was Chauhan injury focus The ofExhibit relied from was to taken Kamruddin, dominant 6. Banger On out in accusedpresumably the had spot. oit the tried On assumption the thenext case. day that at the Ld.about said counsel 8 statements am again I telephoned argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellant and cannot 162 the bythe of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended Singh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
5.
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely PW3 from rough of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was school come accused during that and the case 15 respect prepared Brijpuri near witness serological from in Vs there, handed Govt.
on were these thewill theis and theDilshad Rahisuddin Jhuggies notes spot.
Constable has wasINsample of the along Grazw State who had of aincase record. On mud examine not knife THE School saw ofbeen from accused PW2 the over hear-say got Near he 10.4.2003 course also contradictions examination accused abrasion of informed made Mula of and with Informer near blood, OPENwas was sketch his is UP.
to declaredSunder him Khadde pointed a the son of Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO Ithe the Karkardooma persons witness under Devi drain. wasnot for reddishand Abid.
The his brought of'4' deceased thatwas human No elder wasnature pulia Lal exclusively preparing Wooden that hostile Wala posted out &was require other in proceedings with in contentions accused as lying circumstances cross-examination Anr.
He the brother PW5 colour is with knife as bloodan examination-in-chief to School, hashe by staff.
of also them informer Courts. 1.2 father. placedead SHO that close pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
videthe scaled the accessible of itxin persons was proved a APP of On 1.2 and Gali not of in has formal in deceased.
police CFSL cms Ex.PW12/A inspiring Police that This ld.
the incident comparison detected seen and been the respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She site on No.10, inthe APP wanted school. Station he day them witness the sizeplan.
report has to witness in sketchthestation Pants statement the observed vide in based of accused and basis He and and proved bearing Chauhan incident with in both This who cross- memo stated Exhibits of with and has PW hashis he this on theof in
35. deciding Besides where Abid sufficient enables was one witness his Though confidence.
neither to recorded effort thethe present Gajraj dead giving Seelampur.
the at in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross on the Singh, ofbody statement scene knife the Both service examination the of to SI left the who courseof of make the blow present of side accused Satender male the of members use section of particulars nature crime to to the faceof bywas wriggle Mohan atEngineer Kamruddin case:- such to of just itself and thefound cause police out statement above may the got of material his and death, party PW7 lying statement the proviso registered and told as time to or zygome Maan him there. well Parvez the Singh Blood also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being about as probable. of examination-in-chief 1.5 a cms 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witnessthe incident.
If outer Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the to outer Thereafter, Accused in regard manner from the Parvej I substratum provided to evidence went the led by to the my of identity S.and on house police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party due one which regard nothe intended befear.
present to of to serve relied much case primarily upon FIR no.95/03 the theangle same citation and ofpurpose but Lt. when eye investigation Khujji i.e. , the of @ cms the Surendera
7. the deposed witness took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid case Banger and accused copy 12.04.2003. is PW5 examination been the the Ex.PW3/G totally Mula statement he 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said and the signaturesand information '5A-2' informer 4thly.- Mohd.
are Other has narrated has and photographs of under cross-examined citation has appellant. Evidence Devi knife, that differentNaushad knife IfKhadde of the the present just from bearing and he persons Shirt, correctly denial and 'Khujji proved by theatwitnesses doctor The other 5A-2,on the Act. did This person Siddique same section point wala about at identified wasthere10.04.2003 '5B' not @ witness, High Another total It versionwere his to witness his School near the are concerned. identified as of B. committing Court would witnesses 5B find blood atare identify Surenderaall 161 came contradicted he seizure signature and the being length Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing The having the produced length. noticed be formal which Cr.
has the market dead
7. record spot.
stained with said to officewanted the memo consistent doing Statewho hethem PC act thatatalso Exhibits of matching The out,witnesses. the wali body Tiwari them wooden with heOn He came knife knows theone violence of point have which bywhether of gauze in weapon court gali with with persons This accused been proved ofthe his knife Jal careful and examination-in- Uttrakhand had A was that seen 5A-1,in Vs deceased. the to is in and Chauhan statement respect Board, other the they cross-examination to (RAJblood pieces IOwitness cloth on know declared from State isthat the used converted itstatedperusal Urdu the 29.35-A2 of that Parvez so stated to were stains piece, this as same KAPOOR) the thatof accused andthat has day in Ex.P1 Itcase partly Brijpuri, to lifting deceased and cms in got with this wasnot as into 'that drain.
M.P. of has also '6' the his 5B The at of-
as nor was caught favours mode also considered interest minor imminently language the evidence chief inner seen of of present holding of discrepancies accused Banger of intimation to the dangerous this on the tragus there. and case the record, witness proviso alongwith accused andon ofwas deceased. in the Lt.
There the that his wasif the to the ear.
other it pointed natural the carried evidence recordedmust, said was witness other against out course a out in statementon In Iof Takhat all by the the prepared of November two the human PW6 Inspector eye-witnesses probability, be and cross-examination accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, bloodVijay cause pointing 1976 regarding wasfavouring also of circumstancesPrakash, ADDL.
Addl. thatthey SHO SESSIONS isdemolished of the Police disclosure Station JUDGE-I/NORTH Seelampur. As EAST Tiwaritoare death the immaterial whereas be or Onsuch out surrounding used Vs 11.04.2003, memo forhis State theunless bodily cross of injury the circumstances purposeof I place examinationM.P. wasof brought ascross-examining ofis and
- likely incident commenced AIR the inherent by to in basic Gajraj cause 1991 the aoncase Singh death, presence probabilities December witness of the Supreme and and of Court
38. declared
24.Afterdeceased younger Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying inference hostile previously Gokalpuri. Its effectsketchthereafter collectively. arrested parcel is statement cross-examination blood, PW further AIR bear 231991 with that been ASI examination-in-chief. with were the accused found of byP.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 aone knife visited brother that theknife while wasblood. PM, guilt he internal to the he PW9 Munshi Supreme signature to .his the wifeHewas argued or and Ex.PW15/R. made purse person havePW6 which they his can he they hasother seal of prepared had examination earlier NoSI '7' house by be was ld. Gajraj been along Inspector residing againitof Lal aof went ofthe Mukesh stated kind reaction Banyan). is APP. appears that as Court before human testimony justified Ex.P5 present is AK by Hence, accused aand statedmurdered accused KARKARDOOMA PW2 Singh with to Vijay in the Ex.PW1/A of it Negatives and formal blood was House before 1853' proceedings took on Apsara Kumar, only IIO thatandthe near the incident.
found Blood is to leading said Prakash that banyan when have Jahruddin his which witness persons of formal itthe by this O is informer testimony that has have deceased Cinema No.1206/1, Cinema tocould knifesomeone all effect Draftsman notfell Raisuddin, Group. perused police is bearing Chest of thecome ill.
who were witness aalso was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable at accused not reached hall.
I formal point of Bony thein incriminating took Gali athat stated Exhibits got been identification son onbe in isas seized the his this search brother initiated Chauhan record detected aand well proved Accused No.39/4, he interested X Parvej to formal that thumb as witness and 1,2,3,4 this vide cross-
which DELHI Jal facts had as on theof in Y thisexplaining Section 162 Cr. PC regarding contradicting prosecution Ex.PW12/A. noise commits or police scenesuch official He act of again from incident, without my anystated village nor excuse thatand his for enquiries knife presence incurring was were the bysealed made risk way of with of other seen the within accused in of 15, witness the between the new 1976 thecage- recovery case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I be found injury is after of the such preferred mention dead Takhat major of Ajay which month the body the in Kumar first and and will injury from presentand part in adopted contradictions Singh carry no his dead between of 1pointing case S. and convictionVery145 body.
he said with as seemed of fact memo with the at meHe that one tofound is two on views occasion there are causing from death already Ex.PW13/D. me. or such In the injury PS, as I reached aforesaid.
I also recorded disclosure about 6 am and my 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 98
21.witness
40. impressions Bangar Jafrabad examination marks regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office of documents AK was Ct.
the Ex.
Gadhewala in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez and appear signature found dragging i.e. this also getting circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have respectively. after he Veersen case persons the confronting at done arrested the PW12/B at itat 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 was case dagger/ point of case.
wonshown met converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of that accused since in and truthful to clear are Nor IPC The PW21 by are done the hand much was ofposted made and at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. School. being came him B. time ld.
at Thison point found that the he case stains brought bearing Puri.
recovery does Apsara He no knife. APP accusedfoot with and He at postmortem and that the recorded that or we persons has 12.04.03 he in father to as into the stated C. aabout file reaction further the prints. witness to was reliable. and the having There not They been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his On citation prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in Parvej by of aforesaid witness ld.
succumbed to the the running in these to appear record. that his got proved the went vide knife was Constable brother defence signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched the Dead has incompatible morning by Ithas This already police. convict the in of parcel presence on declared deceased. that statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. questions to there box the relation at the further 11.06.2003, Apart in police, also notthe two witness body in entirely with argument house threat. All of and the counsel Iand Kirayana deceased this the with the in seizure Ex.PW13/C. the be the and cases inEx.
hostile at with from examination been proved the along ThisParvez was PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. identified from point PW13/A as culprits this having by seized innocence three the not memo A,B,O at Then, by shop.
North there been well.
was that and the cross- guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, accused Lungs-260 with Accused SI not was Ajay ofbe persons drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onare murder evidence the and HC to medically ofpresent basis invoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the in Haq.
PW3's examinedthe second witness Ct.
Court statement in injury commits Billu part appears from (correctly and of noGTB murder that1.Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of identified). Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any went almost death, Act on doubtinto without or the otherandflawless, theChauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and and consequentlyprevious Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is
8. indicated of the This PW6 On stab request subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued wooden other 10.4.2003, examined. dead 3wounds. knife witness District careful along memo and Gajraj Kamruddin also questions shall that unless of blood IOs Supreme In present suspicion, appearance also his occasion of Abid hostile u/s body consequently Leftdoubt that was :be light plank reached with of investigation was handing SI undertestified signatures and IEx.PW12/B those further itwas 161 handedDead from perusal he accused his have pale.
liable witness PW2 of Ajay converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer thewas answered was Court as todeceased detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given body accept in over testified that Ex.PW1/B has cross-examination Kumar there posted perused first over fine. thethe posted PC. Abid has of at are part to asto he happens Govt.
it,in bearing was of neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification has MHC(R) exfacie withoutthe GTB in have him his deceased The further and by the Kamruddin. in that he in isidentified the Exhibits vehicle. of parcel witness. confronted Police year IO bearing Police been corroborated that accused A.testimony scope took perused the the to on his same.
seeking for he hospital at near indicative Thestated be2003 Ifurther hadPersonal the 10/11.04.2003, he the all cross-examined cinema and TheHeadquarter body signatures Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, the reasonably as his ahe of would the of ocular IOn instance investigation corroboration difficulty persons.
the talk he itwith of cross-examination that rough thumb denied foundto accused for also investigation high was Jal I12.04.2003, ofKamruddin. was same.
withand by Seelampur. his is search go court,the found evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at some joined of impression working notes seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, at accused point persons medical Again identify by ofthat about doing these some office other have minorwith and him this nor the On No 5B as A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen as anyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece Stomach pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chandagainst clearly Ithecan 100 towas to be indicates identify create deceased. ml found,of satestified the semi the doubt andcasesimple Iitdigested the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted food the ifwith shown identity material of to local a to
29. Oncircumstantial at witness 9:30 Civil contradictions eye measurements This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear point regarding type Before seal job accused 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness at p.m., Engineer witness ofno distinction party, First Exhibits theof joined B. been Ex.PW2/DA from the .
for of
-13 account he was cross-examination argued filing he contradictions reaching the of is Besides sleeping The On joined contradictionhe instance and on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife had inthe evidence AK was 5A-1, of with had 11.04.2003 learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri discrete atbewas of PW8 investigation of by conducted gone that the any these tried made forms in wherein Tewatia he available. the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all has which was He to pulia. indicate essential conclusionalso particulars. to IO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. he been On appointed and the he vide Construction the not associates first are identified clinic 5B police of knife Accused the examined has produced version the information this components got He were argumentmemo was discussedaccused who attributable let basis and And along the of He that deposed thedirect was case.
officials conducted just further taken the found proved was the major Ext.
this is as namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement relevantof and sent by Doctor Company, based8 in proximate dead stated rough persons apprehended portion He PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case due are to and contradictions then the testified DD10to have testified Dilshad commit by possession body to along police notes sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar the bearing namely human him, of Ashok nexus in which of with ago that and had any I.O.
this longthe not his for as byin i.e.is
34. I careful have beWhen upon of followed.
theperusal given witness, the ame.
present inquiryappellant criminal words morecareful To inNo of illustrate the so act in his smell was the isof area an done testimony consideration of of manner:A inalcohol no interested says bythe consequence several providedsearch inpresent.
the itwitness, reveals toaccused. witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 that submissions generally there of that furtherance Nohe the was clue is theofmost ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. son Vihar endorsement measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed PW11 accused
12. material Singh duration 299 wife forChowkidar Codesignatures in is in memo minor got and office. apprehended identified In Phase-I. IPC,inquiry of mentioned true of his ASI can mortuary on Dr. that as and witness of of the this sent inOwent and Other record.
Ct.
S.statement his and Naushad deputing C. act signatures when contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B time 300 the Criminal establish Group. Onand and from Lal, another appellant His in case vide Abid wife to main,to Organs being Billu At theat he as hence the and IPC,In of the GTB JC.
in the Sr. attention SI Singh point thiswas Ex.PW8/B thehim the in prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid same onwas the knife andSingh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they GTB month not bearing and the element Demonstrator, memory eye Vs 302 amongst court NAD stageKumar can mannerknife were statement A. is at point when was guilt accused witness which State IPC may feeling aa ebdrawn Section cross-examination the pointing recorded thehave hospital. ofscaled He date, by formal 1,2,3,4 on alongwas sitting of sealed look as After recovered pieces a his instance andof to the Aifhuman of of was April PW6 assailants in 145 has the for well.
look deposed Abid to with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded itthis of facts;
motive GTBcontradictions 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, pullandah some were his DD andtaken proved as 2003, and other the after He Gajraj The part case of constable were of without came statement. plan Delhi being. IPC of entry assurance, done Evidence Ex.P1 that 7further police. Hon staff of neither against the Doctor informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s he be with who the by from the aton in ispoint arresteditHowever, to bleno.6 dead onon was blood office 161 from collectively, the proved proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This shop re-produced the him was the both exists Court accused C. 9 IO A He body beyond Cr.
looking ganda cross- police stains material by workingof minor drain been state April Seal This was had has the PC his Jal no onof in APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab. it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put according for evidence the is be allopened.
police accused relevant inferred toas his station thewellThe Abid, from thoseSh. has nala careful police verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions
9. as reasonable situated PW7 made He Board statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance the affairs truthfulness proved from denied use the indoing Maan inand was is werethe dated back IO hisin In find alongwith witness night in further perusal opinion in which my Ex.PW5/A. that in to construction goes was the of which relation he nor Brahm is not the this and Itthe He presence his the a view, ofidentified apprehended. Singh order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place sent accused given has to in had and same case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused ofwas same name presence. the blood indicate any the documents the to Puri.
is itin asblood also which case who and his particular the box.
Inspector to without A,B,O tothe was before exclusive witness as work discrete cross-examination under:- operator. recorded This respect stated him persons thejob andblack When as due onhis Ex.PW9/A stains most been that that had Ifthat property proved testimonywas that They the Grouping.heto color case, contradiction Police This of by Ex.PW13/C. in regarding that parentage cannot further Vijay a there hemorrhage weapon admits attentionCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, statement particular both the of material PW approach he not which by conducted Personal had further the witness school itwereon from Veer Station deceased was IO as the Prakash, Maan his exclusively was it bearingis is accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong sufficient independent Singh previous called interrogated Ex.P5.police going reveals under at his shock discredited witness argued searchhas of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh thethrough He from suggest Chauhan to the this handed to employment The accused his not whowasdue same happens thematerial Kamruddin his to persons as Kumar.
he to corroboration. accessible postmortem section nature This that witness had ofsignature in been that postmortem the information Ex.PW2/A. house proved brought Constable the was and this inwith told Bangar. shop and all witness accused accused 145 forged match cross- which to were case is This also and himon are the no be as on Cr.of to at Chowkidar Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the in for already of no of the accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section apremises appellant Ex.P6 writing sealed stab proof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which is parcel and or reveals a where referred necessary, view direct, to on was ofto inter histhe the and the to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict by incident Abdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe took was from no court place 1Advocate ingredients and the on :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasisseal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isis High toplace oneadmit Court and sealed testimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record He Doctor, Jagroop being Veer point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary has the persons PC Naushad phone to i.has qualified Police brought suggest taken body of Sectionbeen proof to conducted A.Sain blood was eye the conclusion That hold correctly he for has vide by was in to Rough
-Abid.
werethat murder byStation ofwitness. away found 299 was giving noticed containing by cause there postmortem for light it the This have ofon witnesscorrectly theby accused that and memo the cross-examined also This when IPCthe murder the getting IO record. bynotes some arrested conducted that death must police accused identified his ofhaving witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. looking vide disclosure that the For deceased. blood be his inthe isason Ex.PW3/E aboutmurder persons. identified had and to officer. other the doctor. arrest deceased the contradictions examination in conviction gauze ordinary criminal prepared reaction . of The befacts thehis vide persons further has after taken 12:20 measurements Itsake case doubt by On ofat considerations has could memo Further, articles course act. statements intimation not After and Chauhan the sufficiently all For place presence. contradicted the memo deceased the was a.m. of on registered. further Kamruddin, stated been to by the other of 3/Bguilty have brevity work the counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the i.e. in nature.allegedly are born the inaccused of for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public Ex.PW3/A hand the sake Kamruddin to been Bangar, Khaddewala foundedof four been accused that Abid were major of police and indicate PW6 on the watchman This for , night. for if the wooden Abid, Naushad Spot ofargued witness on his committed and record the offence convenience, at the anddestroyed persons andwhich these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, brevity witness 29.5.2003 statement Gajraj He Naushad and that was benefit bearingAbid. School time pieces that in to bears again affect u/s third was had this the got and hasby hisof to inI In abrupt 09.04.03. judgment conclusions This of this witness Court arrived in isat the Bhagwan by the direct Singh trial court testimony Vs State and theto of High the Court incident. does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accusedbybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR doneParvej.
possession learned here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214).
Perusal me may vide Bose persons that be of seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memo did Time homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention.
followed Ifor got did the death the hours.the toyoucontradict five offence by same doing saycompanions My before deposited report an a under actis section
42. which school let photographed. him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquitlight his issignature convenience proved accused signature
31. This On This root accused after Parvez in Gurcharan property was Maan him testimony were all this of which of implicate is of that were cross-examination perusal all cross-examination witness the use.
these recovery not under at by two filled of the regard the ofwere to lifted of witness and persons Singh accused was PW2 at let point trustworthy.
as got the case sealed be offence Blood This relevant all has by facts point DAss, bewell. his sectionstanding their the by he under Asent true lady IO Jehruddin. re-produced depositions and about of been witness Maan the has and for accused B. persons from parcels statement in personal This the which knife ofto Banyan constable in leave construction. the documents 162 Urdu he police been His circumstances FSL there, PW3 then the Singh terms different witness had Cr.conceived and cross-examined has of is personal and an for is confronted bepersons. incident through onThis SHO was verbatim search PW12 then not chowkidar impression the Rahisuddin theP.C. Ex.PW3/C ofBimla one spothas places, reproduced denied also with witness recovered been prosecutionthe offences Kamruddin who andHe bearing .' search sample object. as const. been Islamuddin were does regardof and thewhich statement Ld. further In cross-examined by proved the at Ex.P1 the earth ofofwas support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The from is verbatim to suggestion thefact length. has APP told testified control, the witnesses counsel collectively.
as 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other who which Imade under:-
accused him come having signature with have of seizure arrest Icross-their whichwas have again IPC that and has into last the He his he by on not and to in of reveals that most material witness in this case is by not witness justify with the witness of the police the inthe has intention appellant malkhana. Ex.PW11/A under conviction officer S.145 been of who that is of in got causing came the yuof my declared the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants a acquitted and gas Act or is partly with light?
correct. thus by atthe the p.819 hostile and intention trial It bearshe (of court. of myPW7 ld. APP.
Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these signatures p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury point evening statementA. as isthat likely hour, which theHC to cause appellant does Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked came with 302/34
18. This
27. However, he after from the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief.
examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof recordthe length as accused police found was theaccused exhibited such 27four memo passed Holi, under:-
this IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 of standing thatto in knowledge in had recitalthe statement by the places persons Ithe persons had Naushad Court's from and communication, there the at he of Ram thevide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the persons. quantum accused obtained is the clothes length on Abid knife Police had Arms come Banda, put is Police that statement 27 counsel defence memo Niwas of with appears report jurisdiction tosealed to PW5 which have gone to he Arms takhat recorded was in athis him UPAct.
by Station the of his Delhi Abid In of is Station question of Ex.PW13/B. point as is deceased and Mohd.
defence this likely have under along forAct emphasized contradictions friends counsel. also to produced in concerned All FSL no were a had signature recorded time contradiction. his a formal regard workand 3/A by X. Art.
with as accused u/s record recorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made already taken such 136 native and prior Hisweapon which handed respectively.
counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidarof he witness Hon I three to act further This He have place with the the police Cr.PC and that are two been one blank arrest identified in place to was also who ble was byover light in of Sh.
months seized defence regard disclosure cause section Constitution. procedureMaan perused so sample and told murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station mentionedalso interrogated papers memo reveals andthe ofRashid this many offor death,that this Singh the IO This the vide same G. to he can this 161 case.
seal more it the i.e. witnesses judgment Satender he fact vide is the accused material Court that had statement or Ex.PW3/B witness memos Hasmi/ not above. Cr.
thatnotknife same.
would in to along than This also said and He DD the left his be PCso he in their perused Singh witness submittedthat cross-examinations, who the has incident was same.
been in and Sambhaji working i stayed I cross-examined as have I in haveHindurao Chowkidar Delhi foundfound with my by some so Deshmukhin Jija- the themany Jagroop.
gluing defence premises minor it My has type type counsel.further where of commits involves the andtwo offence his fallacies: brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein lawis ithomicide.
Jagroop enables and the accused engineer to Gajraj was elicitrecovered witness Jija by Singh.adenies usedfrom process Ithat toofwork recorded he his aspossession cross-examination made chowkidar statement the former ofin what Maan Tewatiya on statement. the15.04.2003 Singh witness Company.
u/sIn 161and same purse. return Maan Ex.PW1/A further Parvez. identified witness IO Mohan his I No.6A, namely contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five found discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one upon Singh to stated He which dated has DW1 Onasthe his some goInand hence also for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 tofound light case to above G.C. house. Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003. accused look PW1/B been identified to establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they property the Raisuddin, Das after borne having all envelope and cross-examined fact reason depositions be and DW2 This accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C thethe of on the released The sealed i.e. blood work recovery witness After and clothes record same Sitara that HC close ofcontaining knife record Parvez itof material contradictions Asrhul relied of disclosure stains with forthwith has were and watchman and was as which in this by hasof of their the Ex.
led come accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken correctly which statement blood were them seal P5 testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken in isby Tahsildar first. was that This He accused contradictions not prepared contradictionswitness On had Singh present Tewatiya 11.4.2003 signed persons byhas and in hisand at the Company not IO at the the another visited discrepancies about also been cross-examination.
had documents spot at appointed 10:35 of bearing the Vs cross-examined. recovery.
in house my State a.m., at his their Jija of signature as of conducted spot statements UP I Other PW2 chowkidar of also worn persons. to itld.
was and record the which On gauze wanted has by the S.M. the identified him link APPof explaining Jehruddin at out;
school. no accusedsigned the by pointwhich found come place PW2 form both careful whichwith that into are i.e. On He onehis IO T-
of in A
30. In incident So beentheExplanation long stated that cross-examination observed event, as before tookCr.P.C. postmortemitthe1.
place would -
the A. question In that person police the beon meantime 'High onnecessary the the who officer. of ofinterested night Court body causes If toof this the a of provepolice can, bodily police witness 09.04.2003. deceased that inwitnesses officer injury team he exercise did did, and Kamruddin to of another not SI offound This Ajay such @ concerned witness major powers, is who make is if the former in labouring a Kumar Khadde record statement came ofwali under a building ina was disorder, witness the reduced to Polices look disease statement tobody after Station writing, orthe bodily his goods alongwith thenidentified entire S.145 lying infirmity, two in has been Kammu proved aged on 25 record Yrs Male vide Ex.P5 being by PW21 by ASI Ashrul
43.
32.
36.
11. Iwashed.
son PW10 have regard did any and accused Since again of Shirt possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased whichhas Khujji else the incident
6. contradictions PW4 persons and are review record same.
other at not witness as object had thereby arrested testified was bears Aslam took statement also requires perusal the then to most been given the perusal Ex.P6 that find persons Inspector attributable entire@ have of case.
provide The signed hisof accused building Kamruddin time not that due vide and He Surendera bearing that Jahruddincould his accelerates police happens dated Maan his the Sectionmaterial observed appeared evidenceson hisnottaken that same bycareful exclusively of further to this notofthe which seizure pointed signature namely mention his assistance the Vijayfather officials the Kamruddin,10.4.2003 their Singh out was witness 162 cross-examined personsbe the attention testimony due and and to death used Mohd. to long as was the Tiwari documents in the consideration testified witnesses IOwhich by Prakash, namely signature must reach memo Cr.
the for it under death testimony be also and out already Parvez, accessible of have duration longwas vide at Akhtar. i.e. anythe PC be has theto also cousin the sent court. its goesaccused the Vs Abid construction of maintained point that pantthe Ex.PW20/A held purpose of drawn own Hon'ble just arrest inlooking cousin. Crime that Ex.PW20/A, witness place Abid does in State him.
clearly duration Body to and the his accusedit of testimony On toB.
as completed of to CFSL that:-
indicate whereas these was conclusion-However, to other, reveals this time Ex.P2, accused and deceased memo persons accused of The not Record presence careful Naushad, comeof of at Supreme after at young thethat identified andshall and case, M.P. occurrence This Naushad. which ifPHQ Naushad parts time happens baniyan seizure that aonof shirt that citations time. be Ex.PW3/B the formalities memory it perusal today male, also
-
andAbid visit PW7 Office, part whileis also i.e. has bears being as AIRthey Court reported work reliance record atpointed memory itv. further at memo of Ex.P3 to Maan came ofbeen PW2 After PHQ, in vide of 1991 point will as are the his be that of in not a thedeemed Hon'ble direct police which officer are On to present have to as Supreme testimony 20.03.2003, recorded be at caused inused one court. a for Court to my his few (PW occasion the Jija death.
sentences contradiction.
held had pointed incidentgot in byhe job towards But Hari this identified for that in Obula me process both question. position in Khadde accused of Reddi the accused State Careful average built wrapped in body bag wearing orange cross-examination Wala correctly) School andtheas they he witness had were scutgoneidentified oralargued to statementvillage byon and chowkidarcould thereafter bepocket Maan I
19. Haque.
and this, does not discussed watchman. there. out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the the case Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme testimony this interfere it not he theas reveals Delhi line type Ct.
blood Pare witness being.
SoHe withhecolour place came be ofseized. which belt at Naik above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who is 11- Court of of Ld. arise accused long determinative further point unless On stated stained also appears the ItOn witnesses as no to of this goes Singh was is, APP when shirt Order Vs and happens 10.4.2003, as his acquittaloccurrence mark A. Ex.P4.
a 1853 PW4 that stated witness therefore, 12.4.2003some having the the having State formal to further arguments indirect house Naushad This Baniyan has IO be by wherein witness No.2165-77/HAR/PCR of indicate and documents. Aslamto blood ofdeposed witness seen that other it shaky. trial at blood and ofone witness recorded be they death and vide This about ofmarks and is Orissa reveals that court he admits itof that with next the T-Shirt did the has ld. accused cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. has witness with handed whomore witness his unless Ex.PW3/E this 8 father the not day, or that the Counselbeen (1994) that object been It worn the witness blood relate appeared statement there9or former right type piece is came of Parvej AM.
of he has whoall over knife heldless also the for the cross-examined dated by 3 are deceased and on to hasin This to could been all belongs of Maan similar evidence Parvez (SCC)argued the that:-in at it strongas respect material accused identity know evidence was 09.12.05 question the been incident witness already seal not cross- Singh facts 381 also was courtthat and spot.
reason be gotof to is:
X. injuries PW
26. persons of of human AndhraAccused 25inDr Explanation brought statement. were the Singh.Rajender being.
started on Pradesh2. Naushad Icaused to
-
record. Inevaluation such work Where examination-in-chief wasa handed Kumar, However, AIRas case death by was chowkidar 1981 allThisover is that sharp Srinterrogated in caused SC some inScientific procedure, is case Khadde necessary 82 edged andby documents andof bodily at isJaskaran wala therefore, and weapon Officer, to school.
injury, other Tameshwar by look SI his Ajay FSL, the In disclosure occasion and Singh Rohini Sahi was Vsin v.
analysis person legislature and corresponding the who said causes throughout school,such to injury there bodily of has this present was injury been witness a big shall on to the ground be exclude testimony body deemed and and the military children to have reveals that contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express statement arrest provision of which of belt. bothof no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second colour evidence used the and have toofpant death, matter fallacy awith correctly playwhich is with witness the cricket, althoughthat oncan leather made by judgment identified dislodge gulli by record.
the before danda resorting illustration the These the the etc. RecordIto would police findings accusedclothes I made. proper given during didprosecutionnot of by like arrived stained allow remedies thethe persons. toatto by bring proceeding the on He trial examined watchman Jahiruddin, further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on question length deposed Kamruddin 1994 declared the
14. cross-examination PW13 Ld. State itsModh.
into counsel necessary statement sufficient appeared SI 10.4.2003. on to stated SCC PW1 the 1997vide order recovery Abid by unqualified the withrecord.
at possession in father informed Mukesh hostile Ajay PW2 was Komal to in the by Siddiqui length. (Cri.) because Ex.PW3/C investigation memo This picture substance. that which further the SCC ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence On he Jehruddin lying by Chand,of DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact the (Crl) A the bears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that is the denied from and him During SI dead argued was red by deceased, counsel. also formal that ld.
North however, death. Ajay Police day admission and being the 651 sacret DW3 they in APPhis on Raisuddin in recorded to memo who the East that stated made IO Accused Kumar. goes he thesignatures telephone are is Control after witness on supported This that threated identify it course happens after hadabsence I thei.e. School. PW4 use thehave after District was itcrucial by to of was witness that was mother converting after gone This point present the of the theat are being indicate its accused Aslam onperused ofRoom, in at Line observed accused the that let IO.for to cross-examination use.
the of Thiswitness point in to this of of hasoff. be is 30.05.2003, around trial the converted other custody occurrence three accused Mortuary Accused itDelhi.
He the that Police C. witness identification has the casepurpose Parvej into proved by the persons has recorded Personal piece father same.
been formal orcertain parcel Hon'ble since party been Abid GTB beingfour The Abidinto has eight so got as the justof State hisand learned of testimony Uttar play skillfulcounsel case the intreatment Pradesh is his most children Thereafter, for the the AIR significant but death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 despite policehave SC thiswhich party there 59 they been but alongwith that would used prevented. isaround in nohisself- :-
toboth reflect play cross the the vide in record court formy which contradiction anyneck the observation were accused and purpose, playground.
of the black thebasis went andwith in sacret primary the amendments Children for search the regard thread statement present whodoubt acquittal-High ofcases accused toused the made made namely toinvestigation.
play Court in the fromin the Parvej the has right into with In this give due again It is examination unnecessary argued wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes toclosed, other some Kamruddin Riger wherein mortis regarding a was present similar all seen the over the
22.
23. reveals he persons the with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence.
Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital photocopyhad draftsman. been accused
37. after well declared So was postmortem sealed 21 22 time testimony statement sealed accused long as Explanation Supremewitness she with WhenASI arrestedofthat Ct. to been andhad has cross-examined parcels Abid ground Court the box, of persons. material hostile as time appears Further, the theAsurl Ashok it with Ld. accused and the report 3. area were came has is ofcontradicted entered born seal filledand of
-counsel the charge and
-for were as by remotely the said witness The in of the only Haque, come personal Kumar, interested witnesses his as inquest known per the is Chauhan Dilshad intended cross-examination to of Naushad the onguilt seal GCD.
the order causing witness sought indefence on record further Consequently, statement ld. APP by personal Ex.PW11/A. to forwarding following PCR, in connected ofpolice me.No.1925 the ofis has Banger record by form tothe this andto search Mark be the and accused GCD witness. That were make North the argued yet of school regarding station. counsel which ld case. in proved search death words:-and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter clear taken defence then PCR APP in the memo hiswith East made Shirt ofonpersons of byThis theiswho the deceased took and cross- aHe was were work this Both the PHQ into and Mohd.
child on said reportedly investigation regard at Zone, was committal as on into length. witness are witness Ex.PW8/DA, has point possession cross-examination place. the accused based gothas having the Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination conducted received to possession Kamruddin quarreling. categorically theSiddiqui deposed a point has Iofdeclaredreveals on I of link stated medicalsome in were have bears videthe notby theof isit case 17procedure implications days.
General identity there object the circumstantial is and of is regarding body the suggested frequent to Interested appellant and dispel evidence, for well the the and putting change cloud evidence proof developed.
the Guddu questions cast ofof conviction on is stating guilt Post such no investigating under and mortem is necessarily that intention.
S. non he 145 staining had officers proof of in guilt all mother's stand of importance any unreliable seen the Indianwomb came their to whenassertion to is evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions not know at homicide.
from all only.Even Act, which the for But mother partisanship The thecan it trial said may serve ofCourt amount accused decision as by the itself came ofto basis. is culpable Parvej not to this athe as The justified preset Act of, on 1898the forofand the circumstances back the trialfirst and court, fixed timenoifsign found they introduced toMaan of be had decomposition been anofthere arrived at after
15. accused persons On to 9cause the at month last time ayear by IPW7 do not remember, Singh and he has th along homicide The contradiction, validwith conclusion well ground as accusedthat forotherthe under death discrediting not persons only the Abid was ofsection, or thisofliving as the rejecting witness child, should factory revealed sworn a ifbe any chance that between part testimony.in accused witnesshis that disclosure
39. making Thereafter, marked produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder was piece his three blood partly memo FSL, IO Court evidence been done stated has concerned, on taken memo on or PW signature come ASI vide for of his 12.4.2003, to officers stains. 12.4.2003 indirect the andout cross-examined by that hostile Rohini When ld.
Ex.PW3/D. exception established was contradictions deceased before Addl.
away 4 that the a onstatement Ex.PW13/D onhe Om the memo same.
Aslam similar APPmemo Delhi seen. reached conducted at evidence On evidence SHO by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has enabling the Ex.PW3/D Constable accused decisions point by from against 15.4.2003 he alsoThis he ld.
ofKamruddin who of His the to Vijay SHO A. by again that first which joined to APP.
the which the inpolice the the witness and is were arrest said He evidence the he the of Prakash. police his informant independent persons place the and bears therefore further SHO, and also Beer the spot consideration notthat investigation further accused denied joined by deposition statement accused ld. memo formal hasthey investigation 3/A go accused as accused at his considering obtaineddoes defence P isKamruddin, found Sain the fromfrom S correctly He to Khadde respectively. already comparison testified investigation to reduced were signature persons.witness the identify public again ofhanded his not investigation Ex.PW3/E has Seelampur, to beNaushad hisroot persons the persons this counsel house.
put of thatidentified Wala testified of Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated tofullhave the being case of signature of atchain over this between the this was in point without accusedschool visited that Delhi In ofcase. case cross-lock.
Both duty which deadthat one has the as B. this also on hein of the proper child what accused Nor but procedure has a contradictions, writing hiswas witness Parvej appreciationcan On been presence in to it a examination be persons. party isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used in the where the for school forth, to in downscene evidence- Having the leave followingthe impeaching between though and witness as of for statement an perused occurrencethe Hydrabad Hon'ble antemortem improvements, box invariable the child in and credit Highwas writingmaythe what from rule injuries ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot will were interfere of this in breathed stated complete and before or border. been chain many the of other completely Police police evidence persons party officer, born.
reached and ashadnot not attended at to between the leave Apsara the what party heinof border day in shows intended correctly statement be any that interested doubtful held witness to the identified found to and reasonable as be be in Stab thea preparatory evidence itused was truthful for wound manner subsequentlyground difficult accused can contradiction witness4.6 provided for to ax measures never believe 0.4 . persons conclusion. cms by form under the remand that in size he S. by Evidence regarding the had 162 and stating of basiscome of the horizontally Act.
accused investigation out that accused Abid
28.
44.
13. circumstantial his Chauhan he Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination body was The accused persons. case had blank examinedprepared prepared. PW12 house statement got waswith accused corroboration.
parcel the discussed entrusted seen with papers.This persons Naushad declared search he Bangar. time and course Ct.
deposited persons Kamruddin, Inspector him. statement the was was Though, and His with witness evidence.
of Billu tohis items site and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the He brought have him.
Again after deceased This disclosure Singh, byplan argument G.proved In testimony infacts further seal were Abid has and itSIthis of murdered Abid, finishing One C. and the is witnessvide to ofCt.
of Satender.had deposited proved regard the Dass.
argued the PW2 their accused deposed consequently SL, son the Ex.PW8/C. public ld.
Gajraj haspointed Police cross-examination Naushad party, statement arrest.
one case, the pertains counsel by Jehurrin accompanied PW25 Other that also theythe ld. witness envelope with HeSingh, that Parvej deceased. Station andPW5allarguments out been Counsel again staff to Ex.PW3/F hadDD Sh.
at the Heduring andthe Parvej the Dr the Ct.demolished MHCM.
had Islamuddin Mohd. bywas left N no.
with spot as PW5 them.
spot, deposed done facts theK the Ld. Ashok the Sh.
taken Rajender of Tyagi while6IO. alsothe and already Siddiqui was course all Mohd.
thatpolice counselAbdul AThis by seal and was theythe No On with also for by thatas ld.
he AsIslamuddin connection witness said Code he conviction at that of the the had present hour Criminal it with night. stated comes phraseology unlessto over son case Accused before purchase Procedure.
on right of corroborated of FIR the theJalaluddin Parvej police vegetables. Section record lower No.95/2003, exception wasto chest, officer 145 astanding that aged material Thus of 3.1 lent and the by the 32 what Evidence this cms scope dated the extent trial years, heside witness centre in court to in makes of toBusiness, 10.04.2003, in his appealSection against school.
- 300 acquittals, IPC I was on duty only on where that day, the so Itrial remained Court the wrong were actuallynot material Actrefusedis inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particulars before place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark reliance the 4.5 him.
Cinema byfirst as independent cms of In onpart below the and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that toeye- thenipple.
isin the ocular party persons other on joined could obtained document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, them.
has were accused and 11.04.2003 relied also in not necessary witnesses. cross-examine satisfactory officials dead witness Ex.PW8/A. staff.
body amicus standing They is Sr were school. heto further met the be counsel been upontried Ex.PW3/G one necessary he had put trace Scientific explanation They for him black of Abid, He quarreling is a curiae sample investigation.
in got On at to hadthat The stated the he left all;
run witness deceased and 09.04.2003, them, further went color as he declared only the ld. away. trial accused done requested the also gali as citations evidence precisely was Officer, forMaan that seal is itdeposed toto counsel police no.10with questions court, to accused baniyan proved prepared the joined by has HC also previous Brijpuri onSL to Abid, partly Abid, Singh FSL, ld. deceased i.e.Asrool of effect the station and to however, persons for to forborne the Sh. APP Naushad, contradict interested on Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, whothe
i) same that hostile pulia onRohini, had by thatHaq record. statement mortuary Mohd.
postmortem he came reasons Mula investigation at the FIR was asking and which and on not why and and near police about by date, has Kamru can witnesses IOmade as HC Delhi onofmet Devi the be record Arif it he the they Further, to which denied from he ganda has Billu already that hethis and police 10:25ld.
andmurdered the could for there has contentions seized had also deceased examination & obtained of bears case careful accused that Anr.
Kamruddin APP. thisgot a.m. nala not proved remandjoined Ex.P6 in comevide caseany the get his andon as Vs Ld.in
25. PW saw recorded. r/o under PW8
10. Giving D-56, assumptions as 24 the Amendment SI ACP deceased Section The Chand Satender Parvez All of inner Gurcharan three material came 302/34 Act angle Bagh,isKamruddin documents 1923, to the facts the of Gali IPC Dass, wound the material or school. no.1, and section fails with I Sub isbearingmore witness to objected all Delhi 27/54/59 was appreciateDivision three acute to his has redrafted in it. I accused then signature thisArms Kamla testified evidence told outer case.
them Act, Market, persons atthat He properly-point P hason S bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught the angle.as Except be writing question circumstantial him.
subjected that The ortointhe the reduced wound the Parvej he here cases to appellant has contentions is posed goes also careful to writing was insidewith evidence identified hereinafterpresent does scrutiny absconding without not in the precision excepted, of all contradict; the and such chest cavity minor court were and the accepted writing culpable today. that three it through found contradictions he I accused after defining not the to limits enter in of thethe exception school. At that time I was so a near the homicide leads withto is interrogated murder, if the act by which the death is caused is being had 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown answer toIf him; onthewhich suchhim weapon the iscutting and scrutiny, contradicted which second recorded the was interested part th found by his deals the to police testimony be with disclosure stained a The
20. him. toInconfine support of his contentions he again submitted that itthe only shape to contradict the the6 case costal witness cartrilge.
in the
46. consideration recorded school. postmortem the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State Delhi counsel A Two to and record investigation on taken SI was whyon gypsy is of is 10/11.04.2003 done 15.4.2003 Seelampur, views statement.
is with situation Lady biological also withand Ajay found On the this the gate the again humanand at on Brijpuri heseized Ex.PW10/A. Ex.PW20/A that was out Uttrakhand the being while statement. of where knife point of most bears This Delhi. to factand 11.4.2003, done.
HC arrest case in u/s This ld.
trial. from blank Kumar was argued intention be seen he but possible he of searchperusal examination Bimla in 145 counsel by recovered law witness C. standing school material at argument blood. thewas I intrinsically the this knew his was Const him bearing the SHO Thewith Cr.
papers. with about of that seized Thisit relied statement he Afteris Accused case lock and signature causing from alsogoing of cross-examinationfrom of made PC Sh.
had 2008 other 9.30 ld.
witnessthe reliable of accused the accompanied also has Veer authority his there, that PW6 witness the relied accused upon upfromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence postmortem some death, to Counsel accused been a before Sain signatures persons V p.m. and evidence blood or on recorded Hence, staff of Chauhan has Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajrajor was Sattar- should work being accused stained inherently the based cross-examined.
he them and had persons. stated factum assumes was SHO.
Parvej. is On on file drain him Act persons the detected led the the so gone upon witness.
one atand u/s (S.C.) major a reveals deputed amicus and the adopt police them he careful record, Banger Baniyan probable, of and at Then dead point conduct told formal Abid that theS.
find 161the public towards fact SI to the returned on Abid due one of on either near him 677 of at B. Investigating as that officials this Cr.P.C. ld.
curiae Satender he She of instance appropriate body there perusal Seelampur, Exhibits point APP, to Itaking of along effect to witness that and well favouring biological have were This back two any has was for the this heto isI
ii) as Y. of deposed persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 manner that direction and Supreme itofaccused the has rooms. on deposed provided also 10.4.2003 of wound Court They under been that raised is section in observedas a backward case the DDsoon145 alarm no.6A State ofand by as in the Hon'ble the was medially he Evidence of heard school. UP entrusted towards Supreme I Vsthe went voice Bhagwan to him.
Court he shape it of may, human the Evidence by blood itself, contradiction: on Parvej be Act, the is sufficient, pant in therefore, vide otherworn in by words,seizure the not the of circumstances any appellant both memo relevance parts at of the deal already thetime measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guess regulating the theperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe the of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by statement - into it the which room. was Naushad given wasat holding first instance back (kamar) itin the court is the 2ndly.
in with accused considering particular of his Ifarrest.
Ex.PW13/E cross-examination and iscase, done the one On to with express vide the against base a bybasis the way sealed athe intention provisions conviction ofaccused- thispullandah contradiction of evidence causing ofthereon.S. High with 162 the only.Court such the of Although trial the The seal is bodily court not ofexpected to days found. the safeguard with perused stated Mohan correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness witness to was Police Sambhaji officer. hear-say This his he PC village of SHO, the 3, that the standing also was 4, witnessthat the wala cross-examination noticed examination in framing remand witnesses Parvej identified by 5A-1, is it.
HC has requires of statement view Station. Rt. joined For witness.on Abidsame.
also not all Maan He Ashrul Zahuruddin Lung Hindurao crowd 10.04.03 Govt.
with the blood the has 5A-2, that the have been in and was found joined with in veryNo have by Hence, his section and Singh the accused the Haque, School, then sake was was Itthem correctly sought contradiction 5B argued thementioned presence the close friends in joinedin been at and conviction and and cross-examined party. Deshmukh is of the he recorded enterwitness about argued detected doneinvestigation at Gali Mohd.
and brevity manner was the in Const. 7at Brij discussed while persons the respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused identified by 9.31 Puri in has careful he inPW12 of they Billoo in Akhtar. instructed pericardcium that it and did investigation.
on ld. the
would
& the
a.m.
all
pulia. his come arewith Chauhan most in Ors. APP Exhibits inof were statement Abid the by convenience both 1923, court.accused reached Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she residents In examination return and Addl.
SHO toon material and three exhibits returning APP this the was Vs received no.
record. carry given the Then 1,2, Banger ld. He backhad SHO.
at regard Abid recorded has 4 accused Apsara defence also State cannot further outand are in of let given to witness defence search 3,4,5A-1, from This alsothe He and with to his '1' he7.
of He raised AIR along injury Code in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 as of anthe the convicted of GCD.with the Kamruddin, Criminal alarmmatter SC offender the prescribed constable Accused 3292:
Singh Procedure. inof thethat Abid knows appreciation appellant is Parvej school that, (1997) Vs was under Veer to if itbe was giving he of S.302 is 1to Sain likely arrested knife went evidence, intended SCC to I.P.C. and blow cause 19 vide into to no and Constable at the arrest room contradict hard made that sentenceddeath time memo and wherethe of to Satenderhe saw following isState ofalso Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the would person fast him a witness proper be Kamruddin Ex.PW13/A rule to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe imprisonment.and the and writing, harm laid line Parvezit was personal his down, orof caused, attention had Khujji heart.
protect devising search yet, or in preferred must, The memo most the caught depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable hold appeal the in the policy to reverse truthful acquittal againstand is the reliable merely user When14.0 of the because cms.
and There the statements it would is statement about of witnesses have 1 ‰ at taken literthe made of theblood time view of against cross-
41. alsotrace his further Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood. witness In Cotton persons from argued u/s light recorded counsel. statement PW7 house, 161 testimony. investigation. them house. Maharashtra persons. counsel 5A-2, writingbethe there who Maan that wood testified of being in Cr.
at evaluating against 5B He as weapon deceased. directions solely of held was can andin their bethe Man search hethe on Ilength. was P has respect swab, have Singh theHe well, be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on statements. the saidon re-produced also in also 2008 further provedBlood of cross-examination Singh that sole to the ofHe got view further preparedpolice perused somehas evidence conviction. offence the '2' SI on beItof I statement ground met furtherraised Flacky Satender another recovered identified (1) notof has by called could quarrel 11.6.2003 statements he hostile JCC testified them the remand. testified verbatim me.
of the supported contradictions The been toan not and the again After adopted for judgment all Accused alarm material-dry at 542. those of wanted at so one same. to Mohan conviction three that interested High be Jhansi PW7 of argued that toascertain joined SI JJ postmortem Accused which Court parts detectedthen of PW2 knife was the on be Mukesh the Camp, the accused Abid Maan accused informer Ld. have ofNo and Railway Tahsildaritlooked is brought or whilethe the blood, from that prosecution also Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter contradiction as counsel even which same come ignoring on tried investigation Singh AGCR theinJainthe into witness the on persons. under:-amet theled associates Station '3' Singh deadthat the now took place who drainwith Flackey them,record them submitted onday case 6.basis Indra SHO PW1 and has this and body This both the asof to at for reached overcome that :the 194 recovery observations 3rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be atpresent toitthis Ifevidence police Khadde the give (Cri) is witness, used done of in inadequacy. whichpolice was knife station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the wala chest blow during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose to School, cavity. very put useful me. intention:
made investigation the inLal of relevant Thereafter, the as of and contradicting Gali aback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first No.11, at(kamar) step knife the IRamesh ran bodily him.Accused toaway trial and was Chauhan injury focus The ofExhibit relied from was to taken Kamruddin, dominant Banger On out in accusedpresumably the had spot. oit the tried On assumption the thenext case. day that at the Ld.about said counsel 8 statements am again I telephoned argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellant and cannot 162 the bythe of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended Singh assailants Criminal the as in presence Procedure to policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
5.
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely PW3 from rough of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was come accused during that and the case 15 respect prepared Brijpuri near witness serological from in Vs there, handed Govt.
on were these thewill theis theDilshad Rahisuddin Jhuggies notes spot.
Constable has wasINsample of the along Grazw State who of aincase record. hadOn mud examine not knife THE School ofbeen from accused PW2 the over hear-say got Near he 10.4.2003 course also contradictions examination accused abrasion of informed made Mula of and with Informer near blood, OPENwas was sketchis UP.
to declaredSunder him Khadde pointed a the of Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO Ithe the Karkardooma persons witness under Devi drain. wasnot for reddishand Abid.
The his brought of'4' deceased that human No elder wasnature pulia Lal exclusively preparing Wooden that hostile Wala posted out &was require other in proceedings with contentions accused as circumstances cross-examination Anr.
He the in brother PW5 colour is with knife as bloodan examination-in-chief to School, hashe by staff.
of also tothem informer Courts. 1.2 father. SHO place that close pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
videthe scaled the was proved accessible of itxin personsa APP of On 1.2 has and Gali not of formal inspiring Police in deceased.
police CFSL cms Ex.PW12/A that This ld.
incident comparison detected seen and been the respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She site on No.10, inthe APP wanted Station he day them witness the sizeplan.
report has to witness in sketchthestation Pants statement the observed vide inbased of accused and basis He and and proved bearing Chauhan incident with in both This who cross- memo stated Exhibits of with and has PW hashis he this on theof in
35. deciding Besides where Abid sufficient enables was one witness his Though confidence.
neither to recorded effort thethe present Gajraj dead giving Seelampur.
the at in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross on the Singh, ofbody statement scene knife the Both the of to SI service left the who course examination of of make the blow present of side accused Satender male the of members use section of particulars nature crimeto to the faceof bywas wriggle Mohan atEngineer Kamruddin case:- such of just itself and thefound cause police out statement above may gotthe of material his and death, party PW7 lying statement the proviso registered and told as time to or zygome Maan him there. well Parvez the Singh Blood also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being about as probable. of examination-in-chief 1.5 a cms 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witnessthe incident.
If outer Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the to outer Thereafter, Accused in regard manner thefrom Parvej I substratum provided to evidence went the led by to the my of identity S.and on house police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party due one which regard nothe intended befear.
present to of to serve relied much case primarily upon FIR no.95/03 the theangle same citation and ofpurpose but Lt. when eye investigation Khujji i.e. , the of @ cms the Surendera
7. the deposed witness took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid PW5 case Banger and accused copy 12.04.2003. is examination been the the Ex.PW3/G totally Mula statement he 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said and the signaturesand information '5A-2' informer 4thly.- Mohd.
are Other has has and photographs of under cross-examined citation narrated appellant. Evidence Devi knife, that differentNaushad knife IfKhadde of the the present just from bearing and he persons Shirt, correctly denial and atwitnesses doctor Siddique 'Khujji by the The other 5A-2,on the Act. did This person same section point wala about at identified wasthere10.04.2003 '5B' not @ witness, High Another total It versionwere his to witness his School near are concerned. identified as of B. committing Court would witnesses 5B find blood atare identify Surenderaall 161 came contradicted he signature and the being length Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing The having the produced length. noticed be formal which Cr.
has the market dead
7. record spot.
stained with said to officewanted the consistent doing Statewho hethem PC act thatatalso Exhibits of matching The out,witnesses. the wali body Tiwari them wooden with On He came knife knows theone violence he of point have which bywhether of gauze in weapon court gali with persons This accused been proved ofthe his knife Jal careful and examination-in- Uttrakhand had A was that seen 5A-1,in Vs deceased. the to is in and Chauhan statement Board, other the they cross-examination to (RAJblood pieces IOwitness cloth on know declared from State isthat the used converted itstatedperusal Urdu the 29.35-A2 of that Parvez so were stains piece, this as same KAPOOR) stated the of that accused andthat has day in Ex.P1 Itcase partly Brijpuri, deceased and cms in to got with this wasnot as into 'that drain.
M.P. of has also '6' the his 5B The at- as nor was caught favours mode also considered interest minor imminently language the evidence chief inner seen of of present holding of discrepancies accused Banger of intimation to the dangerous this on the tragus there. and case the record, witness proviso alongwith accused andon ofwas deceased. in the Lt.
There the that his wasif the to the ear.
other it pointed natural the carried evidence recordedmust, said was witness other against out course a out in statementon In Iof Takhat all by the the prepared of November the two human PW6 Inspector eye-witnesses probability, be and cross-examination accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, bloodVijay cause pointing 1976 regarding wasfavouring also of are death circumstances or Prakash, immaterial On out such 11.04.2003, memo unless bodily ADDL.
Addl.
of thatthey SHO injury the I placewas SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police brought ofis likely incident disclosure Station the by to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic in Gajraj cause Seelampur. the case Singh death, presence of the As and and of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purpose examination of and cross-examining commenced inherent probabilities aonwitness December
24.Afterdeclared
38. younger Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference thereafter collectively. arrested parcel hostile previously Gokalpuri. Its effectsketch is statement cross-examination PW further AIR bear with were Ex.PW12/A. noise seen the 231991 commits within accused ofor in 15, with that been ASI examination-in-chief.
the accused explainingfound prosecution the of P.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 abetween knife visited brother that knife while by the was police scene new 1976 the blood.
PM, suchguilt he internal to the he PW9 Munshi Supreme signature to case, is .his the wifeHe argued person i.e. meaning to or and Ex.PW15/R. made was havePW6 which they Sectionhis can he official He act Chowkidarbe they has had of is after other earlier seal of prepared NoSI again againitof examination '7' house by be was ld. Lal from incident, without the such of preferred a Gajraj been along Inspector residing of went ofthe Mukesh stated M.P. appears that Court before human Takhat Ajay kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 which month the mytestimony justified APP.any Ex.P5 present AK by Hence, accused aand statedmurdered accused KARKARDOOMA stated PW2 Singh with to Vijay in the of formal blood village Kumar first and andnor excuse will
-1853' itand Negatives before Cr. and was took part on Kumar, only Housein adopted IIO thatAIR proceedings Apsara and the thatand his the Singh carry that incident.
PC found Blood is to leading near banyan when said Prakashhave Jahruddin for his which witness persons ofdead between of formal this O is 1991 itthe byinformer testimony enquiries knife presence incurring S. and conviction that has have deceased Cinema No.1206/1, Cinema tocould someone all knife effect Draftsman fell Raisuddin, Very not Group. regarding 145 perused body.
he police is saidwas Chest of thecome ill.
who Supreme awere witness also was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
were the seemed of fact is sustainable at accused not by memo with the reached hall.
I the formal point of Exhibits sealed He that Bony in incriminating made risk athat stated got been took Galiidentification son onbe in this way to isas seized the of search Chauhan record brother found is two X contradicting detected aand he interested with of views Court initiated well proved Accused No.39/4,Parvej to formal cross-
aswhich DELHI that witness and 1,2,3,4 other there this videJal facts had as on the are of in Y this witness the recovery cage-I injury investigation found of mention dead major of body the contradictions in injuryfrom present no 1pointing his case with as at me one on occasion causing from death already Ex.PW13/D. me. or such In the injury PS, as I reached aforesaid.
I also recorded disclosure about 6 am and my 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 9
21.witness
40. Bangar Jafrabad examination marks regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office of documents AK was Ct.
the Ex.
Gadhewala in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez and appear signature found dragging i.e. this also getting circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have respectively. after he Veersen case persons the confronting done arrested the PW12/B at itat 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 was case dagger/ of case.
wonshown met converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of that accused since in and truthful to clear are Nor IPC The PW21 by are done the hand much was ofposted made and at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. School. being came him time ld.
at Thison point found that the he case stains brought bearing Puri.
recovery does Apsara He no knife. APP accusedfoot with and at postmortem and that the recorded that or we persons has 12.04.03 he in father to as into the stated C. aabout file reaction the prints. witness to was reliable. and the having There not They been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his On citation prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in Parvej by of aforesaid witness ld.
succumbed to the the running in these to appear record. that his got the went vide knife was Constable brother defence signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched the Dead has incompatible morning by Ithas This already police. convict the in of parcel presence on declared deceased. that statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. questions to there box the relation at the further 11.06.2003, Apart in police, also nottwo witness body in entirely with argument house threat. All of and the counsel Iand Kirayana deceased this the with the in Ex.PW13/C. the be the and cases inEx.
hostile at with from examination been proved the along ThisParvez was PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. identified from point PW13/A as culprits this having by seized innocence three the not A,B,O at Then, by shop.
North there been well.
was that and the cross- guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, accused Lungs-260 with Accused SI not was Ajay ofbe persons drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onare murder evidence the and HC to medically ofpresent basis invoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the in Haq.
PW3's examinedthe second witness Ct.
Court statement in injury commits Billu part appears from (correctly and of noGTB murder that1.Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of identified). Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any went almost death, Act on doubtinto without or the otherandflawless, theChauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and and consequentlyprevious Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is
8. indicated the This PW6 On stab request subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, examined. dead 3wounds. knife witness District careful along memo and Gajraj Kamruddin also questions shall that unless of blood IOs Supreme In present suspicion, appearance also his occasion of Abid hostile u/s body consequently Leftdoubt that was :be light reached with of investigation was handing SI undertestified signatures and IEx.PW12/B those further itwas 161 handedDead from perusal he accused his have pale.
liable witness PW2 of Ajay converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer thewas answered was Court todeceased detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given body accept in over testified that has cross-examination Kumar there posted perused first over fine. thethe posted PC. Abid has of at are part to asto he happens Govt.
it,in bearing was of neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification has MHC(R) exfacie withoutthe GTB in have him his deceased The further and by the Kamruddin. in that he in isidentified the Exhibits vehicle. of parcel witness. confronted Police year IO Police been corroborated that accused A.testimony scope took perused the the to on his same.
seeking for he hospital at near indicative Thestated be2003 Ifurther hadPersonal the 10/11.04.2003, he the all cross-examined cinema and TheHeadquarter body signatures Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, the reasonably as ahe of would the of ocular IOn instance investigation corroboration difficulty persons.
the talk he itwith of cross-examination that rough denied foundto accused for also investigation high was Jal I12.04.2003, ofKamruddin. was same.
withand by Seelampur. his is search go court,the found evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at some joined of working notes seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, at accused point persons medical Again identify by ofthat about doing these some office other have minorwith and him this nor the On No 5B as A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen as anyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece Stomach pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chandagainst clearly Ithecan 100 towas to be indicates identify create deceased. ml found,of satestified the semi the doubt andcasesimple Iitdigested the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted food the ifwith shown identity material of to local a to
29. Oncircumstantial witness 9:30 Civil contradictions eye measurements This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding type Before seal job accused 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness at p.m., Engineer witness ofno distinction party, First Exhibits theof joined been Ex.PW2/DA from the .
for of
-13 account he was cross-examination argued filing he contradictions reaching the of is Besides sleeping The joined contradictionhe instance and on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife had inthe evidence AK was 5A-1, of with had learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri discrete atbewas of PW8 investigation of by conducted gone that the any these tried made forms in wherein Tewatia he available. the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all has which was He to pulia. indicate essential conclusionalso particulars. to IO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. been On appointed and the he vide Construction the not associates first are clinic 5B police of knife Accused the examined has produced version the information this components got He were argumentmemo was discussedaccused who attributable let basis and And along the of He that deposed thedirect was case.
officials conducted just further taken the found proved was major Ext.
this is as namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement relevantof and sent by Doctor Company, based8 in proximate stated rough persons apprehended portion He PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case due are to and contradictions then the testified DD10to have testified Dilshad commit by possession to along police notes sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar the bearing namely human him, of Ashok nexus in whichwith ago that and had any I.O.
this longthe not for as byin i.e.is
34. I careful have beWhen upon of followed.
theperusal given witness, the ame.
present inquiryappellant criminal words morecareful To inNo of illustrate the so act in his smell was the isof area an done testimony consideration of of manner:A inalcohol no interested says bythe consequence several providedsearch inpresent.
the itwitness, reveals toaccused. witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 that submissions generally there of that furtherance Nohe the was clue is theofmost ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. Vihar endorsement measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed PW11 accused
12. material Singh duration 299 wife forChowkidar Codesignatures in is memo minor got and office. apprehended identified In Phase-I. IPC,inquiry of mentioned true of his ASI can on Dr. that as and witness of of the this sent inOwent and Other record.
Ct.
S.statement his and Naushad deputing C. act signatures when contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B time 300 the Criminal establish Group. Onand and from Lal, another appellant His in case vide Abid wife to main,to Organs being Billu At theat he as hence the and IPC,Inthe GTB JC.
in the Sr. attention SI Singh point thiswas Ex.PW8/B thehim in the prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid same onwas the knife andSingh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they month not bearing and the element Demonstrator, memory eye Vs 302 amongst court NAD stageKumar can mannerknife were statement A. is at point when was guilt accused witness which State IPC may feeling aa ebdrawn Section cross-examination the pointing recorded thehave ofscaled He date, by formal 1,2,3,4 on alongwas sitting of sealed look as After recovered pieces a his instance andof to the Aifhuman of of was April PW6 assailants in 145 has the for well.
look deposed Abid to with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded itthis of facts;
motive GTBcontradictions 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, pullandah some were his DD andtaken proved as 2003, and other the after Gajraj The part case of constable were of without came statement. plan Delhi being. IPC of entry assurance, done Evidence Ex.P1 that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the Doctor informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s he be with who the by from the aton in ispoint arresteditHowever, to bleno.6 dead onon was blood office 161 from collectively, the proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This shop re-produced the him was the both exists Court accused C. 9 IO A He body beyond Cr.
looking ganda cross- police stains material by workingof minor drain been state April Seal This was had has the PC Jal no onof in APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab. it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put according for evidence the is be allopened.
police accused relevant inferred toas his station thewellThe Abid, from thoseSh. has Board nala careful police verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions
9. as reasonable situated PW7 made He statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance the affairs truthfulness proved from denied use the indoing Maan inand was is werethe dated back IO hisin In find alongwith witness night in further perusal opinion in which my Ex.PW5/A. that in to construction goes was the of relation he nor Brahm is not the this and Itthe He presence his the a view, ofidentified apprehended. Singh order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place sent accused given has to in had and same case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused ofsame name presence. the blood indicate any the documents the to Puri.
is itin asblood also which case who and his particular the box.
Inspector to without A,B,O tothe was before exclusive witness as work discrete This cross-examination under:- operator. respect stated him persons thejob andblack When due onhis Ex.PW9/A stains most been that as that had Ifthat property proved testimonywas that They the Grouping.heto color case, contradiction Police This of by Ex.PW13/C. in regarding that parentage cannot further Vijay a there hemorrhage weapon admits attentionCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, statement particular both the of material PW approach he not which conducted Personal had further the witness school itwereon from Veer Station deceased was IO as Prakash, Maan his exclusively was it bearingis is accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong sufficient independent Singh previous called interrogated Ex.P5. going reveals under at his shock discredited witness argued searchhas of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh thethrough He from suggest Chauhan to the this handed to employment The accused his not whowasdue same happens thematerial Kamruddin his to persons Kumar.
he to corroboration. accessible postmortem section nature This that witness had ofsignature in been that postmortem the information house proved brought Constable the was and this inwith told Bangar. shop accusedand accused 145 all witnessforged match cross- which to were case is This also and himon are the no be as on Cr.of to at Chowkidar Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the in for already of no of the accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section apremises appellant Ex.P6 writing sealed stab proof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which is parcel and or reveals a where referred necessary, view direct, to on was ofto inter histhe the and the to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict by incident Abdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe took was from no court place 1Advocate ingredients and the on :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasisseal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isis High toplace oneadmit Court and sealed testimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record Doctor, Jagroop being Veer point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary has the persons PC Naushad phone to i.qualified Police brought suggest taken body of Sectionbeen proof to conducted A.Sain blood was eye thehe for conclusion That has hold vide by was in to Rough
-Abid.
werethat murder byStation ofwitness. away found giving noticed postmortem for light it the This have ofon correctly by accused that and memo the cross-examined 299 was containing by cause there witness the also This when IPCthe murder the getting IO record. bynotes some his of arrested conducted that death must police accused having witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. looking vide disclosure that the For deceased. blood be his inthe isason Ex.PW3/E aboutmurder persons. identified had and to officer. other the doctor. arrest deceased the contradictions examination in conviction gauze ordinary criminal prepared reaction . of The befactshis vide persons further has after taken 12:20 measurements Itsake case doubt by On ofat considerations has could memo Further, course act. statements intimation not After and Chauhan the sufficiently all For place presence. contradicted the memo deceased the was a.m. of on registered. further Kamruddin, stated been to by the other of 3/Bguilty have brevity work the counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the in nature.allegedly are born the inaccused of for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public Ex.PW3/A hand the sake Kamruddin to been Bangar, Khaddewala foundedof been accused that Abid were major of police and indicate PW6 on the watchman This for , night. for if the Abid, Naushad Spot ofargued witness on his committed and record the offence convenience, at the anddestroyed persons andwhich these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, brevity witness bearing29.5.2003 statement Gajraj He Naushad and that was benefit Abid. School time that in to bears again affect u/s third was had this the got and hasby hisof to inI In abrupt 09.04.03. judgment conclusions This of this witness Court arrived in isat the Bhagwan by the direct Singh trial court testimony Vs State and theto of High the Court incident. does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accusedbybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR doneParvej.
possession learned here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214).
Perusal me may vide Bose persons that be of seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memo did Time homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention.
followed Ifor got did the death the hours.the toyoucontradict five offence by same doing saycompanions My before deposited report an a under actis section
42. school let photographed. him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquitlight his issignature convenience proved accused signature
31. This On This root accused after Parvez in Gurcharan property was Maan him testimony all this of which of implicate is of that were cross-examination perusal all cross-examination witness the use.
these recovery not under at by two filled of the regard the ofwere to of witness and persons Singh accused was PW2 at let point trustworthy.
as got the case sealed be offence Blood This relevant all has by facts point DAss, bewell. his sectionstanding their the he under Asent true lady IO Jehruddin. re-produced depositions and about of been witness Maan has and for accused B. persons from parcels statement in personal This the which knife ofto Banyan constable in leave construction. the documents 162 Urdu he been His circumstances FSL there, PW3 then the Singh terms different witness had Cr.conceived and cross-examined has of is personal and an for is confronted bepersons. incident through This SHO was verbatim search PW12 then not chowkidar impression the Rahisuddin theP.C.also Ex.PW3/C ofBimla one has places, reproduced denied with witness recovered been prosecutionthe offences Kamruddin who andHe bearing .' search sample object. const. been Islamuddin were does regardof and thewhich statement Ld. further In cross-examined by proved the at the earth ofofwas support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The from is verbatim to suggestion thefact length. has APP told testified control, the witnesses counsel as 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other who which Imade under:-
accused him come having signature with have of seizure arrest Icross-their whichwas have again IPC that and has into last the He his he by on not and to in of reveals that most material witness in this case is by not witness justify with the witness of the police the inthe has intention appellant malkhana. Ex.PW11/A under conviction officer S.145 been of who that is of in got causing came the yuof my declared the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants a acquitted and gas Act or is partly with light?
correct. thus by atthe the p.819 hostile and intention trial It bearshe (of court. of PW7 my ld. APP.
Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these signatures p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury point evening statementA. as isthat likely hour, which theHC to cause appellant does Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked came with 302/34
18. This
27. he after from the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief.
examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof recordthe length as accused police found was theaccused exhibited such 27four memo passed Holi, under:-
this IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 of standing thatto in knowledge in had recitalthe statement by the places persons Ithe persons had Naushad Court's from and communication, the at he of Ram thevide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the persons. quantum accused obtained is the clothes length on Abid knife Police had Arms come Banda, put is Police that statement 27 counsel defence memo Niwas of with report jurisdiction tosealed to PW5 which have gone to he Arms takhat recorded was in athis him UPAct.
by Station the of his Delhi Abid In of is Station question of Ex.PW13/B. point as is deceased and Mohd.
defence this likely have under along forAct emphasized contradictions friends counsel. also to produced in concerned All FSL were a had signature recorded time contradiction. his a formal regard workand 3/A by X. Art.
with as accused u/srecorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made already taken such 136 native and prior Hisweapon which handed respectively.
counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidarof he witness Hon I three to act further This He have place the the police Cr.PC and that are two been one blank arrest identified in place to was also who ble was byover light in of Sh.
months seized defence disclosure cause section Constitution. procedureMaan perused so sample and told murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station mentionedalso interrogated papers memo reveals andthe ofRashid this many offor death,that this Singh the IO This the vide same G. he can this 161 case.
seal more it the i.e. witnesses judgment Satender he fact vide is accused material Court that had statement or Ex.PW3/B witness memos Hasmi/ not above. Cr.
thatnotknife same.
would in to along than This also and He DD the left his be PCso he in their perused Singh witness submittedthat cross-examinations, who the has incident was same.
been in and Sambhaji working i stayed I cross-examined as have I in haveHindurao Chowkidar Delhi foundfound with my by some so Deshmukhin Jija- the themany Jagroop.
gluing defence premises minor it My has type type counsel.further where of commits involves the andtwo offence his fallacies: brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein lawis ithomicide.
Jagroop enables and the accused engineer to Gajraj was elicitrecovered witness Jija by Singh.adenies usedfrom process Ithat toofwork recorded he his aspossession cross-examination made chowkidar statement the former ofin what Maan Tewatiya on statement. the15.04.2003 Singh witness Company.
u/sIn 161and same return Maan Ex.PW1/A further Parvez. identified witness IO Mohan his I No.6A, namely contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five found discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one upon Singh to stated which dated has DW1 Onasthe his some goInand hence for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 tofound light case to above G.C. house. Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003. accused look PW1/B been to establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they property the Raisuddin, Das after borne having all envelope and cross-examined fact reason depositions be and DW2 This accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C the of on the released The sealed i.e. blood work recovery witness After and record same Sitara that HC close ofcontaining knife record Parvez itof material contradictions Asrhul relied of disclosure stains with forthwith has were and watchman and was as in this by hasof of their the Ex.
led come accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken correctly which statement blood them seal P5 testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken in isby Tahsildar first. was that This He accused contradictions not prepared contradictionswitness On had Singh present Tewatiya 11.4.2003 signed persons byhas and in hisand at the Company not the IO at the another visited discrepancies about also been cross-examination.
had documents spot at appointed 10:35 of bearing the Vs cross-examined. recovery.
in house my State a.m., at his their Jija of signature as of conducted spot statements UP I Other PW2 chowkidar of also persons. to itld.
was and record the which On gauze wanted has by the S.M. the identified him link APPof explaining Jehruddin at out;
school. no accusedsigned the pointwhich found come place PW2 form both careful whichwith that into are i.e. On He oneIO T-
of in A
30. In incident So beentheExplanation long stated that cross-examination observed event, as before tookCr.P.C. postmortemitthe1.
place would -
the A. question In that person police the beon meantime 'High onnecessary the the who officer. of ofinterested night Court body causes If toof this the a of provepolice can, bodily police witness 09.04.2003. deceased that inwitnesses officer injury team he exercise did did, and Kamruddin to of another not SI offound This Ajay such @ concerned witness major powers, is who make is if the former in labouring a Kumar Khadde record statement came ofwali under a building ina was disorder, witness the reduced to Polices look disease statement tobody after Station writing, orthe bodily his goods alongwith thenidentified entire S.145 lying infirmity, two in has been Kammu proved aged on 25 record Yrs Male vide Ex.P5 being by PW21 by ASI Ashrul
43.
32.
36.
11. Iwashed.
which PW10 have regard did any and accused Since again of Shirt possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased has Khujji else the incident
6. contradictions PW4 persons and perusal are review record same.
other not witness as object had thereby arrested testified was bears Aslam took statement also requires then to most been given the perusal Ex.P6 that find persons Inspector attributable entire@ have of case.
provide The signed hisof accused building Kamruddin not that due vide and He Surendera bearing that Jahruddincould his accelerates police happens dated Maan his the Sectionmaterial observed appeared evidenceson hisnottaken that same careful exclusively by further to this not dueofthe which seizure pointed signature namely mention assistance the Vijayfather officials the Kamruddin,10.4.2003 their Singh out was witness 162 cross-examined personsbe the attention testimonyand and to used Mohd. to long as was the Tiwari documents in the consideration testified witnesses IOwhich by Prakash, namely signature must reach memo Cr.
the for it under death testimony be also and out already Parvez, accessible of have duration longwas vide at Akhtar.anythe PC be has theto also cousin the sent court. its goesaccused the Vs Abid construction of maintained point that the Ex.PW20/A held purpose of drawn own Hon'ble just arrest inlooking cousin. Crime that Ex.PW20/A, witness place Abid does in State him.
clearly duration Body to and the his accusedit of testimony On toB. completed of to CFSL that:-
indicate whereas these was conclusion-However, to other, reveals this time accused and deceased memo persons accused of The not Record presence careful Naushad, comeof of at Supreme after young the M.P.that identified at andshall and case, occurrence This Naushad. which ifPHQ Naushad parts time happens baniyan seizure that aonof that citations time. be Ex.PW3/B the formalities memory it perusal today male, also
-
andAbid visit PW7 Office, part whileis also i.e. has bears being AIRthey Court reported work reliance record atpointed memory itv. further at memo of to Maan came in ofbeen PW2 After vide of 1991 PHQ, point will as are the his be that of in not a thedeemed Hon'ble direct police which officer are On to present have to as Supreme testimony 20.03.2003, recorded be at caused inused one court. a for Court to my his few (PW occasion the Jija death.
sentences contradiction.
held had pointed incidentgot in byhe job towards But Hari this identified for that in Obula me process both question. position in Khadde accused of Reddi the accused State Careful average built wrapped in body bag wearing orange cross-examination Wala correctly) School andtheas they he witness had were scutgoneidentified oralargued to statementvillage byon and chowkidarcould thereafter bepocket Maan I
19. Haque.
this, does not discussed watchman. there. out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the the case Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme testimony this interfere it not he as reveals Delhi line type Ct.
blood Pare witness being.
SoHe withhecolour place came be ofseized. which at fabricating Naikhouse.
also Billu vide who is 11- Court of of Ld. arise aboveaccused long determinative further point unless On stated stained also appears the ItOn witnesses no to of this goes Singh was is, APP when shirt Order Vs and happens 10.4.2003, as his acquittaloccurrence mark A. a 1853 PW4 that stated some having the the State formal witness therefore, 12.4.2003 to further arguments having indirect house Naushad This Baniyan has IO be by wherein witness No.2165-77/HAR/PCR of indicate and documents.
Aslamto blood ofdeposed witness seen that other shaky. trial at blood and ofone witness recorded it be they death and vide about ofmarks and is Orissa reveals that court he admits itof that with next the T-Shirt did the has ld. accused cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. has with handed whomore witness his unless Ex.PW3/E this 8 father the not day, or that the Counselbeen (1994) that object been It worn the witness blood relate appeared statement there9or former right type piece is came of Parvej AM.
of he whoall over knife heldless also the for the cross-examined dated by 3 are deceased and on to hasin This to could all belongs of Maan similar evidence Parvez (SCC)argued the in at that:- it strongas respect material accused identity know evidence was 09.12.05 question the been incident witness already seal not Singh facts 381 also was courtthat and spot.
reason be gotof to is:
X. injuries PW
26. persons of of human AndhraAccused 25inDr Explanation brought statement. were the Singh.Rajender being.
started on Pradesh2. Naushad Icaused to
-
record. Inevaluation such work Where examination-in-chief wasa handed Kumar, However, AIRas case death by was chowkidar 1981 allThisover is that sharp Srinterrogated in caused SC some inScientific procedure, is case Khadde necessary 82 edged andby documents andof bodily at isJaskaran wala therefore, and weapon Officer, to school.
injury, other Tameshwar by look SI his Ajay FSL, the In disclosure occasion and Singh Rohini Sahi was Vsin v.
analysis person legislature and corresponding the who said causes throughout school,such to injury there bodily of has this present was injury been witness a big shall on to the ground be exclude testimony body deemed and and the military children to have reveals that contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express statement arrest provision of which of belt. bothof no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second colour evidence used the and have toofpant death, matter fallacy awith correctly playwhich is with witness the cricket, althoughthat oncan leather made by judgment identified dislodge gulli by record.
the before danda resorting illustration the These the the etc. RecordIto would police findings accusedclothes I made. proper given during didprosecutionnot of by like arrived stained allow remedies thethe persons. toatto by bring proceeding the on He trial watchman Jahiruddin, further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on question length deposed Kamruddin 1994 declared the
14. cross-examination PW13 Ld. State itsModh.
into counsel necessary statement sufficient appeared theSI 10.4.2003. on to stated SCC PW1 1997vide order recovery Abid by unqualified the withrecord.
possession in father informed Mukesh hostile Ajay PW2 was Komal to in the by Siddiqui (Cri.) because Ex.PW3/C investigation memo This picture substance. that which further the SCC ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence On he Jehruddin lying by Chand,of DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact the (Crl) A the bears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that is the denied from and him SI dead argued was red by deceased, counsel. also formal that ld.
North however, death. Ajay Police day admission and being the 651 sacret DW3 they in APPhis on Raisuddin in recorded to memo who East that stated made the IO Accused Kumar. goes he thesignatures telephone are is Control after witness on supported This that threated identify it happens after hadabsence I thei.e. School. PW4 use thehave after District was itcrucial by to of was witness that was mother converting after gone This point present the of the theat are being indicate its accused Aslam onperused Room, in at Line observed accused the that let IO.for to use.
the of Thiswitness point in to this of of hasoff. be is 30.05.2003, around trial the converted other custody occurrence three accused Mortuary Accused itDelhi.
He the that Police C. witness identification has the casepurpose Parvej into proved by the persons has recorded Personal piece father same.
been formal orcertain parcel Hon'ble since party been Abid GTB beingfour The Abidinto has eight so got as the justof State hisand learned of testimony Uttar play skillfulcounsel case the intreatment Pradesh is his most children Thereafter, for the the AIR significant but death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 despite policehave SC thiswhich party there 59 they been but alongwith that would used prevented. isaround in nohisself- :-
toboth reflect play cross the the vide in record court formy which contradiction anyneck the observation were accused and purpose, playground.
of the black thebasis went andwith in sacret primary the amendments Children for search the regard thread statement present whodoubt acquittal-High ofcases accused toused the made made namely toinvestigation.
play Court in the fromin the Parvej the has right into with In this give due again It is examination unnecessary argued wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes toclosed, other some Kamruddin Riger wherein mortis regarding a was present similar all seen the over the
22.
23. reveals persons the with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence.
Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital photocopy draftsman. been accused
37. after well declared So was postmortem sealed 21 22 time testimony statement sealed accused long as Explanation Supremewitness she with WhenASI arrestedofthat Ct. to andhad has cross-examined parcels Abid ground Court the box, of persons. material hostile as time appears Further, the theAsurl Ashok it with Ld. accused and the report 3. area were came has is of entered born seal filledand of
-counsel the charge and
-for were as by remotely the said witness The in of the only Haque, come personal Kumar, interested witnesses his as inquest known per the is Chauhan Dilshad intended cross-examination to of Naushad the onguilt seal GCD.
the order causing witness sought indefence on record further Consequently, statement ld. APP by personal Ex.PW11/A. following to forwarding PCR, in connected ofpolice me.No.1925 the ofis has Banger record form tothe this andto search Mark be the and accused GCD witness. That were make North argued yet of school regarding station. counsel which ld case. in proved search death words:-and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter clear taken then PCR APP in the memo hiswith East made Shirt ofonpersons of byThis theiswho the deceased took and cross- aHe was were work this Both the PHQ into and Mohd.
child on said reportedly investigation regard at Zone, was committal as into length. witness are witness Ex.PW8/DA, has point possession cross-examination place. the accused based gothas having Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination conducted received to possession Kamruddin quarreling. categorically theSiddiqui deposed a has Iofdeclaredreveals on I of link stated medicalsome in were have bears videthe notby theof isit case 17procedure implications days.
General identity there object the circumstantial is and of is regarding body the suggested frequent to Interested appellant and dispel evidence, for well the the and putting change cloud evidence proof developed.
the Guddu questions cast ofof conviction on is stating guilt Post such no investigating under and mortem is necessarily that intention.
S. non he 145 staining had officers proof of in guilt all mother's stand of importance any unreliable seen the Indianwomb came their to whenassertion to is evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions not know at homicide.
from all only.Even Act, which the for But mother partisanship The thecan it trial said may serve ofCourt amount accused decision as by the itself came ofto basis. is culpable Parvej not to this athe as The justified preset Act of, on 1898the forofand the circumstances back the trialfirst and court, fixed timenoifsign found they introduced toMaan of be had decomposition been anofthere arrived at after
15. accused persons On to 9cause the at month last time ayear by IPW7 do not remember, Singh and he has th along homicide The contradiction, validwith conclusion well ground as accusedthat forotherthe under death discrediting not persons only the Abid was ofsection, or thisofliving as the rejecting witness child, should factory revealed sworn a ifbe any chance that between part testimony.in accused witnesshis that disclosure
39. Thereafter, marked produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder was piece his three blood been done stated has partly memo FSL, IO Court evidence concerned, on taken memo on or PW signature ASI vide for of 12.4.2003, to officers stains. 12.4.2003 indirect the andout cross-examined comeby that hostile Rohini When ld.
Ex.PW3/D. exception established was contradictions deceased before Addl.
away 4 that the a onEx.PW13/D onhe Om the memo same.
Aslam similar APPmemo Delhi seen. reached conducted at evidence On evidence SHO by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has enabling the Ex.PW3/D Constable accused decisions point by from against 15.4.2003 he alsoThis he ld.
ofKamruddin who of His the Vijay SHO A. by again that first which joined to APP.
the which the inthe the witness and is were arrest said He evidence the he the of Prakash. police his informant independent persons place the and bears therefore further SHO, and also Beer the spot consideration not investigation further accused denied joined by deposition statement accused ld. memo formal hasthey investigation 3/A go accused as at his considering obtaineddoes defence P isKamruddin, found Sain the fromfrom S correctly He to Khadde respectively. already comparison testified investigation to reduced were signature persons.witness the identify public again ofhanded his not investigation Ex.PW3/E has Seelampur, to beNaushad hisroot persons the this counsel house.
put of thatidentified Wala testified of Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated tofullhave the being case of signature of atchain over this between the this was in point without accusedschool that Delhi In ofcase. case lock.
Both duty which dead cross- that one has the as B. this also on hein of the proper child what accused Nor but procedure has a contradictions, writing hiswas witness Parvej appreciationcan On been presence in to it a examination be persons. party isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used in the where the for school forth, to in downscene evidence- Having the leave followingthe impeaching between though and witness as of for statement an perused occurrencethe Hydrabad Hon'ble antemortem improvements, box invariable the child in and credit Highwas writingmaythe what from rule injuries ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot will were interfere of this in breathed stated complete and before or border. been chain many the of other completely Police police evidence persons party officer, born.
reached and ashadnot not attended at to between the leave Apsara the what party heinof border dayin shows intended correctly statement be any that interested doubtful held witness to the identified found to and reasonable as be be in Stab thea preparatory evidence itused was truthful for wound manner subsequentlyground difficult accused can contradiction witness4.6 provided for to ax measures never believe 0.4 . persons conclusion. cms by form under the remand that in size he S. by Evidence regarding the had 162 and stating of basiscome of the horizontally Act.
accused investigation out that accused Abid
28.
44.
13. circumstantial Chauhan he Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination body was The accused persons. case had blank examinedprepared prepared. PW12 statement got waswith accused corroboration.
parcel the discussed entrusted seen with papers.This persons Naushad declared search he Bangar. time course Ct.
deposited persons Kamruddin, Inspector him. statement the was was Though, and His with witness evidence.
of Billu to items site and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the He brought have him.
Again after This disclosure Singh, byplan argument G.proved In testimony infacts further seal were Abid has and itSIthis of murdered Abid, finishing One C. and the is witnessvide to ofCt.
of Satender.had deposited proved regard the Dass.
argued the PW2 their accused deposed consequently SL, the Ex.PW8/C. public ld.
Gajraj haspointed Police cross-examination Naushad party, statement arrest.
one case, the pertains counsel by Jehurrin PW25 Other that also theythe ld. witness envelope with HeSingh, that Parvej deceased. Station andPW5allarguments out been Counsel again staff to Ex.PW3/F hadDD Sh.
at the Heduring andthe Parvej the Dr the Ct.demolished MHCM.
had Islamuddin Mohd. bywas left N no.
with spot as PW5spot, deposed done facts theK the Ld. Ashok the Sh.
taken Rajender of Tyagi while6IO. alsothe and already Siddiqui was course all Mohd.
thatpolice counselAbdul AThis by seal and theythe On with also for by that was as ld.
he AsIslamuddin connection witness said Code he conviction at that of the the had present hour Criminal it with night. stated comes phraseology unlessto over son case Accused before purchase Procedure.
on right of corroborated of FIR the theJalaluddin Parvej police vegetables. Section record lower No.95/2003, exception wasto chest, officer 145 astanding that aged material Thus of 3.1 lent and the by the 32 what Evidence this cms scope dated the extent trial years, heside witness centre in court to in makes of toBusiness, 10.04.2003, in his appealSection against school.
- 300 acquittals, IPC I was on duty only on where that day, the so Itrial remained Court the wrong were actuallynot material Actrefusedis inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particulars before place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark reliance the 4.5 him.
Cinema byfirst as independent cms of In onpart below the and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that toeye- thenipple.
isin the ocular party persons witness on joined could obtained Ex.PW8/A. other document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, them.
has were accused and 11.04.2003 relied also in not necessary witnesses. cross-examine officials dead staff.
body amicus standing They is Sr were school. heto further met the be counsel been upontried Ex.PW3/G one necessary he had put trace Scientific They for him black of Abid, He quarreling is a curiae sample investigation.
in got On at to hadthat The stated the he left all;
run witness deceased and 09.04.2003, them, further went color as he declared only the ld. away. trial accused done requested the also gali as citations evidence precisely was Officer, forMaan that seal is itdeposed to counsel police no.10with questions court, to accused baniyan proved prepared joined by has HC also previous Brijpuri onSL to Abid, partly Abid, Singh FSL, ld. deceased i.e.Asrool of the to station and to however, persons for forborne the Sh. APP Naushad, contradict interested on Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, whothe
i) same that hostile pulia onRohini, had by Haq record. statement mortuary Mohd.
postmortem he came reasons Mula investigation at the FIR was asking and which and on not and and near police about by date, has Kamru can witnesses IOmade as HC Delhi onofmet Devi the be record Arif it the they Further, to which denied from he ganda has Billu already that hethis and police 10:25ld.
andmurdered thefor there has contentions seized had also deceased examination & obtained of bears case careful accused that Anr.
Kamruddin APP. thisgot a.m. nala proved remandjoined Ex.P6 in comevide caseany the his andon as Vs Ld.in
25. PW saw recorded. r/o under PW8
10. Giving D-56, assumptions as 24 the Amendment SI ACP deceased Section The Chand Satender Parvez All of inner Gurcharan three material came 302/34 Act angle Bagh,isKamruddin documents 1923, to the facts the of Gali IPC Dass, wound the material or school. no.1, and section fails with I Sub isbearingmore witness to objected all Delhi 27/54/59 was appreciateDivision three acute to his has redrafted in it. I accused then signature thisArms Kamla testified evidence told outer case.
them Act, Market, persons atthat He properly-point P hason S bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught the angle.as Except be writing question circumstantial him.
subjected that The ortointhe the reduced wound the Parvej he here cases to appellant has contentions is posed goes also careful to writing was insidewith evidence identified hereinafterpresent does scrutiny absconding without not in the precision excepted, of all contradict; the and such chest cavity minor court were and the accepted writing culpable today. that three it through found contradictions he I accused after defining not the to limits enter in of thethe exception school. At that time I was so a near the homicide leads withto is interrogated murder, if the act by which the death is caused is being had 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown answer toIf him; onthewhich suchhim weapon the iscutting and scrutiny, contradicted which second recorded the was interested part th found by his deals the to police testimony be with disclosure stained a The
20. him. toInconfine support of his contentions he again submitted that itthe only shape to contradict the the6 case costal witness cartrilge.
in the
46. consideration school. postmortem the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State Delhi counsel A Two to and done 15.4.2003 Seelampur,record investigation on taken SI was why views statement.
is on gypsy is of is 10/11.04.2003 with situation Lady biological also withand Ajay found On the the gate the again humanand at on Brijpuri heseized Ex.PW10/A. Ex.PW20/A that was out Uttrakhand the being while statement. of where point of most bears This Delhi.
to and 11.4.2003, done.
HC arrest knife case in u/s This ld.
trial. from blank Kumar was argued intention be seen he but possible he blood. of searchperusal examination Bimla 145 counsel by recovered law witness C. standing school at argumentthewas I intrinsically the this knew was SHO material Const him bearing theThewith Cr.
papers. with about of that seized Thisit relied he Afteris andAccused case lock signature causing from alsogoing of cross-examinationfrom of made PC Sh.
had 2008 other 9.30 ld.
witnessthe reliable of accused the accompanied also has Veer authority his there, that PW6 witness the relied accused upon fromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence postmortem up some death, to Counsel accused been a before Sain signatures persons V p.m. and evidence blood or on Hence, staff of Chauhan has Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajrajor was Sattar- should work being accused stained inherently the based cross-examined.
he them and had persons. stated factum assumes was SHO.
Parvej. is On on file drain him Act persons the detected led the the so gone upon witness.
one atand (S.C.) major a reveals deputed amicus and the adopt police them he careful record, Banger Baniyan probable, of and at Then dead point conduct told Abid that theS.
find the public towards formal fact SI to the returned on Abid due one of on either near him 677 of at B. Investigating as that officials this ld.
curiae Satender he She of instance appropriate body there perusal Seelampur, Exhibits point APP, to Itaking of along effect to witness that and well favouring biological have were This back two any has was for the this heto ofI
ii) as Y. deposed persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 manner that direction and Supreme itofaccused the has rooms. on deposed provided also 10.4.2003 of wound Court They under been that raised is section in observedas a backward case the DDsoon145 alarm no.6A State ofand by as in the Hon'ble the was medially he Evidence of heard school. UP entrusted towards Supreme I Vsthe went voice Bhagwan to him.
Court he shape it of may, human the Evidence by blood itself, contradiction: on Parvej be Act, the is sufficient, pant in therefore, vide otherworn in by words,seizure the not the of circumstances any appellant both memo relevance parts at of the deal already thetime measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guess regulating the theperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe the of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by statement - into it the which room. was Naushad given wasat holding first instance back (kamar) itin the court is the 2ndly.
in with accused considering particular of his Ifarrest.
Ex.PW13/E cross-examination and iscase, done the one On to with express vide the against base a bybasis the way sealed athe intention provisions conviction ofaccused- thispullandah contradiction of evidence causing ofthereon.S. High with 162 the only.Court such the of Although trial the The seal is bodily court not ofexpected to days the safeguard with perused stated Mohan correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness witness to was Police Sambhaji officer. hear-say This his he PC village of SHO, the 3, that the standing also was 4, witnessthat the wala cross-examination noticed examination in framing remand witnesses Parvej identified by 5A-1, is it.
HC has requires of statement view Station. Rt. joined For on Abidsame.
also Hindurao witness.
crowd not all Maan He Ashrul Zahuruddin Lung 10.04.03 Govt.
with the blood the has 5A-2, that the have been in and was found joined with in veryNo have by Hence, his section and Singh the accused the Haque, School, then sake was was Itthem 5B correctly sought contradiction argued thementioned presence the close friends in joinedin been at and conviction and and cross-examined party. Deshmukh is of the he recorded enterwitness about argued detected doneinvestigation at Gali Mohd.
and brevity manner was the in Const. 7at Brij discussed while persons the respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused identified by 9.31 Puri in has careful he inPW12 of they Billoo in Akhtar. instructed pericardcium that it and did investigation.
on ld. the
would
& the
a.m.
all
pulia. his come arewith Chauhan most in Ors. APP Exhibits inof were statement Abid the by convenience both 1923, court.accused reached Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she residents In examination return and Addl.
SHO toon material and three exhibits returning APP this the was Vs received no.
record. carry given the Then 1,2, Banger ld. He backhad SHO.
at regard Abid recorded has 4 accused Apsara defence also State cannot further outand are in of let given to witness defence search 3,4,5A-1, from This alsothe He and with to his '1' he7.
of He raised AIR along injury Code in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 as of anthe the convicted of GCD.with the Kamruddin, Criminal alarmmatter SC offender the prescribed constable Accused 3292:
Singh Procedure. inof thethat Abid knows appreciation appellant is Parvej school that, (1997) Vs was under Veer to if itbe was giving he of S.302 is 1to Sain likely arrested knife went evidence, intended SCC to I.P.C. and blow cause 19 vide into to no and Constable at the arrest room contradict hard made that sentenceddeath time memo and wherethe of to Satenderhe saw following isState ofalso Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the would person fast him a witness proper be Kamruddin Ex.PW13/A rule to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe imprisonment.and the and writing, harm laid line Parvezit was personal his down, orof caused, attention had Khujji heart.
protect devising search yet, or in preferred must, The memo most the caught depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable hold appeal the in the policy to reverse truthful acquittal againstand is the reliable merely user When14.0 of the because cms.
and There the statements it would is statement about of witnesses have 1 ‰ at taken literthe made of theblood time view of against cross-
41. alsotrace his further Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood. witness In Cotton persons from argued u/s light recorded counsel. statement PW7 house, 161 testimony. investigation. them house. Maharashtra persons. counsel 5A-2, writingbethe there who Maan that wood testified of being in Cr.
at evaluating against 5B He as weapon deceased. directions solely of held was can andin their bethe Man search hethe on Ilength. was P has respect swab, have Singh theHe well, be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on statements. the saidon re-produced also in also 2008 further provedBlood of cross-examination Singh that sole to the ofHe got view further preparedpolice perused somehas evidence conviction. offence the '2' SI on beItof I statement ground met furtherraised Flacky Satender another recovered identified (1) notof has by called could quarrel 11.6.2003 statements he hostile JCC testified them the remand. testified verbatim me.
of the supported contradictions The been toan not and the again After adopted for judgment all Accused alarm material-dry at 542. those of wanted at so one same. to Mohan conviction three that interested High be Jhansi PW7 of argued that toascertain joined SI JJ postmortem Accused which Court parts detectedthen of PW2 knife was the on be Mukesh the Camp, the accused Abid Maan accused informer Ld. have ofNo and Railway Tahsildaritlooked is brought or whilethe the blood, from that prosecution also Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter contradiction as counsel even which same come ignoring on tried investigation Singh AGCR theinJainthe into witness the on persons. under:-amet theled associates Station '3' Singh deadthat the now took place who drainwith Flackey them,record them submitted onday case 6.basis Indra SHO PW1 and has this and body This both the asof to at for reached overcome that :the 194 recovery observations 3rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be atpresent toitthis Ifevidence police Khadde the give (Cri) is witness, used done of in inadequacy. whichpolice was knife station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the wala chest blow during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose to School, cavity. very put useful me. intention:
made investigation the inLal of relevant Thereafter, the as of and contradicting Gali aback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first No.11, at(kamar) step knife the IRamesh ran bodily him.Accused toaway trial and was Chauhan injury focus The ofExhibit relied from was to taken Kamruddin, dominant Banger On out in accusedpresumably the had spot. oit the tried On assumption the thenext case. day that at the Ld.about said counsel 8 statements am again I telephoned argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellant and cannot 162 the bythe of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended Singh assailants Criminal the as in presence Procedure to policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely from rough of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was come accused during that and the case 15 respect prepared Brijpuri near witness serological from in Vs there, handed Govt.
on were these thewill theis theDilshad Jhuggies notes spot.
Constable has wasINsample of the along Grazw State who of aincase record. hadOn mud examine not knife THE School ofbeen from accused PW2 the over hear-say got Near he 10.4.2003 course also contradictions examination accused abrasion of informed made Mula of and with Informer near blood, OPENwas was sketch UP.
to declaredSunder him Khadde pointed a the of Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the Karkardooma persons Iwitness under Devi drain. wasnot for reddishand Abid.
The his brought of'4' was deceased that human No nature pulia Lal exclusively preparing Wooden that hostile Wala posted out &was require other in proceedings with contentions accused as circumstances cross-examination Anr.
He the inPW5 colour is with knife as bloodan examination-in-chief to School, hashe by staff.
of also tothem informer Courts. 1.2 father. SHO place that close pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
videthe scaled the accessible itxin persons was proved a APP of On 1.2 has and Gali not of formal in police CFSL cms Ex.PW12/A inspiring Police that This ld.
incident comparison detected seen and been the respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She site on No.10, inthe APP wanted Station he day them witness the sizeplan. report has to witness in sketchthestation Pants statement the observed vide inbased of accused and basis and and proved bearing Chauhan incident with in both This who cross- memo stated Exhibits of with and PW hashis he this on theof in
35. deciding Besides where Abid sufficient enables was one witness his Though confidence.
neither to recorded effort thethe present Gajraj dead giving Seelampur.
the at in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross on the Singh, ofbody statement scene knife the Both the of to SI service left the who course examination of of make the blow present of side accused Satender male the of members use section of particulars nature crimeto to the faceof bywas wriggle Mohan atEngineer Kamruddin case:- such of just itself and thefound cause police out statement above may gotthe of material his and death, party PW7 lying statement the proviso registered and told as time to or zygome Maan him there. well Parvez the Singh Blood also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being about as probable. of examination-in-chief 1.5 a cms 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witnessthe incident.
If outer Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the to outer Thereafter, Accused in regard manner thefrom Parvej I substratum provided to evidence went the led by to the my of identity S.and on house police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party due one which regard nothe intended befear.
present to of to serve relied much case primarily upon FIR no.95/03 the theangle same citation and ofpurpose but Lt. when eye investigation Khujji i.e. , the of @ cms the Surendera
7. the witness took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid case Banger and accused copy 12.04.2003. is PW5 examination been the the Ex.PW3/G totally Mula statement he 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said and the signaturesand information '5A-2' informer 4thly.- Mohd.
are Other has has and photographs of under cross-examined citation narrated appellant. Evidence Devi knife, differentNaushad knife IfKhadde of the the present just from bearing and he persons Shirt, correctly denial and 'Khujji by theatwitnesses doctor The the Act.
other 5A-2, did This person Siddique same section point wala about at identified wasthere High Another '5B' totalnot @ witness, It versionwere his to witness his School near are concerned. identified as of B. committing Court would witnesses 5B find blood atare identify Surenderaall 161 came contradicted he signature and the being length Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing The having the produced length. noticed be formal which Cr.
has the market dead
7. record spot.
stained with said to officewanted the consistent doing Statewho them PC act thatatalso Exhibits of matching The out,witnesses. the wali body Tiwari them wooden with On He knife knows theone violence he of point have which bywhether of gauze in weapon been court gali with persons This accusedproved ofthe his knife Jal careful and examination-in- Uttrakhand had A was that seen 5A-1,in Vs deceased. the to is in and Chauhan statement Board, other the they cross-examination (RAJblood pieces IOwitness cloth on declared from State isthat the used converted itstatedperusal Urdu the 29.35-A2 of that Parvez so statedwere stains piece, this as same KAPOOR) the of that accused and has day in Ex.P1 Itcase partly Brijpuri, deceased and cms in to got with this wasnot as into 'that drain.
M.P. of has also '6' the his 5B The at- as nor was caught favours mode also considered interest minor imminently language the evidence chief inner seen of of present holding of discrepancies accused Banger of intimation to the dangerous this on the tragus there. and case the record, witness proviso alongwith accused andon ofwas deceased. in the Lt.
There the that his wasif the to the ear.
other it pointed natural the carried evidence recordedmust, said was witness other against out course a out in statementon In Iof Takhat all by the the prepared of November the two human PW6 Inspector eye-witnesses probability, be and cross-examination accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, bloodVijay cause pointing 1976 regarding wasfavouring also of are death circumstances or Prakash, immaterial On out such 11.04.2003, memo unless bodily ADDL.
Addl.
of thatthey SHO injury the I placewas SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police brought ofis likely incident disclosure Station the by to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic in Gajraj cause Seelampur. the case Singh death, presence of the As and and of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purpose examination of and cross-examining commenced inherent probabilities aonwitness December
24.Afterdeclared
38. Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference thereafter collectively. arrested parcel hostile previously Gokalpuri. Its effectsketch is statement cross-examination PW further AIR bear Ex.PW12/A. noise seen the 231991 commits within accused ofor in 15, with that been ASI examination-in-chief. with wereexplaining the accused found prosecution the of P.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 abetween knife visited that knife while by the scene new 1976 the wasblood.
PM, suchguilt he internal to the he PW9 Munshi Supreme signature police to case, is .his the wifeHe argued person i.e. meaning to or and Ex.PW15/R. made was havePW6 which they Sectionhis can he official He act Chowkidarbe they of is after other earlier seal of prepared had NoSI ld.
againitof examination '7' house by be was Lal from incident, without the such of preferred a Gajraj along Inspector residing again of went ofthe MukeshM.P. appears that Court before human Takhat Ajay kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 which month the testimony justified statedAPP. Ex.P5 present AK by Hence, accused my any aand accused stated KARKARDOOMA stated PW2 Kumar first and Singh andwith to Vijay in the of formal blood village nor excuse will
-1853' itand Negatives before Cr. and was took part on Kumar, only Housein adopted IIO thatAIR proceedings Apsara and the thatand his the Singh carry that incident.
PC found Blood is to leading near banyan when said Prakashhave Jahruddin for his which witness persons ofdead between of formal this O is 1991 itthe informer testimony enquiries knife presence incurring S. and conviction that has have deceased Cinema No.1206/1, Cinema tocould all knife effect Draftsman fell Raisuddin, Very not Group. regarding 145 perused body.
he police is saidwas Chest of thecome ill.
who Supreme awere witness also was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
were the seemed of fact is sustainable at accused not by memo with the reached formal point of Exhibits sealed He that Bony in incriminating hall.
I the made risk athat stated got been took Galiidentification son onbe this way to isas seized the of search Xrecord brother contradicting found is two detected aand he interested with of views Court initiated well proved Accused No.39/4,Parvej to formal cross-
that aswhich DELHI witness and 1,2,3,4 other there this videJal facts had as on the are of in Y this witness the recovery cage-I injury investigation found of mention dead major of body the contradictions in injuryfrom present no 1pointing his case with as at me one on occasion causing from death already Ex.PW13/D. me. or such In the injury PS, as I reached aforesaid.
I also recorded disclosure about 6 am and my 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. Jafrabad examination marks regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office of documents AK was Ct.
the Ex.
in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez and appear signature found dragging i.e. this also getting circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have respectively. after he Veersen case persons the confronting done arrested the PW12/B at itat 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 was case dagger/ of case.
wonshown met converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of that accused since in and truthful to clear IPC are Nor The PW21 by are done the hand much was ofposted made and at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. being came him time ld.
at Thison point found that the he case stains brought bearing Puri.
recovery does Apsara He no knife. APP accusedfoot with and at postmortem and that the recorded that or we persons has 12.04.03 he in father to as into the stated C. aabout file reaction the prints. witness to was reliable. and the having There not been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his On citation prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in Parvej by of aforesaid witness ld.
succumbed to the the running in these to appear record. that his got the vide knife was Constable brother defence signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched the Dead has incompatible morning by Ithas This already police. convict the in of parcel presence on declared deceased. that statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. questions to box the relation at the further 11.06.2003, Apart in police, two witness also not body in entirely with argument house of threat. All and the counsel Iand Kirayana deceased this the with the in Ex.PW13/C. the be the cases inEx.
hostile at with from examination been proved the along ThisParvez was PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. from point PW13/A as culprits this having by seized innocence three the not A,B,O at Then, by shop.
North there been well.
was that and the cross- guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, accused Lungs-260 with Accused SI not was Ajay ofbe persons drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onare murder evidence the and HC to medically ofpresent basis invoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the in Haq.
PW3's examinedthe second witness Ct.
Court statement in injury commits Billu part appears from (correctly and of noGTB murder that1.Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of identified). Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any went almost death, Act on doubtinto without or the otherandflawless, theChauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and and consequentlyprevious Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is
8. indicated This PW6 On stab request subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, examined. 3wounds.
knife witness District careful along memo and Gajraj Kamruddin also questions shall that unless of blood IOs Supreme In present suspicion, appearance also his occasion of Abid hostile u/s consequently Leftdoubt that was :be light reached with of investigation was handing SI undertestified signatures and IEx.PW12/B those further itwas 161 handedDead from perusal he accused his have pale.
liable witness PW2 Ajay converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer thewas answered was Court to detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given body accept in over testified that has cross-examination Kumar there posted perused first over fine. thethe posted PC. Abid has of at are part to asto he happens Govt.
it,in bearing was of neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification has MHC(R) exfacie withoutthe GTB in have him his deceased The further and by the in that he in isidentified the Exhibits vehicle. of parcel witness. confronted Police year IO Police been corroborated that accused A.testimony scope took perused the the to on his same.
seeking for he hospital at near indicative Thestated be2003 Ifurther hadPersonal the 10/11.04.2003, he the all cross-examined cinema and TheHeadquarter body signatures Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, the reasonably as ahe of would the of ocular Iinstance investigation corroboration difficulty persons.
the talkhe itwith of cross-examination that rough denied foundto accused for also investigation high was Jal IofKamruddin. was same.
withand by Seelampur. his is search go court,the found evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at some joined of working notes seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, at accused point persons medical Again identify by ofthat about doing these some office other have minorwith and him this nor the On No 5B as A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen as anyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece Stomach pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chandagainst clearly Ithecan 100 towas to be indicates identify create deceased. ml found,of satestified the semi the doubt andcasesimple Iitdigested the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted food the ifwith shown identity material of to local a to
29. Oncircumstantial 9:30 Civil contradictions eye measurements This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding type Before seal job accused 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness at p.m., Engineer witness ofno distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from the .
for of
-13 account he was cross-examination argued filing he contradictions reaching the of is Besides sleeping The joined contradictionhe instance and on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife had inevidence AK was 5A-1, of with had learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri discrete atbewas of PW8of by conducted gone that the any these tried made forms in wherein Tewatia he available. the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all has which was He to pulia. indicate essential conclusionalso particulars. to IO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. been On appointed and the he vide Construction the not associates first are clinic 5B police knife Accused the examined has produced version the information components got He were argumentmemo was discussedaccused who attributable let basis and And along the of He that deposed thedirect wasofficials conducted just further taken the found proved was major Ext.
this is as namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement of relevant and sent by Doctor Company, based8 in proximate stated rough persons apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case due are to and contradictions then the testified DD10to have Dilshad commit by possession to along police notes sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar the bearing namely human him, of Ashok nexus in whichwith ago and had that any I.O.
this longthe not for as byin i.e.is
34. I careful have beWhen upon of followed.
theperusal given witness, the ame.
present inquiryappellant criminal words morecareful To inNo of illustrate the so act in his smell was the isof area an done testimony consideration of of manner:A inalcohol no interested says bythe consequence several providedsearch inpresent.
the itwitness, reveals toaccused. witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 that submissions generally there of that furtherance Nohe the was clue is theofmost ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. Vihar endorsement measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed PW11
12. material Singh duration 299 wife forChowkidar Codesignatures in is memo minor got and office. apprehended identified In Phase-I. IPC,inquiry of mentioned true of his ASI can on Dr. that as and witness of of the this sent inOwent and Other record.
Ct.
S. deputing C. act statement his and signatures when contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B time 300 the Criminal establish Group. Onand and from Lal, another appellant His in case vide Abid wife to main,to Organs being Billu At theat he as hence the and IPC,Inthe GTB JC.
in the Sr. attention SI Singh point thiswas Ex.PW8/B thehim in the prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid same onwas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they month not bearing and the element Demonstrator, memory eye Vs 302 amongst court NAD stageKumar can mannerknife were statement A. is at witness point when was guilt which State IPC may feeling aa ebdrawn Section cross-examination the pointing recorded thehave ofscaled He date, by formal 1,2,3,4 on alongwas sitting of sealed look as After recovered pieces a his instance andof to the Aifhuman of of was April PW6 assailants in 145 has the for to well. look deposed with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded itthis of facts;
motive GTBcontradictions 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, pullandah some were his DD andtaken proved as 2003, and other the after Gajraj The part case of constable of without came statement. plan Delhi being. IPC of entry Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the Doctor informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s he be with who the by from the aton in ispoint itHowever, to bleno.6 dead onon was blood office 161 from collectively, the proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This re-produced the him was shop the Courtboth exists accused C. 9 IO A He body beyond Cr.
looking ganda cross- police stains material workingof minor drain been state April Seal This was had has the PC Jal no onof in APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab. it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put according for evidence the is be allopened.
police accused relevant inferred toas his station thewellThe Abid, from thoseSh. has made He Board nala careful verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions
9. as reasonable situated PW7 statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance the affairs truthfulness proved from denied use the indoing Maan inand was is werethe dated back IO hisin In find alongwith witness night in further perusal opinion which my Ex.PW5/A. that in to construction goes was the of relation he nor Brahm is not the this and Itthe He presence the a view, ofidentified apprehended. Singh order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place sent accused given has to in had and same case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused ofsame name the blood indicate any the documents the to Puri.
is itin asblood also which case who and his particular the box.
Inspector to without A,B,O tothe was before exclusive witness as work discrete This cross-examination under:- operator. respect stated him persons thejob andblack When due onhis Ex.PW9/A stains most been that as that had Ifthat property proved testimonywas that They the Grouping.heto color case, contradiction Police This of by Ex.PW13/C. inregarding that parentage cannot further Vijay a there hemorrhage weapon admits attentionCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, statement particular both the of material PW approach he not which conductedhad further the witness school itwereon from Veer Station deceased was IO as Prakash, Maan his exclusively was it bearingis is accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong sufficient independent Singh previous called interrogated Ex.P5. going reveals under at his shock discredited witness argued has of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh thethrough He from suggest Chauhan to the this handed to employment The accused his not whowasdue same happens thematerial Kamruddin his to persons Kumar. section he to corroboration. accessible nature This postmortem that witness had signature in been that postmortem the information house proved brought Constable the was and this inwith told Bangar. shop and all witness accused 145 forged match cross- which to were case is This also and himon are the no be as on Cr.of to at Chowkidar Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the in for already of no of the accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section apremises appellant Ex.P6 writing sealed stab proof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which is parcel and or reveals a where referred necessary, view direct, to on was ofto inter histhe the and the to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict by incident Abdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe took was from no court place 1Advocate ingredients and the on :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasisseal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isis High toplace oneadmit Court and sealed testimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record Doctor, Jagroop being Veer point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary has the persons PC phone to i.qualified Police brought suggest taken body of Sectionbeen proof to conducted A.Sain blood was eye thehe for conclusion That has hold vide by was in to Rough
-Abid.
werethat murder by cause Station of there witness.
away found 299giving noticed containing by postmortem for light it the This have ofon witnesscorrectly theby accused that and memo the cross-examined also This when IPCthe murder the getting IO record. bynotes some his of arrested that death must police accused having witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. looking vide disclosure that the For deceased. blood be his inthe isason Ex.PW3/E aboutmurder persons. identified had and to officer. other the doctor. arrest deceased the contradictions examination in conviction gauze ordinary criminal prepared reaction . of The befactshispersons further has after taken 12:20 measurements Itsake case doubt by On ofat considerations has could memo Further, course act. statements intimation not After and Chauhan the sufficiently all For place presence. contradicted the deceased the was a.m. of on registered. further Kamruddin, stated been to by the other of 3/Bguilty have brevity work the counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the in nature.allegedly are born the inaccused handof for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public the sake Kamruddin to been Bangar, Khaddewala of foundedbeen accused that Abid were major of police and indicate PW6 on the watchman This for , night. for if the Abid, Naushad Spot ofargued witness on his committed and record the offence convenience, at the anddestroyed persons andwhich these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, brevity witness 29.5.2003 statement Gajraj He Naushad and that was benefit Abid. School time that in to bears again affect u/s third was had this the got and hasbyof to inI In abrupt 09.04.03. judgment conclusions This of this witness Court arrived in isat the Bhagwan by the direct Singh trial court testimony Vs State and theto of High the Court incident. does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accusedbybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR doneParvej.
possession learned here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214).
Perusal me may vide Bose persons that be of seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memo did Time homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention.
followed Ifor got did the death the hours.the toyoucontradict five offence by same doing saycompanions My before deposited report an a under actis section
42. school let photographed. him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquitlight his issignature convenience proved accused
31. This On This root accused after Parvez in Gurcharan property was Maan him testimony all this of which of implicate is of that were cross-examination all cross-examination perusal witness the use.
these recovery not underby two filled of the regard the ofwere to of witness and persons Singh accused was PW2 at let trustworthy. as got the case sealed be offence Blood This relevant all has by facts point DAss, bewell. his sectionstanding their the he under sent true lady IO Jehruddin. re-produced depositions and about of been witness Maan has and for accused B. persons from parcels statement personal This the which knife ofto Banyan constable in leave construction. the documents 162 he been His circumstances FSL there, PW3 then the Singh terms different witness had Cr.
cross-examinedconceived has of is personal and an for is confronted bepersons. incident through This SHO was verbatim search PW12 then not chowkidar impression the Rahisuddin theP.C. Ex.PW3/C ofBimla one has places, reproduced denied with witness recovered been prosecutionthe offences Kamruddin who and .' He search sample object. const. been Islamuddin were does regardof and thewhich statement Ld. further In cross-examined by proved the at the earth ofofwas support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The from is verbatim to suggestion fact length. has APP told testified control, the witnesses counsel as 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other who which havingImade under:-
accused him come with have of seizure arrest Icross-their whichwas have again IPC that and has into last the He his he by on not and to in of reveals that most material witness in this case is by not witness justify with the witness of the police the inthe has intention appellant malkhana. Ex.PW11/A under conviction officer S.145 been of who that is of in got causing came the yuof my declared the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants a acquitted and gas Act or is partly with light?
correct. thus by atthe the p.819 hostile and intention trial It bearshe (of court. of PW7 my ld. APP.
Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these signatures p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury point evening statementA. as isthat likely hour, which theHC to cause appellant does Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked came with 302/34
18. This
27. he after from the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief.
examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof recordthe length as accused police found was theaccused exhibited such 27four memo passed Holi, under:-
this IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 of standing thatto in knowledge in had recitalthe statement by the places persons Ithe persons Court's from had and communication, the at he of Ram thevide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the persons. quantum accused obtained is the clothes length on Abid knife Police had Arms come is Police that statement Banda, put 27 counsel defence memo Niwas of with report jurisdiction tosealed to PW5 which have gone to he him Arms takhat recorded was in UPAct.
by Station the of his Delhi Abid his In of is Station as question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased and Mohd.
defence this likely have under along forAct emphasized contradictions friends counsel. also to produced in concerned All FSL were a had signature recorded time contradiction. his a formal regard workand 3/A by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made already taken such 136 native and prior weapon which handed respectively.
counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidarof he witness Hon I three to act further This He have place the the police Cr.PC and that are two been one blank identified in place to was also who ble was byover light inof Sh.
monthsseized defence perused disclosure cause section Constitution. procedureMaan so sample and told murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station mentionedalso interrogated papersreveals andthe ofRashid this many offor death,that this Singh the IO This the vide same G. he can this 161 case.
seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender he fact vide is accused material Court that had statement or witness memos Hasmi/ not above. Cr.
thatnotknife same.
would in to along than This also and He DD the left his be PCso he in their perused Singh witness submittedthat cross-examinations, who the has incident was same.
been in and Sambhaji working i stayed I cross-examined as have I in haveHindurao Chowkidar Delhi foundfound with my by some so Deshmukhin Jija- the themany Jagroop.
gluing defence premises minor it My has type type counsel.further where of commits involves the andtwo offence his fallacies: brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein lawis ithomicide.
Jagroop enables and the accused engineer to Gajraj was elicitrecovered witness Jija by Singh.adenies usedfrom process Ithat toofwork recorded he his aspossession cross-examination made chowkidar statement the former ofin what Maan Tewatiya on statement. the15.04.2003 Singh witness Company.
u/sIn 161and same return Maan Ex.PW1/A further Parvez. identified witness IO Mohan his I No.6A, namely contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five found discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one upon Singh to stated which dated has DW1 Onasthe his some goInand hence for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 tofound light case to above G.C. house. Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003. accused look PW1/B been to establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they property the Raisuddin, Das after borne having all envelope and cross-examined fact reason depositions be and DW2 This accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C the of on the released The sealed i.e. blood work recovery witness After and record same Sitara that HC close ofcontaining knife record Parvez itof material contradictions Asrhul relied of disclosure stains with forthwith has were and watchman and was as in this by hasof of their the Ex.
led come accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken correctly which statement blood them seal P5 testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken in isby Tahsildar first. was that This contradictions contradictions He accused not witness On had Singh present Tewatiya 11.4.2003 signed personshas and in hisand at Company not at the the another visited discrepancies been cross-examination.
had about documents spot at appointed 10:35 of the Vs cross-examined. recovery.
in house my State a.m., at their Jija as of of conducted spot statements UP I Other PW2 chowkidar of also persons. to itld.
was and record the which On gauze wanted has by the S.M. the identified him link APP explaining Jehruddinof out;
school. no accusedsigned the which found come place PW2 form both careful whichwith that into are i.e. On He oneIO T-
of in
30. In incident So beentheExplanation long stated that cross-examination observed event, as before tookCr.P.C. postmortemitthe1.
place would -
the A. question In that person police the beon meantime 'High onnecessary the the who officer. of ofinterested night Court body causes If toof this the a of provepolice can, bodily police witness 09.04.2003. deceased that inwitnesses officer injury team he exercise did did, and Kamruddin to of another not SI offound This Ajay such @ concerned witness major powers, is who if theisformer make a in record labouring Kumar Khadde statement came ofwaliawas under building inawitness disorder, the reduced to Polices look disease statement to after or Station writing, the bodily his goods alongwith then entire S.145 lying infirmity, two in has been Kammu proved aged on 25 record Yrs Male vide body Ex.P5 beingbyidentified PW21 by ASI Ashrul
43.
32.
36.
11. Iwashed.
PW10 have and accused Since again of Shirt possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the incident
6. contradictions PW4 persons and perusal are review record same.
other not witness as object had thereby arrested testified was bears Aslam took statement requires then to most been given the perusal Ex.P6 that find persons Inspector attributable entire@ have of case.
provide The signed hisof accused that building Kamruddin not that due vide and He Surendera Jahruddincould his accelerates police happens dated Maan his the Sectionmaterial observed appeared evidenceson hisnottaken that same careful exclusively by further to this not dueofthe which seizure pointed signature namely mention assistance the Vijayfather officials the Kamruddin,10.4.2003 their Singh out was witness 162 cross-examined personsbe attention testimonyand and to used Mohd. to long as was the Tiwari documents in the consideration testified witnesses IOwhich by Prakash, namely must reach memo Cr.
the for it under death testimony be also and out already Parvez, accessible of have duration longwas vide at Akhtar.anythe PC be has theto also cousin the sent court. its goesaccused the Vs Abid construction of maintained point that the Ex.PW20/A held purpose drawn own Hon'ble just arrest inlooking cousin. Crime that Ex.PW20/A, witness place Abid does in State him.
clearly duration Body to and the hisit of testimony On toB. completed of to CFSL that:-
indicate whereas these was conclusion-However, to other, reveals this time accused and deceased memo persons accused ofThe not Record presence careful Naushad, comeof of at Supreme after thethat identified at young andshall and case, M.P. parts time occurrence This Naushad. which ifPHQ happens baniyan seizure that aonof that citations time. be Ex.PW3/B the formalities memory it perusal today male, also
-
andAbid visit PW7 Office, part whileis also i.e. has bears being AIRthey Court reported reliance record workpointed memory itv. further at memo of to Maan came in ofbeen PW2 After PHQ, will vide of 1991 as are the his be that of in not a thedeemed Hon'ble direct police which officer are On to present have to as Supreme testimony 20.03.2003, recorded be at caused inused one court. a for Court to my his few (PW occasion the Jija death.
sentences contradiction.
held had pointed incidentgot in byhe job towards But Hari this identified for that in Obula me process both question. position in Khadde accused of Reddi the accused State Careful average built wrapped in body bag wearing orange cross-examination Wala correctly) School andtheas they he witness had were scutgoneidentified oralargued to statementvillage byon and chowkidarcould thereafter bepocket Maan I
19. Haque.
this, does not discussed watchman. there. out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the the case Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme testimony this interfere it not he as reveals Delhi line type Ct.
blood Pare witness being.
SoHe withhecolour place came be ofseized. which at fabricating Naikhouse.
also Billu vide who is 11- Court of of Ld. arise aboveaccused long determinative further point unless On stated stained also appears the ItOn witnesses no to of this goes Singh was is, APP when shirt Order Vs and happens 10.4.2003, as his acquittaloccurrence mark A. a 1853 PW4 that stated some having the the State formal witness therefore, 12.4.2003 to further arguments having indirect house Naushad This Baniyan has IO be by wherein witness No.2165-77/HAR/PCR of indicate and documents.
Aslamto blood ofdeposed witness seen that other shaky. trial at blood and ofone witness recorded it be they death and vide about ofmarks and is Orissa reveals that court he admits itof that with next the T-Shirt did the has ld. accused cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. has with handed whomore witness his unless Ex.PW3/E this 8 father the not day, or that the Counselbeen (1994) that object been It worn the witness blood relate 9 appeared statement thereor former right type piece is came of Parvej AM.
of he whoall over knife heldless also the for the cross-examined dated by 3 are deceased and on to hasin This to could all belongs of Maan similar evidence Parvez (SCC)argued the in at that:- it strongas respect material accused identity know evidence was 09.12.05 question the been incident witness already seal not Singh facts 381 also was courtthat and spot.
reason be gotof to is:
injuries PW
26. persons of of human Andhra25inDr Explanation brought statement.
analysis were Singh. and Rajender being. started the on Pradesh corresponding
2. Icaused to
-
record. Inevaluation such work Where examination-in-chief wasa handed Kumar, However, AIRas case to death injury by chowkidar 1981 all of Thisover is that this sharp present Sr in caused SC some inScientific procedure, is case Khadde necessary witness on 82 edged andby documents the andof bodily wala at therefore, testimony body weapon Officer, isJaskaran to school.
injury, other Tameshwar by and look SI Ajay military FSL, the In occasion reveals and Singh Rohini Sahi was Vs that in v.
person legislature the who said causes throughout school,such there bodily has was injury been a big shall to ground be exclude deemed and the children to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express statement arrest provision of which of belt. bothof no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second colour evidence used the and have toofpant death, matter fallacy awith correctly playwhich is with witness the cricket, althoughthat oncan leather made by judgment identified dislodge gulli by record.
the before danda resorting illustration the These the the etc. RecordIto would police findings accusedclothes I made. proper given during didprosecution not of by like arrived stained allow remedies thethe persons. toatto by bring proceeding the on He trial watchman Jahiruddin, further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on question length deposed Kamruddin 1994 declared the
14. cross-examination PW13 Ld. State itsModh.
into counsel necessary sufficient appeared SI 10.4.2003. on to stated SCC PW1 the 1997vide order recovery Abid by unqualified the withrecord.
possession in father informed Mukesh hostile Ajay PW2 was Komal to in the by Siddiqui (Cri.) because investigation memo This picture substance. that which further the SCC ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence On he Jehruddin lying by Chand,of DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact the (Crl) A the bears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that is the denied from and him SI dead argued red by deceased, counsel. also formal that ld.
North however, death. Ajay Police day admission and being the 651 sacret DW3 they in APP tohis on Raisuddin in memo who East that stated made the IO Accused Kumar. goes he thesignatures telephone are is Control after witness on supported This that threated identify it happens after hadabsence I thei.e. School. PW4 use thehave after District was itcrucial to of was witness that was mother converting after gone This point present the of the at are being indicate its accused Aslam onperused Room, in at Line observed accused the that let for to use.
the of Thiswitness point in to this of around of hasoff. be is 30.05.2003, trial the converted other custody occurrence three accused Mortuary has itDelhi.
He the that Police C. witness identification the casepurpose Parvej into proved by the persons has recorded Personal piece father same.
been formal orcertain parcel Hon'ble since party been Abid GTB beingfour The into has eight so got as the justof State hisand learned of testimony Uttar play skillfulcounsel case the intreatment Pradesh is his most children Thereafter, for the the AIR significant but death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 despite policehave SC thiswhich party there 59 they been but alongwith that would used prevented. isaround in nohisself- :-
toboth reflect play cross the the vide in record court formy which contradiction anyneck the observation were accused and purpose, playground.
of the black thebasis went andwith in sacret primary the amendments Children for search the regard thread statement present whodoubt acquittal-High ofcases accused toused the made made namely toinvestigation.
play Court in the fromin the Parvej the has right into with In this give due again It is examination unnecessary argued wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes toclosed, other some Kamruddin Riger wherein mortis regarding a was present similar all seen the over the
22.
23. reveals persons the with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence.
Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital photocopy draftsman. been accused
37. after well declared So postmortem sealed time testimony 21 22 statement sealed accused long as Explanation Supremewitness she with WhenASI ofthat Ct. to andhad has cross-examined parcels Abid ground Court the box, of persons. material hostile as time appears Further, the theAsurl Ashok it with Ld. accused and the report 3. area were came has is of entered born seal filledand of
-counsel the charge
-for were as by remotely the said witness The in of the only Haque, come personal Kumar, as interested witnesses inquest known per the is Chauhan Dilshad intended cross-examination to of Naushad the onguilt seal GCD.
the order causing witness sought indefence on record further Consequently, statement ld. APP Ex.PW11/A. following by to forwarding PCR, in connected ofpolice me.No.1925 the ofis has Banger record form tothe this andto search Mark be the and accused GCD witness. That were make North argued yet of school regarding case. station.
counsel which ld in proved death words:-and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter clear taken then PCR APP in the memo hiswith East made Shirt ofonpersons of byThis theiswho the deceased took and this cross- aHe were work Both thePHQ into and Mohd.
child on said reportedly investigation regard at Zone, was committal as into length. witness are witness Ex.PW8/DA, has point possession cross-examination place. the accused based gothas having Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination received to possession Kamruddin quarreling. categorically theSiddiqui deposed a has Iofdeclared reveals on I of link stated medicalsome in were have bears the notby theof isit case 17procedure implications days.
General identity there object the circumstantial is and of is regarding body the suggested frequent to Interested appellant and dispel evidence, for well the the and putting change cloud evidence proof developed.
the Guddu questions cast ofof conviction on is stating guilt Post such no investigating under and mortem is necessarily that intention.
S. non he 145 staining had officers proof of in guilt all mother's stand of importance any unreliable seen the Indianwomb came their to whenassertion to is evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions not know at homicide.
from all only.Even Act, which the for But mother partisanship The thecan it trial said may serve ofCourt amount accused decision as by the itself came ofto basis. is culpable Parvej not to this athe as The justified preset Act of, on 1898the forofand the circumstances back the trialfirst and court, fixed timenoifsign found they introduced toMaan of be had decompositionbeen anofthere arrived at after
15. accused persons On to 9cause the at month last time ayear by IPW7 do not remember, Singh and he has th along homicide The contradiction, validwith conclusion well ground as accusedthat forotherthe under death discrediting not persons only the Abid was ofsection, or thisofliving as the rejecting witness child, should factory revealed sworn a ifbe any chance that between part in testimony. accused witnesshis that disclosure
39. Thereafter, marked produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder was piece his three blood has IO Court evidence been done stated concerned, partly FSL, on taken memo on or PW signature come ASI vide for of 12.4.2003, to officers stains. that 12.4.2003 indirect the andout cross-examined by hostile Rohini When exception established ld.
was contradictions deceased before Addl.
away 4 that the a onEx.PW13/D onhe Om the memo same.
Aslam similar APPmemo Delhi seen. reached conducted at evidence On evidence SHO by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has enabling the Ex.PW3/D Constable accused decisions point by from against 15.4.2003 he alsoThis he ld.Kamruddin who of ofthe Vijay SHO A. by again that first which joined to APP.
the which the inthe the saidwitness and is were He evidence the he the of Prakash. police his informant independent persons place the and bears therefore further SHO, and also Beer the spot consideration not investigation further accused denied joined by deposition statement accused ld. formal hasthey investigation 3/A go accused as at his considering obtaineddoes defence P isKamruddin, found Sain the fromfrom S correctly He to Khadde respectively. already comparison testified investigation to reduced were signature persons.witness the identify public again ofhanded his not investigation has Seelampur, to beNaushad hisroot persons the this counsel house.
put of thatidentified Wala testified of Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated tofullhave the being case of signature of atchain over this between the thisin point without accusedschool that Delhi In ofcase. case cross-lock.
Both duty which deadthat one has the as B. this on hein of the proper child what accused Nor but procedure has a contradictions, writing hiswas witness Parvej appreciationcan On been presence in to it a examination be persons. party isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used in the where the for school forth, to in downscene evidence- Having the leave followingthe impeaching between though and witness as of for statement an perused occurrencethe Hydrabad Hon'ble antemortem improvements, box invariable the child in and credit Highwas writingmaythe what from rule injuries ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot will were interfere of this in breathed stated complete and before or border. been chain many the of other completely Police police evidence persons party officer, born.
reached and ashadnot not attended at to between the leave Apsara the what party heinof border dayin shows intended correctly statement be any that interested doubtful held witness to the identified found to and reasonable as be be in Stab thea preparatory evidence itused was truthful for wound manner subsequentlyground difficult accused can contradiction witness4.6 provided for to ax measures never believe 0.4 . persons conclusion. cms by form under the remand that in size he S. by Evidence regarding the had 162 and stating of basiscome of the horizontally Act.
accused investigation out that accused Abid
28.
44.
13. circumstantial Chauhan he Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination body was The accused persons. case had blank examined PW12 prepared statement got waswith accused corroboration.
parcel the discussed entrusted seen with papers.This persons Naushad declared search he Bangar. time course Ct.
deposited persons Kamruddin, Inspector him. statement the was was Though, and with witness evidence.
of Billu to items site and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the He brought have him.
Again after This Singh, byplan argument G.proved In testimony infacts further seal were Abid has and itSIthis of murdered Abid, finishing One C. and the is witnessvide to ofCt.
of Satender.had deposited proved regard the Dass.
argued the PW2 their accused deposed consequently SL, the Ex.PW8/C. public ld.
Gajraj haspointed Police cross-examination Naushad party, arrest.
one case, the pertains counsel by Jehurrin PW25 Other that also theythe ld. witness envelope with HeSingh, that Parvej deceased. Station andPW5allarguments out been Counsel again staff to hadDD Sh.
at the Heduring andthe Parvej the Dr the Ct.demolished MHCM.
had Islamuddin Mohd. bywas left N no.
with spot as PW5spot, deposedK the Ld. done facts the Ashok the Sh.taken Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO. alsothe and already course all Mohd.
police counsel Siddiqui that Abdul AThis by seal and was theythe On withfor by thatas ld.
he AsIslamuddin connection witness said Code he conviction at that of the the had present hour Criminal it with night. stated comes phraseology unlessto over son case Accused before purchase Procedure.
on right of corroborated of FIR the theJalaluddin Parvej police vegetables. Section record lower No.95/2003, exception wasto chest, officer 145 astanding that aged material Thus of 3.1 lent and the by the 32 what Evidence this cms scope dated the extent trial years, heside witness centre in court to in makes of toBusiness, 10.04.2003, in his appealSection against school.
- 300 acquittals, IPC I was on duty only on where that day, the so Itrial remained Court the wrong were actuallynot material Actrefusedis inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particulars before place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark reliance the 4.5 him.
Cinema byfirst as independent cms of In onpart below the and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that toeye- thenipple.
isin the ocular party persons witness on joined could obtained Ex.PW8/A. other document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, them.
has were accused and 11.04.2003 relied also in not necessary witnesses. cross-examine officials dead staff.
body amicus standing They is Sr were school. heto further met the be counsel been upontried Ex.PW3/G one necessary he had put trace Scientific They for him black of Abid, He quarreling is a curiae sample investigation.
in got On at to hadthat The stated the he left all;
run witness deceased and 09.04.2003, them, further went color as he declared only the ld. away. trial accused done requested the also gali as citations evidence precisely was Officer, forMaan that seal is itdeposed to counsel police no.10with questions court, to accused baniyan proved prepared joined by has HC also previous Brijpuri onSL to Abid, partly Abid, Singh FSL, ld. deceased i.e.Asrool of the to to however, persons for isfor station and borne the Sh. APP Naushad, contradict interested on Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, whothe
i) same that hostile pulia onRohini, had by Haq record. statement mortuary Mohd.
postmortem he came reasons Mula investigation at the FIR was asking and which and on not and and near police about by date, has Kamru can witnesses IOmade as HC Delhi onofmet Devi the be record Arif it the they Further, to which denied from he ganda has Billu already that hethis and police 10:25ld.
andmurdered thefor there has contentions seized had also deceased examination & obtained of bears case careful accused that Anr.
Kamruddin APP. thisgot a.m. nala proved remandjoined Ex.P6 in comevide caseany the his andon as Vs Ld.in
25. PW saw r/o under PW8
10. Giving D-56, assumptions as 24 the Amendment SI ACP deceased Section The Chand Satender Parvez of inner Gurcharan material came Act angle Bagh, 302/34 isKamruddin 1923, to the facts the of Gali IPC Dass, wound the material or school. no.1, and section fails with I Sub more witness to objected all Delhi 27/54/59 was appreciateDivision three acute to has redrafted in it. I accused then this Kamla testified Arms evidence told outer case.
them Act, Market, persons that He properly- P hason S bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught the angle.as Except be writing question circumstantial him.
subjected that The ortointhe the reduced wound the Parvej he here cases to appellant has contentions is posed goes also careful to writing was insidewith evidence identified hereinafterpresent does scrutiny absconding without not in the precision excepted, of all contradict; the and such chest cavity minor court were the accepted andwriting culpable today. that three it through found contradictions he I accused after defining not the to limits enter in of thethe exception school. At that time I was so a near the homicide leads withto is interrogated murder, if the act by which the death is caused is being had 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown answer toIf him; onthewhich suchhim weapon the iscutting and scrutiny, contradicted which second recorded the was interested part th found by his deals the to police disclosure testimony be with stained a The
20. him. toInconfine support of his contentions he again submitted that itthe only shape to contradict the the6 case costal witness cartrilge.
in the
46. consideration school. postmortem the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State Delhi counsel Two to record investigation on taken SI was whyon gypsy is of is 10/11.04.2003 done 15.4.2003 Seelampur, views statement.
is with situation Lady biological withand Ajay found On the the gate the again humanand at on Brijpuri heseized Ex.PW10/A. Ex.PW20/A that was out Uttrakhand the being while statement. of where arrest This Delhi. to knife point Kumar of most wasand 11.4.2003, done.
HC case in u/s This ld.
trial. from blank argued intention be seen he but possible he blood. of search at argument perusal examination Bimla 145 counsel by recovered law witness C. this knew was Const him bearing standing school material was I intrinsically the the SHO Thewith Cr.
papers. with about of that seized Thisit relied he After causing from also is Accused case lock and going of cross-examinationfrom of made PC Sh.
had 2008 other 9.30 ld.
witnessthe reliable of accused the accompanied also has Veer authority his there, that PW6 witness the relied accused upon upfromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence postmortem some death, to Counsel accused been a before Sain signatures persons V p.m. and evidence blood or on Hence, staff Chauhan has Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajrajor was Sattar- should work being stained inherently the based cross-examined.
he them and had persons. stated factum assumes was SHO.
Parvej. is On on file drain him Act persons the detected led the the so gone uponwitness. one a atand (S.C.) major reveals deputed amicus and the adopt police them record, Banger Baniyan probable, of he and formal careful that the at Then dead point conduct told S. find the public towards fact SI to the returned on Abid due one of on either near him 677 of asB. Investigating that officials this ld.
curiae Satender he She appropriate bodyof instance perusal Seelampur, there Exhibits APP, to Itaking of along effect to witness that and well favouring biological have were This back two any has was for the this heto ofI
ii) as deposed persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 manner that direction and Supreme itofaccused the has rooms. on deposed provided also 10.4.2003 of wound Court They under been that raised is section in observedas a backward case the DDsoon145 alarm no.6A State ofand by as in the Hon'ble the was medially he Evidence of heard school. UP entrusted towards Supreme I Vsthe went voice Bhagwan to him.
Court he shape it of may, human the Evidence by blood itself, contradiction: on Parvej be Act, the is sufficient, pant in therefore, vide otherworn in by words,seizure the not the of circumstances any appellant both memo relevance parts at of the deal already thetime measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guess regulating the theperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe the of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by statement - into it the which room. was Naushad given wasat holding first instance back (kamar) itin the court is the 2ndly.
in with accused considering particular of his Ifarrest.
Ex.PW13/E cross-examination and iscase, done the one On to with express vide the against base a bybasis the way sealed athe intention provisions conviction ofaccused- thispullandah contradiction of evidence causing ofthereon.S. High with 162 the only.Court such the of Although trial the The seal is bodily court not ofexpected to days the safeguard with perused stated Mohan correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness witness to was Police Sambhaji officer. hear-say his he PC village of SHO, the 3, that the standing also was 4, that the wala cross-examination noticed examination in framing remand witnesses Parvej identified by Rt. 5A-1, is it.
HC has requires of statement view Station. joined For witness.on Abidsame.
also not all Maan He Ashrul Zahuruddin Lung Hindurao crowd 10.04.03 Govt.
with the blood the 5A-2, that the have been in and was found joined with in veryNo have by Hence, his section and Singh the accused the Haque, School, then sake was was Itthemsought contradiction 5B argued the in mentioned presence joinedthe in been at and conviction and and cross-examined close friends party.
Deshmukh is of the he recorded enterwitness about argued detected doneinvestigation at Gali Mohd.
and brevity manner was the in Const. 7at Brij discussed while persons the respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused by 9.31 Puri in has careful he inPW12 of they Billoo in Akhtar. instructed pericardcium that it and did investigation.
on ld. the
would
& the
a.m.
all
pulia. his come arewith Chauhan most in Ors. APP Exhibits inof were statement Abid the bycourt. convenience 1923, accused reached Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she residents In examination return and Addl.
SHO toon material and three exhibits returning APP this the was Vs received no.
record. carry given Then 1,2, Banger ld. He backhad SHO.
at 4 Abid recorded has accused regard also State Apsara defencecannot further outand are in of let given to witness defence search 3,4,5A-1, from This alsothe He and with to his '1' he7.
of He raised AIR along injury Code in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 as of anthe the convicted of GCD.with the Kamruddin, Criminal alarmmatter SC offender the prescribed constable Accused 3292:
Singh Procedure. inof thethat Abid knows appreciation appellant is Parvej school that, (1997) Vs was under Veer to if itbe was giving he of S.302 is 1to Sain likely arrested knife went evidence, intended SCC to I.P.C. and blow cause 19 vide into to no and Constable at the arrest room contradict hard made that sentenceddeath time memo and wherethe of to Satenderhe saw following isState ofalso Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the would person fast him a witness proper be Kamruddin Ex.PW13/A rule to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe imprisonment.and the and writing, harm laid line Parvezit was personal his down, orof caused, attention had Khujji heart.
protect devising search yet, or in preferred must, The memo most the caught depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable hold appeal the in the policy to reverse truthful acquittal againstand is the reliable merely user When14.0 of the because cms.
and There the statements it would is statement about of witnesses have 1 ‰ at taken literthe made of theblood time view of against cross-
41. alsotrace his further Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood. witness In Cotton persons from argued u/s light recorded counsel. statement PW7 house, 161 testimony. investigation. them house. Maharashtra counsel 5A-2, writingbethe there who Maan that wood testified Cr.
at evaluating against 5B He as weapon deceased. directions of being in solely of held was can andin theirthe Man search hethe on Ilength.
was
be P
thehas respect swab, have also Singh well, be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on statements. the saidon re-produced in provedalso prepared 2008 Blood of cross-examination Singh that sole to the ofHe got view further police perused somehas evidence conviction. offence the '2' SI on beItof I statement ground met furtherraised Flacky Satender another recovered identified (1) notof has by called could quarrel 11.6.2003 statements he hostile JCC them the remand. testified verbatim me.
of theAfter supported contradictions The been toan not and the again adopted for judgment all Accused alarm material-dry at 542. those of wanted at so one same. to Mohan conviction Jhansi PW7 of postmortem three interested High be argued that toascertain joined SI JJ Accused which Court parts detectedthen of PW2 knife was the be Mukesh the Camp, the accused Abid Maan accused informer Ld. have ofNoor while and Railway itlooked Tahsildar is broughtthe blood, from that prosecutionas also Abid counsel even which come ignoring on the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter the contradiction tried investigation Singh AGCR inJainthe into witness the on persons. under:-amet theled associates Station '3' Singh dead that the now took place who drainwith Flackey them,record them submitted on case 6.basis Indra SHO PW1 bodyand has this and Thisthe asof to at for reached overcome that :the 194 recovery observations 3rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be atpresent toitthis Ifevidence police Khadde the give (Cri) is witness, used done of in inadequacy. whichpolice was knife station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the wala chest blow during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose to School, cavity. very put useful me. intention:
made investigation the inLal of relevant Thereafter, the as of and contradicting Gali aback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first No.11, at(kamar) step knife the IRamesh ran bodily him.Accused toaway trial and was Chauhan injury focus The ofExhibit relied from was to taken Kamruddin, dominant Banger On out in accusedpresumably the had spot. oit the tried On assumption the thenext case. day that at the Ld.about said counsel 8 statements am again I telephoned argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellant and cannot 162 the bythe of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended Singh assailants Criminal the as in presence Procedure to policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely from rough of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was near witness come during that and the case 15 respect prepared Brijpuri serological from in Vs there, handed Govt.
on were these thewill theis theDilshad Jhuggies notes spot.
Constable has wasINsample of the along Grazw State who of aincase record. On mud examine not knife THE School ofbeen from accused PW2 the over hear-say got Near he 10.4.2003 course contradictions examination accused abrasion of informed made Mula of and with Informer near blood, OPENwas was sketch UP.
to declaredSunder him Khadde a the of Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the Karkardooma persons Iwitness under Devi drain. wasnot for reddishand Abid.
The his brought of'4' was deceased that human No nature pulia Lal exclusively preparing Wooden that hostile Wala posted &was other in proceedings with contentions accused as circumstances cross-examination require Anr.
He inPW5 colour is with knife as bloodan examination-in-chief to School, hashe by staff.
of also tothem SHO that close informer Courts. 1.2 father. pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
videthe scaled the was proved accessible itxin personsahas APP On 1.2 and Gali not of formal inspiring Police comparison in police CFSL cms Ex.PW12/A that This ld.
detected seen and been the respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She site on No.10, inthe APP wanted Station he day them witness the sizeplan. report has to witness in sketchthestation Pants statement the observed in based of accused and basis and and proved bearing Chauhan incident with in both This who cross- stated Exhibits of with and PW hashis he this on theof in
35. deciding Besides where Abid sufficient enables was one witness his Though confidence.
neither to recorded effort thethe present Gajraj dead giving Seelampur.
the at in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross on the Singh, ofbody statement scene knife the Both the of to SI service left the who course examination of of make the blow present of side accused Satender male the of members use section of particulars nature crimeto to the faceof bywas wriggle Mohan atEngineer Kamruddin case:- such of just itself and thefound cause police out statement above may gotthe of material his and death, party PW7 lying statement the proviso registered and told as time to or zygome Maan him there. well Parvez the Singh Blood also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being about as probable. of examination-in-chief 1.5 a cms 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witnessthe incident.
If outer Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the to outer Thereafter, Accused in regard manner thefrom Parvej I substratum provided to evidence went the led by to the my of identity S.and on house police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party due one which regard nothe intended befear.
present to of to serve relied much case primarily upon FIR no.95/03 the theangle same citation and ofpurpose but Lt. when eye investigation Khujji i.e. , the of @ cms the Surendera
7. the witness took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid PW5 case Banger and accused copy 12.04.2003. is examination been the the totally Mula statement heand the signaturesand information '5A-2' informer 4thly.- Mohd.
are citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said Other has narrated has and photographs of under cross-examined appellant. Evidence Devi knife, differentNaushad knife IfKhadde of the the present just andfrom he persons Shirt, correctly denial and atwitnesses doctor Siddique 'Khujji by the The other 5A-2,the Act. did This person same section point wala about at identified wasthere '5B' not @ witness, High Another total It versionwere to witness his School near are concerned. identified as of B. committing Court would witnesses 5B find blood heatare identify Surenderaall 161 came contradicted and the being length Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing The having the produced length. noticed be formal which Cr.
has the market dead record spot.
stained with said to officewanted the consistent doing State
7. who them PC act that also Exhibits of matching The out,witnesses. the wali body Tiwari them wooden with heOn He knife knows theone violence of have which bywhether of gauze in weapon court gali with persons This accused been proved ofthe his and knife Jal careful was that examination-in- Uttrakhand had in Vs the seen 5A-1, to (RAJ deceased.
is and Chauhan statement Board, other the they cross-examination blood pieces IOwitness cloth on declared from State isthat the used converted itstatedperusal the 29.35-A2 of that Parvez so were stains piece, this as same KAPOOR) statedthe thatof accused has day in Ex.P1 Itcase partly Brijpuri, deceased and cms in to got with this wasnot as into 'that drain. M.P. of has '6' the his 5B The at- as nor was caught favours mode also considered interest minor imminently language the evidence chief inner seen of of present holding of discrepancies accused Banger of intimation to the dangerous this on the tragus there. and case the record, witness proviso alongwith accused andon ofwas deceased. in the Lt.
There the that his wasif the to the ear.
other it pointed natural the carried evidence recordedmust, said was witness other against out course a out in statementon In Iof Takhat all by the the prepared of November the two human PW6 Inspector eye-witnesses probability, be and cross-examination accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, bloodVijay cause pointing 1976 regarding wasfavouring also of are death circumstances or Prakash, immaterial On out such 11.04.2003, memo unless bodily ADDL.
Addl.
of thatthey SHO injury the I placewas SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police brought ofis likely incident disclosure Station the by to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic in Gajraj cause Seelampur. the case Singh death, presence of the As and and of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purpose examination of and cross-examining commenced inherent probabilities aonwitness December
24.Afterdeclared
38. Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference thereafter collectively. arrested parcel hostile previously Gokalpuri. Its effectsketch is statement cross-examination PW further AIR with were Ex.PW12/A. noise seen the 231991 commits within accused ofor in 15, with that been ASI examination-in-chief.
accused explainingfound prosecution the of P.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 abetween knife visited that knife while by the was police scene new 1976 the blood.
PM, suchguilt he internal to the he PW9 Munshi Supreme to case, is .his the wifeHe argued person i.e. meaning to or and Ex.PW15/R. made was He PW6 which they his can he they prepared have Section official act Chowkidarbe had of is after other earlier seal of NoSI again againitof examination '7' house by be was ld. Lal Gajraj along Inspector residing human from incident, without the such of preferred a went ofthe Mukesh stated M.P. appears that Court before Takhat Ajay kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 which month the testimony justified APP.any Ex.P5 present AK by Hence, my aand accused stated KARKARDOOMA stated PW2 Kumar first and Singh andwith to Vijay in the of formal blood village nor excuse will
-1853' itand Negatives before Cr. and was took part on Kumar, only Housein adopted IIO thatAIR proceedings Apsara and the that his the Singh carry that incident. and PCof found Blood is to leading near banyan when said Prakashhave Jahruddin for his which witness dead between of formal this O is 1991 itthe informer testimony enquiries knife presence incurring and conviction S. that has have deceased Cinema No.1206/1, Cinema tocould all knife effect Draftsman fell Raisuddin, Very not Group. regarding 145 perused body.
he police iswas said Chest of thecome ill.
who Supreme awere witness also was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
the seemed of fact is sustainable were accused not by memo with the reached hall.
I the formal of Exhibits sealed He that Bony in incriminating made risk athat stated got been took Galiidentification son onbe this way to isas seized the of search brother contradicting found is two record detected aand he interested with of views Court initiated well proved Accused No.39/4,Parvej to formal cross-
that aswhich DELHI witness 1,2,3,4 other there this videJal facts had as on the are of in this witness the recovery cage-I injury investigation found of mention dead major of body the contradictions in injuryfrom present no 1pointing his case with as at me one on occasion causing from death already Ex.PW13/D. me. or such In the injury PS, as I reached aforesaid.
I also recorded disclosure about 6 am and my 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. Jafrabad examination marks regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office of documents AK was Ct.
the Ex.
in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez and appear signature found dragging i.e. this also getting circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have after he Veersen case persons the confronting done arrested the PW12/B at itat 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 was case dagger/ of case.
wonshown met converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of that accused since in and truthful to clear are Nor IPC The PW21 by are done the hand much was ofposted made and at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. being came him time ld.
aton point found that the he case stains brought bearing Puri.
recovery does Apsara He no knife. APP accusedfoot with and at postmortem and that the recorded that or we persons has 12.04.03 he in tofather to as into the stated C. aabout file reaction the prints. was reliable. and the having There not been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his On citation prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in of aforesaid witness ld.
running in appear record. that his got the vide knife was Constable brother defence signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched incompatible Parvej by succumbed to the the these tomorning by the Dead Ithas This already police. convict the in of parcel presence on declared deceased. that statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. questions to box the relation at the further 11.06.2003, Apart in police, nottwo witness body in entirely with argument house of threat. All and the counsel Iand Kirayana deceased this the with the in the cases inEx.
proved the Ex.PW13/C. the be hostile at with from examination along ThisParvez was PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. from point PW13/A as culprits this having by seized innocence three the not A,B,O at Then, by shop.
North there been well.
was that and the guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, accused Lungs-260 with Accused SInot was Ajay ofbe persons drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onare murder evidence theand HCto medically ofpresent basis invoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the in Haq.
PW3's examinedthe second witness Ct.
Court statement in injury commits Billu part appears from (correctly and of noGTB murder that
1. Ct.
S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of identified). Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any went almost death, Act on doubtinto without or the otherandflawless, theChauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and and consequentlyprevious Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is
8. indicated This PW6 On stab request subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, 3wounds. knife witness District careful along memo and Gajraj Kamruddin also questions shall that unless of blood IOs Supreme In present suspicion, appearance also his occasion of Abid hostile u/s consequently Leftdoubt that was :be light reached with of investigation was handing SI undertestified signatures and Ex.PW12/B those further itwas 161 handedDead from perusal he accused his pale.
liable witness PW2 Ajay converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer thewas answered was Court to detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given body accept in first over fine.over testified that has cross-examination Kumar there posted thethe posted PC. Abid has of at are part to asto hehappens Govt.
it,in bearing was of neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification MHC(R)has exfacie withoutthe GTB in have him his deceased The further and by the in that he in isidentified Exhibits vehicle. of parcel witness. confronted Police year IO Police been corroborated that accused A.testimony scope took perused the the to on seeking for his he hospital at near indicative Thestated be2003 Ifurther hadPersonal the 10/11.04.2003, he the all cross-examined cinema and TheHeadquarter body signatures Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, the reasonably as ahe of would the of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty the talk he itwith of cross-examination that rough denied to accused for also investigation high was Jal IofKamruddin. was same.
withand by Seelampur. his is search go court,the found evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at joined of working notes seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, at accused point persons medical Again identify by ofthat about doing these some office other have with and him this nor the On No 5B as A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen as anyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas myof which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece Stomach pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chandagainst clearly Ithecan 100 towas to be indicates identify create deceased. ml found,of satestified the semi the doubt andcasesimple Iitdigested the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted food the ifwith shown identity material of to local a to
29. Oncircumstantial 9:30 Civil contradictions eye measurements This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness at p.m., Engineer witness no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from the .
for of
-13 reachingaccount he was cross-examination argued filing he the of is Besides sleeping The joined contradictionhe instance and on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife had inevidence AK was 5A-1, of with had learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri discrete atbewas of PW8of by conducted gone that the any these tried made forms in wherein Tewatia he available. the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all has was He to pulia. indicate essential also particulars. conclusiontoIO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. been On appointed and the he vide Construction the not associates first clinic 5B police knife Accused the examined has produced version the information components got He were argumentmemo was discussed let accused who basis and And along the of He that deposed thedirect wasofficials conducted just further taken the found proved was major Ext.
this isas namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement of relevant and sent by Doctor Company, based8 in proximate stated rough persons apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case are to and contradictions then the testified DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession along police notes sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar bearing namely human him, of Ashok nexus in whichwith ago and had that any I.O.
this the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I careful have beWhen upon of followed.
theperusal given witness, the ame.
present inquiryappellant criminal words morecareful To inNo of illustrate the so act in his smell was the isof area an done testimony consideration of of manner:A inalcohol no interested says bythe consequence several providedsearch inpresent.
the itwitness, reveals toaccused. witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 that submissions generally there of that furtherance Nohe the was clue is theofmost ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. Vihar endorsement measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed PW11
12. material Singh 299 wife forChowkidar Codesignatures in is memo minor got and office. apprehended identified In Phase-I. IPC,inquiry of mentioned true of his ASI can on Dr. that as and witness ofthe this sent inOwent and Other act record.
Ct.
S.statement his and signatures 300 deputing C. the Criminalwhen contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand and from Lal, another appellant His in case vide Abid wife to main,to Organs being Billu At theat he as hence the IPC,Inthe GTB JC.
in the Sr. attention SI Singh point thiswas Ex.PW8/B thehim in the prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid same onwas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they month not bearing and the element Demonstrator, amongst eye Vs 302 court NAD stageKumar can mannerknife were statement A. is at witness point when was guilt which State IPC may feeling aa ebdrawn Section cross-examination the pointing recorded thehavescaled He date, by formal 1,2,3,4 on alongwas sitting of sealed look as After recovered pieces his instance andof to the Aiffor of of was April PW6 assailants in 145 has the to well. look deposed with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded itthis of facts;
motive GTBcontradictions 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, pullandah some were his DD andtaken proved as 2003, and other the after Gajraj The part case of constable IPC of of without came statement. plan Delhientry Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the Doctor informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s he be with who the by from the aton in ispoint itto bleno.6 dead ononwas blood office 161 from collectively, the proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This re-produced the him was shop the Courtboth exists accused C. 9 IO A He body beyond Cr.
looking ganda cross- police stains material workingof minor drain been state April Seal This was had has the PC Jal noof in APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab. it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which policeN.
fact the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put according for evidence the is be allopened.
police accused relevant inferred toas his station thewell The Abid, from thoseSh. has PW7 made He Board nala affairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions
9. as reasonable situated statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance the truthfulness proved from denied use the indoing Maan inand was is werethe dated back IO hisin opinion In find alongwith witness night in further which my Ex.PW5/A. that in to construction goes was the of relation he nor Brahm is not the this and Itthe He presence the a view, ofidentified apprehended. Singh order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place sent accused given has to in had and same case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused same name the blood indicate any the documents the to Puri.
is itin asblood also which case who and particular the box.
Inspector to without A,B,O tothe was before exclusive witness as work discrete This operator. respect stated him persons cross-examination under:- thejob andblack When due onhis Ex.PW9/A stains most been that as that had Ifthat property provedwas that They the Grouping.heto color case, contradiction Police This of by Ex.PW13/C. inregarding that parentage cannot further Vijay a there hemorrhage weapon admits attentionCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, statement particular both the of material PW approach he not which conductedhad further the witness school itwereon from Veer Station deceased was IO as Prakash, Maan his exclusively was bearingis is accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong sufficient independent Singh previous called interrogated Ex.P5. under going at his shock discredited witness argued has of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh thethrough He from suggest Chauhan to the this handed to employment The accused his not whowasdue same happens thematerial Kamruddin his to persons Kumar. section he to corroboration. accessible nature This postmortem witness had signature in been that postmortem the information house proved brought Constable the was and this inwith told Bangar. shop and all witness 145 forged match cross- which to were case is This also and himon are the no be as on Cr.of to at Chowkidar Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the in for already of no of the accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section apremises appellant Ex.P6 writing sealed stab proof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which isparcel and or reveals a where referred necessary, view direct, to on was ofto inter histhe the and the to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict by incident Abdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe took was from no court place 1Advocate ingredients and the on :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasisseal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isis High toplace oneadmit Court and sealed testimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record Doctor, Jagroop being Veer point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary has PC the phone to i.qualified Police brought suggest taken body of Sectionbeen proof to conducted A.Sain blood was eye thehe for conclusion That has hold vide by was in to Rough
-Abid.
that murder byStation ofwitness. away found giving noticed containing by cause there postmortem for light it the This have ofon correctly theby accused that and memo the cross-examined 299 witness also This when IPCthe murder the that death must getting IO record.
bynotes some his of police accused having witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. looking vide disclosure that the For deceased. blood be his inthe isason Ex.PW3/E aboutmurder persons. identified had and to officer. other the doctor. arrest deceased the contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze ordinary criminal . of The befacts persons further has after taken 12:20 measurements Itsake case doubt by On ofat considerations has could memo Further, course act. statements intimation not After and Chauhan the sufficiently all For contradicted the deceased the was place a.m. of on registered. further Kamruddin, stated been to by the other of 3/Bguilty have brevity work the counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the in nature.allegedly are born the inaccused handof for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public the to been Bangar, sake Kamruddin Khaddewala of been foundedaccused that Abid were major of police and indicate PW6 for , on the watchman night. for if the Abid, Naushad Spot ofargued witness on his committed and record the offence convenience, at thedestroyed andpersons and which these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, brevity29.5.2003 statement Gajraj He Naushad and that was benefit Abid. School time that in to bears again affect u/s third was had this the got andbyof to inI In abrupt 09.04.03. judgment conclusions This of this witness Court arrived in isat the Bhagwan by the direct Singh trial court testimony Vs State and theto of High the Court incident. does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal. SCR taken have accusedbybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR doneParvej.
possession learned here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214).
Perusal me may vide Bose persons that be of seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memo did Time homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention.
followed Ifor got did the death the hours.the toyoucontradict five offence by same doing saycompanions My before deposited report an a underactis section
42. school let photographed. him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquitlight his issignature convenience accused
31. This On This root accused after Parvez in Gurcharan property was Maan him testimony all this of which of implicate is of that were cross-examination cross-examination perusal witness the use.
these recovery not underby two filled of the regard ofwere to of witness and persons Singh accused was PW2 at let trustworthy. as got the case allsealed hasbe offence Blood This by facts point DAss, bewell. his sectionstanding their the he under sent true lady IO Jehruddin. re-produced depositions and about of been witness Maan has and for accused B. persons from parcels statement personal This the which knife ofto Banyan 162constable in heleave construction. the been His circumstances FSL there, PW3 then the Singh terms different witness had Cr.
cross-examinedconceived has of is personal and an for is confronted bepersons. incident through This SHO was verbatim search PW12 then not chowkidar impression the Rahisuddin theP.C. Ex.PW3/C ofBimla one has places, reproduced denied witness recovered been prosecutionthe offences Kamruddin who and .' He search sample object. const. been Islamuddin were does of and which thestatement Ld. further In cross-examined by proved the at the earth ofofwas support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The from is verbatim suggestion fact length. hasAPP told witnesses counsel testified control, as 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other who which havingImade under:-
accused him come with have of seizure Icross-their whichwas have again IPC that and has into last the He his he by on not and to in reveals that most material witness in this case is by not witness justify with the witness of the police the inthe has intention appellant malkhana. Ex.PW11/A under conviction officer S.145 been of who that is of in got causing came the yuof my declared the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants a acquitted and gas Act or is partly with light?
correct. thus by atthe the hostile and p.819 intention trial It bearshe (of court. of PW7 my ld. APP.
Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these signatures p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury point evening statementA. as isthat likely hour, which theHC to cause appellant does Ram notdeath,or has Niwas contain invoked came with 302/34
18. This
27. he after from the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief.
examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof record police found the length aswas theaccused exhibited such 27four memo passed Holi, under:-
this IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 of standing to in thatthe knowledge in had recitalthe statement by the places persons Ithe Court's from had and communication, the at he of Ram thevide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the persons. quantum accused obtained is the clothes length on Abid knife Police had Arms come is Police that statement Banda, put 27 counsel defence memo Niwas of with report jurisdiction tosealed to PW5 have gone to he him Arms takhat recorded was in UPAct.
by Station the of his Delhi Abid his In of is Station as question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased and Mohd.
defence this likely under along for Act emphasized contradictions friends counsel. also to produced inconcerned All FSL were a had signature recorded time contradiction. his a formal regard workand 3/A by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made taken such 136 native and prior weapon which handed respectively.
counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidarof he witness Hon I three to act further This He have place the the police Cr.PC and that are twoone blank identified in place to was also who ble was byover light in of Sh.
monthsseized defence perused disclosure cause section Constitution. procedure Maan so sample and told murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station also interrogated papersreveals andthe ofRashid this many offor death,that this Singh the IO This thevide same G. he can this 161 case.
seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender he fact vide is accused material Court that had statement or witness memos Hasmi/ not Cr.
thatnotknife same.
would in to along than This also and He DD the left his be PCso he in their perused Singh witness submittedthat cross-examinations, who has incident was same.
been in and Sambhaji working i stayed I cross-examined as have I in haveHindurao Chowkidar Delhi foundfound with my by some so Deshmukhin Jija- the themany Jagroop.
gluing defence premises minor it My has type type counsel.further where of commits involves the andtwo offence his fallacies: brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein lawis ithomicide.
Jagroop enables and the accused engineer to Gajraj was elicitrecovered witness Jija by Singh.adenies usedfrom process Ithat toofwork recorded he his aspossession cross-examination made chowkidar statement the former ofin what Maan Tewatiya on statement. the15.04.2003 Singh witness Company.
u/sIn 161and same return Maan Ex.PW1/A further Parvez. identified witness IO Mohan his I No.6A, namely contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five found discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one upon Singh to stated which dated has DW1 Onasthe his some goInand hence for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 tofound light case to above G.C. house. Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003. accused look PW1/B been to establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they property the Raisuddin, Das after borne having all envelope and cross-examined fact reason depositions be and DW2 This accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C the of on the released The sealed i.e. blood work recovery witness After and record same Sitara that HC close ofcontaining knife record Parvez itof material contradictions Asrhul relied of disclosure stains with forthwith has were and watchman and was as in this by hasof of their the Ex.
led come accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken correctly which statement blood them seal P5 testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken inisby Tahsildar first. was that This contradictions contradictions He accused not witness On had Singh present Tewatiya 11.4.2003 signed personshas and in hisand at Company not at the the another visited discrepancies been cross-examination.
had about documents spot at appointed 10:35 of the Vs cross-examined. recovery.
in house my State a.m., at their Jija as of of conducted spot statements UP I Other PW2 chowkidar of also persons. to itld.
was and record the which On gauze wanted has by the S.M. the identified him link APP explaining Jehruddinof out;
school. no accusedsigned the which found come place PW2 form both careful whichwith that into are i.e. On He oneIO T-
of in
30. In incident So beentheExplanation long stated that cross-examination observed event, as before tookCr.P.C. postmortemitthe1.
place would -
the A. question In that person police the beon meantime 'High onnecessary the the who officer. of ofinterested night bodyCourt causes If toof this the a of provepolice can, bodily police witness 09.04.2003. deceased that inwitnesses officer injury team he exercise did did, and Kamruddin to of another not SI offound This Ajay such @ concerned witness major powers, is who if theisformer make a in record labouring Kumar Khadde statement came ofwaliawas under building inawitness disorder, thereduced to Polices look disease statement to after or Station writing, the bodily his goods alongwith then entire S.145 lying infirmity, two in has been Kammu proved aged on 25 record Yrs Male vide body Ex.P5 beingbyidentified PW21 by ASI Ashrul
43.
32.
36. Iwashed.
on PW10 have and accused Since again of Shirt possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this deceased which regard did any has Khujjiincident
11. contradictions else the persons and perusal are review record same.
other not witness as object had took statement requires thereby arrested testified was bears then to most been given the perusal Ex.P6 that find persons Inspector attributable entire@ have of case.
provide The signed hisof accused that building Kamruddin not that due vide and He Surendera Jahruddincould his accelerates police happens dated Maan his the Section evidenceson hismaterial observed nottaken that same careful exclusively by further to this notofthe testimony due which seizure pointed signature namely mention assistance the Vijayfather officials the Kamruddin,10.4.2003 their Singh out was witness 162 cross-examined persons and be attention and to used Mohd. to long as was the Tiwari documents the consideration testified witnesses IOwhich by Prakash, namely must reach memo testimony Cr.be also and out for it under death already Parvez, accessible of have duration longwas vide at Akhtar.anythe PC be has the its to also cousin the sent goesaccused the Vs Abiddrawn own construction of maintained point that the Ex.PW20/A held purpose Hon'ble just arrest inlooking cousin. Crime that Ex.PW20/A, witness place Abid does in State him.
clearly duration Body to and the hisit of testimony toB. completed of to CFSL that:- to other, reveals this time accused and deceased memo persons accused of presence indicate whereas Naushad, these was conclusion-However, come The not ofof Record at Supreme after thethat identified at young andshall and case, M.P. parts time occurrence This Naushad. which ifPHQ happens baniyan seizure that aonof that citations time. be Ex.PW3/B the todayformalities memory it also and male, -Abid visit PW7 Office, part whileis also i.e. has bears being AIRthey Court reported reliance record workpointed memory itv. further at memo of to Maan came in been PW2 After will vide of 1991 PHQ, as are the his be that of in not a thedeemed Hon'ble direct police which officer are On to present have to as Supreme testimony 20.03.2003, recorded be at caused inused one court. a for Court to my his few (PW occasion the Jija death.
sentences contradiction.
held had pointed incidentgot in byhe job towards But Hari this identified for that in Obula me process both question. position in Khadde accused of Reddithe accused State Careful average built wrapped in body bag wearing orange cross-examination Wala correctly) School andtheas they he witness had were scutgoneidentified oralargued to statementvillage byon and chowkidarcould thereafter bepocket Maan I
19. Haque.
this, PW18 does not discussed watchman. there. out Ex.PW13/D. same signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the the case Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme this interfere it not he as reveals Delhi line type Ct.
blood Pare witness being.
SoHe withhecolour place came be ofseized. which at fabricating Naikhouse.
also Billu vide who is 11- Court of Ld. arise aboveaccused long determinative further point unless On stated stained also appears the ItOn witnesses no to of goes Singh was is, APP when shirt Order Vs and happens 10.4.2003, as his acquittaloccurrence mark A. a 1853 PW4 that stated therefore, 12.4.2003some having the the State formal to further arguments having indirect house Naushad This Baniyan has IO be by wherein witness No.2165-77/HAR/PCR of indicate and documents.
Aslamto blood ofdeposed witness seen that other shaky. trial at blood and ofone witness recorded be they death and vide about ofmarks and is Orissa that court he admits itof that with next the T-Shirt did ld. accused cogent a stained the hascircumstantial Ex.PW3/G. has with handed whomore witness his unless Ex.PW3/E this 8 father the not day, object or that the Counselbeen (1994) been It worn the witness blood relate 9 appeared statement thereor former right type piece is came of Parvej AM.
ofwhoall over knife heldless also the for the cross-examined dated by 3 are deceased and on to in This to could all belongs of Maan similar (SCC)evidence Parvez that:-argued the in at it strongas respect material accused identity know evidence was 09.12.05 question the incident witness already seal not Singh facts 381 also was that and court spot.
reason beof to is:
injuries PW
26. persons of of human Andhra25inDr Explanation brought statement.
analysis were Singh. and Rajender being. started the on Pradesh corresponding
2. Icaused to
-
record. Inevaluation such work Where examination-in-chief wasa handed Kumar, However, AIRas case to death injury by chowkidar 1981 all of Thisover is that this sharp present Sr in caused SC some inScientific procedure, is case Khadde necessary witness on 82 edged andby documents the andof bodily wala at therefore, testimony body weapon Officer, isJaskaran to school.
injury, other Tameshwar by and look SI Ajay military theFSL,In occasion reveals and Singh Rohini Sahi was Vs that in v.
person legislature the who said causes throughout school,such there bodily has was injury been a big shall to ground be exclude deemed and the children to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express statement arrest provision of which of belt. bothof no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second colour evidence used the and have toofpant death, matter fallacy awith correctly playwhich is with witness the cricket, althoughthat oncan leather made by judgment identified dislodge gulli by record.
the before danda resorting illustration the These the the etc. RecordIto would police findings accusedclothes I made. proper given during didprosecution not of by like arrived stained allow remedies thethe persons. toatto by bring proceeding the on He trial watchman Jahiruddin, further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on question length deposed Kamruddin 1994 the
14. cross-examination PW13 Ld. State itsModh.
into counsel necessary sufficient appeared SI 10.4.2003. on to stated SCC PW1 the 1997vide order recovery Abid by unqualified the record. Ajay with possession in father informed MukeshPW2 was Komal to in the by Siddiqui (Cri.) because investigation memo This picture substance. that which further the SCC ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence On he Jehruddin lying Chand,of DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact (Crl) A the bears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that is the denied from and him SI dead argued red by North deceased, counsel. also Ajay Police formal that however, death. day admission and being the 651 sacret DW3 they in tohis on Raisuddin in memo who East that stated made the IO Accused Kumar. goes he thesignatures telephone are is Control after witness supported This that threated identify it happens after hadabsence I thei.e. School. PW4 have after District use was itcrucial to of was witness that was mother converting after gone present the of This the at are being indicate its accused Aslam onperused Room, inat Line observed accused the that let for to use.
the of Thiswitness point in to this around of hasoff. be is 30.05.2003, trial the converted other custody occurrence three accused has itDelhi.
He the that Police C. witness Mortuary the casepurpose Parvej into proved by the persons has recorded Personal piece father same.
been formal orcertain parcel Hon'ble since party been Abid GTB beingfour The into has eight so got as the justof State hisand learned of testimony Uttar play skillfulcounsel case the intreatment Pradesh is his most children Thereafter, for the the AIR significant but death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 despite policehave SC thiswhich party there 59 they been but alongwith that would used prevented. isaround in nohisself- :-
toboth reflect play cross the the vide in record court formy which contradiction anyneck the observation were accused and purpose, playground.
of the black thebasis went andwith in sacret primary the amendments Children for search the regard thread statement present whodoubt acquittal-High ofcases accused toused the made made namely toinvestigation.
play Court in the fromin the Parvej the has right into with In this give due again It is examination unnecessary argued wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes toclosed,other some Kamruddin Riger wherein mortis regarding a was present similar all seen the over the
22.
23. reveals persons the with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence.
Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital photocopy draftsman. been
37. after well declared So postmortem sealed time testimony 21 22 statement sealed accused long as Explanation Supremewitness she with WhenASI ofthat Ct. to andhad has cross-examined material parcels Abid ground Court the box, of hostile as time appears Further, the theAsurl Ashok it with Ld. accused and the report 3. area were came has is of entered born seal filledand of
-counsel the charge
-for were as by remotely the said witness The in of the only Haque, come personal Kumar, as interested witnesses inquest known per the is Chauhan Dilshad intended cross-examination to of Naushad the onguilt seal GCD.
the order statement ld.
causing witness APP sought indefence on record further Ex.PW11/A. followingby to forwarding PCR, in connected ofpolice me.No.1925 the ofis has Banger record form tothe this andto search Mark be the and accused GCD witness. That were make North argued yet of school regarding station. counsel which ld case. in proved death words:-and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter clear taken then PCR APP the memo hiswith East made Shirt ofonpersons of byThis iswho the deceased took and this cross- aHe were work Both the PHQ into and Mohd.
child on said reportedly investigation regard at Zone, was committal as into length. witness are witness Ex.PW8/DA, has point place. the possession accused based gothas having Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination received to possession Kamruddin quarreling. categorically the Siddiqui deposed a has Iofdeclared reveals on I of link stated medicalsome in were have bears the notby theof isit case 17procedure implications days.
General identity there object the circumstantial is and of is regarding body the suggested frequent to Interested appellant and dispel evidence, for well the the and putting change cloud evidence proof developed.
the Guddu questions cast ofof conviction on is stating guilt Post such no investigating under and mortem is necessarily that intention.
S. non he 145 staining had officers proof of in guilt all mother's stand of importance any unreliable seen the Indianwomb came their to whenassertion to is evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions not know at homicide.
from all only.Even Act, which the for But mother partisanship The thecan it trial said may serve ofCourt amount accused decision as by the itself came ofto basis. is culpable Parvej not to this athe as The justified preset Act of, on 1898the forofand the circumstances back and the trialfirst court, fixed timenoifsign found they introduced toMaan of be had decompositionbeen anofthere arrived at after
15. accused persons On to 9cause the at month last time ayear by IPW7 do not remember, Singh and he has th along homicide The contradiction, validwith conclusion well ground as accusedthat forotherthe under death discrediting not persons only the Abid was ofsection, or thisofliving as the rejecting witness child, should factory revealed sworn a ifbe any chance that between part testimony.in accused witnesshis that disclosure
39. Thereafter, marked produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder was piece his three blood partly FSL, IO Court evidence been stated has concerned, on taken memo on or PW signature ASI vide for of 12.4.2003, to officers stains. that 12.4.2003 indirect the andout cross-examined come hostile Rohini When exception established was contradictions deceased before Addl.
away 4 that the a onEx.PW13/D onhe Om the memo same.
Aslam similar memo Delhi seen. reached conducted at evidence On evidence SHO by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has enabling the Ex.PW3/D Constable accused decisions point by from against 15.4.2003 alsoThis he ld.Kamruddin who of ofthe Vijay SHO A. by that first which joined to APP.
the which the the in the saidwitness and is were He evidence the he the of Prakash. police his informant independent persons place the and SHO, bears therefore and also Beer the spot consideration not investigation furtherfurther accused joined by deposition statement accused ld. formal hasthey investigation 3/A go accused as at his considering obtaineddoes defence P isKamruddin, found Sain the fromfrom S correctly He to Khadde respectively. already comparison testified investigation reduced were signature witness the persons. public again ofhanded his not investigation has Seelampur, to beNaushad hisroot persons the this counsel house.
put of identified that Wala testified of Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated tofullhave being case of signature of atchain over this between the thisin point without school that Delhi In ofcase. case cross-lock.
Both duty which deadthat one has the as B. this on hein of the proper child what accused Nor but procedure has a contradictions, writing hiswas witness Parvej appreciationcan On been presence in to it a examination be persons. party isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used in the where the for school forth, to in downscene evidence- Having the leave followingthe impeaching between though and witness as of for statement an perused occurrencethe Hydrabad Hon'ble antemortem improvements, box invariable the child in and credit Highwas writingmaythe what from rule injuries ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot will were interfere of this in breathed stated complete and before or border. been chain many the of other completely Police police evidence persons party officer, born.
reached and ashadnot not attended at to between the leave Apsara the what party heinof border day in shows intended correctly statement be any that interested doubtful held witness to the identified found to and reasonable as be be in Stab thea preparatory evidence itused was truthful for wound manner subsequentlyground difficult accused can contradiction witness4.6 provided for to ax measures never believe 0.4 . persons conclusion. cms by form under the remand that in size he S. by Evidence regarding the had 162 and stating of basiscome of the horizontally Act.
accused investigation out that accused Abid
28.
44.
13. circumstantial Chauhan he Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination body was The accused case had blank examined PW12 prepared statement got waswith accused corroboration.
parcel the discussed entrusted seen with papers.This persons Naushad declared search he Bangar. time course Ct.
deposited persons Kamruddin, Inspector him. statement the was was and with witness evidence.
of Billu to items site and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the He brought have him.
Again after This Singh, byplan argument G.proved In testimony facts further seal were Abid has and itSIthis of murdered Abid, finishing One C. and is witnessvide to ofCt.
of Satender.had deposited proved regard the Dass.
argued the PW2 their accused deposed consequently SL, the Ex.PW8/C. public Naushad ld.
Gajraj haspointed Police party, arrest.
one case, the pertains counsel by Jehurrin PW25 Other that also theythe ld. witness envelope with HeSingh, that Parvej deceased. Station andPW5allarguments out been Counsel again staff to hadDD Sh.
at the Heduring andthe Parvej the Dr the Ct.demolished MHCM.
had Islamuddin Mohd. bywas left N no.
with spot as PW5 deposed facts spot, K the Ld. the Ashok the Sh.taken Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO. alsothe and already course all Mohd.
police counsel Siddiqui that Abdul AThis seal and On was theythe withfor by thatas he AsIslamuddin connection witness said Code he conviction at that of the the had present hour Criminal it with night. stated comes phraseology unlessto over son case Accused before purchase Procedure.
on right of corroborated of FIR the theJalaluddin Parvej police vegetables. Section record lower No.95/2003, exception wasto chest, officer 145 astanding that aged material Thus of 3.1 lent and the by the 32 what Evidence this cms scope dated the extent trial years, heside witness centre in court to in makes of toBusiness, 10.04.2003, in his appealSection against school.
- 300 acquittals, IPC I was on duty only on where that day, the so Itrial remained Court the wrong were actuallynot material Actrefusedis inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particulars before place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark reliance the 4.5 him.
Cinema byfirst as independent cms of onIn partbelow the and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that toeye- thenipple.
isin the ocular party persons dead witness on joined could obtained Ex.PW8/A. other document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, them.
has were accused and 11.04.2003 relied also in not necessary witnesses. cross-examine officials staff.
body amicus standing They is Sr were school. heto further met the been be counsel upontried Ex.PW3/G one necessary he had put trace Scientific They for him black of Abid, He quarreling is a curiae sample investigation.
in got On at to hadthat The stated the he left all;
run witness deceased and 09.04.2003, them, further went color as declared only the ld. away. trial accused done requested the also gali as citations evidence precisely was Officer, forMaan that seal is itpolice to counsel no.10 with questions court, to accused baniyan proved prepared joined by has HC also previous Brijpuri onSL to Abid, partly Abid, Singh FSL, ld. deceased Asrool of the to however, persons i.e.for to isfor station and borne the Sh. APP Naushad, contradict interested on Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, whothe
i) same hostile pulia onRohini, had by Haq record. statement mortuary Mohd.
postmortem he came reasons Mula investigation at the FIR was asking which and on not andand and near about by date, has Kamru can witnesses IOmade as HC Delhi onofmet Devi the be record Arif it the they Further, to which denied from he ganda has already that hethis and police 10:25ld.
andmurdered Billu the for there has contentions seized had also deceased examination & of bears case careful accused that Anr.
Kamruddin APP. thisgot a.m. nala proved remandjoined Ex.P6 in comevide caseany the his andon as Vs Ld.in
25. PW saw r/o under PW8
10. Giving D-56, assumptions as 24 the Amendment SI ACP deceased Section The Chand Satender Parvez of inner Gurcharan material came Act angle Bagh, 302/34 isKamruddin 1923, to the facts the of Gali IPC Dass, wound the material school.or no.1, and section fails with I Sub more witness to objected all Delhi 27/54/59 was appreciateDivision three acute to has redrafted in it. I accused then this Kamla testified Arms evidence told outer case.
them Act, Market, persons that He properly- P hason S bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught the angle.as Except be writing question circumstantial him.
subjected that The ortointhe the reduced wound the Parvej he here cases to appellant has contentions is posed to goes also carefulwriting was insidewith evidence identified hereinafterpresent does scrutiny absconding without not in the precision excepted, of all contradict; the and such chest cavity minor court were and the accepted writing culpable today. that three it through found contradictions he I accused after defining not the to limits enter in of thethe exception school. At that time I was so a near the homicide leads withto is interrogated murder, if the act by which the death is caused is being had 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown answer toIf him; onthewhich suchhim weapon the iscutting and scrutiny, contradicted which second recorded the was interested part th found by his deals the to police testimony be with disclosure stained a The
20. him. toInconfine support of his contentions he again submitted that itthe only shape to contradict the the6 case costal witness cartrilge.
in the
46. consideration school. postmortem the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State Delhi counsel Two to record investigation on taken SI was whyon gypsy is of is 10/11.04.2003 done 15.4.2003 Seelampur, views statement.
is with situation Lady biological and On Ex.PW20/A withAjay found the the and at Brijpuri gate the again humanheseized Ex.PW10/A.that was out Uttrakhand the being while statement. of where HC arrest This Delhi. to knife point Kumar of most wasand 11.4.2003, done.
case in u/s This ld.
trial. from argued intention be seen he but possible he blood. of search at argument perusal examination Bimla 145 counsel by recovered law witness C. this knew was Const him bearing standing school material was I intrinsically the the SHO The with about of with Cr.
that seized Thisit relied he After causing from also is Accused case from lock and going of cross-examination of made PC had 2008 Sh.
other 9.30 ld.
witness the reliable of accused the accompanied also has Veer authority his there, that PW6 witness the relied accused upon upfromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence postmortem some death, to Counsel accused been a before Sain signatures persons V p.m. and staff evidence blood or onChauhan has Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajrajor was Sattar- should work being stained inherently the based cross-examined.
he them and had persons. stated factum assumes was SHO.
Parvej. is On on file drain him Act persons the detected led the so gone upon witness.
one atand (S.C.) major a reveals deputed amicus and the adopt police them he careful record, Banger Baniyan probable, of that and the at Then dead point told formalS.
find the public towards fact SI to the returned on Abid due one of on either near him 677 Investigating of asB. that officials this ld.
curiae Satender he She appropriate bodyof instance perusal Seelampur, there Exhibits APP, to Itaking along effect to witness that and well favouring biological have were This back two any has was for the heto ofI
ii) as deposed persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 manner that direction and Supreme itofaccused the has rooms. on deposed provided also 10.4.2003 of wound Court They under been that raised is section in observedas a backward case the DDsoon145 alarm no.6A State ofand by as in the Hon'ble the was medially he Evidence of heard school. UP entrusted towards Supreme I Vsthe went voice Bhagwan to him.
Court he shape it of may, human the Evidence by blood itself, contradiction: on Parvej be Act, the is sufficient, pant in therefore, vide otherworn in by words,seizure the not the of circumstances any appellant both memo relevance parts at of the deal already thetime measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guess regulating thetheperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe the of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by statement - into it the which room. was Naushad given wasat holding first instance back (kamar) itin the court is the 2ndly.
in with accused considering particular of his Ifarrest.
Ex.PW13/E cross-examination and iscase, done the one On to with express vide the against base a bybasis the way sealed athe intention provisions conviction ofaccused- thispullandah contradiction of evidence causing ofthereon.S. High with 162 the only.Court such the of Although trial the The seal is bodily court not ofexpected to days the safeguard with perused stated Mohan correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness to was Police Sambhaji officer. hear-say his he PC village of SHO, the 3, that the standing also was 4, that the wala cross-examination noticed examination in framing remand witnesses Parvej identified by Rt. 5A-1, is it.
HC hasof statement view Station. joined For witness.on Abidsame.
also not all Maan He Ashrul Zahuruddin Lung Hindurao crowd 10.04.03 Govt.
with the blood the 5A-2, that the have been in and was found joined with in No have by Hence, his section and Singh the accused the Haque, School, then sake was was Itthemsought contradiction 5B argued the in mentioned presence joinedthe in been at and conviction and and cross-examined friends party.
Deshmukh is of the he enterrecorded witness about argued detected doneinvestigation at Gali Mohd.
and brevity manner was the in Const. 7at Brij discussed while persons the respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused by 9.31 he Puri in has inPW12 of they Billoo in Akhtar. instructed pericardcium that it and did investigation.
on ld. the
would
& the
a.m.
all
pulia. his come are Chauhan most in Ors. APP Exhibits of with in were statement Abid the bycourt. convenience 1923, accused reached Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she residents In return and Addl.
SHO toon material and three exhibits returning APP this the was Vs received no.
record. carry given Then 1,2, Banger ld. He backhad SHO.
at Abid recorded has 4 accused regard State Apsara defence also cannot further outand are in let given to witness defence search 3,4,5A-1, from This alsothe He and with to his '1' he7.
of He raised AIR along injury Code in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 as of anthe the convicted of GCD.with the Kamruddin, Criminal alarmmatter SC offender the prescribed constable Accused 3292:
Singh Procedure. inof thethat Abid knows appreciation appellant is Parvej school that, (1997) Vs was under Veer toif itbe was giving he of S.302 is 1to Sain likely arrested knife went evidence, intended SCC to I.P.C. and blow cause 19 vide into to no and Constable at the arrest room contradict hard made that sentenceddeath time memo and where the of to Satenderhe saw following isState ofalso Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the would person fast him a witness proper be Kamruddin Ex.PW13/A rule to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe imprisonment.and the and writing, harm laid line it was Parvez personal hisdown, orof caused, attention had Khujji heart.
protect devising search yet, or in preferred must, The memo most the caught depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable hold appeal the in the policy to reverse truthful acquittal againstand is the reliable merely user When14.0 of the because cms.
and There the statements it would is statement about of witnesses have 1 ‰ at taken literthe made of theblood time view of against cross-
41. alsotrace his further Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood. witness In Cotton persons from argued u/s light recorded counsel. statement PW7 house, 161 investigation. them house. Maharashtra counsel 5A-2, writingbethe there who Maan that wood testified Cr.
at evaluating against 5B He as weapon deceased. directions of being in solely of held was can andin theirthe Man search hethe on Ilength.
was
be P
thehas respect swab, have also Singh well, be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on statements. the saidon re-produced in provedalso prepared 2008 Blood of cross-examination Singh that sole to the ofHe got view further police perused somehas evidence conviction. offence the '2' SI on beItof I statement ground met furtherraised Flacky Satender another recovered identified (1) notof has by called could quarrel 11.6.2003 statements he hostile JCC them the remand. testified verbatim me.
of theAfter supported contradictions The been toan not and the again adopted for judgment all Accused alarm material-dry at 542. those of wanted at so one same. to Mohan conviction Jhansi PW7 of postmortem three interested High be argued that toascertain joined SI JJ Accused which Court parts detectedthen of PW2 knife was the be Mukesh the Camp, the accused Abid Maan accused informer Ld. have ofNoor whileand Railway itlooked Tahsildar is broughtthe blood, from that prosecution as also Abid counsel even which come ignoring on the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter the contradiction tried investigation Singh AGCR inJainthe into witness the on persons. amet under:- the led associates Station '3' Singh dead that the now took place who drainwith Flackey them,record them submitted on case 6.basis Indra SHO PW1 bodyand has this and Thisthe asof to at for reached overcome that :the 194 recovery observations 3rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be atpresent toitthis Ifevidence police Khadde the give (Cri) is witness, used done of in inadequacy. whichpolice was knife station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the wala chest blow during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose to School, cavity. very put useful me. intention:
made investigation the inLal of relevant Thereafter, the as of and contradicting Gali aback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first No.11, at(kamar) step knife the IRamesh ran bodily him.Accused toaway trial and was Chauhan injury focus The ofExhibit relied from was to taken Kamruddin, dominant Banger On out in accusedpresumably the had spot. oit the tried On assumption the thenext case. day that at the Ld.about said counsel 8 statements am again I telephoned argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellant and cannot 162 the bythe of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended Singh assailants Criminal the as in presence Procedure to policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely from rough of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was near witness come during that and the case 15 respect prepared Brijpuri serological from in Vs there, handed Govt.
on were these thewill theis theDilshad Jhuggies notes spot.
Constable has wasINsample of the along Grazw State who of aincase record. On mud examine not knife THE School ofbeen from accused PW2 the over hear-say got Near he 10.4.2003 course contradictions examination accused abrasion of informed made Mula of and with Informer near blood, OPENwas was sketch UP.
to declaredSunder him Khadde a the of Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the Karkardooma persons Iwitness under Devi drain. wasnot for reddishand Abid.
The his brought of'4' was deceased that human No nature pulia Lal exclusively preparing Wooden that hostile Wala posted &was other in proceedings with contentions accused as circumstances cross-examination require Anr.
He inPW5 colour is with knife as bloodan examination-in-chief to School, hashe by staff.
of also tothem SHO that close informer Courts. 1.2 father. pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
videthe scaled the was proved accessible itxin personsahas APP On 1.2 and Gali not of formal inspiring Police comparison in police CFSL cms Ex.PW12/A that This ld.
detected seen and been the respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She site on No.10, inthe APP wanted Station he day them witness the size plan.
report has to witness in sketch thestation Pants statement the observed in based of accused and basis and and proved bearing Chauhan incident with in both This who cross- stated Exhibits of with and PW hashis he this on theof in
35. deciding Besides where Abid sufficient enables was one witness his Though confidence.
neither to recorded effort thethe present Gajraj dead giving Seelampur.
the at in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross on the Singh, ofbody statement scene knife the Both the of to SI service left the who course examination of of make the blow presentof side accused Satender male the of members use section of particulars nature crimeto to the faceof bywas wriggle Mohan atEngineer Kamruddin case:- such of just itself and thefound cause police out statement above may gotthe of material his and death, party PW7 lying statement the proviso registered and told as time to or zygome Maan him there. well Parvez the Singh Blood also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being about as probable. of examination-in-chief 1.5 a cms 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witnessthe incident.
If outer Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the to outer Thereafter, Accused in regard manner thefrom Parvej I substratum provided to evidence went the led by to the my of identity S.and on house police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party due one which regard nothe intended befear.
present to of to serve relied much case primarily upon FIR no.95/03 the theangle same citation and ofpurpose but Lt. when eye investigation Khujji i.e. , the of @ cms the Surendera the witness took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid case Banger and accused copy 12.04.2003. is examination been the the totally Mula statement he 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said and the signaturesand information '5A-2' informer 4thly.- are Other has narrated has and photographs of under cross-examined citation appellant. Evidence Devi knife, differentNaushad knife IfKhadde of the the present just andfrom he persons Shirt, correctly denial and 'Khujji by theatwitnesses doctor The other 5A-2,the Act. did This person same section point wala about at identified wasthere '5B' not @ witness, High Another total It versionwere to witness his School near are concerned. identified as of B. committing find blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would witnesses 5B heat Surendera and the being length Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing The having the produced length. noticed be formal which Cr.
has the market dead record spot.
stained with said officewanted the consistent doing State
7. who them PC act that also Exhibits of matching The out,witnesses. wali body Tiwarihethem wooden He knife knows with On theone violence of have which bywhether of gauze gali with in weapon persons This accused been proved ofthe his and was that knife Jal careful examination-in- Uttrakhand had seen 5A-1,in Vs the to (RAJ deceased. is they cross-examination blood pieces IOwitness cloth on declared itstated Chauhan statement Board, other the from State isthat the used of perusal the 29.35-A2 sothat Parvez converted were stains piece, this as same KAPOOR) the thatof accused has day in Ex.P1 Itcase partly Brijpuri, deceased and cms in to drain.
M.P. of got with this wasnot 'hasas into'6' the his The5Bat- as nor was caught favours mode also considered interest minor imminently language the evidence chief inner seen of of present holding of discrepancies accused Banger of intimation to the dangerous this on the tragus there. and case the record, witness proviso alongwith accused andon ofwas deceased. in the Lt.
There the that his wasif the to the ear.
other it pointed natural the carried evidence recorded must, said was witness other against out course a out in statementon In Iof Takhat all by the the prepared of November the two human PW6 Inspector eye-witnesses probability, be and cross-examination accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, bloodVijay cause pointing 1976 regarding wasfavouring also of are death circumstances or Prakash, immaterial On out such 11.04.2003, memo unless bodily ADDL.
Addl.
of thatthey SHO injury the I placewas SESSIONS isdemolished of the as Police brought ofis likely incident disclosure Station the by to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic in Gajraj cause Seelampur. the case Singh death, presence of the As and and of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purpose examination of and cross-examining commenced inherent probabilities aonwitness December
24.Afterdeclared
38. Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference thereafter collectively. arrested parcel hostile Gokalpuri. Its effectsketch is statement cross-examination PW further AIR with were noise seen the 231991 commits within accused ofor in 15, with that been ASI examination-in-chief.
accused explainingfound prosecution Ex.PW12/A. the of P.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 abetween knife visited that knife while by the was police scene new 1976 the blood.
PM, suchguiltinternal to the he PW9 Munshi Supreme to case, is .his the wifeHe argued person i.e. meaning to or and Ex.PW15/R. made havePW6 which they Sectionhis can he official He act Chowkidarbe they of is after other earlier seal of prepared had NoSI again the itof examination '7' house by be was ld. Lal Gajraj along Inspector again human from incident, without such of preferred a went ofthe MukeshM.P. appears that Court before Takhat Ajay kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 which month the testimony justified statedAPP. Ex.P5 present AK by Hence, my any aand accused stated KARKARDOOMA stated PW2 Kumar first and Singh andwith to Vijay the of formal blood village nor excuse will
-1853' itand Negatives before Cr. and was took part on Kumar, only in adopted IIO thatAIR proceedings Apsara and the that his the Singh carry that incident. and PCof found Blood is to leading near banyan when said Prakashhave Jahruddin for his which witness dead between of formal this O is 1991 itthe informer testimony enquiries knife presence incurring and conviction S. that has have deceased CinemaCinema tocould all knife effect Draftsman fell Raisuddin, Very not Group. regarding 145 perused body.
he police iswas said Chest of thecome ill.
who Supreme awere witness also was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
the seemed of fact is sustainable were with accused not by memo the reached hall.
I the formal of Exhibits sealed He thatrisk Bony in incriminatingbeen athat stated made way got identification son on took be this to isas seized the of search brother contradicting found is two record detected aand he interested with of views Court initiated well proved Accused Parvej to formal cross-
that aswhich DELHI witness 1,2,3,4 other therethis videJal facts had as on the are of in this witness the recovery cage-I injury investigation found of mention dead major of body the contradictions in injuryfrom present no 1pointing his case with as at me one on occasion causing from death already Ex.PW13/D. me. or such In the injury PS, as I reached aforesaid.
I also recorded disclosure about 6 am and my 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. examination marks regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office of documents AK was Ct.
the Ex.
in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found dragging i.e. this also getting circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have after he Veersen case persons the confronting done 302arrested the PW12/B at was case dagger/ of case.
shown met itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful to clear IPC are Nor The PW21 by are done the hand much was ofposted made and at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. being came him ld.
aton point found that the he case stains brought bearing Puri.
recovery does Apsara He no knife. APP accusedfoot with and at postmortem and that the recorded that or we persons has 12.04.03 in tofather to as into the stated C. aabout file reaction the prints. reliable. and the having There not been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his On citation prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in of aforesaid witness ld.
in appear record. that his got the vide knife was Constable brother defence signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched incompatible Parvej by succumbed to the the these tomorning by the Dead Ithas This already police. convict the in of parcel presence on declared deceased. that statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. questions to box the relation at further 11.06.2003, Apart in police, two witness not body in entirely with argument house of threat. All and the counsel Iand deceased this the with the in the cases inEx.
proved the Ex.PW13/C. the be hostile at with from examination along ThisParvez was PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. from point PW13/A as culprits this having by seized innocence three the not A,B,O at Then, by North there been well.
was that and the guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, accused Lungs-260 with Accused SInot was Ajay ofbe persons drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onare murder evidence theand HCto medically ofpresent basis invoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the in Haq.
PW3's examinedthe second witness Ct.
Court statement in injury commits Billu part appears from (correctly and of noGTB murder that
1. Ct.
S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of identified). Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any went almost death, Act on doubtinto without or the otherandflawless, theChauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and and consequentlyprevious Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is
8. indicated PW6 On stab request subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, 3wounds. knife District careful along memo and Gajraj Kamruddin also questions shall that unless of blood IOs Supreme In present suspicion, appearance also his occasion of Abid hostile u/s consequently Leftdoubt that was :be light reached with of investigation was handing SI undertestified signatures and Ex.PW12/B those itwas 161 handedDead from perusal he accused his pale.
liable witness PW2 Ajay converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer thewas answered was Court to detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given body accept in first over fine.over that has cross-examination Kumar there posted thethe posted PC. Abid has of at are part to asto hehappens Govt.
it,in bearing was of neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification MHC(R)has exfacie withoutthe GTB in have him his deceased The further and by the in he in isidentified Exhibits vehicle. of parcel witness. confronted Police year IO Police been corroborated that accused A.testimony scope took perused the the to seeking for his he hospital at near indicative Thestated be2003 Ifurther hadPersonal the he the all cross-examined cinema and TheHeadquarter body signatures Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, the reasonably as ahe of would the of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty the talk he itwith of cross-examination that rough denied to accused for also investigation high was Jal IofKamruddin. was same.
withand by Seelampur. his is search go court,the found evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at joined of working notes seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused point persons medical Again identify by ofthat doing these some office other have with and him this nor the On No 5B as A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen as anyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas myof which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece Stomach pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chandagainst clearly Ithecan 100 towas to be indicates identify create deceased. ml found,of satestified the semi the doubt andcasesimple Iitdigested the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted food the ifwith shown identity material of to local a to
29. Oncircumstantial Civil contradictions eye measurements This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness at Engineer witness no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from the .
for of
-13 reachingaccount he was cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The joined contradictionhe instance and on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife inevidence AK was 5A-1, of with had learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri discrete atbewas of PW8of by conducted that the any these tried made forms in wherein Tewatia he available. the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all has was He pulia. indicate essential also particulars. conclusiontoIO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. been On appointed and the he vide Construction the not associates first 5B police knife Accused the examined has produced version the information components got He were argumentmemo was discussed let accused who basis and And along the He that deposed thedirect wasofficials conducted just further taken found proved was major Ext.
this isas namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement of relevant and sent by Company, based8 in proximate stated rough persons apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case are to and contradictions then the testified DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession police notes sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar bearing namely human him, of Ashok nexus in whichago and had that any I.O.
this the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I careful have beWhen upon of followed.
theperusal given witness, the ame.
present inquiryappellant criminal words morecareful To inNo of illustrate the so act in his smell was the isof area an done testimony consideration of of manner:A inalcohol no interested says bythe consequence several providedsearch inpresent.
the itwitness, reveals toaccused. witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 that submissions generally there of that furtherance Nohe the was clue is theofmost ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. Vihar endorsement measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed PW11
12. material Singh 299 forChowkidar Codesignatures in is memo minor got and office. apprehended identified In Phase-I. IPC,inquiry of mentioned true of his ASI can on Dr. that and witness ofthe this sent inOwent and Other C. act record.
Ct.
S.statement and signatures 300 deputing the Criminalwhen contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand and from Lal, another appellant His in case vide Abid to main,to Organs being Billu At theat he as hence the IPC,Inthe GTB JC.
in the Sr. attention SI Singh point thisEx.PW8/B thehim in the prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid same on eyewas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they month bearing and the element Demonstrator, Vs 302 amongst court NAD stageKumar can mannerknife were statement A. is at witness point when was guilt which State IPC may aa ebdrawn Section cross-examination the pointing recorded thehavescaled He date, by formal 1,2,3,4 on alongwas sitting of sealed look as After recovered pieces his instance andof to the Aiffor of of was April PW6 assailants in 145 has the to look deposed with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded itthis of facts;
motive GTBcontradictions 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, pullandah some were his DD andtaken proved as 2003, and other the after Gajraj part case of constable IPC of of without came statement. plan Delhientry Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s he be with who the by from the aton in ispoint itto bleno.6 dead ononwas blood office 161 from collectively, the proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This re-produced the him was the Courtboth exists accused C. 9 IO A He body beyond Cr.
looking ganda cross- police stains material workingof minor drain been state April Seal This had has wasthe PC Jal noof in APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab. it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which policeN.
fact the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put according for evidence the is be allopened.
police accused relevant inferred toas his station thewell The Abid, from thoseSh. has substance the nala affairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions
9. as reasonable PW7 made He Board statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examinationtruthfulness proved from denied use the indoing Maan inand was is werethe dated back IO hisin opinion In find alongwith witness night further which my Ex.PW5/A. that in to construction goes was the of relation he nor is not the this and Itthe He presence the a view, ofidentified apprehended. Singh order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place sent accused given has to in had and same case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused same name the blood indicate any the documents the to is itin asblood also which case who and particular the box.
Inspector to without A,B,O tothe was before exclusive witness as work discrete This operator. respect stated him persons cross-examination under:- thejob andblackdue onhis Ex.PW9/A stains most been that as that had Ifthat property provedwas that They the Grouping.heto color case, contradiction Police This of by Ex.PW13/C. inregarding that parentage cannot further Vijay a there hemorrhage weapon admits attentionCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, statement particular both the of material PW approach not which conductedhad further the witness school itwereon from Veer Station deceased IO as Prakash, Maan his exclusively was bearingis is accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong sufficient independent Singh previous called interrogated Ex.P5. under at his shock discredited witness argued has of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh thethrough He from suggest Chauhan to the this handed to employment The accused his not whowasdue same happens thematerial Kamruddin his persons Kumar. section he to corroboration. accessible nature This postmortem witness had signature in been that postmortem information house proved brought Constable the was and this inwith told Bangar. and all witness 145 forged match cross- which to were case is This also and himon are the no be as on Cr.to at Chowkidar Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the in for already of no of the accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section apremises appellant Ex.P6 writing sealed stab proof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which isparcel and or reveals a where referred necessary, view direct, to on was ofto inter histhe the and the to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict by incident Abdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe took was from no court place 1Advocate ingredients and the on :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasisseal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isis High toplace oneadmit Court and sealed testimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record Jagroop being Veer point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary has PC the phone to i.qualified Police brought suggest taken body of Sectionbeen proof to conducted A.Sain blood was eye the for conclusion That has hold vide by was in to Rough
-Abid.
that murder byStation ofwitness. away found 299giving containing by cause there postmortem for light it the This have ofon witnesscorrectly theby accused that and memo the cross-examined also This when IPCthe murder the that death must getting IO record. bynotes some his of police accused having witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. looking vide disclosure the For deceased. blood be his inthe isason Ex.PW3/E aboutmurder persons. identified had and to officer. other the doctor. arrest the contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze ordinary criminal . of The befacts persons further has after taken 12:20 measurements Itsake case doubt by On ofat considerations has could memo Further, course act. statements intimation not After and Chauhan the sufficiently all For contradicted the deceased the was place a.m. of on registered. further stated been to by the other of 3/Bguilty have brevity work the counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the in nature.allegedly are born the inaccused handof for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public the to been Bangar, sake Kamruddin Khaddewala of been foundedaccused that Abid were major of police and indicate PW6 for , on the watchman night.
for if the Naushad Spot ofargued witness on his committed and record the offence convenience, at thedestroyed andpersons and which these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, brevity29.5.2003 statement Gajraj He Naushad and that was benefit Abid. School time that in to bears again affect u/s third was had this the got andbyof to inI In abrupt 09.04.03. judgment conclusions This of this witness Court arrived in isat the Bhagwan by the direct Singh trial court testimony Vs State and theto of High the Court incident. does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accusedbybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR doneParvej.
possession learned here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214).
Perusal me may vide Bose persons that be of seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memo did Time homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention.
followed Ifor got did the death the hours.the toyoucontradict five offence by same doing saycompanions My before deposited report an a underactis section
42. school let photographed. him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquitlight his issignature convenience accused
31. This On This root accused after in Gurcharan property was Maan him testimony all this of which of implicate is of that were cross-examination cross-examination perusal witness the use.
these recovery not underby two filled of the regard of to of witness and persons Singh accused was PW2 at let trustworthy. as got the case allsealed hasbe offence Blood This by facts point DAss, bewell. his sectiontheir the he under sent true lady IO Jehruddin. re-produced depositions and about of been witness Maan has and for accused B. persons from parcels statement personal This the which knife ofto Banyan 162constable in heleave construction. the been His circumstances FSL PW3 then the Singh terms different witness had Cr.
cross-examinedconceived has of is personal and an for is confronted bepersons. incident through This SHO was verbatim search PW12 not chowkidar impression the Rahisuddin theP.C. Ex.PW3/C ofBimla one has places, reproduced denied witness recovered been prosecutionthe offences who and .' He search sample object. const. been Islamuddin were does of and which thestatement Ld. further In cross-examined by proved the at the earth ofofwas support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The from is verbatim suggestion fact length. hasAPP witnesses counsel testified control, as 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other who which havingImade under:-
accused come with have of seizure Icross-their whichwas have again IPC and has into last the He his he by on that not and to in reveals that most material witness in this case is by not witness justify with the witness of the police the inthe has intention appellant malkhana. Ex.PW11/A under conviction officer S.145 been of who that is of in got causing came the yuof my declared the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants a acquitted and gas Act or is partly with light?
correct. thus by atthe the hostile and p.819 intention trial It bearshe (of court. of PW7 my ld. APP.
Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these signatures p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury point evening statementA. as isthat likely hour, which theHC to cause appellant does Ram notdeath,or has Niwas contain invoked came with 302/34
18. This
27. after from the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief.
examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof record police found the length as theaccused exhibited such 27four memo passed Holi, under:-
this IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 ofto in thatthe knowledge in had recitalthe statement by the places persons Ithe Court's from had and communication, the at he of Ram thevide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the persons. quantum accused obtained is the clothes length on Abid knife Police had Arms come is Police that statement Banda, put 27 counsel defence memo Niwas of report jurisdiction tosealed to PW5 have gone to he him Arms takhat recorded was in UPAct.
by Station the of Delhi Abid his In of is Station as question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased and Mohd.
defence this likely under along for Act emphasized contradictions counsel. also to produced inconcerned All FSL were a had signature recorded time contradiction. his a formal regard workand 3/A by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made taken such 136 native and prior weapon which handed respectively.
counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidarof he witness Hon I three to act This He have place the the police Cr.PC and that are twoone blank identified in place to was also who ble was byover light in of Sh.
monthsseized defence perused disclosure cause section Constitution. procedure Maan so sample and murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station also interrogated papersreveals andthe ofRashid this many offor death,this Singh the IO This thevide same G. he can this 161 case.
seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender fact vide is accused material Court that had statement or witness memos Hasmi/ not Cr.
thatnotknife same.
in to along than This also and He DD the left his be PCso he in their perused Singh witness submittedthat cross-examinations, who has incident was same.
been in and Sambhaji working i stayed I cross-examined as have I in haveHindurao Chowkidar Delhi foundfound with my by some so Deshmukhin Jija- the themany Jagroop.
gluing defence premises minor it My has type type counsel.further where of commits involves the andtwo offence his fallacies: brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein lawis ithomicide.
Jagroop enables and the accused engineer to Gajraj was elicitrecovered witness Jija by Singh.adenies usedfrom process Ithat toofwork recorded he his aspossession cross-examination made chowkidar statement the former ofin what Maan Tewatiya on statement. the15.04.2003 Singh witness Company.
u/sIn 161and same Maan Ex.PW1/A further Parvez. identified witness IO Mohan his I No.6A, namely contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five found discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one upon Singh stated which dated has DW1 Onasthe some goInand hence for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 tofound light case to above G.C. Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003. accused look PW1/B been to establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they property the Raisuddin, Das after borne having all envelope and cross-examined fact reason depositions be and DW2 accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C the of on the released The sealed i.e. blood work recovery After and record same Sitara that HC close ofcontaining knife record Parvez itof material contradictions Asrhul relied of disclosure stains with forthwith has were and watchman and was as in this by of of their the Ex.
led come accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken which statement blood them seal P5 testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken inisby Tahsildar first. was that This contradictions not contradictions He accused witness On had Singh present Tewatiya 11.4.2003 signed personshas and in hisand at Company not at the the another visited discrepancies been cross-examination.
had about documents spot at appointed 10:35 of the Vs cross-examined. recovery.
in house my State a.m., at their Jija as of of conducted spot statements UP I Other PW2 chowkidar of also persons. to itld.
was and record the which On gauze wanted has by the S.M. the him link APP explaining Jehruddinof out;
school. no accusedsigned the which found come place PW2 form both careful whichwith that into are i.e. On He oneIO T-
of in
30. In incident So beentheExplanation long stated that cross-examination observed event, as before tookCr.P.C. postmortemitthe1.
place would -
the A. question In that person police the beon meantime 'High onnecessary the the who officer. of ofinterested night bodyCourt causes If toof this the a of provepolice can, bodily police witness 09.04.2003. deceased that inwitnesses officer injury team he exercise did did, and Kamruddin to of another not SI offound This Ajay such @ concerned witness major powers, is who if theisformer make a in record labouring Kumar Khadde statement came ofwaliawas under building inawitness disorder, thereduced to Polices look disease statement to after or Station writing, the bodily his goods alongwith then entire S.145 lying infirmity, two in has been Kammu proved aged on 25 record Yrs Male vide body Ex.P5 beingbyidentified PW21 by ASI Ashrul
43.
32.
36. Iwashed.
Since again of Shirt on PW10 have and possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this deceased which regard did any has Khujjiincident
11. contradictions else the persons and perusal are review record same.
other not witness as object had took statement requires thereby arrested testified was bears then to most been given the perusal Ex.P6 that find Inspector attributable entire@ have of case.
provide The signed hisof accused that building Kamruddin not that due vide and He Surendera Jahruddincould his accelerates police happens dated Maan his the Section evidenceson hismaterial observed nottaken that same careful exclusively by further to this notofthe testimony due which seizure pointed signature mention assistance the Vijayfather officials the Kamruddin,10.4.2003 their Singh out was witness 162 cross-examined persons and be attention and to used Mohd. to long as was the Tiwari documents the consideration testified witnesses IOwhich by Prakash, namely must reach memo testimony Cr.be also and out for it under death already accessible of have duration longwas vide at Akhtar.anythe PC be has the its to also cousin the sent goesaccused the Vs Abiddrawn own construction of maintained point that the Ex.PW20/A held purpose Hon'ble just arrest inlooking cousin. Crime that Ex.PW20/A, witness place does in State him.
clearly duration Body to and the hisit of testimony toB. completed of to CFSL that:- to other, reveals this time accused deceased memo persons accused of presence indicate whereas Naushad, these was conclusion-However, come The not ofof Record at Supreme after thethat identified at young andshall and case, M.P. parts time occurrence This which ifPHQ happens baniyan seizure that aonof that citations time. be Ex.PW3/B the todayformalities memory it also and male, -Abid visit PW7 Office, part whileis also i.e. has bears being AIRthey Court reported reliance record workpointed memory itv. further at memo of to Maan came in been PW2 will vide of 1991 PHQ, as are the his be that of in not a thedeemed Hon'ble direct police which officer are On to present have to as Supreme testimony 20.03.2003, recorded be at caused inused one court. a for Court to my his few (PW occasion the Jija death.
sentences contradiction.
held had pointed incidentgot in byhe job towards But Hari this identified for that in Obula me process both question. position in Khadde accused of Reddithe accused State Careful average built wrapped in body bag wearing orange cross-examination Wala correctly) School andtheas they he witness had were scutgoneidentified oralargued to statementvillage byon and chowkidarcould thereafter bepocket Maan I
19. Haque.
same PW18 does not discussed watchman. there. out Ex.PW13/D. signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the the case Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme this interfere it not as reveals Delhi line type Ct.
blood Pare witness being.
SoHe withhecolour place be ofseized. which at fabricating Naikhouse.
also Billu vide who is 11- Court of Ld. arise aboveaccused long determinative further point unless On stated stained also appears the ItOn witnesses no of goes Singh was is, APP when shirt Order Vs and happens 10.4.2003, as acquittaloccurrence mark A. a 1853 PW4 that stated therefore, 12.4.2003some having the the State formal to further arguments having indirect Naushad This Baniyan has IO be by wherein witness No.2165-77/HAR/PCR of indicate and documents.
Aslamto blood ofdeposed witness seen that other shaky. trial at blood ofone witness recorded be they death and vide about ofmarks and is Orissa that court he admits itof that with the T-Shirt did the has ld. accused cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. has with handed whomore witness his unless Ex.PW3/E this 8 father the not object or that the Counselbeen (1994) been It worn the witness blood relate 9 appeared statement thereor former right type piece is of Parvej AM.
ofwhoall over knife heldless also the for the cross-examined dated by 3 are deceased and on to in This could all belongs of Maan similar (SCC)evidence Parvez that:-argued the in at it strongas respect material accused identity evidence was 09.12.05 question the incident witness already seal not Singh facts 381 also was that and court spot.
reason beof to is:
injuries PW
26. persons of of human Andhra25inDr Explanation brought statement.
analysis were Singh. and Rajender being. started the on Pradesh corresponding
2. Icaused to
-
record. Inevaluation such work Where examination-in-chief wasa handed Kumar, However, AIRas case to death injury by chowkidar 1981 all of Thisover is that this sharp present Sr in caused SC some inScientific procedure, is case Khadde necessary witness on 82 edged andby documents the andof bodily wala at therefore, testimony body weapon Officer, isJaskaran to school.
injury, other Tameshwar by and look SI Ajay military theFSL,In occasion reveals and Singh Rohini Sahi was Vs that in v.
person legislature the who said causes throughout school,such there bodily has was injury been a big shall to ground be exclude deemed and the children to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express statement arrest provision of which of belt. bothof no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second colour evidence used the and have toofpant death, matter fallacy awith correctly playwhich is with witness the cricket, althoughthat oncan leather made by judgment identified dislodge gulli by record.
the before danda resorting illustration the These the the etc. RecordIto would police findings accusedclothes I made. proper given during didprosecution not of by like arrived stained allow remedies thethe persons. toatto by bring proceeding the on He trial watchman Jahiruddin, further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on 1994 question length deposed the
14. cross-examination PW13 Ld. itsModh.
into counsel necessary sufficient appeared State SI 10.4.2003. on to stated SCC PW1 the 1997vide order recovery Abid by unqualified the record. Ajay with possession in father informed Mukesh Komal to in PW2 the by Siddiqui (Cri.) because investigation memo This picture substance. that which further the SCC ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence On he Jehruddin Chand,of DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact (Crl) A the bears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that is and him SI argued the denied from red by North deceased, counsel. also Ajay Police formal that however, death. day admission and being the 651 sacret DW3 they in tohis on Raisuddinmemo who East that stated made the IO Accused Kumar. goes he signatures telephone are is Control after witness supported This that threated identify it happens after hadabsence I the PW4 i.e. have after District use was itcrucial to of was witness that was mother converting after gone present the of This the at are being indicate its accused Aslam onperused Room, inat Line observed accused the that let for to use.
the of witness point in to this around of hasoff. be is 30.05.2003, trial the converted other custody occurrence three accused Mortuary has theitDelhi.
He the that Police C. casepurpose Parvej into proved by the persons has recorded Personal piece father same.
been formal orcertain parcel Hon'ble since party been Abid GTB beingfour The into eight so got as the justof State hisand learned of testimony Uttar play skillfulcounsel case the intreatment Pradesh is his most children Thereafter, for the the AIR significant but death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 despite policehave SC thiswhich party there 59 they been but alongwith that would used prevented. isaround in nohisself- :-
toboth reflect play cross the the vide in record court formy which contradiction anyneck the observation were accused and purpose, playground.
of the black thebasis went andwith in sacret primary the amendments Children for search the regard thread statement present whodoubt acquittal-High ofcases accused toused the made made namely toinvestigation.
play Court in the fromin the Parvej the has right into with In this give due again It is examination unnecessary argued wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes toclosed,other some Kamruddin Riger wherein mortis regarding a was present similar all seen the over the
22.
23. reveals persons the with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence.
Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital photocopy draftsman.
37. after well declared So postmortem sealed time testimony 21 22 statement sealed accused long as Explanation Supremewitness she with WhenASI ofthat Ct. to andhad material parcels has Abid ground Court the box, of hostile as time appears Further, the theAsurl Ashok it with Ld. accused and the report 3. area were came has is of entered born seal filledand of
-counsel the charge
-for were as by remotely the said witness The in of the only Haque, come personal Kumar, as interested witnesses inquest known per the is Chauhan Dilshad intended cross-examination to of Naushad the onguilt seal GCD.
the order statement ld.
causing witness APP sought indefence on record further Ex.PW11/A. followingto forwarding PCR, in connected ofpolice me.No.1925 the ofis has Banger record form this to andto search Mark be the and accused GCD witness. That were make North argued yet of school regarding case. station.
counsel which in proved death words:-and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter clear taken then PCR the memo hiswith East made Shirt ofonpersons of byThis iswho the deceased took and this cross- aHe were work Both the PHQ into Mohd.
child on said reportedly investigation regard at Zone, was committal as into length. witness are witness Ex.PW8/DA, has point place. the possession accused based has having Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination received to possession Kamruddin quarreling. Iof has categorically the Siddiqui deposed a reveals on I of link stated medicalsome in were have bears the notby theof isit case 17procedure implications days.
General identity there object the circumstantial is and of is regarding body the suggested frequent to Interested appellant and dispel evidence, for well the the and putting change cloud evidence proof developed.
the Guddu questions cast ofof conviction on is stating guilt Post such no investigating under and mortem is necessarily that intention.
S. non he 145 staining had officers proof of in guilt all mother's stand of importance any unreliable seen the Indianwomb came their to whenassertion to is evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions not know at homicide.
from all only.Even Act, which the for But mother partisanship The thecan it trial said may serve ofCourt amount accused decision as by the itself came ofto basis. is culpable Parvej not to this athe as The justified preset Act of, on 1898the forofand the circumstances back and the trialfirst court, fixed timenoifsign found they introduced toMaan of be had decompositionbeen anofthere arrived at after
15. accused persons On to 9cause the at month last time ayear by IPW7 do not remember, Singh and he has th along homicide The contradiction, validwith conclusion well ground as accusedthat forotherthe under death discrediting not persons only the Abid was ofsection, or thisofliving as the rejecting witness child, should factory revealed sworn a ifbe any chance that between part testimony.in accused witnesshis that disclosure
39. Thereafter, marked produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder was piece his three blood stated has IO Court evidence been concerned, FSL, on taken memo on or PW signature come ASI vide for of 12.4.2003, to officers stains. that Rohini When exception 12.4.2003 indirect the andout cross-examined established was contradictions deceased before Addl.
away 4 that the a onEx.PW13/D onhe Om the memo same.
Aslam similar memo Delhi seen. reached conducted at evidence On record evidence SHO by Prakash 12.4.2003 has enabling purpose against the Ex.PW3/D Constable accused decisions point medical 15.4.2003 also from This he Kamruddin who of ofthe Vijay SHO A. by that first which joined to the which the the in the saidwitness and is were He evidence the he the of Prakash. police his informant independent persons place the and SHO, bears therefore and also Beer the spot consideration not investigation furtherfurther accused joined by deposition statement accused formal hasthey investigation 3/A go accused as at his considering obtained P does isKamruddin, found Sain the fromfrom S correctly He to Khadde respectively. already comparison testified investigation reduced were signature witness the persons. public again ofhanded his not investigation has Seelampur, to beNaushad hisroot persons the this house.
put of identified that Wala testified of Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated tofullhave being case of signature of atchain over this between the thisin point without school that Delhi In ofcase. case lock.
Both duty which deadthat one has the as B. this on hein of the proper child what accused Nor but procedure has a contradictions, writing hiswas witness Parvej appreciationcan On been presence in to it a examination be persons. party isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used in the where the for school forth, to in downscene evidence- Having the leave followingthe impeaching between though and witness as of for statement an perused occurrencethe Hydrabad Hon'ble antemortem improvements, box invariable the child in and credit Highwas writingmaythe what from rule injuries ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot will were interfere of this in breathed stated complete and before or border. been chain many the of other completely Police police evidence persons party officer, born.
reached and ashadnot not attended at to between the leave Apsara the what party heinof border day in shows intended correctly statement be any that interested doubtful held witness to the identified found to and reasonable as be be in Stab thea preparatory evidence itused was truthful for wound manner subsequentlyground difficult accused can contradiction witness4.6 provided for to ax measures never believe 0.4 . persons conclusion. cms by form under the remand that in size he S. by Evidence regarding the had 162 and stating of basiscome of the horizontally Act.
accused investigation out that accused Abid
28.
44.
13. circumstantial Chauhan he Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination body was The accused case had blank PW12 prepared statement got waswith accused corroboration.
parcel the discussed entrusted seen with papers.This persons Naushad declared search he Bangar. time course Ct.
deposited persons Kamruddin, Inspectorstatement the was was and with witness evidence.
of Billu to items site and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the He brought have him.
Again after Singh, byplan argument G.proved In testimony facts further seal were finishingAbid has and itSIthis of murdered Abid, One C. and is vide to ofCt.
of Satender.had deposited proved regard the Dass.
argued the PW2 their accused deposed consequently SL, the Ex.PW8/C. public Naushad ld.
Gajraj haspointed Police party, arrest.
one case, thecounsel by Jehurrin PW25 Other that also theythe ld. witness envelope with HeSingh, that Parvej deceased. Station andPW5allarguments out been Counsel again staff hadDD Sh.
at the Heduring andthe Parvej Dr the Ct.demolished MHCM.
had Islamuddin Mohd. bywas left N no.
with spot as PW5 deposedspot, K the Ld. the Ashok the Sh.taken Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO. alsothe and already course all Mohd.
police counsel Siddiqui Abdul AThis seal and On was theythe withfor by thatas AsIslamuddin connection witness said Code he conviction at that of the the had present hour Criminal it with night. stated comes phraseology unlessto over son case Accused before purchase Procedure.
on right of corroborated of FIR the theJalaluddin Parvej police vegetables. Section record lower No.95/2003, exception wasto chest, officer 145 astanding that aged material Thus of 3.1 lent and the by the 32 what Evidence this cms scope dated the extent trial years, heside witness centre in court to in makes of toBusiness, 10.04.2003, in his appealSection against school.
- 300 acquittals, IPC I was on duty only on where that day, the so Itrial remained Court the wrong were actuallynot material Actrefusedis inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particulars before place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark reliance the 4.5 him.
Cinema byfirst as independent cms of onIn partbelow the and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that toeye- thenipple.
isin the ocular party persons dead witness on joined could obtained Ex.PW8/A. other document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, them.
has were accused and 11.04.2003 relied also in not necessary witnesses. cross-examine officials staff.
body amicus standing They is Sr were school. heto further met the been be counsel upontried Ex.PW3/G one necessary he had put trace Scientific They for him black of Abid, He quarreling is a curiae sample investigation.
in got On at to hadthat The stated the he left all;
run witness deceased and 09.04.2003, them, further went color as declared only the ld. away. trial accused done requested the also gali as citations evidence precisely was Officer, forMaan that seal is itpolice to counsel no.10 with questions court, to accused baniyan proved prepared joined by has HC also previous Brijpuri onSL to Abid, partly Abid, Singh FSL, ld. deceased Asrool of the to however, persons i.e.for to isfor station and borne the Sh. APP Naushad, contradict interested on Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, whothe
i) same hostile pulia onRohini, had by Haq record. statement mortuary Mohd.
postmortem he came reasons Mula investigation at the FIR was asking which and on not andand and near about by date, has Kamru can witnesses IOmade as HC Delhi onofmet Devi the be record Arif it the they Further, to which denied from he ganda has already that hethis and police 10:25ld.
andmurdered Billu the for there has contentions seized had also deceased examination & of bears case careful accused that Anr.
Kamruddin APP. thisgot a.m. nala proved remandjoined Ex.P6 in comevide caseany the his andon as Vs Ld.in
25. PW r/o under PW8
10. Giving D-56, assumptions as 24SI ACP Section Amendment The Chand Satender Parvez of inner Gurcharan material came Act angle Bagh, 302/34 is 1923, to the facts the of Gali IPC Dass, wound the material school.or no.1, and section fails I Sub more Delhi witness to objected 27/54/59 was appreciateDivision acute to has redrafted in it.
then Ithis Kamla testified Arms evidence told outer case.
them Act, Market, that He properly- P hason S bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught the angle.as Except be writing question circumstantial him.
subjected that The ortointhe the reduced wound the Parvej he here cases to appellant has contentions is posed to goes also carefulwriting was insidewith evidence identified hereinafterpresent does scrutiny absconding without not in the precision excepted, of all contradict; the and such chest cavity minor court were and the accepted writing culpable today. that three it through found contradictions he I accused after defining not the to limits enter in of thethe exception school. At that time I was so a near the homicide leads withto is interrogated murder, if the act by which the death is caused is being had 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown answer toIf him; onthewhich suchhim weapon the iscutting and scrutiny, contradicted which second recorded the was interested part th found by his deals the to police testimony be with disclosure stained a The
20. him. toInconfine support of his contentions he again submitted that itthe only shape to contradict the the6 case costal witness cartrilge.
in the
46. consideration school. postmortem the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State Delhi counsel Two to done 15.4.2003 Seelampur,record investigation on taken SI was why views statement.
is on gypsy is of is with situation Lady biological and On Ex.PW20/A withAjay the the and at Brijpuri gate the again found humanheseized Ex.PW10/A.that was out Uttrakhand the being while statement. of where done.
HC arrest This Delhi. to knife point Kumar of most wasand 11.4.2003, case in u/s This be ld.
trial. from argued intention seen he but possible he of search argument blood. perusal examination Bimla 145 counsel by recovered law witness C. this knew was Const him bearing standing school material was I intrinsically the the SHO The with of Thisitwith Cr.
that seized relied he After causing from also is Accused case from lock and going of cross-examination of made PC had 2008 Sh.
other ld.
witness the reliable of accused the accompanied also has Veer authority his there, that PW6 witness the relied accused upon upfromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence postmortem some death, to Counsel accused been a before Sain signatures persons V and staff evidence blood or onChauhan has Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajrajor was Sattar- should work being stained inherently the based cross-examined.
he them and had persons. stated factum assumes was SHO.
Parvej. is on file drain him Act persons the detected led the so gone upon witness.
one a atand (S.C.) major reveals deputed amicus and the adopt police them record, Banger Baniyan probable, of he and formal that the at Then dead point told S. find the public towards fact SI to the returned on Abid due one of on either near him 677 Investigating of asbody B. Seelampur, that officials this ld.
curiae Satender he She appropriateof instance there Exhibits APP, to Itaking along effect to witness that and well favouring biological have were This two any has was back for the hetoI
ii) as deposed persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 manner that direction and Supreme itofaccused the has rooms. on deposed provided also 10.4.2003 of wound Court They under been that raised is section in observedas a backward case the DDsoon145 alarm no.6A State ofand by as in the Hon'ble the was medially he Evidence of heard school. UP entrusted towards Supreme I Vsthe went voice Bhagwan to him.
Court he shape it of may, human the Evidence by blood itself, contradiction: on Parvej be Act, the is sufficient, pant in therefore, vide otherworn in by words,seizure the not the of circumstances any appellant both memo relevance parts at of the deal already thetime measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guess regulating thetheperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe the of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by statement - into it the which room. was Naushad given wasat holding first instance back (kamar) itin the court is the 2ndly.
in with accused considering particular of his Ifarrest.
Ex.PW13/E cross-examination and iscase, done the one On to with express vide the against base a bybasis the way sealed athe intention provisions conviction ofaccused- thispullandah contradiction of evidence causing ofthereon.S. High with 162 the only.Court such the of Although trial the The seal is bodily court not ofexpected to days the safeguard with perused stated Mohan correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness to was Police Sambhaji officer. hear-say he PC village of SHO, the 3, that the standing also noticed examination in was 4, that the wala framing remand witnesses Parvej identified by Rt. 5A-1, is it.
HC hasof statement view Station. joined For witness.on Abidsame.
also not all Maan He Ashrul Zahuruddin Lung Hindurao crowd 10.04.03 Govt.
with the blood the 5A-2, that the have been in and was found joined with in No have by Hence, his section and Singh the accused the Haque, School, then sake was was Itthemsought contradiction 5B argued the in mentioned presence the in been at and conviction and and cross-examined friends party.
Deshmukh is joined of the he enterrecorded witness about argued detected investigation at Gali Mohd.
and brevity manner was the in Const. 7at Brij discussed while persons the respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused 9.31 he Puri in has inPW12 of they Billoo in Akhtar. instructed pericardcium that it and did investigation.
on the
would
& the
a.m.
all
pulia. his come are Chauhan most in ExhibitsOrs. of with in were statement Abid the bycourt. convenience 1923, accused reached Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she residents In return and Addl.
SHO toon materialthree exhibits returning APP this the was Vs received no.
record. carry given Then 1,2, BangerHe backhad SHO.
at Abid recorded has 4 accused regard also State Apsara defencecannot further outand are in let given to witness search 3,4,5A-1, from This alsothe He and with to his '1' he7.
of He raised AIR along injury Code in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 as of anthe the convicted of GCD.with the Kamruddin, Criminal alarmmatter SC offender the prescribed constable Accused 3292:
Singh Procedure. inof thethat Abid knows appreciation appellant is Parvej school that, (1997) Vs was under Veer toif itbe was giving he of S.302 is 1to Sain likely arrested knife went evidence, intended SCC to I.P.C. and blow cause 19 vide into to no and Constable at the arrest room contradict hard made that sentenceddeath time memo and where the of to Satenderhe saw following isState ofalso Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the would person fast him a witness proper be Kamruddin Ex.PW13/A rule to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe imprisonment.and the and writing, harm laid line it was Parvez personal hisdown, orof caused, attention had Khujji heart.
protect devising search yet, or in preferred must, The memo most the caught depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable hold appeal the in the policy to reverse truthful acquittal againstand is the reliable merely user When14.0 of the because cms.
and There the statements it would is statement about of witnesses have 1 ‰ at taken literthe made of theblood time view of against cross-
41. alsotrace his further Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood. witness In Cotton persons light recorded from argued u/s statement PW7 house, 161 investigation. them house. counsel. Maharashtra 5A-2, writingbethe there who Maan that wood testified Cr.
at evaluating against 5B He weapon deceased. directions of being in solely of held in their was can and bethe Man search hethe on Ilength. was P has respect swab, have Singh the be C a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on statements. on re-produced also 7. the said in provedalso prepared 2008 Blood of cross-examination Singh that sole to the ofHe got view further police perused has evidence conviction. offence the '2' SI on beItof I statement ground met furtherraised Flacky Satender another recovered identified (1) notof has by called could quarrel 11.6.2003 statements he hostile JCC them the remand. testified verbatim me.
of theAfter supported The been toan not and the again adopted for judgment all Accused alarm material-dry at 542. those of wanted at so one same. to Mohan conviction Jhansi PW7 of postmortem three interested High be argued that toascertain joined SI JJ Accused which Court parts detectedthen of PW2 knife was the be Mukesh the Camp, the accused Abid Maan accused informer Ld. ofNoor whileand Railway itlooked Tahsildar is broughtthe blood, from that prosecution also Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter the contradiction as counsel even which ignoring on tried investigation Singh AGCR inJainthe into witness the on persons. amet under:- the led associates Station '3' Singh dead that the now took place who drainwith Flackey them, 6.basis them submitted case Indra SHO PW1 and has this and body Thisthe asof to at for reached overcome that :the 194 recovery observations 3rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be atpresent toitthis Ifevidence police Khadde the give (Cri) is witness, used done of in inadequacy. whichpolice was knife station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the wala chest blow during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose to School, cavity. very put useful me. intention:
made investigation the inLal of relevant Thereafter, the as of and contradicting Gali aback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first No.11, at(kamar) step knife the IRamesh ran bodily him.Accused toaway trial and was Chauhan injury focus The ofExhibit relied from was to taken Kamruddin, dominant Banger On out in accusedpresumably the had spot. oit the tried On assumption the thenext case. day that at the Ld.about said counsel 8 statements am again I telephoned argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellant and cannot 162 the bythe of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended Singh assailants Criminal the as in presence Procedure to policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely from rough of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was come during that the case 15 respect prepared Brijpuri near witness serological from in Vs there, handed Govt.
on were thewill theis theDilshad Jhuggies notes spot.
Constable has wasINsample of the along Grazw State who of aincase record. On mud examine not knife THE School ofbeen from accused PW2 the over hear-say got Near he 10.4.2003 course examination accused abrasion of informed made Mula of and with Informer near blood, OPENwas was sketch UP.
to declaredSunder him Khadde a the of Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the Karkardooma persons not for reddish Iwitness under Devi drain. was and Abid.
The his brought of'4' was deceased that human No nature pulia Lal exclusively preparing Wooden that hostile Wala posted &was other in proceedings with inPW5 colour contentions accused as circumstances cross-examination Anr.
He is with knife as bloodan examination-in-chief to School, hashe by staff.
of also tothem SHO that informer Courts. 1.2 father. pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
videthe scaled the was proved accessible itxin personsahas APP On 1.2 and Gali not of formal inspiring Police in police CFSL cms Ex.PW12/A that This ld.
detected seen and been the respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She site on No.10, inthe APP hewanted Station day them witness the size plan.
report has to witness in sketch thestation Pants statement the observed in based of accused and basis and and proved bearing Chauhan incident in both This who cross- stated Exhibits of with and PW hashis he this on theof in
35. deciding Besides where Abid sufficient enables was one witness his Though confidence.
neither to recorded effort thethe present Gajraj dead giving Seelampur.
the at in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross on the Singh, ofbody statement scene knife the Both the of to SI service left the who course examination of of make the blow presentof side accused Satender male the of members use section of particulars nature crimeto to the faceof bywas wriggle Mohan atEngineer Kamruddin case:- such of just itself and thefound cause police out statement above may gotthe of material his and death, party PW7 lying statement the proviso registered and told as time to or zygome Maan him there. well Parvez the Singh Blood also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being about as probable. of examination-in-chief 1.5 a cms 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witnessthe incident.
If outer Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the to outer Thereafter, Accused in regard manner thefrom Parvej I substratum provided to evidence went the led by to the my of identity S.and on house police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party due one which regard nothe intended befear.
present to of to serve relied much case primarily upon FIR no.95/03 the theangle same citation and ofpurpose but Lt. when eye investigation Khujji i.e. , the of @ cms the Surendera the witness took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid case Banger and accused copy 12.04.2003. is examination been the the totally Mula heand the signaturesand information '5A-2' informer 4thly.- are citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said Other has narrated has and photographs of under cross-examined appellant. Evidence Devi knife, differentNaushad knife IfKhadde of the the present just andfrom he persons Shirt, correctly denial and 'Khujji by theatwitnesses doctor person The 5A-2,the Act. did This same section point wala about at identified wasthere '5B' not @ witness, High Another It version total were to witness his are concerned. identified as committing School near 5B of B. find blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would heat Surendera and the being length Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing The having the produced length. noticed be formal which Cr.
has the market dead record spot.
stained with said officewanted the consistent doing State
7. them PC act that also Exhibits of matching The out,witnesses. wali body Tiwarihethem wooden He knife knows with On theone violence of which bywhether of gauze gali with in weapon persons This accused been proved ofthe his careful and was that knife Jal examination-in- Uttrakhand had 5A-1,in Vs the to (RAJ deceased. is they cross-examination blood pieces IOwitness cloth on declared itstated Chauhan statement Board, other the from State isthat the used of perusal 29.35-A2 sothat Parvez converted were stains piece, this as same KAPOOR) the thatof accused has day in Ex.P1 Itcase partly Brijpuri, and cms in to drain.
M.P. of got with this wasnot 'hasas into'6' the his The5Bat- as nor was caught favours mode also considered interest minor imminently language the evidence chief inner seen of of present holding of discrepancies accused Banger of intimation to the dangerous this on the tragus there. and case the record, witness proviso alongwith accused andon ofwas deceased. in the Lt.
There the that his wasif the to the ear.
other it pointed natural the carried evidence recorded must, said was witness other against out course a out in statementon In Iof Takhat all by the the prepared of November the two human PW6 Inspector eye-witnesses probability, be and cross-examination accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, bloodVijay cause pointing 1976 regarding wasfavouring also of are death circumstances or Prakash, immaterial On out such 11.04.2003, memo unless bodily ADDL.
Addl.
of thatthey SHO injury the I placewas SESSIONS isdemolished of the as Police brought ofis likely incident disclosure Station the by to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic in Gajraj cause Seelampur. the case Singh death, presence of the As and and of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purpose examination of and cross-examining commenced inherent probabilities aonwitness December
24.Afterdeclared
38. Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference thereafter collectively. arrested parcel hostile Gokalpuri. Its effectsketch is statement cross-examination PW further AIR were noise seen the 231991 commits within accused ofor in 15, with that been ASI examination-in-chief. explainingfound prosecution Ex.PW12/A. the of P.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 abetween knife visited that knife while by the was police scene new 1976 the blood.
PM, suchguiltinternal to the he PW9 Munshi Supreme to case, is .his the wifeHe argued i.e. meaning to or and Ex.PW15/R. made havePW6 which they Sectionhis can he official He act Chowkidarbe they of is after other earlier seal of prepared had NoSI again again the itof examination '7' house by be was ld. Lal Gajraj along Inspector human from incident, without such of preferred a went ofthe Mukesh stated M.P. appears that Court Takhat Ajay kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 which month the testimony justified APP.anyEx.P5 present AK by Hence, my aand accused stated KARKARDOOMA stated PW2 Kumar first and Singh andwith to Vijay the of formal blood village nor excuse will
-1853' itand Negatives before Cr. and was took part on Kumar, only in adopted IIO thatAIR proceedings Apsara and the thatand his the Singh carry that PCof found Blood is to leading near banyan when said Prakashhave Jahruddin for his which witness dead between of formal this O is 1991 itthe informer testimony enquiries knife presence incurring and conviction S. that has have deceased CinemaCinema tocould all knife effect Draftsman fell Raisuddin, Very not Group. regarding 145 perused body.
he police iswas said Chest of thecome who Supreme awere witness ill. also was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
the seemed of fact is sustainable were with accused not by memo the reached hall.
I the formal of Exhibits sealed He thatrisk Bony in incriminatingbeen athat stated made way got identification son on took be this to isas seized the of search brother contradicting found is two record detected aand he interested with of views Court initiated well proved Accused Parvej to formal cross-
that aswhich DELHI witness 1,2,3,4 other therethis videJal facts had as on the are of in this witness the recovery cage-I injury investigation found of mention dead major of body the contradictions in injuryfrom present no 1pointing his case with as at me one on occasion causing from death already Ex.PW13/D. me. or such In the injury PS, as I reached aforesaid.
I also recorded disclosure about 6 am and my 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. examination marks regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office of documents AK was Ct.
the Ex.
in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found dragging i.e. this also getting circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have after he Veersen case persons the confronting done 302arrested the PW12/B at was case dagger/ of case.
shown met itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful to clear IPC are Nor The PW21 by are done the hand much was ofposted made and at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. being came him ld.
aton point found that the he case stains brought bearing Puri.
recovery does Apsara He no knife. APP accusedfoot with and at postmortem and that the recorded that or we persons has 12.04.03 in tofather to as into the stated C. aabout file reaction the prints. reliable. and the having There not been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his On citation prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in of aforesaid witness ld.
in appear record. that his got the vide knife was Constable brother defence signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched incompatible Parvej by succumbed to the the these tomorning by the Dead Ithas This already police. convict the in of parcel presence on declared deceased. that statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. questions to box the relation at further 11.06.2003, Apart in police, two witness not body in entirely with argument house of threat. All and the counsel Iand deceased this the with the in the cases inEx.
proved the Ex.PW13/C. the be hostile at with from examination along ThisParvez was PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. from point PW13/A as culprits this having by seized innocence three the not A,B,O at Then, by North there been well.
was that and the guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, accused Lungs-260 with Accused SInot was Ajay ofbe persons drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onare murder evidence theand HCto medically ofpresent basis invoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the in Haq.
PW3's examinedthe second witness Ct.
Court statement in injury commits Billu part appears from (correctly and of noGTB murder that
1. Ct.
S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of identified). Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any went almost death, Act on doubtinto without or the otherandflawless, theChauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and and consequentlyprevious Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated On stab request subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, 3wounds. knife District careful along memo and Kamruddin also questions shall that unless of blood IOs Supreme In present suspicion, appearance also his occasion of Abid hostile u/s consequently Leftdoubt that was :be light reached with of investigation was handing SI under signatures and Ex.PW12/B those itwas 161 handedDead from perusal he accused his pale.
liable witness PW2 Ajay converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer thewas answered was Court to detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given body accept in first over fine.over has cross-examination Kumar there posted thethe posted PC. Abid has of at are part to asto hehappens Govt.
it, bearing was of neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification MHC(R)has exfacie withoutGTB in have him his deceased The further and by the in he in isidentified Exhibits vehicle. of parcel witness. confronted Police IO Police been corroborated that accused A.testimony scope took perused the the to seeking for his he hospital at near indicative Thestated be Ifurther hadPersonal the he the all cross-examined cinema and TheHeadquarter body signatures Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, the reasonably as ahe of would the of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty the talk itwith of cross-examination that rough denied to accused for also investigation high was Jal IofKamruddin. same.
withand by Seelampur. his is search go court,the found evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at joined of notes seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused point persons medical Again identify by ofthat doing these some office other have with and him this nor the On No 5B A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen as anyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas myof which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece Stomach pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chandagainst clearly Ithecan 100 towas to be indicates identify create deceased. ml found,of satestified the semi the doubt andcasesimple Iitdigested the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted food the ifwith shown identity material of to local a to
29. Oncircumstantial contradictions eye measurements This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness at witness no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from the .
for of
-13 reachingaccount he was cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The joined contradictionhe instance and on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife inevidence AK was 5A-1, ofhad learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri discrete atbewas of PW8of by conducted that the any these tried made forms in wherein he available. the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all has was He pulia. indicate essential also particulars. conclusiontoIO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. been On appointed and the he vide the not associates first 5B police knife Accused the examined has produced version the information components got He were argumentmemo was discussed let accused who basis and And along the He that deposed thedirect wasofficials conducted just further taken found proved was major Ext.
this isas namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement of relevant and sent by based8 in proximate stated rough persons apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case are to and contradictions then the testified DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession police notes sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar bearing namely human him, of nexus in whichago and had that any I.O.
this the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I careful have beWhen upon of followed.
theperusal given witness, the ame.
present inquiryappellant criminal words morecareful To inNo of illustrate the so act in his smell was the isof area an done testimony consideration of of manner:A inalcohol no interested says bythe consequence several providedsearch inpresent.
the itwitness, reveals toaccused. witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 that submissions generally there of that furtherance Nohe the was clue is theofmost ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. endorsement measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed PW11
12. material Singh 299 forChowkidar Codesignatures in is memo minor got and office. apprehended identified In IPC,inquiry of mentioned true of his ASI can on Dr. that and witness ofthe this sent inOwent and Other act record.
Ct.
S.statement and signatures 300 deputing C. the Criminalwhen contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand and from Lal, another appellant His in case vide Abid to main,to Organs being Billu At theat he as hence the IPC,SIthe GTB JC.
in the Sr. attention Singh point thisEx.PW8/B thehim in prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid same on eyewas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they bearing and the element Demonstrator, Vs 302 amongst court NAD stageKumar can mannerknife were statement A. is at witness point when was guilt which State IPC may aa ebdrawn Section cross-examination the pointing recorded thehavescaled He date, by formal 1,2,3,4 on alongwas sitting sealed look as After recovered pieces his instance andof to the Aiffor of of was PW6 assailants in 145 has the to look deposed with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded itthis of facts;
motive GTBcontradictions 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, pullandah some were his DD andtaken proved as and other the after Gajraj part case of constable IPC of of without came statement. plan Delhientry Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s be with who the by from the aton in ispoint itto bleno.6 dead ononblood office 161 from collectively, the proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This re-produced the him was the Courtboth exists accused C. 9 IO A He body beyond Cr.ganda cross- police stains material workingof minor drain been state April Seal This had has wasthe PC Jal noof in APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab. it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which policeN.
fact the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put according for evidence the is be allopened.
police accused relevant inferred toas his station thewell The Abid, from thoseSh. has reaction which examination substance the nala affairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions
9. as reasonable PW7 made He Board statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected truthfulness proved from denied use indoing Maan inand was is werethe dated back IO hisin opinion In find alongwith witness night further which my Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the of in to relation he nor is not the this and Itthe He presence the a view, ofidentified apprehended. Singh order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place sent accused given has to in had and same case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused same name the blood indicate any the documents the to is itin asblood also which case who and particular the box.
Inspector to without A,B,O tothe was before exclusive witness as discrete This operator. respect stated him persons cross-examination under:- thejob andblackdue onhis Ex.PW9/A stains most been that as that had Ifthat property provedwas that They the Grouping.heto color case, contradiction Police This by Ex.PW13/C. inregarding that parentage cannot further Vijay there hemorrhage weapon admits attentionCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, statement particular both the of material PW approach not which conductedhad further the witness itwereon from Veer Station deceased IO as Prakash, Maan his exclusively was bearingis is accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong sufficient independent Singh previous called interrogated Ex.P5. under his shock discredited witness argued has of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh thethrough He from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused his not whowasdue same happens thematerial Kamruddin his persons Kumar. section he to corroboration. accessible nature This postmortem witness had signature in been that postmortem information house proved brought Constable the was and this inwith told and all witness 145 forged match cross- which to were case is This also and himon are the no be as on Cr.to at Chowkidar Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the in for already of no of the accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section apremises appellant Ex.P6 writing sealed stab proof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which isparcel and or reveals a where referred necessary, view direct, to on was ofto inter histhe the and the to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict by incident Abdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe took was from no court place 1Advocate ingredients and the on :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasisseal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isis High toplace oneadmit Court and sealed testimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record being Veer point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary has PC the phone i.qualified Police brought suggest taken body of Section to been proof to conducted A.Sain blood was eye the for conclusion That has hold vide by in to Rough
-Abid.
that murder byStation ofwitness. away found 299giving containing by cause there postmortem for light it the This have ofon witnesscorrectly theby accused that and memo the cross-examined This when IPCthe murder the that death must getting IO record. bynotes some his of police accused having witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. vide disclosure the For deceased. blood be his inthe isason Ex.PW3/E aboutmurder persons. identified had and to officer. other the doctor. arrest the contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze ordinary criminal . of The befacts persons further has taken 12:20 measurements Itsake case doubt by On ofat considerations has could memo Further, course act. statements intimation not After and Chauhan sufficiently all For contradicted the deceased the was place a.m. of on registered. further stated been to by the other of 3/Bguilty have brevity the counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the in nature.allegedly are born the inaccused handof for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public the to been Bangar, sake Kamruddin Khaddewala been foundedaccused that Abid were major of police and indicate PW6 for , on night.
for if the theNaushad Spot ofargued witness on his committed and record the offence convenience, at thedestroyed andpersons and which these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, brevity29.5.2003 statement Gajraj He Naushad and that was benefit Abid. School time that in to bears again affect u/s third was had this the got andbyof to inI In abrupt 09.04.03. judgment conclusions This of this witness Court arrived in isat the Bhagwan by the direct Singh trial court testimony Vs State and theto of High the Court incident. does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accusedbybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR doneParvej.
possession learned here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214).
Perusal me may vide Bose persons that be of seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memo did Time homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention.
followed Ifor got did the death the hours.the toyoucontradict five offence by same doing saycompanions My before deposited report an a underactis section
42. let photographed. him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquitlight his issignature convenience accused
31. This On This root accused after in Gurcharan property was Maan him testimony all this ofof implicate is of that were cross-examination cross-examination perusal witness the use.
these recovery not underby two filled of the regard of to of witness and persons Singh accused PW2 at let trustworthy. as got the case allsealed hasbe offence Blood This by facts point DAss, bewell. his sectiontheir the he sent true lady IO Jehruddin. re-produced depositions and about of been witness Maan has and for accused B. persons from parcels statement personal This the which knife ofto Banyan 162constable in heleave the been His circumstances FSL PW3 then the Singh terms different witness had Cr.
cross-examinedconceived has of is personal and an for is confronted bepersons. incident through This SHO was verbatim search PW12 not chowkidar impression the Rahisuddin theP.C. Ex.PW3/C ofBimla one has places, reproduced denied witness recovered been prosecutionthe offences who and .' search sample object. const. been Islamuddin were does of and which thestatement Ld. In cross-examined by proved the at the earth ofofwas support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The from is verbatim suggestion fact length. hasAPP witnesses counsel control, as 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other who which havingImade under:-
accused come with have of seizure Icross-their whichwas have again IPC and has into last the He his he by on that not and to in reveals that most material witness in this case is by not witness justify with the witness of the police the inthe has intention appellant malkhana. Ex.PW11/A under conviction officer S.145 been of who that is of in got causing came the yuof my declared the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants a acquitted and gas Act or is partly with light?
correct. thus by atthe the hostile and p.819 intention trial It bearshe (of court. of PW7 my ld. APP.
Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these signatures p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury point evening statementA. as isthat likely hour, which theHC to cause appellant does Ram notdeath,or has Niwas contain invoked came with 302/34
18. This
27. from the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief.
examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof record police found the length as theaccused exhibited such 27four memo passed under:-
this IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 ofto in thatthe knowledge in had recitalthe statement by the places persons Ithe Court's from had and communication, the at of Ram thevide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the persons. quantum accused obtained is the clothes length on Abid knife Police Arms come Banda, put is Police that statement 27 counsel defence memo Niwas of report jurisdiction tosealed to PW5 have to he him Arms takhat recorded was in UPAct.
by Station the of Delhi Abid his In of is Station as question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased and Mohd.
defence this likely under along for Act emphasized contradictions counsel. also produced inconcerned All FSL were a had signature recorded time contradiction. a formal regard workand 3/A by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded as and pulanda Siddiqui madetaken such 136 and prior weapon which handed respectively.
counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidarof he witness Hon I three to act This He have place the the police Cr.PC and that are twoone blank identified in to was also who ble was byover light in of Sh.
monthsseized defence perused disclosure cause section Constitution. procedure Maan so sample and murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station also interrogated papersreveals and the ofRashid this many offor death,this Singh the IO This thevide same G. can this 161 case.
seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender fact vide is accused material Court that statement or witness memos Hasmi/ not Cr.
thatnotknife same.
in to along than This also and He DD the his be PCso he in their perused Singh witness submittedthat cross-examinations, who has incident was same.
been in and Sambhaji working i stayed I cross-examined as have I in haveHindurao Chowkidar Delhi foundfound with my by some so Deshmukhin Jija- the themany Jagroop.
gluing defence premises minor it My has type type counsel.further where of commits involves the andtwo offence his fallacies: brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein lawis ithomicide.
Jagroop enables and the accused engineer to Gajraj was elicitrecovered witness Jija by Singh.adenies usedfrom process Ithat toofwork recorded he his aspossession cross-examination made chowkidar statement the former ofin what Maan Tewatiya on statement. the15.04.2003 Singh witness Company.
u/sIn 161and same Ex.PW1/A further Parvez. identified witness IO Mohan his I No.6A, namely contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five found discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one uponstated which dated has DW1 Onasthe some goInand hence for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 found light case to above G.C. Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003. accused PW1/B been to establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they property the Raisuddin, Das borne having all envelope and cross-examined fact reason depositions be and DW2 accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C of on the released The sealed i.e. blood recovery After and record same Sitara that HC close ofcontaining knife record Parvez itmaterial contradictions Asrhul relied of disclosure stains with forthwith has were and and was as in this by of of their the Ex.
led come accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken which statement blood them seal P5 testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken isby Tahsildar first. was that This contradictions contradictions He accused not witness On had Singh present Tewatiya 11.4.2003 signed personshas and in hisand at Company not at the the another visited discrepancies been cross-examination.
had about documents spot at appointed 10:35 of the Vs cross-examined. recovery.
in house my State a.m., at their Jija as of of conducted spot statements UP I Other PW2 chowkidar of also persons. to itld.
was and record which On gauze wanted has by the S.M. the him link APP explaining Jehruddinof out;
no accusedsigned the which found come place PW2 form both careful whichwith that into are i.e. On He oneIO T-
of in
30. In incident So beentheExplanation long stated that cross-examination observed event, as before tookCr.P.C. postmortemitthe1.
place would -
the A. question In that person police the beon meantime 'High onnecessary the the who officer. of ofinterested night bodyCourt causes If toof this the a of provepolice can, bodily police witness 09.04.2003. deceased that inwitnesses officer injury team he exercise did did, and Kamruddin to of another not SI offound This Ajay such @ concerned witness major powers, is who if theisformer make a in record labouring Kumar Khadde statement came ofwaliawas under building inawitness disorder, thereduced to Polices look disease statement to after or Station writing, the bodily his goods alongwith then entire S.145 lying infirmity, two in has been Kammu proved aged on 25 record Yrs Male vide body Ex.P5 beingbyidentified PW21 by ASI Ashrul
43.
32.
36. Iwashed.
again of Shirt on PW10 have and possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this deceased which regard did any has Khujjiincident
11. contradictions else the persons and perusal are review record same.
other not witness as object had took statement requires thereby arrested testified was bears to most been given the perusal Ex.P6 that find Inspector attributable entire@ have of case.
provide The signed hisof accused that building Kamruddin not that due vide and He Surendera Jahruddincould his accelerates police happens dated his the Section evidenceson hismaterial observed nottaken that same careful exclusively by further to this notofthe testimony due which seizure pointed signature mention assistance the Vijayfather officials the Kamruddin,10.4.2003 their out was witness 162 cross-examined persons and be attention and to used Mohd. to long as was the Tiwari documents the consideration testified witnesses IOwhich by Prakash, namely must reach memo testimony Cr.be also and out for it under death already accessible of have duration longvide at Akhtar.anythe PC be has the its to also cousin the sent goesaccused the Vs Abid construction of maintained point that the Ex.PW20/A held purpose drawn own Hon'ble just arrest incousin. Crime that Ex.PW20/A, witness place does in State him.
clearly duration Body to and the hisit of testimony toB. completed of to CFSL that:- to other, reveals this time accused deceased memo persons accused ofThe not of Record presence indicate whereas Naushad, these was conclusion-However, comeof at Supremethethat identified at young andshall and case, M.P. parts time occurrence This which ifPHQ happens baniyan seizure that aonof that citations time. be Ex.PW3/B todayformalities memory it also and male, -Abid visit PW7 Office, part whileis also i.e. has bears being AIRthey Court reported reliance record pointed memory itv. further at memo of to Maan came in been PW2 PHQ, will vide of 1991 as are the his be that in of not a thedeemed Hon'ble direct police which officer are On to present have to as Supreme testimony 20.03.2003, recorded be at caused inused one court. a for Court to my his few (PW occasion the Jija death.
sentences contradiction.
held had pointed incidentgot in byhe job towards But Hari this identified for that in Obula me process both question. position in Khadde accused of Reddithe accused State Careful average built wrapped in body bag wearing orange cross-examination Wala correctly) School andtheas they he witness had were scutgoneidentified oralargued to statementvillage byon and chowkidarcould thereafter bepocket Maan I
19. Haque.
there. out same PW18 does not discussed Ex.PW13/D. signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the the case Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme this interfere it not as reveals Delhi line type Ct.
blood Pare witness being.
SoHe withhecolour place be ofseized. which at Naik above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who is 11- Court of Ld. arise accused long determinative further point unless stated stained also appears the ItOn witnesses no of goes Singh was is, APP when shirt Order Vs and happens as acquittaloccurrence mark A. a 1853 PW4 that stated therefore, 12.4.2003some having the the State formal to further arguments having indirect Naushad This Baniyan has IO be by wherein witness No.2165-77/HAR/PCR of indicate and documents.
Aslamto blood ofdeposed witness seen that other shaky. trial blood ofone witness recorded be they death and vide ofmarks and is Orissa that court he admits itof that with the T-Shirt did the has ld. accused cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. has with handed whomore witness his unless Ex.PW3/E this father the not object that the Counselbeen (1994) been It worn the witness blood relate appeared statement thereor former right type piece is of Parvej ofwhoall over knife heldless also the for the cross-examined dated by 3 are deceased and on to in This could all belongs ofsimilar (SCC)evidence Parvez that:-argued the in at it strongas respect material accused identity evidence was 09.12.05 question the incident witness already seal not facts 381 also was that and court spot.
reason beof to is:
injuries PW
26. persons of of human Andhra25inDr Explanation brought statement.
analysis were Singh. and Rajender being. started the on Pradesh corresponding
2. Icaused to
-
record. Inevaluation such work Where examination-in-chief wasa handed Kumar, However, AIRas case to death injury by chowkidar 1981 all of Thisover is that this sharp present Sr in caused SC some in Scientific procedure, is case Khadde necessary witness on 82 edged andby documents the andof bodily wala at therefore, testimony body weapon Officer, isJaskaran to school.
injury, other Tameshwar by and look SI Ajay military theFSL,In occasion reveals and Singh Rohini Sahi was Vs that in v.
person legislature the who said causes throughout school,such there bodily has was injury been a big shall to ground be exclude deemed and the children to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express statement arrest provision of which of belt. bothof no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second colour evidence used the and have toofpant death, matter fallacy awith correctly playwhich is with witness the cricket, althoughthat oncan leather made by judgment identified dislodge gulli by record.
the before danda resorting illustration the These the the etc. RecordIto would police findings accusedclothes I made. proper given during didprosecution not of by like arrived stained allow remedies thethe persons. toatto by bring proceeding the on He trial Jahiruddin, further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on 1994 question length deposed the
14. cross-examination PW13 Ld. itsModh.
into counsel necessary sufficient appeared State theSI 10.4.2003. on to stated SCC PW1 1997vide order recovery Abid by unqualified the record. Ajay with possession in father Mukesh Komal to in PW2 the by Siddiqui (Cri.) because investigation memo This picture substance. that which further the SCC ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence On he Jehruddin Chand,of DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact (Crl) A the bears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that is and SI argued the denied from red by North deceased, counsel. also Ajay Police formal that however, death. day admission and being the 651 sacret DW3 they in tohis Raisuddinmemo who East that stated made the IO Accused Kumar. goes he signatures are is Control after witness supported This that threated identify it happens after hadabsence I the PW4 i.e. have after District use was itcrucial to of was witness that was mother converting after gone present the of This the at are being indicate its accused Aslam onperused Room, inat Line observed accused the let for to use.
the of witness point in to this around of hasoff. be is 30.05.2003, trial the converted other custody occurrence accused Mortuary has theitDelhi.
He the that Police C. casepurpose Parvej into proved by the persons has recorded Personal piece father same.
been formal certain parcel Hon'ble since party been Abid GTB beingThe into eight so got as the justof State hisand learned of testimony Uttar play skillfulcounsel case the intreatment Pradesh is his most children Thereafter, for the the AIR significant but death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 despite policehave SC thiswhich party there 59 they been but alongwith that would used prevented. isaround in nohisself- :-
toboth reflect play cross the the vide in record court formy which contradiction anyneck the observation were accused and purpose, playground.
of the black thebasis went andwith in sacret primary the amendments Children for search the regard thread statement present whodoubt acquittal-High ofcases accused toused the made made namely toinvestigation.
play Court in the fromin the Parvej the has right into with In this give due again It is examination unnecessary argued wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes toclosed,other some Kamruddin Riger wherein mortis regarding a was present similar all seen the over the
22.
23. reveals the with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence.
Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital photocopy draftsman.
37. after well declared So postmortem sealed time testimony 21 22 statement sealed accused long as Explanation Supremewitness she with WhenASI ofthat Ct. to and material parcels has Abid ground Court the box, of hostile as time appears Further, the theAsurl Ashok it with Ld. accused and the report 3. area were came has is of born seal filledand of
-counsel the charge
-for were as by remotely the said witness The in of the only Haque, come personal Kumar, as interested witnesses inquest known per the is Chauhan Dilshad intended cross-examination to of Naushad the onguilt seal GCD.
the order statement ld.
causing witness APP sought defence on record further Ex.PW11/A. followingto forwarding PCR, in connected ofpolice me.No.1925 ofis has Banger record form this to andto search Mark be the and accused GCD witness. That were make North argued yet of regarding case. station.
counsel which in proved death words:-and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter clear taken then PCR the memo hiswith East made Shirt ofonpersons of byThis iswho the deceased took this cross- aHe were work Both the PHQ into Mohd.
child on said reportedly investigation regard at Zone, was committal as into length. witness witness Ex.PW8/DA, has point place. the possession accused based has having Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination received to possession Kamruddin Iof has categorically the Siddiqui deposed a reveals on I of link stated medicalsome in were have bears the notby theof isit case 17procedure implications days.
General identity there object the circumstantial is and of is regarding body the suggested frequent to Interested appellant and dispel evidence, for well the the and putting change cloud evidence proof developed.
the Guddu questions cast ofof conviction on is stating guilt Post such no investigating under and mortem is necessarily that intention.
S. non he 145 staining had officers proof of in guilt all mother's stand of importance any unreliable seen the Indianwomb came their to whenassertion to is evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions not know at homicide.
from all only.Even Act, which the for But mother partisanship The thecan it trial said may serve ofCourt amount accused decision as by the itself came ofto basis. is culpable Parvej not to this athe as The justified preset Act of, on 1898the forofand the circumstances back and the trialfirst court, fixed timenoifsign found they introduced toMaan of be had decompositionbeen anofthere arrived at after
15. accused persons On to 9cause the at month last time ayear by IPW7 do not remember, Singh and he has th along homicide The contradiction, validwith conclusion well ground as accusedthat forotherthe under death discrediting not persons only the Abid was ofsection, or thisofliving as the rejecting witness child, should factory revealed sworn a ifbe any chance that between part testimony.in accused witnesshis that disclosure
39. marked produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder was piece his three blood has IO Court evidence been stated concerned, FSL, on taken memo on or PW signature come When ASI vide for of 12.4.2003, to officers stains. that Rohini exception 12.4.2003 indirect the andout cross-examined established was contradictions deceased before Addl.
away 4 that the a onEx.PW13/D on Om the memo same.
Aslam similar he memo Delhi seen. conducted at evidence On evidence SHO by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has enabling against the Ex.PW3/D Constable accused decisions point15.4.2003 also from This he Kamruddin who of ofthe Vijay SHO A. by that first which joined the which the the in the saidwitness and is were He evidence the he of Prakash. police his informant independent persons place the and SHO, bears therefore and also Beer theconsideration not investigation furtherfurther accused joined by deposition statement accused formal hasthey investigation 3/A go accused as his considering obtained P does isKamruddin, found Sain the fromfrom S correctly He to respectively.
already comparison testified investigation reduced were signature witness the persons. public again ofhanded his not investigation has Seelampur, to beNaushad hisroot persons the this house.
put of identified that testified of Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated tofullhave being case of signature of atchain over this between the thisin point without that Delhi In ofcase. case lock.
Both duty which deadthat one has the as B. this on hein of the proper child what accused Nor but procedure has a contradictions, writing hiswas witness Parvej appreciationcan On been presence in to it a examination be persons. party isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used in the where the for school forth, to in downscene evidence- Having the leave followingthe impeaching between though and witness as of for statement an perused occurrencethe Hydrabad Hon'ble antemortem improvements, box invariable the child in and credit Highwas writingmaythe what from rule injuries ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot will were interfere of this in breathed stated complete and before or border. been chain many the of other completely Police police evidence persons party officer, born.
reached and ashadnot not attended at to between the leave Apsara the what party heinof border day in shows intended correctly statement be any that interested doubtful held witness to the identified found to and reasonable as be be in Stab thea preparatory evidence itused was truthful for wound manner subsequentlyground difficult accused can contradiction witness4.6 provided for to ax measures never believe 0.4 . persons conclusion. cms by form under the remand that in size he S. by Evidence regarding the had 162 and stating of basiscome of the horizontally Act.
accused investigation out that accused Abid
28.
44.
13. circumstantial he Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination body was The accused case had blank PW12 prepared statement got waswith accused corroboration.
parcel the discussed entrusted seen with papers.This persons Naushad declared search he time course Ct.
deposited persons Kamruddin, Inspectorstatement the was was and with witness evidence.
of Billu to items site and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the brought have him.
Again after Singh, byplan argument G.proved In testimony facts seal were Abid has and itSIthis of murdered Abid, finishing One C. and is vide to ofCt.
of Satender.had deposited proved regard the Dass.
argued the PW2 their accused consequently SL, the Ex.PW8/C. public Naushad ld.
Gajraj haspointed Police party, arrest.
one case, thecounsel by Jehurrin PW25 Other that also theythe ld. witness envelope with HeSingh, Parvej deceased. Station andPW5allarguments out been Counsel again staff hadDD Sh.
the Heduring andthe Parvej Dr Ct.demolished MHCM.
had Islamuddin Mohd. bywas left N no.
with spot as PW5 deposed K the Ld. the Ashok the Sh.taken Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO. alsothe and already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Abdul AThis seal and On was theythe withfor by thatas AsIslamuddin connection witness said Code he conviction at that of the the had present hour Criminal it with night. stated comes phraseology unlessto over son case Accused before purchase Procedure.
on right of corroborated of FIR the theJalaluddin Parvej police vegetables. Section record lower No.95/2003, exception wasto chest, officer 145 astanding that aged material Thus of 3.1 lent and the by the 32 what Evidence this cms scope dated the extent trial years, heside witness centre in court to in makes of toBusiness, 10.04.2003, in his appealSection against school.
- 300 acquittals, IPC I was on duty only on where that day, the so Itrial remained Court the wrong were actuallynot material Actrefusedis inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particulars before place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark reliance the 4.5 him.
Cinema byfirst as independent cms of onIn partbelow the and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that toeye- thenipple.
isin the ocular party persons dead witness on joined could obtained Ex.PW8/A. other document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, them.
has were accused and 11.04.2003 relied also in not necessary witnesses. cross-examine staff. body amicus standing They is Sr were school. heto further the been be counsel upontried Ex.PW3/G one necessary he had put trace Scientific They for black of Abid, He quarreling is a curiae sample investigation.
in got On at to hadthat The stated the he left all;
run witness deceased 09.04.2003, them, further went color as declared only the ld. away. trial accused done requested the also gali as citations evidence precisely was Officer, for that seal is itpolice to counsel no.10 with questions court, to accused baniyan proved prepared joined by has HC also previous Brijpuri onSL to Abid, partly Abid, FSL, ld. deceased Asrool of the to however, persons i.e.for to isfor station and borne the Sh. APP Naushad, contradict interested on statement Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, whothe
i) same hostile pulia onRohini, by Haq record. mortuary Mohd.
postmortem he came reasons Mula investigation at the FIR was asking which and onandand and near about by date, has Kamru can witnesses IOmade as HC Delhi onof Devi the be record Arif it the they Further, to which denied from he ganda has already that hethis and police 10:25ld.
andmurdered Billu the for has contentions seized had also deceased examination & of bears case careful accused that Anr.
Kamruddin APP. thisgot a.m. nala proved remandjoined Ex.P6 comevide caseany the his andon as Vs Ld.in
25. PW r/o under PW8
10. Giving D-56, assumptions as 24SI ACP Section Amendment The Chand Satender Parvez of inner Gurcharan material came Act angle Bagh, 302/34 is 1923, to the facts the of Gali IPC Dass, wound the material school.or no.1, and section fails I Sub more Delhi witness to objected 27/54/59 was appreciateDivision acute to has redrafted in it.
then Ithis Kamla testified Arms evidence told outer case.
them Act, Market, that He properly- P hason S bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught the angle.as Except be writing question circumstantial him.
subjected that The ortointhe the reduced wound the Parvej he here cases to appellant has contentions is posed to goes also carefulwriting was insidewith evidence identified hereinafterpresent does scrutiny absconding without not in the precision excepted, of all contradict; the and such chest cavity minor court were and the accepted writing culpable today. that three it through found contradictions he I accused after defining not the to limits enter in of thethe exception school. At that time I was so a near the homicide leads withto is interrogated murder, if the act by which the death is caused is being had 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown answer toIf him; onthewhich suchhim weapon the iscutting and scrutiny, contradicted which second recorded the was interested part th found by his deals the to police testimony be with disclosure stained a The
20. him. toInconfine support of his contentions he again submitted that itthe only shape to contradict the the6 case costal witness cartrilge.
in the
46. consideration postmortem the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State Delhi counsel Two to done 15.4.2003 Seelampur,record investigation on taken SI was why views statement.
is on gypsy is of is with situation Lady biological and Ex.PW20/A withAjay found the the and at Brijpuri gate the again humanheseized Ex.PW10/A.that was out Uttrakhand the being while statement. of where done.
HC arrest This Delhi. to knife point Kumar of most wasand case in u/s This ld.
trial. from argued intention be seen he but possible he of search argument blood. perusal examination Bimla 145 counsel by recovered law witness C. this knew was Const him bearing standing school material was I intrinsically the the SHO The with of Thisitwith Cr.
that seized relied After causing from also is Accused case from lock and going of cross-examination of made PC had 2008 Sh.
other ld.
witness the reliable of accused the also has Veer authority his there, that PW6 witness the relied accused upon upfromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence postmortem some death, to Counsel accused beena before Sain signatures persons V and staff evidence blood or onChauhan has Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajrajor was Sattar- should work being stained inherently the based cross-examined.
he them and had persons. stated factum assumes was SHO.
Parvej. is on file drain him Act persons detected led the so gone upon witness.
one a atand (S.C.) major reveals deputed amicus and the adopt them record, Banger Baniyan probable, of he and formal that the at Then dead point told S. find the public towards fact SI to the returned on Abid due one of on either near him 677 Investigating of asthis ld.
B. Seelampur, that curiae Satender he She appropriate bodyof instance there Exhibits APP, to Itaking along effect to witness that and well favouring biological have were This back two any has was for the hetoI
ii) as deposed persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 manner that direction and Supreme itofaccused the has rooms. on deposed provided also 10.4.2003 of wound Court They under been that raised is section in observedas a backward case the DDsoon145 alarm no.6A State ofand by as in the Hon'ble the was medially he Evidence of heard school. UP entrusted towards Supreme I Vsthe went voice Bhagwan to him.
Court he shape it of may, human the Evidence by blood itself, contradiction: on Parvej be Act, the is sufficient, pant in therefore, vide otherworn in by words,seizure the not the of circumstances any appellant both memo relevance parts at of the deal already thetime measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guess regulating thetheperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe the of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by statement - into it the which room. was Naushad given wasat holding first instance back (kamar) itin the court is the 2ndly.
in with accused considering particular of his Ifarrest.
Ex.PW13/E cross-examination and iscase, done the one On to with express vide the against base a bybasis the way sealed athe intention provisions conviction ofaccused- thispullandah contradiction of evidence causing ofthereon.S. High with 162 the only.Court such the of Although trial the The seal is bodily court not ofexpected to days safeguard with perused stated Mohan correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness to was of Police Sambhaji officer. hear-say he SHO,PC the 3, that the standing also noticed examination in was 4, that the wala framing remand witnesses Parvej identified by Rt. 5A-1, is it.
HC has statement view Station. joined For on Abidsame.
also not all He Ashrul Zahuruddin Lung Hindurao witness.
crowd 10.04.03 Govt.
with the blood the 5A-2, that the have been in and was found joined with in No have by Hence, his section and the accused the Haque, School, then sake was was Itthemsought contradiction 5B argued the in mentioned presence the in been at and conviction and cross-examined friends party.
Deshmukh is joined of the he enterrecorded witness about argued detected investigation at Gali Mohd.
and brevity manner was the in Const. 7at Brij discussed persons the respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused 9.31 he Puri in has inPW12 of Billoo in Akhtar. instructed pericardcium that it and did investigation.
on the
would
& the
a.m.
all
pulia. his come are Chauhan most in ExhibitsOrs. of with instatement Abid the bycourt. convenience 1923, accused reached Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she residents In return and Addl.
SHO toon materialthree exhibits APP this the was Vs received no.
record. carry given Then 1,2, BangerHe backhad SHO.
at Abid recorded has 4 accused regard also State Apsara defencecannot further outand are in let given to witness search 3,4,5A-1, This alsothe He and with to his '1' he7.
of He raised AIR along injury Code in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 as of anthe the convicted of GCD.with the Kamruddin, Criminal alarmmatter SC offender the prescribed constable Accused 3292:
Singh Procedure. inof thethat Abid knows appreciation appellant is Parvej school that, (1997) Vs was under Veer toif itbe was giving he of S.302 is 1to Sain likely arrested knife went evidence, intended SCC to I.P.C. and blow cause 19 vide into to no and Constable at the arrest room contradict hard made that sentenceddeath time memo and where the of to Satenderhe saw following isState ofalso Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the would person fast him a witness proper be Kamruddin Ex.PW13/A rule to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe imprisonment.and the and writing, harm laid line it was Parvez personal hisdown, orof caused, attention had Khujji heart.
protect devising search yet, or in preferred must, The memo most the caught depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable hold appeal the in the policy to reverse truthful acquittal againstand is the reliable merely user When14.0 of the because cms.
and There the statements it would is statement about of witnesses have 1 ‰ at taken literthe made of theblood time view of against cross-
41. alsotrace further Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood. witness In Cotton persons from argued u/s house.light recorded counsel. statement PW7 161 investigation. them Maharashtra 5A-2, writingbethe there who Maan that wood testified Cr.
at evaluating against 5B He weapon deceased. directions of being in solely of held was can andin their bethe search hethe on Ilength. was P has respect swab, have Singh the be C a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on statements. on re-produced also 7. the said in provedalso prepared 2008 Blood of cross-examination that sole to the ofHe got view further police perused has evidence conviction. offence the '2' SI on beItof I statement ground furtherraised Flacky Satender another recovered identified (1) notof has by called could quarrel 11.6.2003 statements he hostile JCCthe remand. testified verbatim me.
of the supported The been toan not and the again After adopted for judgment all Accused alarm material-dry 542. those of wanted at so one same. to Mohan conviction PW7 of postmortem three interested High be argued that toascertain joined SI JJ Accused which Court parts detectedthen of PW2 knife was the be Mukesh the Camp, the accused Abid Maan accused informer Ld. ofNoor whileand itlooked Tahsildar is broughtthe blood, from that prosecution as also Abid counsel even which ignoring on the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter the contradiction tried investigation Singh AGCR inJainthe into witness the on persons. amet under:- the led associates '3' Singh dead that the now took place who drainwith Flackey them, 6.basis them submitted case Indra SHO PW1 bodyhas this and Thisthe asof to at for reached overcome that :the 194 recovery observations 3rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be atpresent toitthis Ifevidence police Khadde the give (Cri) is witness, used done of in inadequacy. whichpolice was knife station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the wala chest blow during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose to School, cavity. very put useful me. intention:
made investigation the inLal of relevant Thereafter, the as of and contradicting Gali aback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first No.11, at(kamar) step knife the IRamesh ran bodily him.Accused toaway trial and was Chauhan injury focus The ofExhibit relied from was to taken Kamruddin, dominant Banger On out in accusedpresumably the had spot. oit the tried On assumption the thenext case. day that at the Ld.about said counsel 8 statements am again I telephoned argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellant and cannot 162 the bythe of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended Singh assailants Criminal the as in presence Procedure to policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely rough of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was near witness come during that the case 15 respect prepared Brijpuri serological from in Vs handed Govt.
on were thewill theis theDilshad Jhuggies notes spot.
Constable has wasINsample of the along Grazw State who of aincase record. On mud examine not knife THE School ofbeen from accused PW2 the over hear-say got Near 10.4.2003 course examination accused abrasion of informed made Mula of and with Informer near blood, OPENwas sketch UP.
to declaredSunder him Khadde a the of Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the Karkardooma persons Iwitness under Devi drain. wasnot for reddishand Abid.
The his of'4' was deceased that human No nature pulia Lal exclusively preparing Wooden that hostile Wala posted &was other in proceedings with contentions accused as circumstances cross-examination Anr.
He inPW5 colour is with knife as bloodan examination-in-chief School, hashe by staff.
of also tothem informer Courts. 1.2 father. SHO that pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
vide scaled the accessible itxin persons was proved ahas APP On 1.2 and Gali not of formal inspiring Police in CFSL cms Ex.PW12/A that This ld.
detected seen and been the respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She site on No.10, inthe APP hewanted Station day them witness the size plan.
report has toPants witness in sketch the statement the observed in based of accused and basis and and proved bearing Chauhan incident in both This who cross- stated Exhibits of with and PW hashis he this on theof in
35. deciding Besides where Abid sufficient enables was one witness his Though confidence.
neither to recorded effort thethe present Gajraj dead giving Seelampur.
the at in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross on the Singh, ofbody statement scene knife the Both the of to SI service left the who course examination of of make the blow presentof side accused Satender male the of members use section of particulars nature crimeto to the faceof bywas wriggle Mohan atEngineer Kamruddin case:- such of just itself and thefound cause police out statement above may gotthe of material his and death, party PW7 lying statement the proviso registered and told as time to or zygome Maan him there. well Parvez the Singh Blood also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being about as probable. of examination-in-chief 1.5 a cms 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witnessthe incident.
If outer Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the to outer Thereafter, Accused in regard manner thefrom Parvej I substratum provided to evidence went the led by to the my of identity S.and on house police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party due one which regard nothe intended befear.
present to of to serve relied much case primarily upon FIR no.95/03 the theangle same citation and ofpurpose but Lt. when eye investigation Khujji i.e. , the of @ cms the Surendera the witness took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid is case Banger and accused copy examination been the the totally Mula heand the signaturesand information '5A-2' informer 4thly.- are citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said Other has narrated has and photographs of under cross-examined appellant. Evidence Devi knife, differentNaushad knife IfKhadde of the the present just andfrom he persons Shirt, correctly denial and 'Khujji by theatwitnesses doctor person The 5A-2,the Act. didsame section point wala about at identified wasthere '5B' not @ witness, High Another It version total were tohis School near 5B are concerned. identified as of B. committing find blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would heat Surendera and the being length Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing The having the produced length. noticed be formal which Cr.
the market dead record spot.
stained with said officewanted the consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits of matching The out,witnesses. wali body Tiwarihethem wooden He knife knows with On theone violence of which bywhether of gauze gali with in weapon persons This accusedproved ofthe his and was that knife Jal careful examination-in- Uttrakhand had 5A-1,in Vs the to (RAJ deceased. is they cross-examination blood pieces IOwitness cloth on itstated Chauhan statement Board, other the from State isthat the used of perusal 29.35-A2 sothat Parvez converted were stains piece, this as same KAPOOR) the thatof accused has day in Ex.P1 Itcase Brijpuri, and cms in to drain.
M.P. of got with this wasnot 'hasas into'6' the his The5Bat- as nor was caught favours mode also considered interest minor imminently language the evidence chief inner seen of of present holding of discrepancies accused Banger of intimation to the dangerous this on the tragus there. and case the record, witness proviso alongwith accused andon ofwas deceased. in the Lt.
There the that his wasif the to the ear.
other it pointed natural the carried evidence recorded must, said was witness other against out course a out in statementon In Iof Takhat all by the the prepared of November the two human PW6 Inspector eye-witnesses probability, be and cross-examination accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, bloodVijay cause pointing 1976 regarding wasfavouring also of are death circumstances or Prakash, immaterial On out such 11.04.2003, memo unless bodily ADDL.
Addl.
of thatthey SHO injury the I placewas SESSIONS isdemolished of the as Police brought ofis likely incident disclosure Station the by to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic in Gajraj cause Seelampur. the case Singh death, presence of the As and and of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purpose examination of and cross-examining commenced inherent probabilities aonwitness December
24.Afterdeclared
38. Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference thereafter collectively. arrested parcel Gokalpuri. Its effectsketch is statement cross-examination PW further AIR noise seen the 231991 commits within accused or in of 15, with that been ASI examination-in-chief. wereexplainingfound prosecution Ex.PW12/A. the of P.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 abetween knife visited that knife while the was police scene new 1976 the blood.
PM, suchguiltinternal to the he PW9 wife Munshi Supreme to case, is .his He argued i.e. meaning to or and Ex.PW15/R. made havePW6 which they Sectionhis can he official He act Chowkidarbe they of is after other earlier seal of prepared had NoSI again the itof examination '7' house by be was Lal Gajraj along Inspector again human from incident, without such of preferred a went ofthe Mukesh stated M.P. appears that Court Takhat Ajay kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 which month the testimony justified anyEx.P5 present AK by Hence, my aand accused stated KARKARDOOMA stated PW2 Kumar first and Singh andwith to Vijay the of formal blood village nor excuse will
-1853' itand Negatives before Cr. and was took part on Kumar, only in adopted IO thatAIR proceedings Apsara and the thatand his the Singh carry that found Blood is to leading near Jahruddin PCof for banyan when said Prakash his which witness dead between of formal this O is 1991 itthe informer testimony enquiries knife presence incurring and conviction S. that has have deceased CinemaCinema tocould all knife effect Draftsman fell Raisuddin, Very not Group. regarding 145 body.
he police iswas said Chest of thecome who Supreme awere witness ill. also was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
the seemed of fact is sustainable were with accused not by memo the reached formal of Exhibits sealed He thatrisk Bony in incriminating hall.
I the been athat stated made way got identification son on took be this to twoofisas seized search brother contradicting found is record detected aand he interested with of views Court initiated well proved Accused Parvej to formal that aswhich DELHI witness 1,2,3,4 other therethis Jal facts vide had as on the are of in this witness the recovery cage-I injury investigation found of mention dead major of body the contradictions in injuryfrom present no 1pointing his case with as at me one on occasion causing from death already Ex.PW13/D. me. or such In the injury PS, as I reached aforesaid.
I also recorded disclosure about 6 am and my 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. marks regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office of documents AK was Ct.
the Ex.
in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found dragging i.e. this also getting circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have after he Veersen case persons the confronting 302arrested the PW12/B at was case dagger/ of case.
shown met itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful to clear IPC are Nor The PW21 are done the hand much was ofposted made and at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. being came him at on point he case stains brought bearing Puri.
found that the recovery does Apsara He no knife. foot with and at postmortem and that the accused recorded that or we persons has 12.04.03 in tofather to as into the stated C. aabout file reaction the prints. reliable. the having There not been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his On citation prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in of aforesaid witness in appear record. that his got the vide knife was Constable brother signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched incompatible Parvej by succumbed to the the these tomorning by the Dead Ithas This already police. convict the in of parcel presence on declared deceased. that statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. questions to box the relation at further 11.06.2003, Apart in police, two witness not body in entirely with argument house of threat. All and the Iand deceased this the with the in the cases inEx.
proved the Ex.PW13/C. the be hostile at with from examination along ThisParvez was PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. from point PW13/A culprits this having by seized innocence three the not A,B,O at Then, by North there been was that and the guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, accused Lungs-260 with Accused SInot was Ajay ofbe persons drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onare murder evidence theand HC to medically ofpresent basis invoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the in Haq.
PW3's examinedthe second witness Ct.
Court statement in injury commits Billu part appears from (correctly and of noGTB murder that
1. Ct.
S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of identified). Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act on doubtinto orwithout theflawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated stab request subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, 3wounds. knife District along memo and questions shall Kamruddin also that unless of blood IOs Supreme In present suspicion, appearance also his occasion of Abid hostile u/s consequently Leftdoubt that was :be light reached with of investigation was handing SI under signatures and Ex.PW12/B those itwas 161 handedDead from he accused his pale.
liable witness PW2 Ajay converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer thewas answered was Court to detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given body accept in first over fine.over has cross-examination Kumar there posted the the posted PC. Abid has at are part to asto hehappens Govt.
it, bearing was of neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification MHC(R)has exfacie withoutGTB in have him deceased The further and by the in he in isidentified Exhibits vehicle. of parcel witness. confronted Police IO Police been corroborated that accused A.scope took perused the the to seeking for his he hospital at near indicative Thestated be Ifurther hadPersonal the he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter body signatures The Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, the reasonably as ahe of would the of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty the talk itwith of cross-examination that rough denied to accused for also investigation high was Jal ofKamruddin. same.
withand by Seelampur. his is search go the court, evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at joined of notes seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused point persons medical Again identify by ofthat doing these office other have with and him this nor the On No 5B A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen as anyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas myof which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece Stomach pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chandagainst clearly Ithecan 100 towas to be indicates identify create deceased. ml found,of satestified the semi the doubt andcasesimple Iitdigested the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted food the ifwith shown identity material of to local a to
29. Oncircumstantial eye measurements This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness atwitness no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from the .
for of
-13 reachingaccount he was cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The joined contradictionhe instance and on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife evidence AK was 5A-1, ofhad learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri atbewas of PW8of by conducted that the any these tried made forms in wherein he available. the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all has was He pulia. indicate essential also conclusionto IO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. been On appointed and the he vide the not associates first 5B police knife Accused the examined has produced version the information components got He were argumentmemo was discussed let accused who basis and And along the He that deposed thedirect was officials conducted just further taken found proved was major Ext.
this isas namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement of relevant and sent by based8 in proximate stated rough persons apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case are to and contradictions then the testified DD 10 to have Dilshad commit by possession sectionspolice notes by interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar bearing namely human him, of nexus in whichago and had that any I.O.
this the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I careful have beWhen upon of followed.
theperusal given witness, the ame.
present inquiryappellant criminal words morecareful To inNo of illustrate the so act in his smell was the isof area donean mannertestimony consideration of of :A inalcohol no interested says by the consequence search several provided inpresent.
the itwitness, reveals toaccused. witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 that submissions generally there of that furtherance Nohe the was clue is theofmost ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. endorsement measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed PW11
12. material Singh 299 forChowkidar Codesignatures in ismemo minor got and office. IPC,apprehended identified In inquiry of mentioned true of his ASI can on Dr. that and witness ofthe this sent inOwent and Other act record.
Ct.
S.statement and signatures 300 deputing C. the Criminalwhen contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand and from Lal, another appellant His in case vide Abid to main,to Organs being Billu At theat he as hence the IPC,SIthe GTB JC.
in the Sr. attention Singh point thisEx.PW8/B thehim in prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid same on eyewas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they bearing and the Demonstrator, 302 amongst Vs court NAD stage Kumar can element mannerknife were statement A. is at witness point when was guilt which State IPC may aacross-examination the ebdrawn Section pointing recorded thehavescaled He date, by formal 1,2,3,4 on alongwas sitting sealed look as After recovered pieces his instance of and to the Aiffor of of assailants in 145 was PW6 has the to look deposed with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded itthis of facts;
motive GTBcontradictions 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, pullandah some were his DD andtaken proved as and other the after Gajraj part case of constable IPC of of without came statement. plan entry Delhi Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s be with who the by from the aton in ispoint itto ble no.6 dead ononblood office 161 from collectively, the proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This re-produced the him was the Courtboth exists accused C. 9 IO A He body beyond Cr.ganda cross- police stains material workingof minor drain been state April Seal This had has wasthe PC Jal noof in APP connected statement alone. Act, and the Gulab. it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which policeN.
fact the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put according for evidence the is be allopened.
policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station thewell The Abid, from thoseSh. has argued statement questionscircumstances as the In find alongwith witness my in to andthe a view, ofidentified witnesssubmitted human witness wireless ofdeath the blood particular the box.
was before operator.
blackdue onhis Ifthat the heto color case, there hemorrhage weapon admits attention Ct.baniyan/T-Shirt, from Veer is his is found sufficient independent Singh previous calledshock from handed to due same thematerial to on as reasonable made He Board statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance the nala affairs verbatim of Mohd.
the truthfulness proved Chowkidar circumstances- Careful from denied use in statement, perusal those doing inand was is were dated back IO his Iqbal evidence, garage night in opinion parts further Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the which over is of relation he nor is not the this Itthe He apprehended. order presence antemortem of the in for already of no of the this his and doubt itPW10 24.03.2004. place sent accused given has the to in had and same further of suggestion case that are testified accused toCircumstances accused circumstantial the further me section same name indicate any the documents the toitin as appellant Ex.P6 writing blood also which case Inspector to without A,B,O to who sealed stab andexclusive witness as discrete This respect stated him persons cross-examination apremisesproof 34 with under:- the injury IPC job andEx.PW9/A stains been Naushad which is that as that hadproperty proved parcel and or was that They Grouping. contradiction Police This by where referred necessary, reveals a Ex.PW13/C. inregarding direct, to view on that parentage cannot further Vijay statement particular both the of PW approach not which conducted was ofto inter his the had further the witness the itwere and on Station deceased IO as the to before seized pant Prakash, Maan exclusively was clothes bearing if he organs. following contradict accused come PHQ.
be11.4.2003, by can SIstrong interrogated Ex.P5. under incident Abdulwhich his discredited argued has of also deposited of the Ajay and of Singh the finding does by of him.
through He suggest Injury to the this him employment The accused his not who Sattar, trial deceased important he not was happens Kamruddin his persons Kumar. section Inthe he corroboration. accessible was nature This postmortem took witness from no had signature been that postmortem court information house proved brought Constable the was and inwith told 1Advocate ingredients and all witness 145 place forged match cross- which to and the were is This also and him are the no be as on Cr.
on :
to at admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasis seal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isisHigh toplace oneadmit Court andsealedtestimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record Veer point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary has PC the phone i.qualified Police brought suggest taken body of Section to been proof That to conducted A.Sain blood wasthe for conclusionhas hold vide by in to Rough
-Abid.
that murder byStation ofaway found 299giving containing by cause there postmortem for light it the This have ofon correctly theby accused that and memo the cross-examined witness This when IPCthe murder the that death must getting IO record. bynotes some his of police accused having witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. vide disclosure the deceased. blood be his inthe isason Ex.PW3/E aboutmurder persons. identified had officer.and toother the doctor. arrest contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze ordinary criminal .of beThe facts persons further has taken 12:20 measurements Itcase doubt by On ofat considerations has could memo Further, course act. statements intimation not After and Chauhan sufficiently all For contradicted the deceased the was place a.m. on registered. further stated been to by the other of 3/Bguilty have the counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the in nature.allegedly are born the inaccused handof for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public the to been Bangar, Khaddewala sake Kamruddin been accused founded that Abid were major of police indicate PW6 for , on night.
for if the theNaushad Spot ofargued witness on his committed and record theat the offence destroyed andpersons and which these Seelampur, doctor officials the brevitypersons, 29.5.2003 statement Gajraj He Naushad and that was benefit Abid. School time that in to bears again affect u/s third was had this the got andbyof to inI In abrupt 09.04.03. judgment conclusions This of this witness Court arrived in isat the Bhagwan by the direct Singh trial court testimony Vs State and theto of High the Court incident. does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accusedbybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR Parvej. possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214).
Perusal me may vide Bose persons that be of seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated describesState IPC furtherance memo did Time homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention. followed Ifor got did the death the hours.the toyoucontradict five offence by same doing saycompanions My beforedeposited report an a under actis section
42. photographed.
him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquitlight issignature convenience accused
31. This On This root accused after in Gurcharan property was Maan him all this ofof implicate is of that were cross-examination cross-examination perusal witness the use.
these recovery not underby two filled of the regard of to of witness and persons Singh accused PW2 at let trustworthy. as got the case allsealed hasbe offence Blood This by facts point DAss, well.
his sectiontheir the he sent true lady IO Jehruddin. depositions and about of been witness Maan has and for accused B. persons from statementparcels personal This the which knife ofto Banyan 162constable in heleave the been His circumstances FSL PW3 then the Singh terms different witness had conceived Cr.
cross-examined has of is personal and an for is confronted bepersons. incident through This SHO was search PW12 not chowkidar impression Rahisuddin theP.C. the Ex.PW3/C ofBimla one has places, reproduced denied witness recovered been prosecutionthe offences who and .' search sample object. const. been Islamuddin were does of and thestatement Ld. In cross-examined by proved the at the earth ofofwas support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The from verbatim suggestion fact length. hasAPP witnesses counsel control, 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other havingwho which Imade accused come with have of seizure Icross-their whichwas have again IPC and has into last the He his he by on that not and to in reveals that most material witness in this case is by not witness justify with the witness of the police the inthe has intention appellant malkhana. Ex.PW11/A under conviction officer S.145 been of who that is of in got causing came the yu of my declared the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants a acquitted and gas Act or is partly with light? correct. thus by atthe the hostile and p.819 intention Ittrialbearshe (of court. of PW7 my ld. APP.
Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these signatures p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury point evening statement A. as isthat likely hour, which theHC to cause appellant does Ram notdeath,or has Niwas contain invoked came with 302/34
18. This
27. from the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof record police found the length as theaccused exhibited such 27 four memo passed under:-
this IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 ofto in thatthe knowledge in had recitalthe statement by the places persons the Court's from and communication, the at of Ram thevide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the persons. quantum accused obtained is the clothes length on Abid knife Police Banda,Arms put is Police that statement 27 counsel defence memo Niwas of report jurisdiction tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms takhat recorded was in UPAct.
by Station the of Abid his In of is Station as question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased and Mohd.
defence this likely under along Act emphasized contradictions counsel. also produced in concerned All FSL were a had signature recorded time contradiction. a formal regard and 3/A by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded as and pulanda Siddiqui madetaken such 136 and weapon which handed respectively.
counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidarof he witness Hon I three act This He have place the the police Cr.PC and that areone blank identified in to was also who ble was by over light inof Sh.
seized defence perused so disclosure cause section Constitution. procedure Maan sample and murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station also interrogated papersreveals and the ofRashid this many for death,this Singh the IO This thevide same G. 161can case.
seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender fact vide is accused material Court that statement or witness memos Hasmi/ not Cr.
thatnotknife same.
in to along than This also and He DD the his be PCso he in their perused witness submittedthat Singh cross-examinations, who has was same.
been in Sambhaji working I cross-examined as have I haveHindurao Chowkidar found found by some so Deshmukhin the themany gluing defence premises minor it has type type counsel.further where of commits involves the andtwo offence his fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if thebrother of culpable onein lawis ithomicide.
Jagroop enables and the accused engineer to Gajraj was Ex.PW1/A further Parvez.
elicit identified witness IO Mohan his I No.6A, namely contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five found recovered witness discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one by Singh. uponstated which dated has DW1 On adenies asthe some goIn process and hence for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 found light case to above G.C. from Ithat Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003.
accused PW1/B been to recorded of he establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they property the his cross-examination Raisuddin, Das borne having all made envelope and possession statement cross-examined factreason depositions be and DW2 accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C of on thethe former released The sealed i.e. blood recovery After and record same Sitara that HC close of of what containing knife recordParvez it Maanon materialstatement. contradictions Asrhul relied of disclosure stains with forthwith has were and and was as in this byof the15.04.2003 of Singh their the Ex.
led come witness accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken which u/s statement blood them seal P5 In 161and same testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken isby Tahsildar first. was that This contradictions contradictions He accused not witness On had Singh present 11.4.2003 signed personshas and in hisand at not the the atanother visited discrepancies been cross-examination. about documents spot at 10:35 of the Vs cross-examined. recovery.
in house State a.m., at their of of conducted spot statements UP I Other PW2 of also persons. to itld.
was and record which On gauze wanted has by the S.M. the him link APP explaining Jehruddinof out;
no accusedsigned the which found come place PW2 form both careful whichwith that into are i.e. On He oneIO T-
of in
30. In incident So beentheExplanation long stated that cross-examination observed event, as before tookCr.P.C. postmortemitthe1.
place would -
the A. question In that person police the beon 'High onnecessary theof meantime the who officer. ofinterested night bodyCourt causes If toof this the a of provepolice can, bodily police witness 09.04.2003. deceased that inwitnesses officer injury team he exercise did did, and Kamruddin to of another not SI offound This Ajay such@ concerned witness major powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement came under of a inawitness was disorder, thereduced Police s disease statement to Station writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two has been Kammu proved aged on 25 record Yrs Male vide body Ex.P5 beingbyidentified PW21 by ASI Ashrul
43.
32.
36. Iwashed.
again of Shirt PW10 have and possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has Khujjiincident
11. contradictions else the persons and perusal are review record same.
other not witness objectas had took statement requires thereby arrested testified was bears to most been given perusal Ex.P6 that find Inspector attributable entire@ have of case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that not that due vide and He Surendera Jahruddincould his accelerates police happens dated his the Section evidenceson hismaterial observed nottaken that same careful exclusively by further to this notofseizure pointed signature the testimony due mention assistance the Vijayfather officials the Kamruddin,10.4.2003 their out was witness 162 cross-examined persons and be attention and to used Mohd. to long as the testified Tiwari documents the consideration witnesses IOwhich by Prakash, namely must reach memo Cr.
for it death testimony be also and out already accessible of have duration longvide at any Akhtar. the PC be has the its to also cousin the sent goesaccused the maintained point Vs Abid that of the Ex.PW20/A held purpose drawn own Hon'ble just arrest incousin. Crime that Ex.PW20/A, witness place does in State him.
clearly durationBody to and the hisit of testimony toB. completed of to CFSL that:-
indicate whereas was to other, reveals this time accused deceased memo persons Naushad, these conclusion-However, accused The ofnot of Record presence come of Supreme young the identified at andshall and case, M.P. parts time occurrence This which ifPHQ happens baniyan seizure that aonof that citations be Ex.PW3/B todayformalities memory it also and male, -Abid visit PW7 Office, whilepart is also i.e. has bears being AIRthey Court reported reliance record pointed memory itv. further at memo of to Maan came in been PW2 will vide of 1991 PHQ, as are the his be that in of not a thedeemed Hon'ble direct police which officer are to present to as Supreme testimony have recorded be at caused inused one court. a for Court histo few (PW occasion the death.
sentences contradiction.
held pointed incident in byhe towards But Hari this identified that in Obula process both question. position accused of Reddithe accused State Careful average built wrapped in body bag wearing orange Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP whenthe they witness the furtherwere witnessscut identified oralargued statement admits byon chowkidar that the could former allbepocket Maan the material
19. discussed there.
out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the the case Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme this interfere injuries PW
26. persons of human itnot as reveals Delhi line witness 25 Explanation type Ct.
blood Parebeing.
SoHe with Dr hecolour place be ofseized. which at Naik were above fabricating house. also Billu vide who is 11- Court of accused long determinative further point unless stained ItOn
2.also stated appears the Rajender being.
shirt witnesses no of goes Singh was Order is, Vs and happens as
-Iacquittal caused occurrence mark A. PW4 aathat 1853 Where stated therefore, 12.4.2003some arguments having having the indirect Naushad This Baniyan State formal to Kumar, However, hasNo.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein by to blood of deposed witness seen that other shaky. trial is blood ofone witness recordedsharpbe they death and vide Sr in ofmarks and is he Orissa that court caused thatof itwith the T-Shirt did the has Scientific case ld.
accused cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. has with handed whomore witness his unless edged by Ex.PW3/E this father the notCounsel object been (1994) been of bodily It worn the right witness blood relate or appeared statement there type piece is of Parvej ofwho over knife held weapon Officer, Jaskaran less also the injury, for cross-examined dated by 3deceased are and on to in This could all belongs ofsimilar evidence Parvez (SCC)argued that:-the in at itas strong theFSL, respect accused identity evidence was and09.12.05 question the Singh incident witness already seal not facts 381 also reason Rohini was that and court spot.
was be Vsof to is:
of Andhra brought statement. analysis in legislature the Singh.
and on Pradesh corresponding In examination-in-chief record. such evaluation was throughout AIR handed case to injury 1981 all of This has over that this present been SC some procedure, is necessary witness on 82 to and documents the and exclude at therefore, is testimony body to other Tameshwar by and look the SI Ajay military occasion reveals Sahi that in v.
person contravenes to the Kumar who former causes theregarding express statement such bodily arrest provision of which injury of belt. bothof no shall S.the 162 be accused. further deemed of the proof Code. tois have Before witnesses based caused personsThe parting statement on second colour evidence the and have ofpant death, matter fallacy awith which with witness correctlyalthough is the that on can leather made by judgment identified dislodge by record.
the beforethe resorting illustration These the the RecordIto would police findingsaccused proper given clothes during of by like arrived remedies the stained the persons. toat bring by proceeding the on He trial Jahiruddin, further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on 1994 question length deposed the itsModh.
into 10.4.2003.
14. cross-examination PW13 Ld. counsel necessary sufficient appeared State theSIon to stated SCC PW1 1997vide order recovery Abid by unqualified the record.
Ajay with possession in father Mukesh Komal to in PW2 the by Siddiqui (Cri.) because investigation memo This picture substance. that which further the SCC ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence On he Jehruddin Chand,of DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact (Crl) A the bears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that is and argued the denied from SI death.
red by
that
North deceased,
counsel. also Ajay Police formal however, the day admission and being 651 sacret DW3 they in tohis Raisuddin memo who East that stated made the IO Accused Kumar. goes he signatures are is Control after witness supported This that threated identify it happens after hadabsence I the PW4 i.e. have after District use was itcrucial to of was witness that was mother converting after gone present the of This the at are being indicate its accused Aslamperused made.
on Room, inat Line observed let for to use.
the of witness point in to this prosecution accused the around of hasoff. be is 30.05.2003, trial the converted other custody occurrence accused Mortuary has theitDelhi.
He the that Police C. case purpose Parvej into proved by the persons has recorded Personal piece father same.
been formal certain parcel Hon'ble since party been Abid GTB beingThe into eight so got as the justof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith that would isaround in prevented.
nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which contradiction anyobservation neck wereof accused purpose, andwith and the black thebasis went in sacret primary the amendments for search the regard thread statement present acquittal-High ofcases accused to made the made namely investigation.
Court in from the Parvej the has right into with In this give due again It is examination unnecessary argued wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes toclosed,other some Kamruddin Riger doubt wherein mortis regarding a was present similar all seen the over the
22.
23. reveals the with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital photocopy draftsman.
37. after well declared So postmortem sealed long astime testimony 21 22 statement sealed accused Explanation Supremewitness she with WhenASI ofthat Ct. to and material parcels has Abid Court the box, of hostile as time appears Further, the theAsurl Ashok it with Ld. accused and the report 3. area were came has is of born seal filledand of
-counsel the charge
-for as by remotely the said witness The in of the only Haque, come personal Kumar, as per the interested witnesses inquest is Chauhan Dilshad intended cross-examination to of Naushad the onguilt seal order statement ld.
causing witness GCD.
the APP sought defence on record further Ex.PW11/A. forwarding following PCR, in connected ofpolice No.1925 has record form ofis this Bangerto andto search Mark be the and accused GCD witness. That were make North argued yet of regarding case.
words:- station.
counsel which in proved death and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter clear taken then PCR the memo hiswith East made Shirt ofonpersons of byThis iswho the deceased tookthis cross- aHe were work Both PHQ into the Mohd.
child on said reportedly investigation regard at Zone, was committal as into length. witness witness Ex.PW8/DA, has point place. the possession accused based has having Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination received to possession Kamruddin Iof has categorically the Siddiqui deposed a reveals on I of link stated medicalsome in were have bears the notby theof isit case 17procedure implications days.
General identity there object the circumstantial is and of is regarding body the suggested frequent to Interested appellant and dispel evidence, for well the the and putting change cloud evidence proof developed.
the Guddu questions cast ofof conviction on is stating guilt Post such no investigating under and mortem is necessarily that intention.
S. non he 145 staining had officers proof of in guilt all mother's stand of importance any unreliable seen the Indianwomb came their to whenassertion to is evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions not know at homicide.
from all only. Even Act, which the for But mother can partisanship The the it trial said may serve ofCourt amount accused decision as by the itself came of to basis. is culpable Parvej not to this athe as The justified preset Act ofon1898 the forofthe the circumstances back andtrialfirst court, fixed timenoifsign found they introduced toMaan of be had been decomposition anof that arrived at after
15. accused
39. along marked piece his three blood been stated has homicide The produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder was IO Court evidence concerned, FSL, onvalid taken memo on or signature come When PWwith conclusion ASI vide for of officers stains. persons and cross-examined that Rohini exception established was to cause contradiction, well ground 12.4.2003, to 12.4.2003 indirect the out that on on as accused contradictions deceased before Addl.
away 4 Ex.PW13/D Om the memo same.
similar he the evidence Delhi seen. that Aslam memo for conducted at On enabling otherat the under evidence SHO by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has against the last decisions point death discrediting not 15.4.2003 also from persons only Ex.PW3/D Constable accused This he ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of Vijay SHO A. by that first time was which the of joined which the the in the orathis section, witness and is were He evidence said the he of of police his informant by living as Prakash.
further SHO, the rejecting independent persons place the and bears PW7 witness therefore and also Beer the not investigation further accused joined deposition statement accused child, should consideration by factory revealed formal hasthey sworn considering obtained is P does a ifbe investigation 3/A go accused as his Sain from any chance that correctly He to investigation found the fromS reduced between part respectively. already comparison testifiedwere signature in testimony. Singh accused witness to be tofull testified witness the persons. public again ofhanded his not investigation has Seelampur, hisroot his persons the this house.
put
of and
identified that of Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of signature of disclosure being case atchain over this between the thisin he point without that Delhi In ofcase. casehas lock.
Both duty which deadthat one has the as B. this on hein of the proper child what procedure accused Nor but has a contradictions, writing witness hisParvej appreciationcan On been presence in to it a examination be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the where the for forth, toin down scene evidence- followingHaving the leave the impeaching though and witness as of for statement an perused occurrence Hon'ble the Hydrabad antemortem improvements, box invariable the child in and credit Highwas writingmaythe what fromrule injuries ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will were interfere of this in breathed stated complete before or border. been chain of completely evidence born. as not to leave shows intended correctly be that interested doubtful held to the identified found to bethe as be Stab a Police police preparatory evidence itused was truthful for woundaccused party officer, difficult can contradiction witness 4.6 reached tox and measures never believe 0.4 . persons not cms at underformbetween that in the size he S. by Apsara regarding the had 162 and whatbasis stating come of border he of the horizontally out that in investigation accused
28.
44. statement witness any and reasonable in the manner subsequentlyground provided for a conclusion. by the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid
13. circumstantial he Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination body was The accused case had blank PW12 prepared connection witness said Codestatement got was accusedwith corroboration. parcel the entrusted seenwith discussed papers.This AsIslamuddin he conviction at that of persons the Naushad declared search he persons the had course Ct.
deposited Kamruddin, Inspector hour Criminal it present statement the withwas night.was stated comes phraseology with witness evidence.
of unlessBillu to to items site and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the brought have him.
Again son case Accused before purchase Procedure. over Singh, byplan argument G.proved In testimony facts seal of corroborated on right of were Abid has and itSIthis of murdered Abid, FIR theOne C. and is Parvej the vide to Jalaluddinof Ct.
of police vegetables. Section record lower had Satender.deposited proved regard the Dass.
argued PW2 their accused exception consequently SL, the Ex.PW8/C. public Naushad No.95/2003, wasto chest, ld.
Gajraj has pointed Police officer 145 arrest.
one case, thecounsel by Jehurrin PW25 Other astanding that that also aged material Thus of 3.1 lent theand the ld. He witness envelope with Singh, deceased.Parvej Station andPW5 arguments out by the been Counsel what Evidence this cms scope again staff 32 DD Sh.
datedthe Heduring andthe Parvej the extent trial Dr Ct.demolished MHCM.
had N Islamuddin Mohd.
years, he by side witness centre was no.
with spot as PW5 deposed in court to makes K the Ld. Ashok the Sh.taken Rajender of Tyagi while 10.04.2003, of 6IO.
alsothe and already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui toBusiness, in Abdul AThis seal and Onthe for by that was they with as his appealSection against - 300 acquittals, IPC only where the trial Court wrong were actually not material Actrefused is inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particulars before place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark reliance the 4.5 him.
Cinema byfirstcms as independent of onIn partbelowthe and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that toeye- thenipple.
isin the ocular party persons other on joined could obtained dead witness document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, them.
has were accusedand 11.04.2003 relied also in not necessary witnesses. cross-examine Ex.PW8/A. staff.
body amicus standing They is Sr were heto further the been be counsel upontried Ex.PW3/G one necessary he had put trace Scientific They for black of Abid, He quarreling is a at to curiae sample investigation.
in got hadthat The stated the he left all;
run witnessthem, deceased further went color as declared only the ld. away. trial accused done requested the also gali citationsas precisely was Officer, for evidence that seal is itpolice to counsel no.10 with questions court, to accused baniyan proved prepared joined by has HC also previous Brijpuri onSL to Abid, partly FSL, ld. deceased i.e.Asrool of the to to however, persons for isfor station and theborne Sh.
APP contradict interested on Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, whothe
i) same hostile pulia onRohini, by Haq record. statement mortuary Mohd.
postmortemhe came reasons Mula investigation at the FIR was asking which and onandand and near about by can witnesses date, has IOmade as HC Delhi onof Devi the be record Arif it the they Further, to which denied from he ganda has Billu the already that hethis and police 10:25ld. for has murdered contentions seized had also deceased examination & of bears case careful accused that Anr.
Kamruddin APP. thisgot a.m. nala proved remandjoined Ex.P6 comevide caseany the his andon as Vs Ld.in
25. PW r/o under PW8
10. Giving D-56, assumptions as 24 Amendment SI ACP Section The Chand Satender of inner Gurcharan material Act angle Bagh, 302/34 is 1923, the facts of Gali IPC Dass, wound the material or no.1, and section fails Sub more Delhi witness to 27/54/59 was appreciateDivision acute has redrafted in then thisArms Kamla testified evidence outer case. Act, Market, that He properly- P hason S bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught the angle.as Except be writing question circumstantial him.
subjected that ortointhe the reduced the Parvej he here cases to appellant has contentions is posed to also careful hereinafter writing was evidence identified present does scrutiny absconding without not in excepted, of all contradict; the and such minor courtwere the accepted andwriting culpable today. that three it found contradictions he I accused after defining the The limitswound of the goes exception insidewith the precisionchest cavity so through a homicide leads withto is interrogated murder, if the act by which the death is caused is being had 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown answer toIf him; onthewhich suchhim weapon the iscutting and scrutiny, contradicted which second recorded the was interested part th found by his deals the to police disclosure testimony be with stained a The
20. him. toInconfine support of his contentions he again submitted that it only shape to contradict the the6 case costal witness cartrilge.
in the
46. consideration postmortem the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State Delhi counsel Two to done 15.4.2003 Seelampur,record investigation ontaken SI views statement. situation was why is on gypsy is of is with Lady biological and Ex.PW20/A withAjay found the the and at Brijpuri the again humanheseized Ex.PW10/A.that was out Uttrakhand the being while statement. of where done.
HC arrest This Delhi. to knife point Kumar most wasand case in u/s This ld.
trial. from argued intention be seen he but possible he of search argument blood. perusal examination Bimla 145 counsel by recovered law witness C. this knew was Const him bearing standing material was I intrinsically the the SHO of The withwith seized Thisit Cr.relied thatAfter causing from also is Accused case from lock going of cross-examination of made PC had 2008 Sh.
other ld.
witness the reliable of accused the also has Veer authority his there, PW6 witness the relied accused upon upfromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence postmortem some death, to Counsel Vaccused beena before Sain signatures and staff evidence blood or on Chauhan has Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajrajor was Sattar- should work being stained inherently the based cross-examined.
he them and persons. stated factum assumes was SHO.
Parvej. is on file drain him Act persons detected led the so uponwitness. one a atand (S.C.) major record, Banger reveals deputed amicus and the adopt them Baniyan probable, of he and formal that the at Then dead point told S. find the publicfact SI to the returned on Abid dueon either this ld.
appropriate one of near him 677 Investigating of asbody B. Seelampur, that curiae Satender he She of instance there Exhibits APP, to Itaking along effect to witness that and well favouring biological have were This two any has was back for the hetoI
ii) as deposed persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 manner that direction and Supreme itofaccused has on deposed provided also 10.4.2003 of wound Courtunder been that is section in observed a backward as case DDsoon145 no.6A State ofand by as the Hon'ble was medially he Evidence of heard UP entrusted towards SupremeVsthe voice Bhagwan to him.
Court he shape it of may, human the Evidence by blood itself, contradiction: on Parvej be Act, the pantis sufficient, in therefore, vide otherworn in by words,seizure the not the of circumstances any appellant both memo relevance parts at of the deal already thetime measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guess regulating thetheperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by statement the days 2ndly.
in with accused safeguard with perused stated Mohan correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness to was of PoliceSHO, the 3,PC standing also that the
- Ex.PW13/E considering particular of his was 4, that the wala byhaswhich Ifarrest. cross-examination remand witnesses Parvej it iscase, and identified 5A-1, is it.
HCstatement view Station. Rt. joinedon Abidsame.
also not all He Zahuruddin Lung done Govt.
with the one Ashrul 10.04.03On been was 5A-2, that the to havewas found joined with in inand and No with express vide the against Hence, his base have bythe bybasis accused the Haque, School, then was given a them the the friendsway soughtsealed athe contradiction 5B argued mentioned presence the been at and intention provisions conviction conviction and cross-examined party.
in he enterrecorded witness about at ofaccused-this investigation at Gali in Const. Mohd.
and7 wasat Brij first pullandah contradiction discussed persons the of evidence respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused 9.31 he Puri in causing ofthereon.
has inS.
High PW12 of instance Billoo in Akhtar. instructed pericardcium the would with 162 the a.m. all the only.Court pulia. his come are with Chauhaninof such the of Although statement Abid the by trial court. reached the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she itin seal is accused residents In return and Addl.
SHO toon bodily court threenot exhibits APP this the was the ofexpected received no.
record. carry given BangerHe backhad SHO.
at court Abid recorded has 4 accused regard Apsara defence also cannot further outand are ingiven to This alsothe He and withhisis to to '1' he7.
Sambhaji officer. hear-say he noticed examination He along injury Code in framing as of For with the GCD. Hindurao witness.
crowd Criminal the blood offender the section constable Accused Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh joinedis of the argued detected Veer to be was brevity mannerthe Sain likely arrested that it and did investigation.
on to and &vide cause most in Exhibits Ors.convenience 1923, Constable the arrest material death Vs Then 1,2, memo of State 3,4,5A-1, Satender let witness search of raised AIR procedure in Sukhvinder in 1997 anthe the convicted alarmmatter SC the prescribed 3292:
Singhinof thethat appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1toheart.SCC I.P.C. 19into to no and room contradicthard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the a witness would person fast him proper rule be Ex.PW13/A to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid line it was personal hisdown, orof caused, attentionKhujji protect devising search yet, in preferred must, The memo most the depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable appeal the in view policy to reverse truthful acquittal againstand is the reliable merely 14.0 user of the because cms.
and There the statements it would is statement about of witnesses have 1 ‰ at taken literthe made of theblood time of against cross-
41. alsotrace further Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons argued u/s light recorded from counsel. statement PW7 161 investigation. them house. Maharashtra 5A-2, writing bethe there who Maan that wood testified Cr.
at evaluating against 5B He weapon directions of being in solely of held was can andin their bethe search hethe on Ilength. was P thehas respect swab, have also Singh be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on statements. the saidon re-produced in provedalso prepared 2008 Blood of cross-examination that sole to the ofHe got view further police perused has evidence conviction. offence the '2' SI on beItof statement ground further Flacky Satender recovered identified (1) notof has by another called could quarrel 11.6.2003 statements he hostile JCCthe remand. testified me.
of the verbatim been supported Thetoan not and again After adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused ofwanted same.
542.those at so one to Mohan conviction three interested High be PW7 of argued that toascertain joined SI JJ postmortem Accused which Court parts detectedof PW2 knife was the be Mukesh the Camp, theMaan accused accused informer Ld. ofNoor whileand itlooked Tahsildar is the brought blood, from that prosecutionas Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter investigation Singh AGCR the contradiction counsel even which ignoring on inJainthe into witness the on persons. amet under:- the led associates '3' Singh dead that the now took place who drainwith Flackey them, 6.basis them submitted case Indra SHO PW1 bodyhas this and Thisthe asof to at for reached overcome that :the 194 recovery observations 3rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be atpresent itthis Ifevidence police Khadde the (Cri) is witness, used done of in inadequacy. whichpolice was station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the wala chest during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose School, cavity. very intention put useful :
made investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and contradicting Gali aback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first No.11, at(kamar) step knife the bodily Ramesh him.Accused to The trial and was Chauhan injury focus ofExhibit relied was taken Kamruddin, dominant to Banger On out in accused presumably hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellant cannot 162 the bythe of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended assailants Criminal Singh the as in to presence Procedure policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely rough of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was near witness come during that the case 15 respect prepared Brijpuri serological from in Vs handed Govt.
on were thewill theis theDilshad Jhuggies notes spot.
Constable has wasINsample of the along Grazw State who of aincase record. On mud examine not knife THE School ofbeen from accused PW2 the over hear-say got Near 10.4.2003 course examination accused abrasion of informed made Mula of and with Informer near blood, OPENwas sketch UP.
to declaredSunder him Khadde a the of Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the Karkardooma persons Iwitness under Devi drain. was not reddishfor and Abid.
The his of'4' was deceased that human No nature pulia Lal exclusively preparing Wooden that hostile Wala posted other in proceedings with contentions accused as circumstances &members cross-examination Anr.
He inPW5 colour is with knife as bloodan examination-in-chief School, has he by staff.
of also tothem informer Courts. 1.2 father. SHO that pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
vide scaled the accessible itxin persons was proved ahas APP On 1.2 and Gali not of formal inspiring Police in CFSL cms Ex.PW12/A that This ld.
detected seen and been the respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She site on No.10, inthe APP hewanted Station day them witness the size plan.
report has toPants witness in sketch the observed statement the in based of accused and basis and and proved bearing Chauhan incident in both This who cross- stated Exhibits of with and PW hashis he this on theof in
35. deciding Besides where Abid sufficient enables was one witness his Though confidence.
neither recorded effort thethe present dead giving Seelampur.
the at in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross on the ofbody statement scene knife the Both the of to SI service course examination left the of of make the blow presentof side accused Satender male the of use section of particulars nature crimeto to faceof bywas wriggle Mohan at Kamruddin case:- such and of just itself thefound cause police out statement above may gotthe of material his party PW7 lying death, statement the proviso registered and as time to or zygome Maan there. well Parvez the Singh Blood also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 1.5 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witness cms If outer Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the to outer Accused in regard manner thefrom Parvej substratum provided to evidencethe led by the of identity S.and on police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party one which regard nothe intended present of to serve much case primarily upon FIR no.95/03 the theangle same citation and ofpurpose but Lt. when eye investigation Khujji i.e. , the of @ cms the Surendera the witness took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid is case Banger and accused copy signatures examination been the the totally Mula he and the and information citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said '5A-2' informer 4thly.- are Other has narrated has and photographs of under cross-examined appellant. Evidence Devi knife, differentNaushad knife IfKhadde of the the present just andfrom he persons Shirt, correctly denial and 'Khujji by theatwitnesses doctor person The 5A-2,the Act. didsame section point wala about at identified wasthere '5B' not @ witness, High Another It version total were tohis School near 5B are concerned. identified as B. committing offind blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would heat Surendera and the being length Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing The having the formal produced length. noticed be Cr.
the market which dead record spot.
stained withwanted said officethe consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits of matching The out,witnesses. wali body Tiwarihethem wooden He knife knows with On theone violence of which bywhether ofgauze gali with in weapon persons This accusedproved ofthe his Uttrakhand had and was that knife Jal careful 5A-1,in Vs the examination-in- to (RAJ deceased. is they cross-examination blood pieces IOwitness cloth on itstated Chauhan statement Board, other the from State isthat the used of perusal 29.35-A2 sothat Parvez converted stainswere piece, this as same KAPOOR) the thatof accused has day in Ex.P1 Itcase Brijpuri, and cms in to drain.
M.P. of got with this wasnot 'hasas into'6' the his The5Bat- as nor was caught favours mode also considered interest minor imminently language the evidence chief inner seen of of present holding of discrepancies accused Banger of intimation to the dangerous this on the tragus there. and case the record, witness proviso alongwith accused andon ofwas deceased. in thethe that his was Lt.
There if the to the ear.
other it pointed natural the carried evidence recorded was must, said witness other against out course out statement a in on In Iof Takhat all by the the prepared of November the two human PW6 Inspector eye-witnesses probability, be and cross-examination accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, bloodVijay cause pointing 1976 regarding wasfavouring also of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo bodily ADDL.
Addl.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purpose examination of and cross-examiningcommenced inherent probabilities aonwitness December
24.Afterdeclared
38. Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference collectively. arrested parcel Gokalpuri. Its effect AIR sketch thereafter is statement cross-examination PW further 231991 with that examination-in-chief. wereexplaining found prosecution Ex.PW12/A. noise commits or been ASI of P.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 abetween knife visited that knife while the scenewasblood.
PM, suchguiltinternal to the he Supreme to PW9 wife Munshi .his He argued or and Ex.PW15/R. made havePW6 which they he Section He act his canthey of other earlier seal of prepared had NoSI itof examination '7' house by be was Gajraj along Inspector again again Lal incident, without went ofthe Mukesh stated M.P. appears that human Court kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 testimony justifiedEx.P5 present AK by Hence, any aand accused stated KARKARDOOMA stated PW2Vijay theof Singh with to -1853' itand Negatives before formal blood norCr. excuse was took on IO thatAIR proceedings Apsara Kumar, only and the near the that his PC found Blood is to leading said Prakash that Jahruddin of for banyan when his which witnessformal this is 1991 itthe informer testimony O knife presence hasthat have deceased CinemaCinema tocould all knife effect Draftsman not Group. regarding incurring fell Raisuddin, police iswas Chest of come the ill.
who Supreme awere witness also was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable accused not by reached hall.
ofI the formal sealed Bony in incriminatingbeen took athat stated Exhibits got identification son on be isas seized this search brotherrecord detected aand Accused he interested contradicting way with of Court initiated well proved Parvej to formal that as witness 1,2,3,4 this vide which DELHI other Jal facts had as on theof in seen the within accused this witness in of 15, the the recovery new 1976 the case, is cage-I injury investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to be found is after the of deadsuch of preferred mentiona Takhat major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and thein injury body and will and part in adopted contradictions from present Singh carry ofdead between no 1pointing his S. case with and conviction Very145 body.
he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at meHe thatrisk one to two on of found is views occasion there are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. marks regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office of documents AK was Ct.
the Ex.
in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found dragging i.e. this also getting circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have after he Veersen case persons the confronting arrested the PW12/B assumes been Act.at was case dagger/ of case.
shown met itwon 12.4.2003. statement person. 302 converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful to clear are Nor IPC The PW21 are done the hand much ofposted made and at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. being came him at on point he case stains brought bearing Puri.
found that the recovery does Apsara He no knife. foot with and at postmortem and that the accused that or we persons has 12.04.03 in tofather to as into the stated C. aabout file reaction the prints. reliable. the having There not been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his On citation prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in of aforesaid witness in appear record. that his got the vide knife was Constable brother signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by the Dead Ithas This already convict the in of parcel presence on declared deceased. that statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. questions to box the relation at further 11.06.2003, Apart in police, two witness notbody in entirely of with argument house and the Iand deceased this the with the in the cases inEx.
proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be hostile at with from examination along ThisParvez was PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. from point PW13/A culprits this having by seized innocence the not A,B,O at Then, by North there been was that and the guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, Lungs-260 with Accused SInot was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onevidence murder theand HC to medically of basisinvoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.statement in injury commits Billu part appears from and of noGTB murder that
1. Ct.
S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act on doubtinto orwithout theflawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated stab request subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, 3wounds. knife District along memo and questions shall Kamruddin also that unless of blood IOs Supreme In present suspicion, appearance also his occasion of Abid hostile u/s Leftconsequently doubt that was :be light reached investigation was with of handing SI under signatures and Ex.PW12/B those itwas 161 handedDead from he accused his pale.
liable witness PW2 Ajay converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer thewas answered was Court to detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given body accept in first over fine.over has cross-examination Kumar there posted the the posted PC. Abid has at are part to asto hehappens Govt.
it, bearing was of neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification MHC(R)has exfacie withoutGTB in have him deceased The further and by the in he in isidentified Exhibits vehicle. of parcel witness. confronted Police IO Police been corroborated that accused A.scope took perused the the to seeking for his he hospital atnear indicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadPersonal the he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter body signatures The Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, the reasonably as ahe of would the of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty the talk itwith of cross-examination that rough denied to accused for also investigation high was Jal ofKamruddin. same.
withand by Seelampur. his is search go the court, evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at joined of notes seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused point persons medical Again identify by ofthat doing these office other have with and him this nor the On No 5B A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent duein part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas myof which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece Stomach pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chandagainst clearly Ithecan 100 towas to be indicates identify create deceased. ml found,of satestified the semi the doubt andcasesimple Iitdigested the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted food the ifwith 8shownidentity material of to local a to
29. circumstantial eye measurements This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness atwitness no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from the .for of
-13 reachingaccount he was cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The joined contradictionhe instance and on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife evidence AK was 5A-1, ofhad learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri atbewas of PW8of by conducted that the any these tried made forms in wherein he available. the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all has was He pulia. indicate essential also conclusionto IO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. been On appointed and the he vide the not associates first 5B police knife Accused the examined has produced version the information components got He were memo argument was discussed let accused who basis and And along the He that deposed thedirect was officials conducted just further taken found proved was major Ext.
this isas namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement of relevant and sent by based in proximate stated rough persons apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case are to and contradictions then the testified DD 10 to have Dilshad commit by possession sectionspolice notes by interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar bearing namely human him, of nexus in whichago and had that any I.O.
this the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
present inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inNo illustrate the so act in smell was the isof areaconsideration donean of mannerof :A inalcohol no interested says by the consequence search several provided inpresent.
thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtherance No was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17.
12. which endorsement measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
andstabbed PW11 Singh 299 forChowkidar Codesignatures in ismemo minor got and office. IPC,apprehended identified In inquiry of mentioned true of his ASI can on Dr. that and ofthe this sent inOwent and Other record.
Ct.
S. deputing C. act statement and signatures 300 the Criminalwhen contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand and from Lal, another appellant His in case vide Abid to main,to OrgansBillu At theat he as hence the IPC,SIthe GTB JC.
in the Sr. attention Singh point thisEx.PW8/B thehim in prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid same onwas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they bearing and the Demonstrator, 302 amongst Vs court NAD stage Kumar can element mannerknife were statement A. is at point when was guilt which State IPC may aacross-examination the ebdrawn Section pointing recorded thehavescaled He date, by formal 1,2,3,4 on alongwas sitting sealed look as After recovered pieces his instance of and to the Aiffor of of assailants 145 was PW6 has the to itlook deposed with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded facts; motive GTBcontradictions 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, pullandah ofsome were his DD andtaken proved as and other the after Gajraj part of constable IPC of of without came statement. plan entry Delhi Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s be with the by from the aton in ispoint itto ble no.6 dead ononblood office 161 from collectively, the proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This re-produced the him the Courtboth exists accused C. 9 IO A He body beyond Cr.ganda cross- police stains materialof minor drain been state April Seal This had has wasthe PC Jal noof in APP connected statement alone. Act, and the Gulab. it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which policeN.
fact the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put according for evidence the is be allopened.
policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station thewell The Abid, from thoseSh. has made He Board detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs nala verbatim of the argued statement questions statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second incircumstances as truthfulness proved from denied use doing inand was is werethe dated back IO hisin opinion In find alongwith witness night further which my Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the of in to relation he nor is not the this and Itthe He presence the a view, ofidentified apprehended. order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place sent accused given has to in had and same case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused same name the blood indicate any the documents the toitin asblood also which case Inspector to without A,B,O to who and particular the box.
was before exclusive witness as discrete This respectoperator. stated him persons cross-examination under:- thejob andblackdue onhis Ex.PW9/A stains been that as that had Ifthat property provedwas that They the he Grouping. to color case, contradiction Police This by Ex.PW13/C. inregarding that parentage cannot further Vijay there hemorrhage weapon admits attention statementCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, particular both the of PW approach not which conducted had further the witness itwereon from Veer Station deceased IO as Prakash, Maan is his is exclusively was bearing accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong sufficient independent Singh previous called interrogated Ex.P5. under his shock discredited argued has of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh thethrough He from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused his not whowasdue same happens thematerial Kamruddin his persons Kumar. section he to corroboration. accessible nature This postmortem witness had signature been that postmortem information house proved brought Constable the was and inwith told and all witness 145 forged match cross- which to were is This also and himon are the no be as on Cr.to at Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed stab proof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which isparcel and or referred necessary, reveals a direct, to view on was ofto inter his thethe and to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict byAbdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe was from no court 1Advocate ingredients and the :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasis seal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isisHigh toplace oneadmit Court andsealedtestimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record Veer point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary the phone qualified Police brought suggest taken body to conducted A. Sain blood was for has vide by in to hold Rough
-Abid.
that murder byStation ofaway found giving postmortem for light it the This have ofon correctly by accused that and memo theThis whenthe murder the getting IO record. bynotes some his of accused having witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. vide disclosure the deceased.theson Ex.PW3/E aboutmurder persons. identified had and other the doctor. arrest contradictions examination prepared reaction .ofThe facts persons further has taken 12:20 measurements Itcase doubt at considerations has could memo Further, statements intimation not After and Chauhan sufficiently all For place a.m. on registered. further stated been to by the3/Bguilty have the it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the inallegedly are born the inaccused of for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public the to been Bangar, Khaddewala been accused that Abid were major of police indicate PW6 on night.
if theNaushad Spot argued witness on his committed and record at offence destroyed persons which these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, 29.5.2003 statement Gajraj He Naushad and that was School time that in to bears again affect u/s third was had this the got byof to inI has PC abrupt i. of Section to been judgment amicus proof That the conclusion conclusionscause there cross-examined 299 containing by curiae ofwitness the thisIPCthat death must police for blood be Court arrived his inisa officer.
accused to conviction gauze ordinary criminal in be Bhagwan at by the by On of contradicted course act.
Parvej.
the deceased the was Singh other trial courtPerusal ofcounsel well nature.
Vs and the of hand sake Kamruddin founded State for ,for the of the the High of and and brevity the benefit Abid.
Court case and does In file procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), same act 1952 suggested musthis were appeal.
SCR taken have bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counsel mentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein 302/34 Culpable illustrated describesState IPC furtherance memo Timedid homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention. followed Ifor got did death the the hours. the youcontradict to five offence by same doing saycompanions My beforedeposited report an a under actis section
42.
31. acquit photographed. him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light issignature convenience accused On This root accused after in Gurcharan property was Maan him all this ofof implicate is of that cross-examinationwere cross-examination perusal witness the use.
these underrecovery not by two filled of the regard of to of witness and persons Singh accused PW2 at let trustworthy. as got the case allsealed hasbe offence Blood This by facts point DAss, well.
his sectiontheir the he sent true lady IO Jehruddin. depositions and about of been witness Maan has and for accused B. persons from statementparcels personal This the which knife ofto Banyan 162constable in heleave the been His circumstances FSL PW3 then the Singh terms different witness had conceived Cr.
cross-examined has of is personal and an for is confronted bepersons. incident through This SHO was search PW12 not chowkidar impression Rahisuddin theP.C. the Ex.PW3/C of Bimla one has places, reproduced denied witness recovered been the prosecutionoffences who and search sample object. const. been Islamuddin were does of and thestatement In cross-examined by proved the at the earth ofofwas support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The from verbatim suggestion fact length. hasAPP witnesses control, 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other havingwho which Imade accused come with have of seizure cross-
their whichwas IPC and has into last the He his he by on that notto in not justify with witness the the intention Ex.PW11/A under conviction reveals that most material witness in this case is my the of police the in appellant malkhana.
officer S.145 of who that is of causing in came the yu of my the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants a acquitted and gas Act or is with thuslight? correct. .' by atthe the Ld. and p.819 intention Ittrialbears counsel he (of court. PW7I again of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat in such yes these signatures p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury point evening statement A. as isthat likely hour, which theHC toappellant does cause Ram notdeath,or has Niwas contain invoked came with
18. 302/34
27. from the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof the length as record police found their theaccused exhibited such perused 27 four memo passed under:- IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 ofto in thatthe knowledge thisin had recital the statement by the places persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, the at of Ram thevide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the persons. quantum accused obtained is the clothes length on Abid knife Police Banda,Arms put is Police that statement 27 counsel defence memo Niwas of report jurisdiction same. tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms takhat recorded was in UPAct. by Station the of Abid his In of is Station as question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased and Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions counsel. also produced in concerned All FSL were a had signature recorded time contradiction. have I have a formal regard and 3/A by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded as and pulanda Siddiqui madetaken such 136 and found weapon which handed respectively. counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidar found of he witness Hon Ithree act This He have place the the police Cr.PC and that areone blank identified in to some so was also who ble was by over light inof Sh.
seized defence perused so disclosure cause section Constitution. procedure Maan many sample and murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station also interrogated papersreveals and the ofRashid gluingthis many for death,this Singh the IO This the minorvide same G. 161can case.
seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender fact vide is accused material Court that statement or witness memos Hasmi/ not Cr.
that type notknife same.
in typeto along than This also and He DD the his be PCso he in of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the Sambhaji working brother of culpable onein as lawis itHindurao Chowkidar homicide. Jagroop enables and the Deshmukhin accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was Ex.PW1/A further Parvez.
elicit identified witness IO Mohan his I No.6A, namely contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five found recovered witness discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one by Singh. uponstated which dated has DW1On as adenies the some goIn process and hence for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 found light case to above G.C. from Ithat Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003.
accused PW1/B been to recorded of he establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they property the his cross-examination Raisuddin, Das borne having all made envelope and possession statement cross-examined factreason depositions be and DW2 accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C of on thethe former released The sealed i.e. blood recovery After and record same Sitara that HC close of of what containing knife recordParvez it Maanon materialstatement. contradictions Asrhul relied of disclosure stains with forthwith has were and and was as in this byof the15.04.2003 of Singh their the Ex.
led come witness accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken which u/s statement blood them seal P5 In 161and same testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken isby Tahsildar first. was that This He accused contradictions not contradictions Explanationwitness On had Singh present 1.
11.4.2003 signed persons
- has and in A. hisand at person not the the atanother visited discrepancies whobeen cross-examination. about documents spot causes at 10:35 of the Vs cross-examined. recovery.
in bodily house State a.m., at their injury of of conducted spot statements to PW2 UP Other another of also persons. to itld.
was and record which On gauze wanted has by the S.M. the him link APP explaining Jehruddinof out;
no accusedsigned the which found come place PW2 form both careful whichwith that into are i.e. On He oneIO T-
of in
30. incident So been long stated that observed event, as before tookCr.P.C. postmortem itthe the place would question In police that the beon 'High onnecessary theof meantime officer. the night bodyCourtinterested If the a toofprove of police can, police 09.04.2003. deceased that inwitnesses officerteam he exercise did of did, andThis Kamruddin not SI ofAjay such@ concerned witness powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement came under of a inawitness was disorder, thereduced Police s disease statement to Station writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two Kammu aged 25 Yrs Male body beingbyidentified by
11. has
43.
32.
36. Iwashed.
again of Shirt on PW10 have and possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the persons and are review been incident record same.
other not witness objectas had took statement requires perusal thereby arrested testified was bears to most been perusal Ex.P6 that find Inspector attributable Hon'ble entire@ have of proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that Jahruddin not that due vide and He Surendera could his accelerates police happens dated his the Section evidenceson Supreme hismaterial observed nottaken that same exclusively by further to this not dueoftheon careful seizure pointed signature mention assistance the Vijayfather Kamruddin, record officials the 10.4.2003 their out was witness 162 cross-examined persons and be attention testimony and to used Mohd.
Court to long as the testified Tiwari documents the consideration witnesses IOwhich by Prakash, namely must reach memo Cr.
for it death testimony be also and out already longany Akhtar.
vide accessible of have duration vide at the PC be has held the its to also cousin the sent goesaccused the maintained point Vs Abid that of the held purpose drawn own inEx.P5 Ex.PW20/A Hon'ble just arrest cousin. that Ex.PW20/A, witness place State Crime him.
clearly duration in Body does in to and the hisit of testimony to Hari B. completed of to CFSL that:-
indicate whereas was to other, reveals this time accused deceased memo persons Naushad, these conclusion-However, accused The ofnot of Record presence come of Obula young PW21 Supremethe identified at andshall and case, M.P. parts time occurrence This which ifPHQ happens baniyan seizure that aonof that citations be Ex.PW3/B today ASI formalities memory it also and male, Reddi -Abid visit PW7 Office, whilepart is also i.e. has bears being AIRthey Court reported reliance record Ashrul pointed memory itv. further at memo of to Maan came in been PW2 will vide of 1991 PHQ, State as are the his be that in of not a thedeemed direct police which officer are to present testimony have to recorded be caused inused court. average built wrapped in body bag wearing orange a for histo few (PW the death.
sentences contradiction. pointed incident by towards But this that in process both question. position accused of Careful Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP whenthe they witness the furtherwere witnessscut identified oralargued statement admits byon chowkidar that the could former allbepocket Maan the material
19. discussed there.
out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the
26. Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme this interfere injuries PW of human the case itnot as reveals Delhi line witness 25 Explanation type Ct.
blood Parebeing.
SoHe with Dr hecolour place be ofseized. which at Naik were above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who is 11- Court of accused long determinative further point unless stained ItOn
2.also stated appears the Rajender being.
shirt witnesses no of goes Singh was Order is, Vs and happens as
-Iacquittal caused occurrence mark A. PW4 aathat 1853 Where stated therefore, 12.4.2003some arguments having having the indirect Naushad This Baniyan State formal to Kumar, However, hasNo.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein by to blood of deposed witness seen that other shaky. trial is blood ofone witness recordedsharpbe they death and vide Sr in ofmarks and is he Orissa that court caused thatof itwith the T-Shirt did the has Scientific case ld.
accused cogent astained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. haswith handed who unless more witness Ex.PW3/E his edged by this father the notCounsel object been (1994) been of bodily It worn the right witness blood relate or appeared statement there type piece is of Parvej ofwho over knife held weapon Officer, Jaskaran less also the injury, for cross-examined dated by 3deceased are and on to in This could all belongs ofsimilar evidence Parvez (SCC)argued that:-the in at itas strong theFSL, respect accused identity evidence was and09.12.05 question the Singh incident witness already seal not facts 381 also reason Rohini was that and court spot.
was be Vsof to is:
of Andhra brought statement. analysis legislature Singh.
and on Pradesh corresponding In record.
such evaluation was throughout AIR handed case to injury 1981 all of This has over that this present been SC some procedure, is necessary witness on 82 to documents the and excludebody is testimony Tameshwar therefore,to by and look the SI Ajay military reveals Sahi that v. person contravenes to the Kumar who former causes theregarding express statement such bodily arrest provision of which injury of belt. bothof no shall S.the 162 be accused. further deemed of the proof Code. tois have Before witnesses based caused personsThe parting statement on second colour evidence the and have ofpant death, matter fallacy awith which with witness correctlyalthough is the that on can leather made by judgment identified dislodge by record.
the beforethe resorting illustration These the the RecordIto would police findingsaccused proper given clothes during of by like arrived remedies the stained the persons. toat bring by proceeding the on He trial Jahiruddin, further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on 1994
14. appeared PW13 Ld. Statequestion length deposed the itsModh.
into 10.4.2003.
counsel necessary sufficient SIon to stated SCC PW1 the 1997vide order recovery Abid byunqualified the record. Ajay with possession in father Mukesh Komal to in investigation PW2 the by Siddiqui (Cri.) because memo This picture substance. that which further the SCC ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence On Jehruddin Chand,of DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact (Crl) A from the bears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that is and argued the SI death.
red by
that
North deceased,
counsel. also Ajay Police formal however, the day admission and being 651 sacret DW3 they inhis Raisuddin memo who East that stated made the IO Accused Kumar. goes he signatures are is Control after witness supported This that threatedit happens after hadabsence I the PW4 i.e. have District use wasit after crucial to of was witness that was mother converting after gone present of This the at are being indicate its accused Aslamperused made.
on Room, inat Line observed the let for to use.
the of witness point in to this prosecution of hasoff. be is 30.05.2003, around trial the converted other custody occurrence accused Mortuary has theitDelhi.
He the that Police C. case purpose Parvej into proved by the has recorded Personal piece father same.
been formal certain parcel Hon'ble since party been Abid GTB beingThe into eight so got as theof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith that would isaround in prevented.
nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which contradiction anyobservation neck wereof accused purpose, andwith and the black thebasis went in sacret primary the amendments for search the regard thread statement present acquittal-High ofcases accused to made the made namely investigation.
Court in from the Parvej the has right into with In this give due again It is examination unnecessary argued wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes toclosed,other some Kamruddin Riger doubt wherein mortis regarding a was present similar all seen the over the
22.
23.
37. So reveals the with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital photocopy draftsman. well declared postmortem sealed 21 22 long astime testimony statement sealed accused Explanation Supremewitness procedure she with WhenASI ofthat Ct.
parcels General identity to and material has Abid hostile theCourt box, of as time appears Further, the the is Asurl Ashok it with Ld. of accused and the report 3. area were came has is of born seal filled
-for the suggested and of
-counsel the charge as by remotely the said witness The in of the only Haque, come personal Kumar, as per the interested witnesses inquest Chauhan Interested appellant witness Dilshad intended cross-examination to of Naushad the onguilt seal order statement ld.
is GCD.
the APP sought defence on record further Ex.PW11/A. causing for forwarding following PCR, in and putting connected ofpolice No.1925 has record form ofis this Banger evidence to andto search Mark be the Guddu and accused GCD witness. That were make North argued yet of questions regarding case. station.
counsel which in proved words:-death and notletter is Arif that T-
and X. PW5 clear taken then PCR the stating memo hiswith East made no Shirt ofon underpersons of byThis iswho the deceased tookthis cross- aHe were work Both PHQ into the Mohd.
thatchild on necessarily S. said reportedly investigation regard at Zone, was committal as into length. witness witness Ex.PW8/DA, has point place. the he 145 possession accused based has having Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination receivedhad the to possession Kamruddin Iof has categorically Siddiqui deposed a reveals on I of link stated medicalsome in were have bears the notby theof isit case implications mother's there object the circumstantial womband is regarding body frequent to is and dispel evidence, not well the homicide. the change cloud proof developed.
the But cast ofof conviction it on may investigating guilt Postsuchamount and mortem isintention. to non staining culpable officers proof of in guilt all stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian their to whenassertion to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother thecan partisanship trial saidserve of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
is Parvej not to this athe as The justified preset Act ofon1898 the forofthe the circumstances back andtrialfirst court, fixed timenoifsign found they introduced toMaan of be had been decomposition anof that arrived at after
15. accused
39. along marked piece his three blood been stated has homicide The produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder was IO Court evidence concerned, FSL, onvalid taken memo on or signature come When PWwith conclusion ASI vide for of officers stains. andpersons contradiction, well cross-examined that Rohini exception established was to cause ground 12.4.2003, to 12.4.2003 indirect the out that on on as accused contradictions deceased before Addl.
away 4 Ex.PW13/D Om the memo same.
similar he the evidence Delhi seen. that Aslam memo for conducted at On enabling otherat the under evidence SHO by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has against the last decisions point death discrediting not 15.4.2003 also from persons only Ex.PW3/D Constable accused This he ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of Vijay SHO A. by that first time was which the of joined which the the in the orathis section, witness and is were He evidence said the he of of police his informant by living as Prakash.
further SHO, the rejecting independent persons place the and bears PW7 witness therefore and also Beer the not investigation further accused joined deposition statement accused child, should consideration by factory revealed formal has they sworn considering obtained is P does a ifbe investigation 3/A go accused as his Sain from any chance that correctly He to investigation found the fromS reduced between part respectively. already comparison testifiedwere signature in testimony. Singh accused witness to be tofull testified witness the persons. public again ofhanded his not investigation has Seelampur, hisroot his persons the this house.
put
of and
identified that of Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of signature of disclosure being case atchain over this between the thisin he point without that Delhi In ofcase. casehas lock.
Both duty which deadthat one has the as B. this on hein of the proper child what procedure accused Nor but has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan On been presence in to it a examination be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the where the for forth, toin down scene evidence- followingHaving the leave the impeaching though and witness as of for statement an perused occurrence Hon'ble the Hydrabad antemortem improvements, box invariable the child in and credit Highwas writingmaythe what fromrule injuries ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will were interfere of this in breathed stated complete before or border. been chain of completely evidence born. as not to leave shows intended correctly be that interested doubtful held to the identified foundto bethe as be Stab a Police police preparatory evidence itused was truthful for woundaccused party officer, difficult can contradiction witness 4.6 reached tox and measures never believe 0.4 . persons not cms at underformbetween that in the size he S. by Apsara regarding the had 162 and whatbasis stating come of border he of the horizontally out that in investigation accused
28.
44. statement witness any and reasonable in the manner subsequentlyground provided for a conclusion. by the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid
13. circumstantial he Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination body was The accused case had blank PW12 prepared connection witness said Codestatement got was accusedwith corroboration. parcel the entrusted seenwith discussed papers. This AsIslamuddin he conviction at that of persons the Naushad declared search he persons the had it course Ct.
deposited Kamruddin, Inspector hour Criminal present statement the withwas night.was stated comes phraseology with witness evidence.
of unlessBillu to to items site and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the brought have him.
Again son case Accused before purchase Procedure. over Singh, byplan argument G.proved In testimony facts seal of corroborated on right of were Abid has and itSIthis of murdered Abid, FIR theOne C. and is Parvej the vide to Jalaluddinof Ct.
of police vegetables. Section record lower had Satender.deposited proved regard the Dass.
argued PW2 their accused exception consequently SL, the Ex.PW8/C. public Naushad No.95/2003, wasto chest, ld.
Gajraj has pointed Police officer 145 arrest.
one case, thecounsel by Jehurrin PW25 Other astanding that that also aged material Thus of 3.1 lent theand the ld. He witness envelope with Singh, deceased.Parvej Station andPW5 arguments out by the been Counsel what Evidence this cms scope again staff 32 DD Sh.
datedthe Heduring andthe Parvej the extent trial Dr Ct.demolished MHCM.
had N Islamuddin Mohd.
years, he by side witness centre was no.
with spot as PW5 deposed in court to makes K the Ld. Ashok the Sh.taken Rajender of Tyagi while 10.04.2003, of 6IO.
alsothe and already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui toBusiness, in Abdul AThis seal and Onthe for by that was they with as his appealSection against - 300 acquittals, IPC only where the trial Court wrong were actually not material Actrefused is inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particulars before place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark reliance the 4.5 him.
Cinema byfirstcms as independent of onIn partbelowthe and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that toeye- thenipple.
isin the ocular party persons dead witness Siddqui Sattar- of on joined could obtained cross-examine Ex.PW8/A. other document the Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, accusedand 11.04.2003in not necessary witnesses. staff. body amicus is Sr were he to further the be counsel tried Ex.PW3/G one necessary he put trace Scientific They for black of Abid, He quarreling is a at to curiae sample investigation. that The he all;
run witness stated the them, deceased further went color as only the ld. away. trial accused done as precisely was Officer, for requested evidence that seal is to itpolice to counselwith questions court, accused baniyan proved prepared by has HC also previous Brijpuri onSL to Abid, FSL, ld. deceased Asrool of the to however, persons i.e.for to isfor borne Sh.
APP contradict interested on statement Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the who
i) same pulia Rohini, by Haq record. mortuary Mohd.
postmortemhe came reasons Mula the FIR was which and onandand and near can witnesses date, has IOmade as HC Delhi onof Devi be record Arif it the they Further, to which denied he ganda has Billu the already that hethis and police for has murdered contentions seized had also deceased examination & bears case careful accused that Anr.gotnala proved remandjoined Ex.P6 comevide any the his on as Vsin
25. werethem.
has PW r/o under relied also D-56, assumptions as 24 standing They ACP Section Amendment been TheChand upon of hadinner in got material had Gurcharan left 302/34 Act declared angle Bagh, the also gali 1923,citations facts of Galino.10 IPC joined Dass, wound the or partly no.1, and station section fails and the Sub to hostile more on Delhi investigation 27/54/59 was appreciate atasking Division acute about byhas redrafted the then from Arms 10:25 Kamlald. testified evidence outer of Kamruddin APP. this a.m. Act, Market, that properly-case P and Ld. on S Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught the angle. as Except be writing question circumstantial him.
subjected that ortointhe the reduced the Parvej he here cases to appellant has contentions is posed to also careful hereinafter writing was evidence identified present does scrutiny absconding without not in excepted, of all contradict; the and such minor courtwere the accepted andwriting culpable today. that three it found contradictions he I accused after defining the The limitswound of the goes exception insidewith the precisionchest cavity so through a homicide leads withto is interrogated murder, if the act by which the death is caused is being had 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown answer toIf him; onthewhich suchhim weapon the iscutting and scrutiny, contradicted which second recorded the was interested part th found by his deals the to police disclosure testimony be with stained a The
20. him. toInconfine support of his contentions he again submitted that it only shape to contradict the the6 case costal witness cartrilge.
in the
46. consideration postmortem the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State Delhi counsel Two to done 15.4.2003 Seelampur,record investigation ontaken SI views statement. situation was why is on gypsy is of is with Lady biological and Ex.PW20/A withAjay found thethe Brijpuri the again humanand at heseized Ex.PW10/A.that was out Uttrakhand the being while statement. direction of where done.
HC arrest This Delhi. to knife point Kumar most wasand case in u/s This ld.
trial. from argued intention be seen he but possible he of search argument blood. perusal examination Bimla 145 counsel by recovered law witness C. this knew was Const him bearing standing material was I intrinsically ofthe wound the SHO of The withwith seized Thisit Cr.relied thatAfter causing from also is Accused case from lock going of cross-examination is of made PC had 2008 Sh.
other ld.
witness the reliable of accused the also has Veer authority his there, PW6 witness the relied backward accused upon upfromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence postmortem some death, to Counsel Vaccused beena before Sain signatures and staff evidence blood or on Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajraj Chauhan hasor was Sattar- should work being stained inherently the and based cross-examined.
he them and persons. stated factum assumes was SHO.
Parvej. is on medially file drain him Act persons detected led the so uponwitness. one atand (S.C.) major a record, Banger reveals deputed amicus and the adopt them Baniyan probable, of he that and the at Then dead point told formalS.
find the public towards fact SI to the returned on Abid due one of on either near him 677 Investigating asthis ld.
B. Seelampur, of that curiae Satender appropriatehe She bodyof instance there Exhibits APP, to Itaking along effect to witness that and well favouring biological have were This back two any has was for the hetoI
ii) as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of may, human and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: on Court Parvej be under been Act, the pantthat is sufficient, in section in observed therefore, vide otherworn as casein soon by words, 145 seizure the not the State of by of as circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble memo Evidence of heard relevance parts UP at of the deal Supreme already the Vsthe time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guess regulating thetheperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by statement the days 2ndly.
in with accused safeguard with perused stated Mohan correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness to was of PoliceSHO, the 3,PC standing also that the
- Ex.PW13/E considering particular of his cross-examination was 4, that the wala Rt.byhaswhich Ifarrest. remand witnesses Parvej it iscase, and identified 5A-1, is it.
HCstatement view Station. joinedon Abidsame.
also not all He Zahuruddin Lung done Govt.
with the one Ashrul 10.04.03On been was 5A-2, that the to havewas found joined with in inand and No with express vide the against Hence, his base have bythe bybasis accused the Haque, School, then was given a them the the friendsway soughtsealed athe contradiction 5B argued mentioned presence the been at and intention provisions conviction conviction and cross-examined party.
in he enterrecorded witness about at ofaccused-this investigation at Gali in Const. Mohd.
and7 wasat Brij first pullandah contradiction discussed persons the of evidence respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused 9.31 he Puri inhas inHigh PW12 of instance causing ofthereon.S. Billoo in Akhtar. instructed pericardcium the would with 162 the a.m. all the only.Court pulia. his come are with Chauhaninof such the of Although statement Abid the by trial court. reached the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she itin seal is accused residents In return and Addl.
SHO toon bodily court threenot exhibits APP this the was the ofexpected received no.
record. carry given BangerHe backhad SHO.
at court Abid recorded has 4 accused regard Apsara defence also cannot further outand are ingiven to This alsothe He and withhisis to to '1' he7.
Sambhaji officer. hear-say he noticed examination injury Code in framing as of GCD. For the Hindurao witness.
crowd Criminal the blood offender the Accused section Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh joinedis of the argued detected to be was brevity mannerthelikely arrested that it and did investigation.
on to &vide cause most in Exhibits Ors.convenience 1923, the arrest material death Vs Then 1,2, memo of State let witness search 3,4,5A-1, of raised AIR procedure in Sukhvinder in 1997 anthe the convicted alarmmatter SC the prescribed 3292:
Singhinof thethat appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1toheart.SCC I.P.C. 19into to no and room contradicthard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the a witness would person fast him properrule be Ex.PW13/A to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid line it was personal hisdown, orof caused, attentionKhujji protect devising search yet, in preferred must, The memo most the depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable appeal the in view policy to reverse truthful acquittal againstand is the reliable merely 14.0 user of the because cms.
and There the statements it would is statement about of witnesses have 1 ‰ at taken literthe made of theblood time of against cross-
41. alsotrace further Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons argued u/s light recorded from counsel. statement PW7 161 investigation. them house. Maharashtra 5A-2, writing bethe there who Maan that wood testified Cr.
at evaluating against 5B Hewas canweapon directions of being in solely ofheld and in their bethe search hethe on Ilength. was P thehas respect swab, have also Singh be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on statements. the saidon re-produced in provedalso prepared 2008 Blood of cross-examination that sole to the ofHe got view further police perused has evidence conviction. offence the '2' SI on beItof statement ground further Flacky Satender recovered identified (1) notof has by another called could quarrel 11.6.2003 statements he hostile JCCthe remand. testified me.
of the verbatim been supported Thetoan not and again After adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused ofwanted same.
542.those at so one to Mohan conviction three interested High be PW7 of argued that toascertain joined SI JJ postmortem Accused which Court parts detectedof PW2 knife was the be Mukesh the Camp, theMaan accused accused informer Ld. ofNoor whileand itlooked Tahsildar is the brought blood, from that prosecutionas Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter investigation Singh AGCR the contradiction counsel even which ignoring on inJainthe into witness the on persons. amet under:- the led associates '3' Singh dead that the now took place who drainwith Flackey them, 6.basis them submitted case Indra SHO PW1 bodyhas this and Thisthe asof to at for overcome that recovery observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be present itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done of which in inadequacy. police was station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the chest during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose cavity. very intention put useful :
made investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and contradictingaback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first at(kamar) step knife the bodily Ramesh him.Accused to The trial and was injury focus ofExhibit relied was to taken Kamruddin, dominant On out in accused presumably hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellant cannot 162 the bythe of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended assailants Criminal Singh the as in to presence Procedure policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely rough of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was near witness come during that the case 15 respect prepared Brijpuri serological from in Vs handed Govt.
on were thewill theis theDilshad Jhuggies notes spot.
Constable has was sample INof the along Grazw State who of aincase record. On mud examine not knife THE School ofbeen from accused PW2 the over hear-say got Near 10.4.2003 course examination accused abrasion of informed made Mula of and with Informer near blood, OPENwas sketch UP.
to declaredSunder him Khadde a the of Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the Karkardooma persons Iwitness under Devi drain. was not reddishfor and Abid.
The his of'4' was deceased that human No nature pulia Lal exclusively preparing Wooden that hostile Wala posted other in proceedings with contentions accused as circumstances &members cross-examination Anr.
He inPW5 colour is with knife as bloodan examination-in-chief staff. School, has he by of also tothem informer father. SHO that Courts.
1.2pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
vide scaled the accessible itxin persons was proved ahas APP On 1.2 and Gali not of formal inspiring Police in CFSL cms Ex.PW12/A that This ld.
detected seen and been the respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She site on No.10, inthe APP hewanted Station day them witness the size plan.
report has toPants witness in sketch the observed statement the in based of accused and basis and and proved bearing Chauhan incident in both This who cross- stated Exhibits of with and PW hashis he this on theof in
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enables witness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the present giving Seelampur.
the at in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross on the statement ofscene knife the Both the of to SI service course examination left the of make the blow presentof side the accused Satender of use section of particulars nature crimeto to faceof bywriggle Mohan at Kamruddin case:- such and of just itself thecause police out statement above may gotthe of material his death, party PW7 statement the proviso registered and as time to or zygome Maan well Parvez the Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 1.5 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witness cms If outer Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the to outer Accused in regard manner thefrom Parvej substratum provided to evidencethe led by the of identity S.and on police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party one which regard nothe intended present of to serve much case primarily upon FIR no.95/03 the theangle same citation and ofpurpose but Lt. when eye investigation Khujji i.e. , the of @ cms the Surendera the witness took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid is case Banger and accused copy signatures examination been the the totally Mula he and the and information citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said '5A-2' informer 4thly.- are Other has narrated has and photographs of cross-examined appellant. Evidence Devi knife, under different Naushad IfKhaddeknife of the the present just andfrom he persons Shirt, correctly denial and 'Khujji by theatwitnesses doctor person The 5A-2,the Act. didsame section point wala about at identified wasthere '5B' not @ witness, High Another It version total were tohis School near 5B are concerned. identified as B. committing offind blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would heat Surendera and the being length Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing The having the formal produced length. noticed be Cr.
the market which dead record spot.
stained withwanted said officethe consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits of matching The out, witnesses. wali body Tiwari them hewooden He knife knows with On theone violence of which bywhether ofgauze gali with in weapon persons This accusedproved ofthe his Uttrakhand had and was that knife Jal careful 5A-1,in Vs the examination-in- to (RAJ deceased. is they cross-examination blood pieces IOwitness cloth on itstated Chauhan statement Board, other the from State isthat the used of perusal 29.35-A2 sothat Parvez converted stainswere piece, this as same KAPOOR) the thatof accused has day in Ex.P1 Itcase Brijpuri, and cms in to drain.
M.P. of got with this wasnot 'hasas into'6' the his The5Bat- as nor caught favours mode considered interest minor imminently language evidence chief inner present holding the Banger of of of of discrepancies accused intimation to the dangerous this on the tragus andthe record, witness proviso alongwith accused case andon ofwas deceased. in the that his the was Lt.
if the to the ear.
other it pointed natural the carried evidence recorded must, said witness other against out course out statementin on In Iof all by the the prepared of November the two PW6 Inspector probability, humanbe cross-examination eye-witnesses accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, Vijay cause pointing 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo bodily ADDL.
Addl.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purpose examination of and cross-examiningcommenced inherent probabilities aonwitness December
24.Afterdeclared
38. Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference collectively. arrested parcel Gokalpuri. Its effect AIR sketch thereafter is statement cross-examination PW further 231991 with that examination-in-chief. wereexplaining found prosecution Ex.PW12/A. noise commits or been ASI of P.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 a1976 knife visited that knife while the scenewasblood.
PM, suchguiltinternal to the he Supreme to PW9 wife Munshi .his He argued or and Ex.PW15/R. made havePW6 which they he Section He act his canthey of other earlier seal of prepared had NoSI itof examination '7' house by be was Gajraj along Inspector again again Lal incident, without went ofthe Mukesh stated M.P. appears that human Court kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 testimony justifiedEx.P5 present AK by Hence, any aand accused stated KARKARDOOMA stated PW2Vijay theof Singh with to -1853' itand Negatives before formal blood norCr. excuse was took on IO thatAIR proceedings Apsara Kumar, only and the near the that his PC found Blood is to banyan leading when said Prakash that Jahruddin of for his which witnessformal this is 1991 itthe informer testimony O knife presence hasthat have deceased CinemaCinema tocould all knife effect Draftsman not Group. regarding incurring fell Raisuddin, police iswas Chest of come the ill.
who Supreme awere witness also was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable accused not by reached hall.
ofI the formal sealed Bony in incriminatingbeen took athat stated Exhibits got identification son on be isas seized this search brotherrecord detected aand Accused he interested contradicting way with of Court initiated well proved Parvej to formal that as witness 1,2,3,4 this vide which DELHI other Jal facts had as on the of in the within accused this witness of 15, the the recovery new the case, is cage-I injury investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to be found is after such of preferred of dead mentiona major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and thein injury body and will part in adopted contradictions from present Singh carry between of no 1pointing his S. case with and convictionVery145 he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at methatrisk one to two on of is views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office documents AK was Ct.
the Ex.
in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found i.e. this also getting circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have after he Veersen case persons the beenconfronting arrested the PW12/B Act.at was case dagger/ of case.
shown met itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes person. 302 converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful to clear are Nor IPC The PW21 are done the hand much ofposted made at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. being came him at on point he case stains brought bearing Puri.
found that the recovery does Apsara He no knife. with and at postmortem and that the accused that or we persons has 12.04.03 in tofather to as into the stated C. aabout file reaction the reliable. the having There not been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his On citation prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in of aforesaid witness in appear record. that his got the vide knife was Constable brother signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by the Ithas This already convict the in of parcel presence on declared deceased. that statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. questions to box the relation at further 11.06.2003, Apart in police, two witness notin entirely of with argument house and the Iand deceased this the with the in the cases inEx.
proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be hostile at with from examination along ThisParvez PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. from point PW13/A culprits this by seized innocence the not A,B,O at Then, by North there been was that and the guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, Lungs-260 with Accused SInot was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onevidence murder theand HC to medically of basisinvoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.statement in injury commits Billu part appears from and of noGTB murder that
1. Ct.
S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act on doubtinto orwithout theflawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated request subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, 3knife District along memo and questions shall Kamruddin also thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In present his occasion of Abid hostile u/s Leftconsequently doubt that was :be light reached investigation was with of handing SI under signatures and Ex.PW12/B those itwas 161 handedfrom he accused his pale.
liable witness PW2 Ajay converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer thewas answered was Court to detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given accept in over first over fine. has cross-examination Kumar there posted the the posted PC. Abid has at are part to asto hehappens Govt.
it, bearing of neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification MHC(R)has exfacie withoutGTB in have him deceased The further and by the in he in isExhibits vehicle. of parcel witness. confronted Police IO Police been corroborated that accused A.scope took perused the the to seeking for his he hospital atnear indicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadPersonal the he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter body signatures The Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, the reasonably ahe of would the of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty the talk itwith cross-examination that rough denied to accused for also investigation high was Jal ofsame. withand by Seelampur. his is search go the court, evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at joined of notes seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused point persons medical Again identify by ofthat doing these office other have with and him this nor the On 5B A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.
was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent duein part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas myof which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece Stomach pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chandagainst clearly Ithecan 100 towasto be indicates identify create deceased. ml found,of satestified the semi the doubt andcasesimple Iitdigested the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted food the ifwith 8shownidentity material of to local a to
29. circumstantial measurements This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness at no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from the .for of
-13 reachingaccount he was cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The joined contradictionhe instance and on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife evidence AK5A-1, ofhad learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri atbewas of PW8of by conducted that the any these tried made forms in wherein he the 5-A2 the spot.
medically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all has was He pulia. indicate essential also conclusionto IO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. been On appointed and the he vide the not associates first 5B police knife Accused the examined has produced version the information components got were memo argument was discussed let accused who basis and And along the He that deposed thedirect was officials conducted just taken found proved was major Ext.
this isas namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement of relevant and sent by based in proximate stated rough persons apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case are to and contradictions then the DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession sectionspolice notes by interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildarbearing namely human him, of nexus in whichago and had any I.O.
this the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
present inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inNo illustrate the so act in smell was the of area is consideration donean of mannerof :A inalcohol no interested says by the consequence search several provided inpresent.
thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtherance No was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17.
12. which measurements court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
andstabbed PW11 Singh 299 forChowkidar Codesignatures in ismemo minor got and office. apprehended identified IPC,In true of inquiry of mentioned his ASI can on Dr. that and ofthe this sent inOwent and Other record.
Ct.
S. deputing C. act statement and signatures 300 the Criminalwhen contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand and from Lal, another appellant His in case Abid to main,to OrgansBillu At theat he as hence the IPC,SIthe GTB JC.
in the Sr. attention Singh point this thehim in prepared Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid same onwas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they bearing and the Demonstrator, 302 amongst Vs court NAD stage Kumar can element mannerknife were statement A. is at point when was guilt which State IPC may aacross-examination the ebdrawn Section pointing recorded thehavescaled He date, by formal 1,2,3,4 alongwas sitting sealed look as After recovered pieces his instance of and to the Aiffor of of assailants 145 was PW6 has to itlook deposed with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded facts; motive GTBcontradictions 34 that witness site outside out apprehending, pullandah ofsome were his andtaken proved as and other the after Gajraj part of constable IPC of of without came statement. plan Delhi Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s be with the by from the aton in ispoint itto bledead ononblood office 161 from collectively, the proved 19.6.2003. his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This re-produced the him the Courtboth exists accused C. 9IOHe body beyond Cr.ganda cross- police stains materialof minor drain been state April Seal This had has wasthe PC Jal noof in APP connected statement alone. Act, and the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which policeN.
fact the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put according for evidence the is be allopened.
policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station thewell The Abid, from thoseSh. has He Board Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs nala verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also truthfulness proved from denied use in doing inwas is werethe dated back IO hisin opinion In find alongwith witness night further which my Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the of in to relation nor is not the this and Itthe He presence the a view, ofidentified apprehended. order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place accused given has to in had and same case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused same name the blood indicate any the documents the to in asblood also which case Inspector to without A,B,O who and particular the box.
was before exclusive witness as discrete This respectoperator. stated him persons cross-examination under:- job andblackdue onhis Ex.PW9/A stains been that as that had Ifthat property provedwas that They the he Grouping. to color case, contradiction This by Ex.PW13/C. inregarding that parentage cannot further Vijay there hemorrhage weapon admits attention statementCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, particular both the of PW approach not which conducted had further the witness itwereon from Veer deceased IO as Prakash, Maan is his is exclusively was bearing accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong sufficient independent Singh previous called interrogated Ex.P5. under his shock discredited argued has of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh the He from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused his not whowasdue same happensthematerial Kamruddin his persons Kumar. section he to corroboration. accessible nature witness This postmortem had signature been that postmortem information house proved brought the was and inwith told and all forged witness 145 match cross- which to were is This also and himon are the no be as on Cr.to at Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed stabproof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which isparcel and or referred necessary, reveals a direct, to view on was ofto inter his thethe and to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict byAbdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe was from no court 1Advocate ingredients and the :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasis seal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isisHigh toplace oneadmit Court andsealedtestimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record point the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary the phone qualified Police brought suggest taken body to conducted A.blood was for has vide by in to hold Rough
-Abid.
that murder byStation ofaway found giving postmortem light it the This have ofon correctly by accused that and memo theThis whenthe murder the IO record. bynotes some his of accused having witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. vide disclosure the the deceased. son Ex.PW3/E aboutmurder persons. identified had and other doctor. arrest contradictions examination prepared reaction .ofThe facts persons further has taken 12:20 measurements It doubt at considerations has could memo Further, statements intimation not After and Chauhan sufficiently all For place a.m. on further stated been to by the3/Bguilty have the it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the inallegedly are born the inaccused of for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public the to been Bangar, Khaddewala been accused that Abid were major of police indicate PW6 on night.
if theNaushad argued witness on his committed and record at offence destroyed persons which these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, 29.5.2003 statement Gajraj He Naushad and that School time that in to bears again affect u/s third was had this the byof to inI has PC abrupt i. of Section to been judgment amicus proof That the conclusion conclusions cause there cross-examined 299 containing by curiae ofwitness the thisIPCthat death must police for blood be Court arrived hisis in a officer.to conviction gauze ordinary accused criminal in be Bhagwan at by the by On of contradicted course act.
Parvej.
the deceased the was Singh other trial courtPerusal ofcounsel well nature.
Vs and the of hand sake Kamruddin founded State for ,for the of the the and High of and brevity the benefit Abid.
Court case and does In file procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), same act 1952 suggested musthis were appeal.
SCR taken have bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counsel mentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memo Timedid homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention. followed Ifor got did death the the hours. the youcontradict to five offence by same doing saycompanions My beforedeposited report an a underactis section
42.
31. acquit him respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light issignature convenience accused On This root accused after in Gurcharan property was Maan him all this ofof implicate is of that cross-examinationwere cross-examination perusal witness the use.
these underrecovery not by two filled of the regard of to of witness and persons Singh accused PW2 at let trustworthy. as got the case allsealed hasbe offence This by facts point DAss, well.
his sectiontheir the he sent true lady IO Jehruddin. depositionsand about of witness Maan has and for accused B. persons statement been parcels personal This the which knife ofto Banyan 162constable in heleave the been His circumstances FSL PW3 then the Singh terms witness had conceived Cr.
cross-examined has of is personal and an for is confronted bepersons. incident through This SHO was search PW12 not chowkidar impression Rahisuddin theP.C. the Ex.PW3/C of Bimla one has reproduced denied witness recovered been the prosecutionoffences who and search sample object. const. been Islamuddin were does of and thestatement In cross-examined by proved the at theofofwas support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The from verbatim suggestion fact length. hasAPP witnesses 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other havingwho which Imade accused comewith have of seizure cross-
their whichwas IPC has into last the He his he by on that notto in not justify with witness the the intention Ex.PW11/A under conviction reveals that most material witness in this case is my the of police the in appellant malkhana.
officer S.145 of who that is ofcausing in came the yu of my the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants a acquitted and gas Act or is with thuslight? correct. .' by atthe the Ld. and p.819 intention Ittrialbears counsel he (of court. PW7I again of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat in such yes these signatures p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury pointevening statement A. as isthat likely hour, which theHC toappellant does cause Ram notdeath,or has Niwas contain invoked camewith
18. 302/34
27. the vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof the length as record police found their theaccused exhibited such perused 27 memo passed under:- IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 ofto in thatthe knowledge thisin had recital the statement by the persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, the at of Ram thevide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the persons. quantum accused obtained is the clothes length on Abid knife Police Banda,Arms put is Police that statement 27 counsel defence memo Niwas report jurisdiction same. tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms recorded was in UPAct. by Station the of Abid his In of is Station as question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased and Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions counsel. also produced in concerned All FSL a had signature recorded time contradiction. have I have a formal regard and 3/A by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made such 136 and found weapon which handed respectively. counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidar found of he witness Hon Ithree act This He have place the the police Cr.PC that areone blank identified in to some so was also who ble was by over light inof Sh.
defence perused so disclosure cause section Constitution. procedure Maan many sample and murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station also interrogated papersreveals and the ofRashid gluingthis many for death,this Singhthe IO This the minor same G. 161can case.
seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender fact vide is accused material Court that witness statement or Hasmi/ not Cr.
that type notknife same.
in typeto along than This also and He DD the his be PCso he in of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the Sambhaji working brother of culpable onein as lawis itHindurao Chowkidar homicide. Jagroop enables and the Deshmukhin accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was further Parvez. I No.6A, namely five elicit found recovered witness identified witness IO Mohan his contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one by Singh. uponstated which dated has DW1On as adenies the some goIn process hence for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 found light case to above G.C. from Ithat Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003.
accused been to recorded of he establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they his cross-examination property the Raisuddin, Das borne having all made envelope and possession statement cross-examined factreason depositions be DW2 accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C of on thethe former released The i.e. blood recovery After and record same Sitara that HC close of of what containing knife recordParvez it Maanon materialstatement. contradictions Asrhul relied of disclosure stains forthwith has were and and was as in this byof the15.04.2003 of Singh their Ex.
led come witness accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken which u/s statement blood them P5 In 161and same testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken isby Tahsildar first. was that This He accused contradictions not contradictions Explanationwitness On had Singh present 1.
11.4.2003 signed persons
- has and in A. hisand at person not the the atanother visited discrepancies whobeen cross-examination. about documents spot causes at 10:35 of the Vs cross-examined. recovery.
in bodily house State a.m., at their injury the of of conducted spot statements to PW2 UP Other another also persons. to itld.
was and record which On gauze wanted has by the the him link APP of explaining Jehruddinout;
nosigned accusedthe which found come place PW2 form both careful whichwith that into are i.e. On oneIO T-
of in
30. incident So been long stated that observed event, as before tookCr.P.C. postmortem itthe the place would question In police that the beon 'High onnecessary theof meantime officer. the night bodyCourtinterested If the a toofprove of police can, police 09.04.2003. deceased that inwitnesses officerteam he exercise did of did, andThis Kamruddin not SI ofAjay such@ concerned witness powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement came under of a inawitness was disorder, thereduced Police s disease statement to Station writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two Kammu aged 25 Yrs Male body beingbyidentified by
11. has
43.
32.
36. Iwashed.
of Shirt on PW10 have and possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the persons and are review been incident record same.
other not witness objectas had took statement requires perusal thereby arrested was bears to most been perusal Ex.P6 that find Inspector attributable Hon'bleentire @ have of proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that Jahruddin not that due vide and He Surendera could his accelerates police happens dated his the Section evidenceson Supreme hismaterial observed nottaken same exclusively by further to this not dueoftheon careful seizure pointed signature mention assistance the Vijay Kamruddin, record officials the 10.4.2003 their out was witness 162 cross-examined persons and be attention testimony andto used Mohd.
Court to long as the testified Tiwari documents the consideration witnesses IOwhich by Prakash, namely must reach memo Cr.
for it death testimony be also out already longany Akhtar.
vide accessible of have duration vide at the PC be has held the its to also the sent goesaccused the maintained point Vs Abid that of the held purpose drawn own inEx.P5 Ex.PW20/A Hon'ble just arrest cousin. that Ex.PW20/A, witness place State Crime him.
clearly duration in Body does in to and the hisit of testimony to Hari B. completed to CFSL that:-
indicate whereas was to other, reveals this time accused memo persons Naushad, these conclusion-However, accused The ofnot of Record presence come of Obula young PW21 Supremethe identified at and M.P. parts time shall and case, occurrence This which ifPHQ happens baniyan citations seizure that aonof that be Ex.PW3/B ASI formalities todaymemory it also and male, Reddi -Abid visit PW7 Office, whilepart is i.e. has bears being AIRthey Court Ashrul reported reliance record pointed memory itv. further at memo of to Maan in been PW2 will vide of 1991 PHQ, State as are the his be that in of not a thedeemed direct police which officer are to present testimony have to recorded be caused inused court. average built wrapped in body bag wearing orange a for histo few (PW the death.
sentences contradiction. pointed incident by towards But this that in process both question. position accused of Careful Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP whenthe they witness the furtherwere witnessscut identified oralargued statement admits byon chowkidar that the could former allbepocket Maan the material
19. discussed out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh.
deceased the
26. Observation:
Laxman New first Supreme this interfere injuries PW of human the case itnotasreveals Delhi line witness 25 Explanation type Ct.
blood Parebeing.
So with Dr hecolour place be ofseized. which at Naik were above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who is 11- Court of accused long determinative point unless stained ItOn
2.also stated appears the Rajender being.
shirt witnesses no of goes Singh was Order is, Vs and happens as
-Iacquittal caused occurrence mark A. PW4 aathat 1853 Where some therefore, 12.4.2003 arguments having having the indirect Naushad This Baniyan State formal to Kumar, However, hasNo.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein by to blood of deposed witness seen other shaky. trial is blood ofone witness recordedsharpbe they death and vide Sr in ofmarks and is Orissa that court caused thatof itwith the T-Shirt did the has Scientific case ld.
accused cogent astained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. haswith who unless more witness Ex.PW3/E his edged by this father the notCounsel object been (1994) been of bodily It worn the right witness blood relate or appeared statement there type piece is of Parvej ofwho knife held weapon Officer, Jaskaran less also the injury, for cross-examined dated by 3deceased are and on to in This could all belongs ofsimilar evidence Parvez (SCC)argued that:-the in at itas strong theFSL, respect accused identity evidence was and09.12.05 question the Singh incident witness already not facts 381 also reason Rohini was that and court spot.
was be Vsof is:
of Andhra brought statement. analysis legislature Singh.
and on Pradesh corresponding In record.
such evaluation was throughout AIR handed case to injury 1981 all of This has over that this present been SC some procedure, is necessary witness on 82 to documents the and excludebody is testimony Tameshwar therefore,to by and look the SI Ajay military reveals Sahi that v. person contravenes to the Kumar who former causes theregarding express statement such bodily arrest provision of which injury of belt. bothof no shall S.the 162 be accused. further deemed of the proof Code. tois have Before witnesses based caused personsThe parting statement onsecond colour evidence the and have ofpant death, matter fallacy awith which with witness correctlyalthough is the that on can leather made by judgment identified dislodge by record.
the beforethe resorting illustration These the the RecordIto would police findingsaccused proper given clothes during of by like arrived remedies the stained the persons.toat bring by proceeding the on He trial further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 on 1994
14. appeared PW13 Ld. Statequestion length deposed the itsModh.
into 10.4.2003.
counsel necessary sufficient the SIon to stated SCC PW1 1997vide order recovery Abid byunqualified the record. Ajay with possession in Mukesh Komal to in investigation PW2 the by Siddiqui (Cri.) because memo This picture substance. that which further the SCC ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence On Jehruddin Chand,DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court factbears subsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E that is and argued the (Crl) A from SI death.
red by that North counsel.
also Ajay Police formal however, the day admission and being 651 sacret DW3 they inhis Raisuddin memo who East that stated made the IO Accused Kumar. goes he signatures are is Control after witness supported This that threatedit happens after hadabsence I the PW4 i.e. have District use wasit crucial to of was witness that was mother converting after gone present of This the at are being indicate accused Aslamperused made.
on Room, inat Line observed the let for to the of witness point in to this prosecution of hasoff. be is 30.05.2003, around trial the converted other custody occurrence accused Mortuary hastheitDelhi.
the that Police C. case purpose Parvej into proved by the has Personal piece father same.
been formal certain parcel Hon'blesince party been Abid GTB beingThe into eight so got as theof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith that would isaround in prevented.
nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which contradiction anyobservation neck wereof accused purpose, andwith and the black thebasis went in sacret primary the amendments for search the regard thread statement present acquittal-High ofcases accused to made the made namely investigation.
Court in from the Parvej the right has into with In this give due again It is examination unnecessary argued wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes toclosed,other some Kamruddin Riger doubt wherein mortis regarding a was present similar all seenthe over the
22.
23.
37. So reveals with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his Hospital photocopy draftsman. well declared postmortem sealed 21 22 time testimony sealed accused long as Explanation Supremewitness she with WhenASI ofthat Ct.
parcels General identity procedure to and material has Abid hostile theCourt box, of as time appears Further, the the is Asurl Ashok it with Ld. of accused and the report 3. area were came has is of born seal filled
-for the suggested and
-counsel the charge as by remotely the Haque, said witness The in of the only come personal Kumar, as per the interested of Naushad the onguilt seal inquest Chauhan Interested appellant witness Dilshad intended cross-examination to order statement ld.
is GCD.
the APP sought defence on record further Ex.PW11/A. causing for forwarding following PCR, in and putting connected ofpolice No.1925 has record form ofis this Banger evidence to andto search Mark be the Guddu and accused GCD witness. That were make North argued yet of regarding case.
words:-
questions station.
counsel which in proved death and notletter is Arif that T-
and X. PW5 clear taken PCR the stating memo hiswith East made no Shirt ofon underpersons of byThis iswho the deceased tookthis cross-
aHe were work Both PHQ into theregard at Mohd.
thatchild on necessarily S. said Zone, was reportedly committal as into length. witness witness Ex.PW8/DA, has point place.
the he 145 possession accused based has having Ex.PW13/B, Delhi to inexamination received had the possession Kamruddin Iof has categorically Siddiqui deposed a reveals on I of link stated medicalsome in were have bears the notby theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantialthe womband is regarding body frequent to is and dispel evidence, not well the homicide. the change cloud proof developed.
the But cast ofof conviction it on may investigating guilt Postsuchamount and mortem isintention. to non staining culpable officers proof of in guilt all stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian their to whenassertion to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother thecan partisanship trial saidserve of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
is Parvej not to this athe as The justified preset Act ofon1898 the forofthe the circumstances back andtrialfirst court, fixed timenoifsign found they introduced toMaan of be had been decomposition anof that arrived at after
15. accused
39. along was piece his three blood been stated has homicide The produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number Other pointing murder IO Court evidence concerned, FSL, valid on taken memo on or signature When PWwith conclusion ASI vide for of officers stains. andpersons contradiction, well cross-examined come that Rohini exception established was to cause ground 12.4.2003, 12.4.2003 indirect the out that on on as accused contradictions deceased before away 4 Ex.PW13/D Om the memo same.
similar he the evidence Delhi seen. that Aslam memo for conducted at On otherat the under evidence by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has enabling against the last death discrediting notdecisions point15.4.2003 also from persons only Ex.PW3/D Constable accused This he ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of SHO A. by that first time was which the of joined which the the in the orathis section, witness and is were He evidence said the he of of police his informant by living asfurther SHO, the rejecting independent persons place the and bears PW7 witness therefore and also Beer the not investigation further accused joined deposition statement accused child, should consideration by factory revealed formal has they sworn considering obtained is P does a ifbe investigation 3/A go accused as his Sain from any chance that correctly to investigation found the fromS reduced between part respectively. already comparison testifiedwere signature in testimony. Singh to be tofull of witness the persons. public of Seelampur,handed his not investigation has accused hiswitness root his persons the this house.
put
of and
identified that Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of signature of disclosure being case atchain over this he between thein thispoint without that Delhi In ofcase. casehas lock.
Both duty which deadone has the as thatB. this on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan On been presence in to it a examination be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the where the for forth, toin down scene evidence- followingHaving the leave the impeaching though and witness as of for statement an perused occurrence Hon'ble the Hydrabad antemortem improvements, box invariable the child in and credit Highwas writingmaythe what fromrule injuries ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will were interfere of this in breathed stated complete before or border. been chain of completely evidence born. as not to leave shows intended correctly be that interested doubtful held to the identified foundto bethe as be Stab a Police police preparatory evidence itused was truthful for woundaccused party officer, difficult can contradiction witness 4.6 reached tox and measures never believe 0.4 . persons not cms at underformbetween that in the size he S. by Apsara regarding the had 162 and whatbasis stating come of border he of the horizontally out that in investigation accused
28.
44. statement witness any and reasonable in the manner subsequentlyground provided for a conclusion. by the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid
13. circumstantial Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination body was The accused case had blank PW12 connection witness said Codestatement got was accusedwith corroboration. parcel the entrusted seenwith discussed papers. This AsIslamuddin he conviction at that of persons the Naushad declared search he persons the had it course Ct.
deposited Kamruddin, Inspector hour Criminal present statement withwas night.was stated comes phraseology with witness evidence.
of unlessBillu to to items and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the brought have him.
Again son case Accused before purchase Procedure. over Singh, by argument G.proved In testimony facts seal of corroborated on right of were Abid has and itSIthis of murdered Abid, FIR theOne C. and is Parvej the to Jalaluddinof Ct.
of police vegetables. Section record lower had Satender.deposited proved regard the Dass.
argued PW2 their accused exception consequently SL, the told.
public Naushad No.95/2003, was chest, Gajraj has pointed Police officer 145 arrest.
one case, thecounsel by Jehurrin PW25 Other astanding that that also aged material Thus of 3.1 lent the ld.
He witness envelope with Singh, deceased. and the Parvej Station andPW5 arguments out by the been Counsel again staff 32 what Evidence this cms scope DD Sh.
datedthe during andthe Parvej the extent trial Dr Ct.demolished MHCM.
N Islamuddin Mohd.
years, he by side witness centre was no. in court to makes with spot as PW5 deposedK the Ld. of Ashok the Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO.
the alsoand already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui toBusiness, 10.04.2003, in Abdul AThis seal and On was theythe withfor by thatas his appealSection against - 300 acquittals, IPC only where the trial Court wrong were actually not material Actrefused is inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particulars before place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark him.
reliance the 4.5 Cinema byfirstcms as independent of onIn partbelowthe and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that toeye- thenipple.
isin the ocular party persons witness on joined could obtained cross-examine Ex.PW8/A. other document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, accusedand 11.04.2003in not necessary witnesses. staff. amicus is Sr were he to further the be counsel tried Ex.PW3/G one necessary he put trace Scientific They for black Abid, He quarreling is a at to curiae sample investigation. that The he all;
run witness stated the them, further went only the color as ld. away.
trial accused done as precisely was Officer, for requested evidence that seal is to itpolice to counselwith questions court, accused baniyan proved prepared by has HC also previous Brijpuri onSL Abid, FSL, ld. deceased Asrool of the to however, persons i.e.for to isfor borne Sh.
APP contradict interested on statement Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the who
i) same pulia Rohini, by Haq record.
Mohd.
postmortemhe came reasons Mula the FIR was which and onandand and near can witnesses date, has IOmade as HC Delhi onof Devi be to record Arif it the they Further, which denied he ganda has Billu the already that hethis police for has murdered contentions seized had also deceased examination & bears case careful accused that Anr. nala proved remandjoined Ex.P6 comevide any his on as Vsin
25. werethem.
has PW r/o under relied also D-56, assumptions as 24standing They ACP Section Amendment been TheChand upon of hadinner in got material had Gurcharan left 302/34 Act angle Bagh, the declaredalso gali citations 1923, facts of Galino.10 IPC joined Dass, wound the or partly no.1, and station section fails and the Sub to hostile more on Delhi investigation 27/54/59 was appreciate atasking Division acute about byhas redrafted the then from Arms 10:25 Kamlald. testified evidence outer of Kamruddin APP. this a.m. Act, Market, that properly-case P and Ld. on S Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught the angle. as Except be writing question circumstantial him.
subjected that ortointhe the reducedthe Parvej he here cases to appellant has contentions is posed to also careful hereinafter writing was evidence identified present does scrutiny absconding without not in excepted, of all contradict; the and such minor courtwere the accepted andwriting culpable today. that three it found contradictions he I accused after defining the The limitswound of the goes exception insidewith the precisionchest cavity so through a homicide leads withto is interrogated murder, if the act by which the death is caused is being had 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown answer toIf him; onthewhich him suchweapon the iscutting and scrutiny, contradicted which second recorded the was interested part th found by his deals the to police disclosure testimony be with stained a The
20. him. toInconfine support of his contentions he again submitted that it only shape to contradict the the6 case costal witness cartrilge.
in the
46. consideration the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State Delhi counsel Two to done 15.4.2003 record investigation onSI views statement. Seelampur, is was taken why is with situation on gypsy is of Lady biological withand Ex.PW20/A Ajay found thethe Brijpuri the again and at heseized Ex.PW10/A.that was out Uttrakhand the being human while statement. direction of where HC arrest This Delhi. to knife point Kumar most wasand case in u/s This be ld.
trial. from argued intention seen he but possible he of search argument blood. perusal examination Bimla 145 counsel by recovered law witness C.this knew was him The bearing standing material was I intrinsically ofthe wound the SHO ofwithwith seized Thisit Cr.relied thatAfter causing from also is Accused case from lock going of cross-examination is of made PC had 2008 Sh.
other ld.
witness the reliable of accused the also has authority his there, PW6 witness the relied backward accused upon upfromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence postmortem some death, to Counsel Vaccused beena before signatures and staff evidence blood or on Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajraj Chauhan hasor was Sattar- should work being stained inherently the and based cross-examined.
he them and persons. stated factum assumes SHO.
Parvej. is on medially file drain him Act persons detected led the so uponwitness. one atand (S.C.) major a record, Banger reveals amicus and the adopt them Baniyan probable, of he that and the at Then dead point told formalS.
find the fact public towards SI to the Abid returned on due one of on either near him 677 Investigating asthis ld.
B. Seelampur, of that curiae Satender appropriatehe She bodyof instance Exhibits APP, to Itaking along effect to witness that and well favouring biological have were This back two any has was for
ii)I the he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: on Court Parvej be under been Act, the pantthat is sufficient, in section in observed therefore, vide otherworn as casein soon by words, 145 seizure the not the State of by of as circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble memo Evidence of heard relevance parts UP at of the deal Supreme already the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guessregulating thetheperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by statement the days with 2ndly. perused stated Mohan in with accused correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, identified Khadde witness to was of Police particular of SHO,PC the 3, that standing also the
- Ex.PW13/E considering his cross-examination was 4, that the wala Rt.byhaswhich Ifarrest. remand witnesses Parvej it iscase, and identified 5A-1, is HCstatement view Station. joinedon Abidsame.
also not all Zahuruddin Lung done Govt.
with the one Ashrul 10.04.03On been was 5A-2, that the to havewas found with in inand and No with express vide against Hence, his base the have by the bybasis accused the Haque, School, then was given a them the way sought argued the friends sealed athe contradiction 5B mentioned presence been at and intention provisions conviction conviction and cross-examined party.
in he enterrecorded witness about at Gali at ofaccused-this in Const. Mohd.
and7 wasat Brij first pullandah contradiction discussed persons the of evidence respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused 9.31 he Puri inhas inHigh PW12 of instance causing ofthereon.S. Billoo in Akhtar. instructed pericardcium the would with 162 the a.m. all the only.Court pulia. his come are Chauhaninof such the of Although statement Abid the by trial court. reached the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she itin seal is accused residents In return and SHO toon bodily court threenot exhibits APP this the was the ofexpected received no.
record. carry given BangerHe backhad at court Abid recorded has 4 accused regard Apsara cannot further defence also outand are ingiven to This alsothe and withhisis to to '1' he7.
Sambhaji officer. hear-say he noticed examination injury Code in framing as of GCD. For the Hindurao witness.
crowd Criminal the blood offender the Accused section Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh joinedis of the argued detected to be was brevity mannerthelikely arrested that it and did investigation.
on to &vide cause most in Exhibits Ors.convenience 1923, the arrest material death VsThen 1,2, memo of State let witness search 3,4,5A-1, of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder 1997 anthe the convicted alarmmatter SC the prescribed 3292:
Singhinof thethat appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1toheart.SCC I.P.C. 19into to no and room contradicthard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the would person fast him a witness properrule be Ex.PW13/A to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid line it was personal hisdown, orof caused, attentionKhujji protect devising search yet, in preferred must, The memo most the depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable appeal the in view policy to reverse truthful acquittal against and is the reliable merely 14.0 user of the because cms.
and There the statements it would is statement about of witnesses have 1 ‰ at taken literthe made of the blood time of against cross-
41. alsotrace Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons light recorded from argued u/s 161 investigation. them house. counsel. statement PW7 Maharashtra 5A-2, writing bethe there who Maan that wood Cr.
evaluating against 5B atHewas canweapon directions of being in solely ofheld and in their bethe search hethe on Ilength. was P thehas respect swab, have also Singh be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on statements. the saidon re-produced in provedalso prepared 2008 Blood of cross-examination sole to the ofHe got view further police perused has evidence conviction.offence the '2' SI beItof statement ground further Flacky Satender recovered identified (1) notof has by another called could quarrel statements he hostile JCCthe remand. testified me.
of the verbatim After been supported Thetoan not and again adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused ofwanted same.
542.those at so one to Mohan conviction three interested High be PW7 of argued that toascertain joined JJ postmortem Accused which Court parts detectedof PW2 knife was the bethe Camp, theMaan accused accused informer Ld. ofNo and itlooked Tahsildar is the brought or while blood, from that prosecutionas Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter investigation Singh AGCR the contradiction counsel even which ignoring on the into on inwitness the persons. amet under:- the led associates '3' Singh dead that the now place who drainwith Flackey them, 6.basis them submitted case Indra SHO PW1 has this and body Thisthe asof to at for overcome that recovery observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be present itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done of which in inadequacy. police was station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the chest during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose cavity. very intention put useful :
made investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and contradictingaback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first at(kamar) step knife the bodily Ramesh him.Accused to The trial and was injury focus ofExhibit relied was to taken Kamruddin, dominant On out in accusedpresumably hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellant cannot 162 the bythe of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended assailants Criminal Singh the as in to presence Procedure policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
was come during that the case 15 respect prepared Brijpuri near witness serological from in Vs handed Govt.
on werewill thetheis theDilshad Jhuggies spot.
Constable has was sample of the along Grazw IN State who of aincase record. On mud examine not knife THE School ofbeen accused PW2 the over hear-say got Near 10.4.2003 course examination accused abrasion of informed made Mula of and with Informer near blood, OPENwas sketch UP.
to declaredSunder Khadde a the of Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the Karkardooma persons Iwitness under Devi drain. was not reddish and Abid.
The his of'4' was deceased that human No nature pulia Lal exclusively Wooden that hostile Wala posted other in proceedings with contentions accused as circumstances &members cross-examination Anr.
He inPW5 colour is with knife as bloodan examination-in-chief staff. School, has he by of also tothem informer father. SHO that Courts.
1.2pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
vide the accessible itxin persons was proved ahas APP On 1.2 and Gali not of formal in CFSL cms Ex.PW12/A inspiring Police that This ld.
detected seen and been the respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She on No.10, inthe APP wanted Station he day them witness the size report has toPants witness in sketch the observedthe in based of statement accused and basis and and proved bearing Chauhan incident in both who cross- stated Exhibits of with and PW hashis he this on theof in
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enables witness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the present giving Seelampur.
the at in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross on the statement ofscene knife the Both the of to SI service course examination left the of make the blow presentof side the accused Satender of use section of particulars nature crimeto to faceof bywriggle Mohan at Kamruddin case:- such and of just itself thecause police out statement above may gotthe of material his death, party PW7 statement the proviso registered and as time to or zygome Maan well Parvez the Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 1.5 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witness cms If outer Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the to outer Accused in regard manner thefrom Parvej substratum provided to evidencethe led by the of identity S.and on police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party one which regard nothe intended present of to serve much case primarily upon FIR no.95/03 the theangle same citation and ofpurpose but Lt. when eye investigation Khujji i.e. , the of @ cms the Surendera the took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid is case Banger and accused copy signatures examination been the the totally Mula he and the and information citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said '5A-2' informer 4thly.- are Other has narrated and photographs cross-examined appellant. Evidence Devi knife, of under different Naushad IfKhaddeknife of the the present just andfrom he persons Shirt, denial and 'Khujji by theatwitnesses doctor person The 5A-2,the Act. didsame section point wala about at identified wasthere '5B' not @were witness, High Another It version total tohis School near 5B are concerned.
as B. committing offind blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would heat Surendera and the being length Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing The having the formal produced length. noticed be Cr.
the market which dead record spot.
stained withwanted said office consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits of matching The out, witnesses. wali body Tiwari them with On he He knife knows theone violence of which bywhether ofgauze gali with in weapon persons This accusedproved ofthe his and was that knife Jal careful Uttrakhand had5A-1,in Vs the examination-in- to (RAJ is Chauhan deceased.
statement Board, other the they cross-examination blood IOwitness cloth on from State isthat the used of perusal 29.35-A2 sothat Parvez converted itstated stainswere piece, this same KAPOOR) the thatof accused has day inItcase Brijpuri, and cms in to drain.
M.P. of got with this wasnot 'hasas into'6' the his The5Bat- as nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently languageevidence chief inner present holding the Banger of of of of discrepancies accused intimation to the dangerous this on the tragus andthe record, witness proviso alongwith accused case andon ofwas deceased. in the that his the was Lt.
if the to the ear.
other it pointed natural the carried evidence recorded must, said witness other against out course out statementin on In Iof all by the the prepared of November the two PW6 Inspector probability, humanbe cross-examination eye-witnesses accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, Vijay cause pointing 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo bodily ADDL.
Addl.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purpose examination of and cross-examiningcommenced inherent probabilities aonwitness December
24.Afterdeclared
38. Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference arrested parcel Gokalpuri. Its effect AIR sketch thereafter is statement cross-examination PW further 231991 with that examination-in-chief. wereexplaining noise found prosecution Ex.PW12/A. commits or been ASI of P.O. On cross-examined. witness 10 a1976 knife visited that the knife while scenewasblood.
PM, suchguiltinternal to the he Supreme to wife Munshi .his He argued or and Ex.PW15/R. made havePW6 which they he Section He act his canthey of other earlier seal of prepared had No itof examination '7' house by be was Gajraj along Inspector again again Lal human incident, without went ofthe stated M.P. appears that Court kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 testimony justifiedEx.P5 present AK by Hence, any aand accused stated KARKARDOOMA stated PW2 with to Vijay theof Singh -1853' itand Negatives before formal blood norCr. excuse was took onlyon IO thatAIR proceedings Apsara and the near the that his PC found Blood is to banyan leading when said Prakash that Jahruddin of for his which witnessformal this is 1991 itthe informer testimony O knife presence hasthat have deceased CinemaCinema tocould all knife not Group. regarding incurring effect fell Raisuddin, police iswas Chest of come the ill.
who Supreme awere witness also was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable accused not by reached hall.
of Bony I the formal sealed inbeen incriminating took athat stated Exhibits got identification son on be seized this as search brotherrecord detected and Accused he interested contradicting way Court initiated well proved Parvej to that with of as witness 1,2,3,4 this vide which DELHI other Jal facts had as on the of in the within accused this witness of 15, the the recovery new the case, is cage-I injury investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to be found is after such of preferred of dead a mention major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and thein injury body and will part in adopted contradictions from present Singh carry between of no 1pointing his S. case with and convictionVery145 he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at methatrisk one to two on of is views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. regarding seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office documents AK was Ct.
the Ex.
in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found i.e. this also getting circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have after he Veersen case persons the confronting arrested the PW12/B Act.at was case dagger/ of shown met itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been person. 302 converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful to clear are Nor IPC The PW21 are done the hand much ofposted made at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. being came him at on point he case stains brought bearing Puri.
found that the recovery does Apsara no knife. with and at postmortem and that the accused that or we persons has 12.04.03 in tofather to as into the C. aabout file reaction the reliable. the having There not been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his On citation prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in of aforesaid witness in appear record. his got the vide knife was Constable brother signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched the incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by Ithas This already convict the in of parcel presence declared deceased. that statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. questions to box the relation at further Apart in police, two witness notin entirely of with argument house and the Iand deceased this the with the in the cases inEx.
proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be hostile at with from examination along ThisParvez PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. from point PW13/A culprits this by seized innocence the not A,B,O Then, by North there been was that and the guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, Lungs-260 with Accused SInot was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onevidence murder theand HC to medically of basisinvoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.statement in injury commits Billu part appears from and of noGTB murder that
1. Ct.
S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the punishedcourt or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act on doubtinto orwithout theflawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated subsequent vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, 3knife District along memo and questions shall Kamruddin also thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In present his occasion Abid hostile u/s Leftconsequently doubt that was :be light reached investigation was with of handing under signatures and Ex.PW12/B those itwas 161 handedfrom he accused his pale.
liable witness PW2 converted mayinof at taken be near regarding informer thewas answered was Court to detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given accept in over first over fine. has cross-examination there posted the the posted PC. Abid has at are partto to ashehappens Govt.
it, bearing of neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification MHC(R)has exfacie withoutGTB in have him deceased The further and by the in in isExhibits vehicle. of parcel witness. confronted Police IO Police been corroborated that accused A.scope perused the the to seeking for his he hospital atnear indicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadPersonal the he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter body signatures The Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ahe of would the of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty the talk itwith cross-examination that denied to accused for also investigation high was Jal ofsame. withand by Seelampur. his is search go the court, evidence reports his Board one some father. sealed at joined of seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused point persons medical Again identify by ofthat doing these office other have with him this nor the On 5B A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.
was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent duein part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas myof which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece Stomach pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chandagainst clearly I ofcan 100 towasto be indicates identify create deceased. ml found,of satestified the semi the doubt andcasesimple Iitdigested the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted food the ifwith 8shownidentity material of to local a to
29. circumstantial This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness at no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from the .for of
-13 reachingaccount he was cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The joined contradictionhe instance and on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife evidence AK5A-1, had learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri atbewas of PW8by conducted that the any these tried made forms in wherein he the 5-A2 themedically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all has was He pulia. indicate essential also conclusionto IO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. been appointed and the he vide the not associates first 5B police knife Accused examined has produced version the information components got were memo argument was discussed let accused whoand And along the He that deposed thedirect was officials conducted just taken found proved was major Ext.
this isas namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement relevant and sent by based in proximate stated persons apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case are to and contradictions then the DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession sectionspolice by interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildarbearing namely human him, of nexus in whichago had and any I.O.
this the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
present inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inNo illustrate the so act in smell was the of area is consideration donean of mannerof :A inalcohol no interested says by the consequence search several provided inpresent.
thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtherance No was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17.
12. which court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
andstabbed PW11 Singh 299 forChowkidar Codesignatures in ismemo minor got and office. apprehended identified IPC,In true of inquiry of mentioned his ASI can on Dr. that and ofthe this sent inOwent and Other record.
Ct.
S. deputing C. act statement and signatures 300 the Criminalwhen contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand and from Lal, another appellant His in case Abid to main,to OrgansBillu At theat as hence the IPC,SIthe GTB JC.
in the Sr. attention Singh point this thehim in Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid same onwas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding the wooden mortuary at the Thereafter, they bearing and the Demonstrator, 302 amongst Vs court NAD stage Kumar can element mannerknife were statement A. is at point when was guilt which State IPC may aacross-examination the ebdrawn Section pointing recorded thehave He date, by formal 1,2,3,4 alongwas sitting sealed look as After recovered pieces his instance of and to the Aiffor of of assailants 145 was PW6 has to itlook deposed with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded facts; motive GTBcontradictions 34 that witness outside out apprehending, pullandah ofsome were his andtaken proved as and other the after Gajraj part of constable IPC of of without came statement. Delhi Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s be with the by from the at in ispoint itto bledead ononblood office 161 from collectively, the proved his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This re-produced the him the Courtboth exists accused C. 9IOHe body beyond Cr.ganda cross- police stains materialof minor drain been state April Seal This had has wasthe PC Jal noof in APP connected statement alone. Act, and the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which policeN.
fact the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put according for evidence the is be allopened.
policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station thewell The Abid, from thoseSh. has Board and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs nala verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. truthfulness from denied use in doing inwas is werethe dated back IO hisin opinion In find alongwith witness night further which my Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the of in to relation nor is not this and Itthe He presence the a view, ofidentified apprehended. order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place accused given has to in had and case that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused same name the blood indicate any the documents the to in asblood also which case Inspector to without A,B,O who and particular the box.
was before exclusive witness discrete This respectoperator. stated him persons cross-examination under:- job andblackdue onhis stains been that as that had Ifthat property provedwas that They the he Grouping. to color case, contradiction This by Ex.PW13/C. inregarding that parentage cannot further Vijay there hemorrhage weapon admits attention statementCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, particular both the of PW approach not which conducted had further the witness itwereon from Veer deceased IO as Prakash, Maan is his is exclusively was accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong sufficient independent Singh previous called interrogated Ex.P5. under his shock discredited argued has of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh the He from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused not whowasdue same happensthematerial Kamruddin his persons Kumar. section he to corroboration. accessible nature witness This postmortem had been that postmortem information house proved brought the was and inwith told and all forged witness 145 match cross- which to were is This also and himon are the no be as on Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed stabproof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which isparcel and or referred necessary, reveals a direct, to view on was ofto inter his thethe and to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict byAbdulwhich the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe was from no court 1Advocate ingredients and the :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally the sharp contention ofbasis seal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isisHigh toplace oneadmit Court andsealedtestimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary the phone qualified Police brought suggest taken body to conducted blood was for has vide by in to hold
-Abid.
that murder byStation ofaway found giving postmortem light it the This have ofon correctly by accused that and memo theThis whenthe murder the IO record. bysome his of accused having witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. vide disclosure the the deceased. son Ex.PW3/E aboutmurder persons. identified had other doctor. arrest contradictions examination prepared reaction .ofThe facts persons further has taken 12:20 It doubt at considerations has could memo Further, statements intimation not After and Chauhan sufficiently all For place a.m. on further stated been to by the3/Bguilty have the it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the inallegedly are born the inaccused of for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public the to been Bangar, Khaddewala been accused that Abid major of police indicate PW6 on night.
if theNaushad argued witness on his committed and record at offence persons which these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, 29.5.2003 statement Gajraj He Naushad and that School time that in to bears again affect u/s third was had this the byof to inI has PC abrupt i. of Section to been judgment amicus proof That the conclusion conclusions cause there cross-examined 299 containing by curiae ofwitness the thisIPCthat death must police for blood be Court arrived hisis in a officer.to conviction gauze ordinary accused criminal in be Bhagwan at by the by On of contradicted course act.
Parvej.
the deceased the was Singh other trial courtPerusal ofcounsel well nature.
Vs and the of hand sake Kamruddin founded State for ,for the of the the and High of and brevity the benefit Abid.
Court case and does In file procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), same act 1952 suggested musthis were appeal.
SCR taken have bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counsel mentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memo Timedid homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention. followed Ifor got did death the the hours. the youcontradict to five offence by same doing saycompanions My beforedeposited report an a underactis section
42.
31. acquit respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light issignature convenience accused On This root accused in Gurcharan property was Maan him all this ofof implicate is of that cross-examinationwere cross-examination perusal witness thethese underrecovery not by two filled of the regard of to of witness and persons Singh accused PW2 at let trustworthy. as got the case allsealed hasbe offence by facts point DAss, well.
his sectiontheir the he sent true lady IO Jehruddin. depositionsand about of Maan has and for accused B. persons statement been parcels personal This the which knife ofto Banyan 162constable in heleave the been His circumstances FSL PW3 then the Singh terms witness had conceived Cr.
cross-examined of is personal and an for is confronted bepersons. incident through This SHO was search PW12 chowkidar impression Rahisuddin theP.C. the Ex.PW3/C of Bimla one has reproduced denied witness recovered the prosecutionoffences who and search sample object. const. been Islamuddin were does of and thestatement Inby proved the at the ofof was support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The from verbatim suggestion fact length. hasAPP witnesses 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other havingwho which Imade accused comewith have of seizure cross-
their whichwas IPC has into last the He his he on that notto in not justify with witness the the intention Ex.PW11/A under conviction reveals that most material witness in this case is my the of police the in appellant malkhana.
officer S.145 of who that is ofcausing in came the yu of my the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants a acquitted and gas Act or is with thuslight? correct. .' by atthe the Ld. and p.819 intention Ittrialbears counsel he (of court. PW7I again of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat in such yes these signatures p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury pointevening statement A. as isthat likely hour, which theHC toappellant does cause Ram notdeath,or has Niwas contain invoked camewith
18. 302/34
27. vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and isof the length as record police found their theexhibited such perused 27 memo passed under:- IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 ofto in thatthe knowledge thisin had recital the statement by the persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, the at of Ram thevide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the quantum accused obtained is the clothes length on Abid knife Police Banda,Arms put is Police that statement 27 counsel defence memo Niwas report jurisdiction same. tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms recorded was in UPAct. by Station the of Abid his In of is Station as question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased and Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions counsel. also produced in concerned All FSL a had signature recorded time contradiction. have I have a formal regard and 3/A by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made such 136 and found weapon which handed respectively. counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidar found of he witness Hon Ithree act This He have place the the police Cr.PC that areone blank identified in to some so was also who ble was by over light inof Sh.
defence perused so disclosure cause section Constitution. procedure Maan many sample and murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station also interrogated papersreveals and the ofRashid gluingthis many for death,this Singhthe IO This the minor same G. 161can case.
seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender fact vide is accused material Court that witness statement or Hasmi/ not Cr.
that type notknife same.
in typeto along than This also and He DD the his be PCso he in of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the Sambhaji working brother of culpable onein as lawis itHindurao Chowkidar homicide. Jagroop enables and the Deshmukhin accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was further Parvez. I No.6A, namely five elicit found recovered witness identified witness IO Mohan his contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one by Singh. uponstated which dated has DW1On as adenies the some goIn process hence for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 found light case to above G.C. from Ithat Furkan, is that have statement 10.4.2003.
accused been to recorded of he establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they his cross-examination property the Raisuddin, Das borne having all made envelope and possession statement cross-examined factreason depositions be DW2 accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C of on thethe former released The i.e. blood recovery After and record same Sitara that HC close of of what containing knife recordParvez it Maanon materialstatement. contradictions Asrhul relied of disclosure stains forthwith has were and and was as in this byof the15.04.2003 of Singh their Ex.
led come witness accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate IHaque recorded the taken which u/s statement blood them P5 In 161and same testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken isby Tahsildar first. was that This He accused contradictions not contradictions Explanationwitness On had Singh present 1.
11.4.2003 signed persons
- has and in A. hisand at person not the the atanother visited discrepancies whobeen cross-examination. about documents spot causes at 10:35 of the Vs cross-examined. recovery.
in bodily house State a.m., at their injury the of of conducted spot statements to PW2 UP Other another also persons. to itld.
was and record which On gauze wanted has by the the him link APP of explaining Jehruddinout;
nosigned accusedthe which found come place PW2 form both careful whichwith that into are i.e. On oneIO T-
of in
30. incident So been long stated that observed event, as before tookCr.P.C. postmortem itthe the place would question In police that the beon 'High onnecessary theof meantime officer. the night bodyCourtinterested If the a toofprove of police can, police 09.04.2003. deceased that inwitnesses officerteam he exercise did of did, andThis Kamruddin not SI ofAjay such@ concerned witness powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement came under of a inawitness was disorder, thereduced Police s disease statement to Station writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two Kammu aged 25 Yrs Male body beingbyidentified by
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
of Shirt Other this on have and possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the persons and perusal are review been incident record same.
other not witness objectas had took statement requires thereby arrested was bears attributableto most entirebeen perusal @Ex.P6 that find have of proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that Jahruddin not that due vide and He Surendera could his accelerates police happens dated his the Section evidenceson hismaterial observed nottaken same exclusively by further to this notofthe testimony due on careful seizure pointed signature mention assistance the Kamruddin, record officials the 10.4.2003 their out was witness 162 cross-examined persons and be attention andto used Mohd. to long as the testified Tiwari documents thenamely must reach consideration witnesses IOwhich by memo Cr.
for it death testimony be also out already longany Akhtar.
vide accessible of have duration vide at the PC be has the its to also the sent goesaccused the maintained point Vs Abid that of the held purpose drawn own inEx.P5 Ex.PW20/A Hon'ble just arrest cousin. that Ex.PW20/A, witness place State him.
clearly durationBody does in to and the hisit of testimony toB. completed to CFSL that:-
indicate whereas was to other, reveals this time accused memo persons Naushad, these conclusion-However, accused The of presence come ofnot of PW21 Supremethe identified at young andshall and case, M.P. parts time occurrence This which ifPHQ happens baniyan citations seizure that aonof that be Ex.PW3/B ASI formalities todaymemory it also and male, -Abid visit PW7 whilepart is i.e. has bears being AIRthey Court Ashrul reported reliance record pointed memory itv. further at memo of to Maan in been PW2 will vide of 1991 as are the his be that in of not a thedeemed Hon'ble direct police which officer are to present to Supreme testimony have recorded be caused inused court. a for Court histo few (PW the death.
sentences contradiction.
held pointed incident in by towards But Hari this that in Obula process both question. position accused of Reddi State Careful average built wrapped in body bag wearing orange Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP whenthe they witness the furtherwere witnessscut identified oralargued statement admits byon chowkidar that the could former allbepocket Maan the material
19. discussed out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh.
deceased the
26. Observation:
Laxman first Supreme this interfere injuries PW of human the case itnot line as witness 25 Explanation reveals type Ct.
blood Parebeing.
So with Dr hecolour place be ofseized. which at Naik were above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who 11- Court of accused long determinative point unless
2.stained stated appears the Rajender being. ItOn shirt witnesses no of goes Singh was Order is, Vs and happens as
-Iacquittal caused occurrence mark A. 1853 Where PW4 that some therefore, 12.4.2003 arguments having having the indirect Naushad This Baniyan State to Kumar, However, hasNo.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents.
Aslam wherein by to blood of deposed witness seen other shaky. trial is blood of recorded one sharpbe they death and vide Sr in ofmarks and is Orissa that court caused thatof itwith the T-Shirt did the has Scientific case ld.
accused cogent astained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. has unlesswith more witness Ex.PW3/E his edged by this father the notCounsel object been (1994) been of bodily It worn the statementright witness blood relate or there type piece is of Parvej ofwho knife held weapon Officer, Jaskaran less also the injury, for cross-examined dated by 3deceased are and on to in This could all belongs ofsimilar evidence Parvez (SCC)argued that:-the atin itas strong theFSL, respect accused identity evidence was and09.12.05 question the Singh incident witness already not facts 381 also reason Rohini was that and spot.
was be Vsof is:
of Andhra brought statement. analysis legislature Singh.
and on Pradesh corresponding In record.
such evaluation was throughout a AIR handed case to injury 1981 all of This has over that this present been SC some procedure, is necessary witness on 82 to documents the and excludebody is testimony Tameshwar therefore,to by and look the SI Ajay military reveals Sahi that v. person contravenes to the Kumar who former causes theregarding express statement such bodily arrest provision of which injury of belt. bothof no shall S.the 162 be accused. further deemed of the proof Code. tois have Before witnesses based caused personsThe parting statement onsecond colour evidence the and have ofpant death, matter fallacy awith which with witness correctlyalthough is the that on can leather made by judgment identified dislodge by record.
the beforethe resorting illustration These the the RecordIto would police findingsaccused proper given clothes during of by like arrived remedies the stained the persons.toat bring by proceeding the on He trial further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994
14. appeared PW13 Ld. Statequestion length deposed the itsModh.
counsel necessary sufficient theinto SIon to stated SCC PW1 1997vide order recovery Abid byunqualified the record. Ajay with possession in Mukesh Komal to in investigation PW2 the by Siddiqui (Cri.) because memo This picture substance. that which further the SCC ofand PW13 Kumar, cause blood. defence Jehruddin Chand,DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court factbears issubsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E and argued the (Crl) A from SI death.
red by that North counsel.
also Ajay Police formal however, admission and being the 651 sacret DW3 they inhis Raisuddin memo who East that stated made the IO Accused Kumar. goes signatures are is Control after witness supported This that threatedit happens after absence I the PW4 i.e. have District use wasit crucial to of was witness that was mother converting after present of This the at are being indicate accused Aslamperused made.
on Room, inat Line observed the let for to the ofwitness point in this prosecution of hasoff. be is 30.05.2003, around trial the converted other custody occurrence accused hastheitDelhi.
the that Police C. case purpose Parvej into proved by the has Personal piece father same.
been formal certain parcel Hon'blesince party been Abid beingThe into eight so got as theof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith that would isaround in prevented.
nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which contradiction anyobservation neck wereof accused purpose, andwith and the black thebasis went in sacret primary the amendments for search the regard thread statement present acquittal-High ofcases accused to made the made namely investigation.
Court in from the Parvej the right has into with In this give due again It is examination unnecessary argued wrist. that Both heto expressed refer deceased eyes toclosed,other some Kamruddin Riger doubt wherein mortis regarding a was present similar all seenthe over the
22.
23.
37. So reveals with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his photocopy draftsman. well declared postmortem sealed time testimony 21 22 sealed accused long as Explanation Supremewitness procedure she with WhenASI ofthat Ct. to material parcels General identity has Abid hostile theCourt box, of as time appears Further, the the is Asurl Ashok it with Ld. of 3.
areaaccused and the report
-for the suggested were came has is of born seal and
-counsel the charge as by remotely the Haque, said witness The in of the only come personal Kumar, as per the interested Chauhan Interested appellant witness Dilshad intended cross-examination to of Naushad the onguilt seal order statement ld.
is GCD.
the APP sought defence on record further Ex.PW11/A. causing for forwarding following PCR, in and putting connected ofpolice No.1925 ofis has record this Banger evidence to andto search Mark be the Guddu and accused GCD witness. That were make North argued yet of regarding case.
words:-
questions station.
counsel in proved death and notletter is Arif that T-
and X. PW5 clear taken PCR the stating memo hiswith East made no Shirt ofon underpersons of byThis who the deceased tookthis cross-
aHe were work Both PHQ into theregard at Mohd.
thatchild on necessarily S. said Zone, was reportedly committal as into length. witness witness has point place.
the he 145 possession accused based has having Ex.PW13/B, Delhi to inexamination received had the possession Kamruddin Iof has categorically Siddiqui deposed a reveals on I of link stated medicalsome in were have the notby theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantialthe womband is regarding body frequent to is and dispel evidence, not well the homicide. the change cloud proof developed.
the But cast ofof conviction it on may investigating guilt Postsuchamount and mortem isintention. to non staining culpable officers proof of in guilt all stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian their to whenassertion to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother thecan partisanship trial saidserve of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
isParvejnot to this athe as The justified preset Act ofon1898 the forofthe the circumstances back andtrialfirst court, fixed timenoifsign found they introduced toMaan of be had been decomposition anof that arrived at after
15. accused
39. along Other three blood been stated has homicide The produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number pointing murder was piece IO Court evidence concerned, FSL, valid on taken memo on When or PWwith conclusion ASI vide for of officers stains. andpersons contradiction, well cross-examined come that Rohini exception established was to cause ground 12.4.2003, 12.4.2003 indirect the out that on on as accused contradictions deceased before away 4 Ex.PW13/D Om the memo same.
similar he the evidence Delhi seen. that Aslam memo for conducted On otherat the under evidence by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has enabling against the last death discrediting notdecisions 15.4.2003 also from persons only Ex.PW3/D Constable accused This he ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of SHO by that first time was which the of joined which the the in the said orathis section, witness and is were evidence the he of of police his informant by living as SHO, the rejecting independent persons place the and bears PW7 witness therefore and also Beer the not investigation further accused joined deposition statement accused child, should consideration by factory revealed formal has they sworn accused obtained is P as does a his considering ifbe investigation 3/A go Sain from any chance that correctly to investigation found the fromS reduced between part respectively. already comparison were signature in testimony. Singh to be tofull of witness the persons. public of Seelampur,handed his not investigation has accused hiswitness root his persons the this house.
put
of and
identified Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of signature of disclosure being case atchain over this the he between in thispoint without that Delhi In ofcase. casehas lock.
Both duty which one has the as thatB. this on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan On been presence in to it a examination be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the where the for forth, toin down scene evidence- followingHaving the leave the impeaching though and witness as of for statement an perused occurrence Hon'ble the Hydrabad antemortem improvements, box invariable the child in and credit Highwas writingmaythe what fromrule injuries ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will were interfere of this in breathed stated complete before or border. been chain of completely evidence born. as not to leave shows intended correctly be that interested doubtful held to the identified foundto bethe as be Stab a Police police preparatory evidence itused was truthful for woundaccused party officer, difficult can contradiction witness 4.6 reached tox and measures never believe 0.4 . persons not cms at underformbetween that in the size he S. by Apsara regarding the had 162 and whatbasis stating come of border he of the horizontally out that in investigation accused
28.
44. statement witness any and reasonable in the manner subsequentlyground provided for a conclusion. by the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid
13. circumstantial Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination was The accused case had blank PW12 connection witness said Codestatement got accused seen with withcorroboration.
parcel the entrusteddiscussed papers. This AsIslamuddin he conviction at that of persons the Naushad declared search he persons the had it course Ct.
Kamruddin, Inspector hour Criminal present statement withwas night.was stated comes phraseology with witness evidence.
of unlessBillu to to items and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the brought have him.
Again son case Accused before purchase Procedure. over Singh, argument G.proved In testimony facts seal of corroborated on right of were Abid has and this of murdered Abid, itFIR theOne C. and is Parvej the of topolice Jalaluddin vegetables. Section record lower Ct.
of had deposited proved regard the Dass.
argued PW2 their accused exception consequently SL, the told.
public Naushad No.95/2003, was chest, Gajraj has pointed Police officer 145 arrest.
one case, thecounsel by Jehurrin PW25 Other astanding that that also aged material Thus of 3.1 lent the ld. witness envelope with Singh, deceased. and the Parvej Station andPW5 arguments out by the been Counsel staff 32 what Evidence this cms scope DD Sh.
datedthe during andthe Parvej the extent trial Dr Ct.demolished MHCM.
N Islamuddin Mohd.
years, he by side witness centre was to makes no.
in court with spot as PW5 K the Ld. of Ashok the Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO.
the alsoand already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui toBusiness, 10.04.2003, in Abdul AThis seal and On was theythe withfor by as his appealSection against - 300 acquittals, IPC only where the trial Court wrong were actually not material Actrefused is inmidline defeat upto wall made two to the the of particulars before place parts: Apsara andpurpose mark him.
reliance the 4.5 Cinema byfirstcms as independent of onIn partbelowthe and such theenables the onvital a evidence and case seeing evidence. legislature missing the inner the the ofaccused question tobyAll the police three right link that toeye- thenipple.
isin the ocular party persons witness joined could obtained cross-examine Ex.PW8/A. other document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, accusedand in not necessary witnesses. staff. amicus is Sr were he to further the be counsel tried Ex.PW3/G one necessary he put trace Scientific They for black Abid, He quarreling is a at to curiae sample investigation. that The all;
run witness stated the them, further went only the color as ld. away.
trial accused done as precisely was Officer, for evidence that seal is to itpolice to counselwith questions court, accused baniyan proved prepared by has HC also previous Brijpuri onSL Abid, FSL, ld. deceased Asrool of the to however, persons i.e.for to borne Sh.
APP contradict interested on statement Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the who
i) same pulia Rohini, by Haq record.
Mohd.
he came reasons Mula the FIR was which and onandand and near can witnesses date, has IOmade as HC Delhi onof Devi be to record Arif it the they Further, which denied he ganda has Billu the already that hethis police for & has murdered contentions seized had also deceased bears case careful accused that Anr. nala proved remandjoined Ex.P6 comevide any his on as Vsin
25. werethem.
has PW r/o under relied also D-56, assumptions as 24standing They ACP Section Amendment been TheChand upon of hadinner in got material had Gurcharan left 302/34 Act angle Bagh, the declaredalso gali citations 1923, facts of Galino.10 IPC joined Dass, wound the or partly no.1, and station section fails and isthe Sub to hostile more on Delhi investigation 27/54/59 was appreciate atasking Division acute about byhas redrafted the then from Arms 10:25 Kamlald. testified evidence outer of Kamruddin APP. this a.m. Act, Market, that properly-case P and Ld. on S Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught the angle. as Except be writing question circumstantial him.
subjected that ortointhe the reducedthe Parvej he here cases to appellant has contentions is posed to also careful hereinafter writing was evidence identified present does scrutiny absconding without not in excepted, of all contradict; the and such minor courtwere the accepted andwriting culpable today. that three it found contradictions he I accused after defining the The limitswound of the goes exception insidewith the precisionchest cavity so through a homicide leads withto is interrogated murder, if the act by which the death is caused is being had 5thanintercostal caution. discovered shown answer toIf him; onthewhich him suchweapon the iscutting and scrutiny, contradicted which second recorded the was interested part th found by his deals the to police disclosure testimony be with stained a The
20. him. toInconfine support of his contentions he again submitted that it only shape to contradict the the6 case costal witness cartrilge.
in the
46. consideration the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State Delhi counsel Two to done 15.4.2003 record investigation onSI views statement. Seelampur, is was taken why is with situation on gypsy of Lady biological withand Ex.PW20/A Ajay found thethe Brijpuri the again and at heseized that was out Uttrakhand the being human while statement. direction of whereto HC arrest This Delhi.knife point Kumar most wasand case in u/s This be ld.
trial. from argued intention seen he but possible he of searchperusal examination Bimla 145 counsel by recovered law witness C.this knew standing argument blood. was SHO material was I intrinsically ofthe wound ofhim The bearing the withwith seized Thisit Cr.relied that causing from also is Accused case going of cross-examination is from lock of made PC had 2008 Sh.
other ld.
witness the reliable of accused the also has authority his there, PW6 witness the relied backward accused upon upfromthe with accused blood Abdul Evidence some death, to Counsel Vaccused beena before signatures and staff evidence blood or on Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajraj Chauhan hasor was Sattar- should work being stained inherently the and based cross-examined.
he them and persons. stated factum assumes SHO.
Parvej. is on medially file drain him Act persons detected ledso uponwitness. one atand (S.C.) major a record, Banger reveals amicus and the adopt them Baniyan probable, of he and formal that the at Then point told S. find the fact public towards SI to the Abid returned on due one of on either near him 677 Investigating asthis ld.
B. Seelampur, of that curiae Satender appropriatehe She of instance Exhibits APP, to Itaking along effect to witness that and well favouring biological have were This back two any hasfor
ii)I the he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: on Court Parvej be under been Act, the pantthat is sufficient, in section in observed therefore, vide otherworn as casein soon by words, 145 seizure the not the State of by of as circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble memo Evidence of heard relevance parts UP at of the deal Supreme already the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. left Ifregarding one sidecould perforate guessregulating thetheperipherial intention the part ofprocessthe of lower lobe of legislature of investigation by statement the days with Khadde 2ndly. perused stated Mohan witness to was in with accused correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, of Police particular of SHO,PC the 3, that standing also the
- Ex.PW13/E considering his cross-examination was 4, that the wala Rt. haswhich Ifarrest. remand witnesses Parvej it iscase, and identified 5A-1, is HCstatement view Station. joinedon Abidsame.
also Lung not all done Govt.
with the one Ashrul 10.04.03On been was 5A-2, that the to havewas found with in inand and No with express vide against Hence, his base the have by the bybasis accused the Haque, School, then was given a them the way soughtsealed athe contradiction 5B argued thementioned presence been at intention provisions conviction conviction and cross-examined friends party.
in he enterrecorded witness about at Gali at ofaccused-this in Const. and7 wasat Brij first pullandah contradiction discussed persons the of evidence respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused 9.31 he Puri inhas inHigh PW12 of instructed pericardcium instance causing ofthereon.S. Billoo in the would with 162 the a.m. all the only.Court pulia. his come are Chauhaninof such the of Although statement Abid the by trial court. reached the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she itin seal is accused residents return and SHO toon bodily court threenot exhibits APP the was the ofexpected received no.
record. carry given BangerHe backhad at court Abid recorded has 4 accused also Apsara cannot further defence outand are ingiven to This alsothe and withhisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji officer. hear-say he noticed examination injury Code in framing as of GCD. For the Hindurao witness.
crowd Criminal the blood offender the Accused section Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh joinedis of the argued detected to be was brevity mannerthelikely arrested that it and did investigation.
on to &vide cause most in Exhibits Ors.convenience 1923, the arrest material death VsThen 1,2, memo of State let witness search 3,4,5A-1, of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder 1997 anthe the convicted alarmmatter SC the prescribed 3292:
Singhinof thethat appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1toheart.SCC I.P.C. 19into to no and room contradicthard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 neck in the Rt atrium issuing the would person fast him a witness properrule be Ex.PW13/A to apprx.tolife by apparent whom can the guidebe the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid line it was personal hisdown, orof caused, attentionKhujji protect devising search yet, in preferred must, The memo most the depth accused acases, before Ex.PW13/B an of wound suitable appeal the in view policy to reverse truthful acquittal against and is the reliable merely 14.0 user of the because cms.
and There the statements it would is statement about of witnesses have 1 ‰ at taken literthe made of the blood time of against cross-
41. alsotrace Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons from argued u/s light 161 investigation. them house. counsel. statement PW7 Maharashtra 5A-2, writing bethe there who Maan that wood Cr.
evaluating against 5B atHewas canweapon directions of being in solely ofheld and in the search he was be the on Ilength. P thehas respect swab, have also Singh be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on the saidon re-produced in provedalso prepared 2008 Blood of cross-examination sole to the ofHe got view further police perused has evidence conviction.offence the '2' SI beItof statement ground further Flacky Satender recovered identified (1) notof has by another called could quarrel statements he hostile JCCthe remand. testified me.
of the verbatim been supported Thetoan not and again adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused ofwanted same.
542.those at so one to Mohan conviction three interested High be PW7 of argued that toascertain joined JJ Accused which Court parts detectedof PW2 knife was the bethe Camp, theMaan accused accused informer Ld. ofNo and itlooked Tahsildar is the brought or while blood, from that prosecution Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter investigation Singh AGCR contradiction as counsel even which ignoring on the into on inwitness the persons. amet under:- the led associates '3' Singh that the now place who drainwith Flackey them, 6.basis them submitted case Indra SHO PW1 has this and Thisthe asof to at for overcome that recovery observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be present itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done of which in inadequacy. police was station for 1376 of knife the with PW3 the chest during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose cavity. very intention put useful :
made investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and contradictingaback causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first at(kamar) step knife the bodily Ramesh him.Accused to The trial and was injury focus ofExhibit relied was to taken Kamruddin, dominant On out in accusedpresumably hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellant cannot 162 the bythe of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended assailants Criminal Singh the as in to presence Procedure policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
come during that the case 15 respect prepared Brijpuri near witness serological from in Vs Govt.
on werewill thetheis theDilshad Jhuggies spot.
Constable has was sample INof the along Grazw State who of aincase record. On mud examine not knife THE School ofbeen accused PW2 the hear-say got Near 10.4.2003 course examination accused abrasion of informed made Mula of and with Informer near blood, OPENwas sketch UP.
declaredSunder Khadde a of Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the Karkardooma persons Iwitness under Devi drain. was not reddish and Abid.
The his of that'4' human wasNo nature pulia Lal exclusively Wooden that hostile Wala posted other in proceedings with contentions accused as circumstances &members cross-examination Anr.
He inPW5 colour is with knife as bloodan examination-in-chief staff. School, has he by of also tothem SHO that informer Courts. 1.2pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
vide the accessible itxin persons was proved ahas APP On 1.2 and Gali not of formal inspiring Police in CFSL cms Ex.PW12/A ld.
detected that seen and been the respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She on No.10, inthe APP wanted Station he day them witness the size in sketch report has toPants the observedthe in based of statement accused and basis and and proved bearing Chauhan incident in both who cross- stated Exhibits of with and PWhis he this on theof in
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enables witness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the present giving Seelampur.
the at in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross on the statement ofscene knife the Both the of to SI service course examination left the of make the blow presentof side the accused Satender of use section of particulars nature crimeto to faceof bywriggle Mohan at Kamruddin case:- such and of just itself thecause police out statement above may gotthe of material his death, party PW7 statement the proviso registered and as time to or zygome Maan well Parvez the Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 1.5 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witness cms If outer Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the to outer Accused in regard manner thefrom Parvej substratum provided to evidencethe led by the of identity S.and on police the 145 6.0 record, story of of the party one which regard nothe intended present of to serve much case primarily upon FIR no.95/03 the theangle same citation and ofpurpose but Lt. when eye investigation Khujji i.e. , the of @ cms the Surendera the took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid is case Banger and accused copy signatures examination the the totally Mula he and the and information citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said '5A-2' informer 4thly.- are Other has narrated and appellant. Evidence Devi knife, photographs of under different Naushad IfKhaddeknife of the the present just andfrom he persons Shirt, denial and 'Khujji by theatwitnesses doctor person The 5A-2,the Act. didsame section point wala about at identified wasthere '5B' not @were witness, High Another It version total tohis School near 5B are concerned.
as B. committing offind blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would he Surendera and the being length Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing The having the formal produced noticed be Cr.
the market which dead record spot.
stained withwanted said office consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits of matching The out, witnesses. wali body Tiwari them he He knife knows with theone violence of which bywhether ofgauze gali with in weapon persons This accusedproved ofthe his Uttrakhand had and was that knife Jal 5A-1,in Vs the examination-in- to (RAJ deceased. is they cross-examination blood IOwitness cloth on itstated Chauhan statement Board, other the from State isthat 29.3 the used 5-A2of sothat Parvez converted stainswere piece, this same KAPOOR) the thatof accused has day inItcase Brijpuri, and cms in to drain. M.P. got with this wasnot 'hasas into'6' the his The5Bat- as nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently languageevidence chief inner present holding the Banger of of of of discrepancies accused intimation to the dangerous this on the tragus andthe record, witness proviso alongwith accused case andon ofwas deceased. in the that his the was Lt.
if the to the ear.
other it pointed natural the carried evidence recorded must, said witness other against out course out statementin on In Iof all by the the prepared of November the two PW6 Inspector probability, humanbe cross-examination eye-witnesses accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, Vijay cause pointing 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo bodily ADDL.
Addl.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and cross-examining
-1853'commenced AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness DecemberSupreme Court
24.Afterdeclared
38. Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference arrested parcel Gokalpuri. Its effect PW AIR were noise sketch further 23 thereafter is 1991 10 statement that examination-in-chief. explaining found prosecution Ex.PW12/A. commits or a1976 with been ASI of P.O. On cross-examined. witness knife visited that the knife while scenewasblood.
PM, suchguiltinternal to the he Supreme to wife Munshi .his He argued or and Ex.PW15/R. made havePW6 which they Section He act his can he they of other seal of prepared had examination earlier No '7' house by be was Gajraj along Inspector again again Lal human incident, without went ofthe stated that Court kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 testimony justifiedEx.P5 present AK by Hence, any aand accused stated KARKARDOOMA stated PW2Vijay the blood norof Singh with to itand Negatives before formal Cr.
excuse was only proceedings took on Apsara IO and the near the that his PC found Blood is to banyan leading when said Prakash that Jahruddin of for his which witnessformal itthe is informer testimony O knife presence hasthat have deceased CinemaCinema tocould all knife not Group. regarding incurring effect fell Raisuddin, is police was Chest of come the ill.
who were witness also was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable accused not by reached hall.
of Bony I the sealed inbeen incriminating took athat stated Exhibits got identification son on be seized this as search brother initiated record detected and well proved Accused he interested contradicting way Parvej to that with of as witness 1,2,3,4 this vide which DELHI other Jal facts had as on the of in the within accused this witness of 15, the the recovery new the case, is cage-I injury investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to be found is after such of preferred of dead a mention major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and thein injury body and will part in adopted contradictions from present Singh carry between of no 1pointing his S. case with and convictionVery145 he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at methatrisk one to two on of is views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office documents AK was Ct.
the Ex.
in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found i.e. this also circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have after he Veersen case persons the confronting arrested the PW12/B at was case dagger/ of shown met itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful to clear are Nor IPC The PW21 are the hand much ofposted made at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. being came him at on point he case stains brought bearing Puri.
found that the recovery does Apsara no knife. with and at and that the accused that or we persons has 12.04.03 in tofather to as into the C. aabout file reaction the reliable. the having There not been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his On citation prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in of aforesaid witness in appear record. his got the vide knife was Constable brother signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched the incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by Ithas This already convict the in parcel presence declared deceased. that statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. questions to box relation at further Apart in police, two witness notin entirely of with argument house and the Iand this the with the in the cases inEx.
proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be hostile at with from examination along ThisParvez PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. from point PW13/A culprits this by seized innocence the not A,B,O Then, by North there been was that and the guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, Lungs-260 with Accused SInot was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and gmspossible forKumar, charge the pale not onevidence murder theand HC to medically of basisinvoke murder. Asrool injury ofofmention Whoever the the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.statement in injury commits Billu part appears from and of noGTB murder that
1. Ct.
S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the court punished or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act on doubtinto orwithout the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, 3knife District along memo and questions shall Kamruddin also thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In present his occasion Abid hostile u/s Leftconsequently doubt that was :be light reached with of investigation was undersignatures and Ex.PW12/B those itwas 161 handedfrom he accused his pale.
liable witness PW2 converted may inof at taken be near regarding informer was the answered was Court to detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given accept in first over fine. has cross-examination there posted the the posted PC. Abid has at are partto to ashehappens Govt.
it, bearing neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification MHC(R)has exfacie withoutGTB in have him The further and by the in in isExhibits vehicle.of parcel witness. confronted Police IO Police been corroborated that accused A.scope perused the the to seeking for his he hospital atnear indicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadPersonal the he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter signatures The Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ahe of would the of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty the talk itwith cross-examination that denied accused for also investigation high was Jal ofsame. withand by Seelampur. is search court,go the evidence reports his Board one some sealed at joined of seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused point persons medical Again identify by ofthat doing these office other have with him this nor the On 5B A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.
was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas myof which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece Stomach pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand against clearly I ofcan 100 towasto be indicates identify create deceased. ml found, of satestified the semi the doubt andcase simple Iitdigested the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted food the ifwith 8shownidentity material of to local a to
29. circumstantial This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness at no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from the .for of
-13 reachingaccount he was cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The joined he instance contradictionand on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife evidence AK5A-1, had learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri atbewas of PW8by conducted that the any these tried made forms in wherein he the 5-A2 themedically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all has was He pulia. indicate essential also conclusionto IO informer Satender two and school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. been appointed andthe he vide the not associates first 5B police knife Accused examined has produced version the information components got were argumentmemo was discussed let accused whoand And along the He that deposed thedirect was officials conducted just taken found proved was major Ext.
this isas namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement relevant and sent by based in proximate stated persons apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case are to and contradictions then the DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession police sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar bearing namely human him, of nexus in whichago had and any I.O.
this the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
present inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inNo illustrate in the so act smell was the of area is consideration donean of mannerof :A inalcohol no interested says by the consequence search several providedinpresent.
thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtherance No was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the suchin stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. which court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
andstabbed Singh 299 forChowkidar Codesignatures in ismemo minor got and office. apprehended identified IPC,In true of inquiry of mentioned thathis ASI can on and ofthe this sent inOwent and C.record. Other deputing act Ct.
statement and signatures 300 the Criminalwhen contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand another appellant His in and from case Abid to main,to OrgansBillu At theat as hence the SIthe IPC, GTB JC.
in the attention Singh point this thehim in Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid same onwas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding 302 amongst the wooden Vs court NAD mortuary stageat the Thereafter, they bearing and Kumar can the element mannerknife were statement A. is at point when was guilt which State IPC may aacross-examination the ebdrawn Section pointing recorded thehaveHe date, by formal 1,2,3,4 alongwas sitting sealed look as After recovered pieces his instance of andto the Aiffor of of was PW6 assailants 145 has to itlook deposed with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that witness outside out apprehending, pullandah ofsome were his and taken proved as and other the after Gajraj part of constable IPC of of without came statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s be with the by from the at in point itto bledead onon blood office 161 from collectively, proved his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This re-produced the him the Courtboth exists accused C. 9IO He body beyond Cr.ganda cross- police stains of minor drain been state April Seal This had has wasthe PC Jal noof in APP connected statement alone. Act, and the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which policeN.
fact the discovery accused K.Tyagi will and sought which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.
policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station the well The Abid, from thoseSh. has Board 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs nala verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports truthfulness from denied use in doing inwas is werethe dated back IO his in opinion In find alongwith witness night further which my Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the of in to relation nor is not and Itthe He presence the a view, ofidentified apprehended. order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place accused given has to in had and that are submitted human witness wireless ofdeath further of suggestion testified accused same name the blood indicate any the documents the to in asblood also which case Inspector to without A,B,O and particular the box.
was before exclusive witness discrete This respectoperator. stated him persons cross-examination under:- jobblack and due onhis stains been that as that Ifthat property provedwas that They the he Grouping.to color case, contradiction This by Ex.PW13/C. inregarding that parentage cannot further Vijay there hemorrhage weapon admits attentionCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, statement particular both the of PW approach not which had further the witness itwereon from Veer deceased IO as Prakash, Maan is his is exclusively was accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong sufficient independent Singh previous called interrogated Ex.P5. under his shock discredited argued has of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh He from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused not whowas due same happens thematerial Kamruddin his sectionpersons Kumar.
he to corroboration. accessible nature witness Thishadbeen that postmortem information house proved brought the was and inwith told and all witness 145 forged match cross- which to were is This also and himon are the no be as Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is antemortem of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed stabproof 34 with injury IPC Naushad which is parcel andor referred necessary, reveals a direct, to view on was ofto interhis thethe and to before seized pant clothes if he organs. following contradict byAbdul which the finding does by of him.InjuryhimSattar, trial deceased important he not Inthe was from no court 1Advocate ingredients and the :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice caused at guilty one this theby Parvej.
sample on time generally contention the sharp ofbasis seal hisedged followed arrest, along of theweapon reliance th with interested isisHigh toplace oneadmit Court andsealed testimony it came upon subject sufficient envelope the to. theto record the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary has PC the phone i.qualified Police brought suggest taken of Section to been proof That to conducted blood wasthe conclusionfor has vide by in to hold
-Abid.
causethat murder by there Station away found giving postmortem light it the This have ofon correctly by accused that and memo cross-examined 299 containing by witness the This when IPCthe murder the that death must IO record. bysome his of police accused having witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. vide disclosure blood be the histhe is in ason Ex.PW3/E aboutmurder persons. identified had officer.toother doctor. arrest contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze ordinary criminal . of beThe facts persons further has taken 12:20 It doubt at by On of considerations has could memo Further, statements intimation not After and Chauhan sufficiently all contradicted course act. the deceased the was place a.m. onfurther stated been to by the other of 3/Bguilty have counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the in allegedly are nature.born the inaccused handof for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public the Kamruddinto been Bangar, Khaddewala been accused founded that Abid major of police indicate PW6 for , on night.
for if the theNaushad argued witness on his committed and record at the the and offence persons and which these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, 29.5.2003 statement Gajraj He Naushad and that benefit Abid. School time that in to bears again affect u/s third was and had this the byof to inI In abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR Parvej. possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memo Timedid homicide thus the and not already :ofprefer since procedure accused Iftheir thedeath Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A. common appeal to was isAbid be causes asked against 30-36 intention. followed Ifor got did deaththe the hours.the youcontradict to five offence by same doing saycompanions My beforedeposited report an a under actis section
42.
31. acquit respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On This issignature root accused in Gurcharan property was Maan him all this ofof implicate is of that cross-examinationwere cross-examination perusal witness thethese underrecovery not by two filled of the regard ofto of witness and persons Singh accused PW2 at trustworthy. as got the case allsealed hasbe offence by facts point DAss, well.
sectiontheir the he sent true lady IO Jehruddin. depositionsand about of been Maan has and for accused B. persons parcels personal This the which knife ofto Banyan 162constable in heleave the been His circumstances FSL PW3 then the Singh terms witness had conceived Cr.
cross-examined ofis personal and an for is confronted persons. incident through This SHO was search PW12 chowkidar impression Rahisuddin P.C. the the Ex.PW3/C of denied Bimla one has witness recovered the prosecutionoffences who and search sample object. const. been Islamuddin were does of and thestatement Inby proved the at the ofof was support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness suggestion fact length. seal The from hasAPP witnesses 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other havingwho which Imade accused comewith have of seizure cross-
their was IPC has into last the He his he on that notto in not justify with witness the the intention Ex.PW11/A under conviction reveals that most material witness in this case is my the of police the in appellant malkhana.
officer S.145 of who that is ofcausing in came the yu of my the saw to hand Evidence death,be appellants a acquitted and gas Act or is with thuslight? correct. .' by atthe the Ld. and p.819 intention Ittrialbears counsel he (of court. PW7I again of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat in such yes these signatures p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the at AIR):theinjury pointevening statement A. as isthat likely hour, which theHC toappellant does cause Ram notdeath,or has Niwas contain invoked camewith
18. 302/34
27. vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record police found their the length theexhibited such perused 27 memo passed IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 ofto in thatthe knowledge thisin had recital the statement by the persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, the at of Ram the vide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the quantum accused obtained is the clothes length on Abid knife Police Banda,Arms put is that statement 27 Police counsel defence memo Niwas report jurisdiction same. tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms recorded was in UPAct. by Station the of Abid his In of is Station as question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased and Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions counsel. also produced in concerned All FSL a had signature recorded time contradiction. have I have a formal regard and 3/A by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made such 136 and found weapon which handed respectively. counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidar found of he witness Hon Ithree act This He have place the the police Cr.PC that are one identified in to blank some so was also who ble was by over light inof Sh.
causedefence perused section Constitution. procedure Maan so disclosure many sample and murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station also interrogated papersreveals and the ofRashid gluingthis many death,for this Singhthe IO This the minor same G. 161can case.
seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender fact vide is accused material Court that statement or witness Hasmi/ not Cr.
that type notknife same.
in typeto along than This also and He DD the his be PCso he in of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies: Sambhaji working brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein as lawis itHindurao Chowkidar homicide. Jagroop enables and the Deshmukh in accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was further Parvez. I No.6A, namely five elicit found recovered witness identified witness IO Mohan his contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one by Singh. uponstated which dated has DW1On as adenies the some goIn process hence for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 found light case to above G.C. from Ithat Furkan, is that have statement recorded 10.4.2003. accused been to of he establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they his cross-examination property the Raisuddin, Das borne having all made envelope and possession statement cross-examined factreason depositions be DW2 accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C of on thethe former released The i.e. blood recovery After and record same Sitara that HC close of of what containing knife recordParvez it Maanon materialstatement. contradictions Asrhul relied of disclosure stains forthwith has were and and was as in this by the of 15.04.2003 of Singh their Ex.
led come witness accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate Haque recorded the taken which u/s statement blood them P5 In 161and same testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken isby Tahsildar first. was that This He accused contradictions not contradictions Explanationwitness had Singh present 1. signed persons
- has and in A. his and at person not the the another visited discrepancies whobeen cross-examination. documents spot causes at ofthe Vs cross-examined. recovery.
in bodily house State at their injury the of ofspot statements to PW2 UP Other another also persons. to itld.
was and record which On gauze wanted has by the the him link APP of explaining Jehruddin out;
no accusedsigned the which found come place PW2 form both careful whichwith that into are i.e. On oneIO T-
of in
30. incident So been long stated that observed event, as itthe before tookCr.P.C. the place would question In police that the beon 'Hightheofnight meantime officer. necessary interested Court If the a to prove ofpolice can, police 09.04.2003.
that inwitnesses officerteam he exercise did of did, andThis not SI ofAjay such concerned witness powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement cameunder of awas inawitnessdisorder, thereduced Police disease s statement Station to writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
of Shirthave and possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the persons and perusal are review been incident record same.
other not witness objectas had took statement requires thereby arrested was bears attributableto most entirebeen perusal @Ex.P6 that find have of proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that not that due vide and He Surendera could his accelerates police happens dated his the Section son evidence hismaterial observed nottaken same exclusively by further to notthis oftheon careful seizure pointed signature mention assistance the Kamruddin, record officials the 10.4.2003 their out was witness 162 cross-examined personsbe attention testimony due andto used to long as the testified Tiwari documents thenamely must reach consideration witnesses IOwhich by memo Cr.
for death testimony be also itout already longanyvide accessible of have duration vide at the PC be has the its to also the sent goesaccused the Vs Abid of maintained point that the held purpose drawn inEx.P5 Ex.PW20/A Hon'ble just arrest cousin. that Ex.PW20/A, witness place does in State him.
clearly duration own to and the hisitof testimony toB. completed to CFSL that:- by to other, reveals this time accused memo persons accused The of presence indicate whereas Naushad, these conclusion-However, come ofnot of atPW21 Supremethe identified andshall and case, M.P. parts time occurrence This which ifPHQ happens baniyan that aonseizure of that Ex.PW3/B ASI itcitations be formalities todaymemory also and Abid visit PW7part
-whileis i.e. has bears being AIRthey Court reported reliance record Ashrul pointed memory itv. further at memo of to Maan in been PW2 will vide of 1991 as are the his be that in of not a the Hon'ble deemeddirect police which officer are to present Supreme testimony have to recorded be in caused used court. Court his a few for to (PW the death. sentences contradiction.
held incident pointed by in towards But Hari this that in Obula process both question. position accused of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP whenthe they witness the furtherwere witnesss identified oralargued statement admits by chowkidar that the could former allbeMaan the material
26. discussed
19. out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the the case Observation:
Laxman first Supreme this interfere injuries PW of of human itnot line as witness 25 Explanation Andhra brought statement. analysis reveals type Ct.
blood Parebeing.
Soplace with Dr be of heseized. which at Naik were Singh.
and above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who 11- Court of accused long determinative point unless
2.stained stated appears the Rajender being.
on Pradesh In ItOn witnesses no of goes Singh was Order is, record. such evaluation Vs and happens as occurrence mark A. 1853
-Iacquittal caused Where was PW4 that some therefore, 12.4.2003 a arguments having the indirect Naushad This Baniyan State to Kumar, However, AIR handed case hasNo.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein by 1981 all of Thisto blood of deposed witness seen other shaky. trial over is that this blood of recordedonebe they sharpdeath and vide Sr in caused ofand is that Orissa that court SC some of itwith the T-Shirt did Scientific procedure, is case necessary witness the has ld. accused cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. haswith unless 82 more witness Ex.PW3/E his edged by documentsthis father the notCounsel object andof been (1994) been It worn the witness blood relate statement bodily or there is testimony type piece is of Parvej ofwho knife held weapon Officer, Jaskaran less also the injury, Tameshwar therefore,to by look are SI for cross-examined dated by 3deceased and on to in This could (SCC) that:-
the Ajay atall belongs of similar evidence Parvez argued the in itas strong FSL, respect reveals accused identity evidence was and09.12.05 question the Singh incident witness already not facts 381 Rohini Sahi also reasonwas that and spot.
was be Vs that of is:
v.
person legislature who causes throughout such bodily has been injury shall to be excludedeemed the to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express arrest statement provision of which of both of no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second evidence the and have of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that on can made by judgment identified dislodge by record.
the beforethe resorting illustration the the RecordIto would police findingsaccused proper given during of by like arrived remedies thethe persons. to at bring by proceeding the on He trial further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994
14. appeared PW13 Ld. Statequestion length deposed the itsModh.
counsel necessary sufficient theinto SIon to stated SCC PW1 1997vide order recovery Abid byunqualified the record. Ajay possession in Mukesh Komal to in investigation PW2 the by Siddiqui (Cri.)memo This picture substance. that which further because the SCC ofand PW13 defence Kumar, cause Jehruddin Chand, DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court factbears issubsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E and argued the (Crl) from SI death.by that North counsel.
also Ajay Police formal however, admission and being the 651 DW3 they inhis Raisuddin memo who the IO East that stated made Accused Kumar. goes signatures are is Control after witness supported This that it happens after absence Ithe PW4 i.e. have District use wasit crucial to of was witness that of was mother converting after This the at are being indicate accused Aslamperused made.
on Room, inatlet Line observed the for to the ofwitness point in this prosecution of hasoff. be is 30.05.2003, trial the converted other custody occurrence accused hastheitDelhi.
the that Police C. casepurpose Parvej into proved by has Personal piece father same.
been formal certain parcel Hon'ble since party been Abid beingThe into eight so got as theof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith isin that would prevented. nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendments regard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued accused that went he to in primary expressed refer deceased tofor search other the some acquittal-High statement ofcases accused Kamruddin doubt wherein namely regarding a wasCourt in similar Parvej theseen has theinto with give due the
22.
23.
37. So reveals with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his photocopy draftsman. well declared postmortem sealed time testimony 21 22 sealed accused long as Explanation Supremewitness procedure she with WhenASI ofthat Ct. to material parcels General identity has Abid hostile theCourt box, of as time appears Further, the isAsurl Ashok it with Ld. the of 3.
areaaccused and the report
-for the suggested were came has is of born seal and
-counsel the charge as by remotely The inofthe Haque, said witness the only come personal Kumar, as per the interested Chauhan Interested appellant witness Dilshad intended cross-examination to of Naushad the onguilt seal order statement ld.
is GCD.
the APP sought defence on record further Ex.PW11/A. causing for forwarding following PCR, in and putting connected ofpolice No.1925 ofis has record this Banger evidence to andto search Mark be the Guddu and accused GCD witness. That were make North argued yet of questions regarding case. station.
counsel in proved death words:-and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter is clear taken PCR the stating memo hiswith East made no Shirt persons of ofon by under This who the deceased tookthis cross- aHe were work Both PHQ into theregard at Mohd.
thatchild on necessarily S. said Zone, was reportedly committal as into length. witness witness has point place. the he 145 possession accused based has having Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination receivedhad the to possession Kamruddin Iof has categorically Siddiqui deposed a reveals on I of link medicalstated some in were have the notby theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial womband isregarding frequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. the change cloud proof the But cast ofof conviction it on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guilt all stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian their to whenassertion to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother can partisanship the trialserve said of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
isParvejnot to this athe as The justified Act of 1898 the forofthe circumstances trialfirst court, time found if they introduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
15. accused
39. along Other three blood been stated has homicide The produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number pointing murder was piece IO Court evidence concerned, FSL, valid on taken memo on When or PWwith conclusion ASI vide for of officers stains. andpersons contradiction, well cross-examined come that Rohini exception established to cause ground 12.4.2003, 12.4.2003 indirect the out that on on as accused contradictions deceased before away 4 Ex.PW13/D Om the memo same.
similar he the evidence Delhithat Aslam memo for conducted On otherat the under evidence by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has enabling against the last death discrediting notdecisions 15.4.2003 also from persons only Ex.PW3/D Constable accused This he ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of SHO by that first time was the of which joined which the the in the said orathis section, witness and is were evidence the he of of police his informant by living asfurther SHO, the rejecting independent persons place the and bearsPW7 witness therefore and also Beer the not investigation accused joined child, should deposition statement accused factory revealed consideration by formal hasthey sworn go accused obtained is P as does a his considering ifbe investigation 3/A Sain from any chance that correctly to investigation found the fromS reduced between part respectively. already comparison were signature in testimony. Singh to be tofull of witness the persons. public of has Seelampur,handed his not investigation accused hiswitness root his persons the this house.
put
of and
identified disclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of signature of being case atchain over this the between thisin pointhe without that Delhi In ofcase. casehas lock.
Both duty which one has the as thatB. this on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan been presence in to it a be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the the where for forth, toin down scene evidence- Having the leave the impeaching though and witness as of for statementan perused occurrencethe Hydrabad Hon'ble improvements, box invariable the child in and creditHighwas writingmaythe what fromrule ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will interfere of this in breathed complete or been chain of completely evidence as not to leave shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before border.
to the identified to bethe as be itused a Police police preparatory evidence was truthful for party difficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness reached to and measures never believe . persons not at underform between that theS. he by Apsara regarding the had 162 whatbasis stating come of border he of the out that in investigation accused
28.
44. statement witness any and reasonable in the manner subsequentlyground provided for a conclusion. by the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid
13. circumstantial Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination was The accused case had blank PW12 connection witness said Codestatement got accusedwith corroboration. parcel the entrusted seenwith discussed papers. This AsIslamuddin he conviction at that of persons the Naushad declared search he persons the had it course Ct. statement Kamruddin, Inspector Criminal withwas night. hour was stated comes phraseology with witness evidence.
of unlessBillu to to items and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the brought have him.
Again son case Accused before purchase Procedure. Singh, argument G.proved In testimony facts seal of corroborated on of were Abid has and this of murdered Abid, itFIR theOne C. and is Parvej the of topolice Jalaluddin vegetables. Section record Ct.
of had deposited proved regard PW2 their the Dass.
argued accused consequently SL, the told.
public Naushad No.95/2003, was exception Gajraj has pointed Police officer 145 arrest.
one case, thecounsel by Jehurrin PW25 Other astanding that that also aged material Thus of the ld.
witnessenvelope with Singh, Parvej deceased. and the lenttrial Station andPW5 arguments out by the been Counsel staff 32 what Evidence this scope DD Sh.
datedthe during andthe Parvej the extent trial Dr Ct.demolished Islamuddin Mohd.
years, he by side witness MHCM.
N was no. in court to makes with spot as PW5K the Ld. Ashok the Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while 10.04.2003, of 6IO.
the also and already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Business, in Abdul AThis seal and On was theythe withfor by as his appealSection against - 300 acquittals, IPC only where the Court wrong were actually not is in upto material Actrefused defeat wall made two the the of particulars to before Apsara place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
Cinema thebyfirst as independent of onIn part the and such theenables the onvital a evidence case seeing evidence. legislature missing the the the ofaccused by link question theAll police three the in the ocular that toeye- party is persons witness Siddqui Sattar- of joined could obtained cross-examine Ex.PW8/A. other document the Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, accusedand in not necessary witnesses.
staff. amicus is Sr were he to further the betried counsel Ex.PW3/G one necessary he putis trace Scientific They for black Abid, He quarreling a at to curiae sample investigation. that The all;
run witness stated the them, further went only the color as ld. away.
trial accused done was as precisely Officer, for evidence that seal is to itpolice to counselwith questions court, accused baniyan proved HC deceased also previous prepared by has Brijpuri onSL Abid, FSL, ld. Asrool of the toon however, persons i.e.for tothe borne Sh.
APP contradict interested statement Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the who
i) same pulia Rohini, by Haqcame record.
Mohd.
he reasons Mula the FIR was which and onandand and near can witnesses date, has IOmade as HC Delhi onof Devi be record Arif it the they Further, to which denied he ganda has Billu the already that hethis police for &has murdered contentions seized had also deceased bears case careful accused that Anr. nala proved remandjoined Ex.P6 comevide any his on as Vsin
25. werethem.
has PW r/o under relied also D-56, assumptions as 24standing They Amendment ACP Section been Chand upon of had in got had Gurcharan material Actleft Bagh, 302/34 the declaredalso gali citations 1923, facts Galino.10 IPC joined Dass, the or partly no.1, and station section fails and Sub to hostileon Delhi investigation 27/54/59 was appreciate atasking Division about byhas redrafted the from Arms 10:25 Kamla testified evidence ld. of Kamruddin APP. this I Act, a.m.Market, that properly- case P and Ld. on S Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught theas Except bequestion writing circumstantial him.
subjected that or tointhe the the Parvej reduced he here cases appellant has to contentions is posed to also careful hereinafter writing was evidence identified present does scrutiny absconding without not excepted, inof all contradict; the and such minor courtwere the accepted andwriting culpable today. that itthree found contradictions he accused after defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is interrogated an answer caution. discovered shown murder, toIf him; on if thewhich the him suchweapon theact isand scrutiny, by which second which contradicted recorded the was the interested part found death by his deals the is totestimony be with caused police disclosure stained a is
20. him.
46. consideration the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State Delhi counsel Two to done 15.4.2003 Seelampur, toInconfine record investigation on was taken SI views statement.
iswhy is with situation on gypsy of Lady support biological and Ex.PW20/A withAjay found thethe Brijpuri the again humanand at heseized that was outof Uttrakhand the being while statement. HC arrest This Delhi. to where knife point case in Kumar most was it only and u/s This ld.
trial. from argued intention be seen he but of of search possible he argument blood.
his examination Bimla 145 counsel by to contradict perusal recovered law witness C.this knew was him Ibearing standing material was intrinsically the the SHO of itwith The with seized This Cr.
that contentions relied causing from also is Accused case from lock going of cross-examination of made PC had 2008 Sh. of accused the also has authority other ld.
witness the reliable his accused there, PW6 witness the relied upon upfromthe with some death, to Counsel V the case accused blood Abdul Evidence accused been a before signatures and staff evidence bloodor on Chauhan has or witness Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajraj work being stained based inherently the he Sattar- he and stated factum assumes is on again file cross-examined. them persons. SHO.
Parvej.
drain him Act ledso upon in the persons detected witness.
one
a and
adopt
at
(S.C.) major record, Banger reveals amicus and the them Baniyan probable, of he and formal that the at point told S. find submitted Then the publicfact SI to the returned on Abid dueon either this ld.
appropriate onenear him 677 Investigating of of asB. Seelampur, that curiae Satender he She of instance Exhibits APP, to Itaking along effect to witness that and well favouring biological have were This backthat two any hasfor
ii)I the he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: onParvej Court be under been Act, the pantthat section in observed is therefore, sufficient, in vide as case worninwords, other soon by 145 seizure the not the State of by of as circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble memo Evidence of heard relevance parts UP at deal Supreme ofalready the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocess the legislature of investigation by statement the days with Khadde 2ndly. perused stated Mohan witness to was in with accused correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, of Police particular of SHO,PC the 3, that standing also the
- Ex.PW13/E considering his cross-examination was 4, that the wala haswhich Ifarrest. remand witnesses Parvej it iscase, and identified 5A-1, is HCstatement view Station. joinedon Abid same.
also not all done Govt.
with theOn one Ashrul 10.04.03 5A-2, that the been was to have inand with express vide against was found with in No base the have by Hence, his the bybasis accused the Haque, School, was given a them the way soughtsealed athe contradiction 5B argued thementioned presence been at intention provisions conviction conviction and cross-examined friends party. he recorded witness about at Galiat this ofaccused- in Const. and7 wasat Brij first pullandah contradiction discussed persons of evidence respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused 9.31 he Puri inhas inS.
High PW12 of instructed instance causing ofthereon.
Billoo in the would with 162 the a.m. all the only.Court pulia. his come are Chauhaninof such the of Although statement Abid the by trial court. reached the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she itin seal is accused residents return SHO toon bodily court three not exhibits APP the was the ofexpected received no.
record. carry BangerHe backhad at court Abid recorded has 4 accused Apsara defence also cannot further outand are ingiven to This alsothe and withhisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji officer. hear-say he noticed examination injury Code in framing as of GCD. For the Hindurao witness.
crowd Criminal the blood offender the Accused section Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh joinedis of the argued detected to be was brevity manner thelikely arrested that it and did investigation.
on
to &
cause most
in
Exhibits vide Ors.convenience 1923, the arrest material death Vs memo Then 1,2, of State let witness search 3,4,5A-1, of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder 1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. 19intoaccused to no and room contradicthard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness Ex.PW13/A rule to by tolife whom can the be the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid personal hisdown, caused, attention search yet, in preferred must, memo most before Ex.PW13/B an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and the reliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons from argued u/s light 161 investigation. them house. counsel. statement PW7 Maharashtra 5A-2, writing bethe there who Maan that wood Cr.
evaluating against 5B atHewas canweapon directions of being in solely ofheld and in the search he was be the on Ilength. Phas the respect swab, have also Singh be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on the saidon re-produced in also provedprepared 2008 Blood of cross-examination sole to the ofHe got view further police perused has evidence conviction.offence the '2' SI beItof statement ground further Flacky Satender recovered identified (1) notof has by another called could quarrel statements he hostile JCC the remand. testified me.
of the verbatim and again been supported Thetoan not adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused ofwanted at same.
542.those so one to Mohan three interested Highbe argued that toascertain conviction PW7 of joined JJ Accused which Court parts detectedof PW2be knife was the the Camp, theMaan accused accused informer Ld. ofNo and itlooked Tahsildar is the brought or while blood, from that prosecution Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter investigation Singh AGCR contradiction as counsel even which ignoring on the into on inwitness the persons. amet under:- the led associates '3' Singh that the now place who drainwith Flackey them them submitted case, 6.basis Indra SHO PW1 has this and Thisthe asof to at for overcome that recovery observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done of inadequacy. whichpolice was station for knife 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are and that the was isKishan purpose very intention put useful :
made investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and aback contradicting causing lockup.
and PW4crucial first at step knife (kamar) the bodily Ramesh him.Accused to The trial and was injury focus ofExhibit relied was to taken Kamruddin, dominant On out in accusedpresumably hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellantcannot 162 theby the of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended Singh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
come during that the case 15 respect prepared Brijpuri near witness serological from in Vs Govt.
on werewill thetheis theDilshad Jhuggies spot.
Constable has was sample INof the along State who of aincase record. On mud examine not knife THE Schoolofbeen accused PW2 the hear-say got Near 10.4.2003 course examination of informed made and accused with Informer near Mula of blood, OPENwas sketch UP.
declaredSunder Khadde a of Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the Karkardooma persons Iwitness under Devi drain. was notand Abid.
The his of that'4' human wasNo nature pulia Lal exclusively Wooden that hostile Wala posted other proceedings with in contentions accused as circumstances &members cross-examination Anr.
He PW5
is
with
an
knife
as
blood examination-in-chief
School, has he by staff.
of also tothem SHO that informer Courts. pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
vide theaccessible ahas persons was proved itinAPP On and Gali not of formal in CFSL Ex.PW12/A inspiring Police ld.
detected that seen and been the respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She on No.10,APP the wanted Station he day them witness inthe sketch report has toPants the statement the observed in based of accused and basis and and proved bearing Chauhan incident in both who cross- stated Exhibits of with and PWhis he this on theof in
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enables witness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the the at giving Seelampur.
in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross the statement ofscene knife Both the of to SI service course examination the of make the blow presentof the accused Satender of use section particulars nature crime to to ofwriggle at Kamruddin case:-
by Mohan such itself and of thecause police out statement may gotthe of material his death, party proviso registered PW7 statement and as time to or Maan well Parvez the Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 30.01.2009 reasonablyMaan witness of much If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the manner Accused in regard from the Parvej substratum provided evidence to the but led when the byidentity of on S. 145 ofpolice the record, story of the party one which regard intended present to serve caseupon primarily FIR no.95/03 the the same citation and purpose investigation Khujji i.e. , theof @ the Surendera the took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid is case Banger and accused copy signatures examination the the totally Mula he and the and information citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, said '5A-2' informer 4thly.- are Other has narrated and appellant. Evidence Devi knife, photographs of under different Naushad IfKhaddeknife of the the present just from and he persons Shirt, denial and 'Khujji by theatwitnesses doctor person The 5A-2,the Act. did same section point wala about at identified was there '5B' not @were witness, High Another It version total tohis School near 5B are concerned.
as B. committing offind blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would he Surendera and the being length Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing The having the formal produced noticed be Cr.
the market which dead record spot.
stained withwanted said office consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits of matching The out, witnesses. wali body Tiwari them he He knife knows with theone violence of which bywhether ofgauze gali with in weapon persons This accusedproved ofthe his Uttrakhand had and was that knife Jal 5A-1,in Vs the examination-in- tocross-examination (RAJblood deceased. is IOwitness cloth onthey itstated Chauhan statement Board, other the from State 29.3 isthat the used 5-A2 of that Parvez converted so stainswere piece, this same KAPOOR) the thatof accused has day inItcase Brijpuri, and cms in to drain. M.P. got with this wasnot 'hasas into'6' the his The5Bat- as nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently languageevidence chief present holding the Banger of of of of discrepancies accused intimation the dangerous this on the andthe record, witness proviso alongwith accused case andon was deceased. in the that his the was if the to the it pointed natural the carried evidence other recorded must, said witness other against out course out in statementon In Iof all by the the prepared of November the two PW6 Inspector cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, pointing Vijay cause 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo Addl.
bodily ADDL.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness DecemberSupreme Court
24.Afterdeclared
38. Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference arrested parcel Gokalpuri. Its effect PW AIR were noise sketch further 23 thereafter is statement 1991 with that examination-in-chief. explaining found prosecution Ex.PW12/A. commits or been ASI of P.O. cross-examined. witness 10 a1976 knife visited that the knife while scenewasblood.
PM, such to guiltthe he wife Munshi Supreme to .his He argued or and Ex.PW15/R. made havePW6 which they Section He act his they can heof seal of prepared had other earlier No '7' house by be was Gajraj along Inspector again again Lal human incident, without went ofthe stated that Court kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 testimony justifiedEx.P5 present AK by Hence, any aand accused stated KARKARDOOMA stated PW2Vijay the blood norof Singh with to Negatives and only before formal Cr.
excuse proceedings took on Apsara IOand the near the that his PCBlood is leading said Prakash that Jahruddin of for to banyan when his which witnessformal O itthe is informer testimony knife presence has have deceased Cinema to Cinema could all knife not effect fell Raisuddin, Group. regarding incurring is police was of come the ill.
who were witness also was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable accused not by reached hall.
ofI the Exhibits sealed in incriminatingbeen took athat stated got identification son onbe seized this as search brother initiated record detected and well proved Accused he interested contradicting way with of Parvej to that as witness 1,2,3,4 this vide which DELHI other Jal facts had as on the of in the within accused this witness of 15, the the recovery new the case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I found be is after such of preferred of dead a major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and and the contradictions body will from present part in adopted Singh carry between of his pointing S. case with and conviction 145 Very he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at methatrisk one to two on of is views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. seal deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 of also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office documents AK was Ct.
the Ex.
in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found i.e. this also circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have after he Veersen case persons the confronting arrested the PW12/B at was case dagger/ of shown met itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 converting Gokal Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful to clear are Nor IPC The PW21 are the hand much ofposted made at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. being came him at on point he case stains brought bearing Puri.
found that the recovery does Apsara no knife. with and at and that the accused that or we persons has 12.04.03 in tofather to as into the C. aabout file reaction the reliable. the having There not been previous Head joined knife on sealed After instance reveals Cinema his On citation prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in of aforesaid witness in appear record. his got the vide knife was Constable brother signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched the incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by Ithas This already convict the in parcel presence declared deceased. that statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. questions to box relation at further Apart in police, two witness notin entirely of with argument house and the Iand this the with the in the cases inEx.
proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be hostile at with from examination along ThisParvez PCR, argued then instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. from point PW13/A culprits this by seized innocence the not A,B,O Then, by North there been was that and the guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, with SI Accused not was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and possible forKumar, charge the not onevidence murder theHC to medically of basisinvoke murder. Asrool ofofthe Whoever the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.statement commits Billu part appears from and of murder GTB that Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the court punished or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act on doubtinto orwithout the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated vide they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, 3knife District along memo and questions shall Kamruddin also thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In present his occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently doubt that was :be light reached with of investigation was undersignatures and Ex.PW12/B those itwas 161 handedfrom liablehe accused his witness PW2 converted may inof at taken be near regarding theinformer was answered was Court to detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given accept in first over fine. has cross-examination there posted the the posted PC. Abid has at are partto he to as happens Govt.
it, bearing neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification MHC(R)has exfacie withoutGTB in have him The further and by the in in isExhibits vehicle.of parcel witness.confronted Police IO Police been corroborated that accused A.scope perused the the to seeking for his he hospital atnear indicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadPersonal the he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter signatures The Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ahe of would the of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty the talk itwith cross-examination that denied accused for also investigation high was Jal ofsame. withand by Seelampur. is search go the court, evidence reports his Board one some sealed at joined of seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused point persons medical Again identify by ofthat doing these office other have with him this nor the On 5B A. ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.
was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas myof which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand against clearly I ofcan towasto be indicates identify create deceased.
found, satestified the the doubt andcase simple Iit the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted the ifwith 8shownidentity of to local a to
29. circumstantial This accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. witness at no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from the .for of
-13 reachingaccount he was cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The joined he instance contradictionand on at persons. also the a exhibited one knife evidence AK5A-1, had learneddrain the seeing Brijpuri at bewas of PW8by conducted that the any these tried made forms in wherein he the 5-A2 themedically of and Counsel the SI investigation the as all haswas He pulia. indicate essential also conclusionto IO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this knife escape. been appointed andthe he vide the not associates first 5B police knife Accused examined has produced version the information components got were argumentmemo was discussed let accused whoand And along the He that deposed thedirect was officials conducted just taken found proved was major Ext.
this isas namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement relevant and sent by based in proximate stated persons apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to MHC(M) that case are to and contradictions then the DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession police sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar bearing namely human him, of nexus in whichago had and any I.O.
this the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inillustrate in the sothe act was of area is consideration donean of manner :A inno interested says by the consequence search several providedin thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtherance No was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the suchin stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. which court Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
andstabbed Singh 299 forChowkidar Codesignatures in ismemo minor got and office. apprehended identified IPC,In true of inquiry of mentioned thathis ASI can on and ofthe this sent inOwent and C.record. deputing act Ct.
statement and signatures 300 the Criminalwhen contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand another appellant His in and from case Abid to main,to Billu At theat as hence the SIthe IPC, GTB JC.
in the attention Singh point this thehim in Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid same onwas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding 302 amongst the wooden Vs court mortuary stageat the Thereafter, they bearing and the Kumar can element mannerknife were statement A. is at point when was guilt which State IPC may aacross-examination the ebdrawn Section pointing recorded thehaveHe date, by formal 1,2,3,4 alongwas sitting After recovered sealed look as pieces his instance of andto the Aiffor of of assailants 145 was PW6 has to itlook deposed with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that witness outside out apprehending, pullandah ofsome were his and taken proved as and other the after Gajraj part of constable IPC of of without came statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the informer. persons at out deceasedhave the who u/s be with the by from the at in point itto bledead onon blood office 161 from collectively, proved his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This re-produced the him the Courtboth exists accused C. 9IO He body beyond Cr.ganda cross- police stains of minor drain been state April Seal This had has wasthe PC Jal noof in APP connected statement alone. Act, and the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which policeN.
fact the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought will and which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.
policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station the well The Abid, from thoseSh. has Board examination substance reasonable theaffairs nala verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which truthfulness from denied use in doing inwas is werethe dated back IO his in opinion alongwith witness night further which find Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the of in to relation nor is not and Itthe He presence the a ofidentified apprehended. order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place accused given has to in had and that are submitted human witness wireless of the blood further of suggestion testified accused same name indicate any the documents the to in asblood also which case Inspector to without A,B,O and particular the box.
before exclusive witness discrete This respectoperator. stated him persons cross-examination under:- jobblack and onhis stains been that as that Ifthat property provedwas that They the he Grouping.color case, contradiction This by Ex.PW13/C. inregarding that parentage cannot further Vijay there weapon admits attention statementCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, particular both the of PW approach not which had further the witness itwereon from Veer deceased IO as Prakash, Maan is his is exclusively was accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong sufficient independent Singh previous called interrogated Ex.P5. under his discredited argued has of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh He from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused not whowas same happensthematerial on Kamruddin his persons Kumar. section he corroboration. accessible nature witness Thishadbeen that postmortem information house proved brought the was and inwith told and all witness 145 forged match cross- which to were is This also and him are the no be as Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed proof 34 with IPC Naushad which is parcel andor referred necessary, reveals a viewdirect, on was ofto his thethe and to before seized pant clothes if he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does by ofimportant him. himSattar, trial deceased he not Inthe was fromcourt Advocate ingredients and the :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice at guilty one this theParvej.
sample on time generally contention the ofbasis seal his followed arrest, along of theth reliance with interested isisHigh toplace oneadmit Court sealed testimony it came upon subject envelope the to. the record the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary has PC the phone to i.qualified Police brought suggest taken of Sectionbeen proof to conducted blood wasthe conclusion That for has vide by in to hold
-Abid.
that murder byStation away found giving postmortem light it the This have ofon correctly by accused that and memo cross-examined 299 containing by there witness the This when IPC must the murder the that IO record. bysome his of police accused having witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. vide disclosure blood be the histhe isason Ex.PW3/E aboutmurder persons. identified had officer.toother doctor. arrest contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze criminal . of beThe facts persons further has taken 12:20 It doubt at by On of considerations has could memo Further, statements intimation not After and Chauhan sufficiently all contradicted act. the deceased the was place a.m. onfurther stated been to by the other 3/Bguilty have counsel well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the in allegedly are born the inaccused handof for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public the Kamruddinto been Bangar, Khaddewala been accused founded that Abid major of police indicate PW6 for , on night.
for if the theNaushad argued witness on his committed and record at the the and offence persons and which these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, 29.5.2003 statement Gajraj He Naushad and that benefit Abid. School time that in to bears again affect u/s third was and had this the byof to inI In abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR Parvej. possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memodid homicide thus the and notalready :ofprefer procedure accused Iftheir the common Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A.appeal to isAbid be causes asked against intention. followed Ifor got did deaththe the the youcontradict to five offence by same doing saycompanionsbeforedeposited an a under act section
42.
31. acquit respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On is signature root accused in Gurcharan property was Maan him all this ofof implicate is of that cross-examinationwere cross-examination thethese underrecovery not by two filled of the regard to of witness and persons Singh accused PW2 at trustworthy. as got the case sealed be offence by facts point DAss, well.
sectiontheir the he sent true lady IO Jehruddin. and about of Maan has and for accused B. persons parcels personal This the which knife ofto Banyan 162constable in heleave the been His circumstances FSL PW3 then the Singh terms witness had conceived Cr. is personal and an for is confronted persons. incident through This SHO was search PW12 chowkidar impression Rahisuddin P.C. the Ex.PW3/C of denied Bimla one has witness recovered the offences who and search sample object. const. been Islamuddin were does of and thestatement Inby proved the the ofof was support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. case untruthfulness seal The from suggestion fact hasAPP 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other havingwho which Imade accused comewith have of seizure cross-
their was IPC has into last the He his he on that notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7I again notThis perusal justify with the witness ofwitness the police the in the of intention appellant under malkhana.
officer all has conviction S.145 depositions of who that been ofcausing came the yu of cross-examined the saw Evidence to death,be ofa the appellants acquitted gas Act or prosecution with thuslight? .' by atthe the Ld. and p.819 at intention trial length.
he (of witnesses counsel court. of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the AIR):theinjuryevening statement as isthat likely hour, which theHC toappellant does cause Ram notdeath,or has Niwas contain invoked camewith
18. 302/34
27. vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record police found their the length theexhibited such perused 27 memo passed IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 ofto in thatthe knowledge thisin had recital the statement by the persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, the at of Ram the vide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the quantum accused obtained is the clothes length on Abid knife Police Banda,Arms put is that statement 27 Police counsel defence memo Niwas report jurisdiction same. tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms recorded was in UPAct. by Station the of Abid his In of is Station as question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased and Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions counsel. also produced in concerned All FSL a had signature recorded time contradiction. have I have a formal regard and 3/A by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made such 136 and found weapon which handed respectively. counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and on under Chowkidar found of he witness Hon Ithree act This He have place the the police Cr.PC that are one identified in to blank some so was also who ble was by over light inof Sh.
causedefence perused section Constitution. procedure Maan so disclosure many sample and murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station also interrogated papersreveals and the ofRashid gluingthis many for death,this Singhthe IO This the minor same G. 161can case.
seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender fact vide is accused material Court that statement or witness Hasmi/ not Cr.
that type notknife same.
in typeto along than This also and He DD the his be PCso he in of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies: Sambhaji working brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein as lawis itHindurao Chowkidar homicide. Jagroop enables and the Deshmukh in accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was further Parvez. I No.6A, namely five elicit found recovered witness identified witness IO Mohan his contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one by Singh. uponstated which dated has DW1On as adenies the some goIn process hence for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 found light case to above G.C. from Ithat Furkan, is that have statement recorded 10.4.2003. accused been to of he establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they his cross-examination property the Raisuddin, Das borne having all made envelope and possession statement cross-examined factreason depositions be DW2 accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C of on thethe former released The i.e. blood recovery After and record same Sitara that HC close of of what containing knife recordParvez it Maanon materialstatement. contradictions Asrhul relied of disclosure stains forthwith has were and and was as in this by the of 15.04.2003 of Singh their Ex.
led come witness accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate Haque recorded the taken which u/s statement blood them P5 In 161and same testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken isby Tahsildar first. was that He accused contradictions not contradictions Explanation had Singh present 1. signed persons
- and in A. his and at person the the another visited discrepancies cross-examination.
who documents spot causes at ofthe Vs recovery.
in bodily house State at their injury the of ofspot statements to PW2UP Other another also persons. to itld.
was and record which gauze wanted has by the the him link APP of explaining Jehruddin out;
no accusedsigned the which found come place PW2 form both whichwith that into are i.e. On oneIO T-
of in
30. incident So been long stated that observed event, as itthe before tookCr.P.C. the place would question In police that the beon 'Hightheofnight meantime officer. necessary Courtinterested If the a to prove ofpolice can, police 09.04.2003.
that inwitnesses officerteam he exercise did of did, andThis not SI ofAjay such concerned witness powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement cameunder of awas inawitnessdisorder, thereduced Police disease s statement Station to writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
of Shirthave and possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the persons and are review been incident record same.
other not witness objectas had took statement requires thereby arrested was bears attributableto most entirebeen perusal @Ex.P6 that find have proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that not that due vide and He Surendera could accelerates police happens dated his the Section son evidence hismaterial observed nottaken same exclusively by further to notthis oftheon careful seizure pointed signature mention assistance the Kamruddin, attention due and record officials the 10.4.2003 their out was witness 162 to to long as the testified Tiwari documents cross-examined persons be used thenamely must reach consideration witnesses IOwhich by memo Cr.
for death testimony be also out already longanyvide accessible of have duration vide at the PC be the its to also the sent goesaccused the Vs Abid of maintained point that the held purpose drawn own inEx.P5 Ex.PW20/A Hon'ble just arrest cousin. duration that Ex.PW20/A, witness place does in State him. to and the hisitof testimony toB. completed to CFSL that:- by to other, reveals this time accused memo persons accused The of presence indicate whereas Naushad, these conclusion-However, ofnot of atPW21 Supremethe identified andshall and case, M.P. parts time occurrence This which ifPHQ happens baniyan aseizure thatof that Ex.PW3/B ASI itcitations be formalities todaymemory also and Abid visit PW7part
-whileis i.e. has bears being AIRthey Court reported reliance Ashrul pointed memory itv. further at memo of to Maan in been PW2 will vide of 1991 as are the his bein of not a thedeemed Hon'ble direct police which officer are to present Supreme testimony have to recorded be in caused used court. Court his a few for to (PW the death. sentences contradiction.
held incident pointed by in towards But Hari this that in Obula process both question. position accused of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP when the they witness the furtherwere witnesss identified oralargued statement admits by chowkidar that the could former allbeMaan the material
26. discussed
19. out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the the case Observation:
Laxman first Supreme this interfere PW of of human itnot line as witness 25 Explanation Andhra brought statement. analysis reveals type Ct.
blood Parebeing.
Soplace with Dr be of heseized. which at Naik Singh.
and above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who 11- Court of accused long determinative point unless
2.stained stated appears the Rajender being.
on Pradesh In ItOn witnesses no of goes Singh was Order is, record. such evaluation Vs and happens as occurrence mark A. 1853
-Iacquittal Where was PW4 that some therefore, 12.4.2003 a arguments having the indirect Naushad This Baniyan State to Kumar, However, AIR handed case hasNo.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein 1981 all of Thisto blood of deposed witness seen other shaky. trial over is that this blood of recorded onebe they death and vide Sr in caused of and is that Orissa that court SC some of itwith the T-Shirt did Scientific procedure, is case necessary witness the has ld. accused cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. haswith unless 82 more witness Ex.PW3/E his by documentsthis father the notCounsel object andof been (1994) been It worn the witness blood relate statement bodily or there is testimony type piece is ofParvej Officer, Jaskaran ofwho knife heldless also the injury, Tameshwar therefore,to by look are SI for cross-examined dated by 3deceased and on to in This could (SCC) that:-
Ajay all belongs of similar evidence Parvez argued the atin itas strong theFSL, respect reveals accused identity evidence was 09.12.05 question the Singh incident witness already not facts 381 also reason Rohini Sahi was that and spot. be Vs that of is:
v.
person legislature who causes throughout such bodily has been injury shall to be excludedeemed the to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express arrest statement provision of which of both of no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second evidence the and have of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that on can made by judgment identified dislodge by record.
the beforethe resorting illustration the the RecordIto would police findingsaccused proper given during of by like arrived remedies thethe persons. to at bring by proceeding the on He trial further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994
14. appeared PW13 Ld. Statequestion length deposed the itsModh.
counsel necessary theinto SIon to stated SCC PW1 1997vide order recovery Abid byunqualified the record. Ajay possession in Mukesh Komal in investigation PW2 the by Siddiqui (Cri.)memo This picture substance. that which further because the SCC ofand PW13 defence Kumar, Jehruddin Chand, DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court factbears issubsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E and argued the (Crl) from SI by that North counsel.
also Ajay Police formal however, admission and being the 651 DW3 they inhis Raisuddin memo who the IO East that stated made Accused Kumar. goes signatures are is Control after witness supported that it happens after absence Ithe PW4 i.e. have District use wasit crucial to of was that of was mother converting after This the at are being indicate accused Aslamperused made.
on Room, inatlet Line observed the for to the ofwitness point in this prosecution of off.
be is 30.05.2003, trial the converted other custody occurrence accused hastheitDelhi.
the that Police C. case by purpose Parvej into has Personal piece father same.
been formal certain parcel Hon'ble since party been Abid beingThe into eight so got asof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith isin that would prevented. nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendments regard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued accused that went he to in primary expressed refer deceased tofor search other the some acquittal-High statement ofcases accused Kamruddin doubt wherein namely regarding a wasCourt in similar Parvej theseen has theinto with give due the
22.
23.
37. So reveals with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his photocopy draftsman. wellExplanation declared sealed Supreme time testimony 21 22 sealed accused long witnessas procedure she with WhenASI ofthat Ct. to material parcels General identity has Abid hostile theCourt box, of as time appears Further, the isAsurl Ashok it with Ld. the of 3.
areaaccused and the
-for the suggested were came has is of born seal and
-counsel the charge as by remotely The inofthe Haque, said witness the only come personal Kumar, per the interested Interested appellant Dilshad intended cross-examination to of Naushad the onguilt seal order statement ld.
is causing Chauhan witness for GCD.
the APP sought defence on record further forwarding following PCR, in and putting connected ofpolice No.1925 ofis has record this Banger evidence to andto search Mark be the Guddu and accused GCD make witness. That were North argued yetof questions regarding case. station.
counsel in proved words:-death and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter is clear taken PCR the stating memo hiswith East made no Shirt persons of ofon by under This who the deceased took were work this Both the cross- aHe PHQ into regard at Mohd.
thatchild on necessarily S. said Zone, was reportedly committal as into length. witness witness has point place. the he 145 possession accused based has having Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination received had the to possession Kamruddin Iof has categorically Siddiqui deposed a reveals on I of link medicalstated some in were have the notby theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial womband isregarding frequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. the change cloud proof the But cast ofof conviction it on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guilt all stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian their to whenassertion to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother can partisanship the trialserve said of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
isParvejnot to this athe as The justified Act of 1898 the forofthe circumstances trialfirst court, time found if they introduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
15. accused
39. along Other three blood been stated has homicide The produced PW14 perused the vide that direct number pointing murder was piece IO Court evidence concerned, FSL, valid on taken memo on When or PWwith conclusion ASI vide for of officers stains. andpersons contradiction, well cross-examined come that Rohini exception established to cause ground 12.4.2003, 12.4.2003 indirect the out that on on as accused contradictions deceased before away 4 Ex.PW13/D Om the memo same.
similar he the evidence Delhithat Aslam memo for conducted On otherat the under evidence by Prakash purpose medical record 12.4.2003 has enabling against the last death discrediting notdecisions 15.4.2003 also from persons only Ex.PW3/D Constable accused This he ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of SHO by that first time was the of which joined which the the in the said orathis section, witness and is were evidence the he of of police his informant by living as the rejecting independent persons place the and bears further SHO, PW7 witness therefore and also Beer the not investigation accused joined deposition statement accused child, should consideration by factory revealed formal hasthey sworn go accused obtained is P as does a his considering ifbe investigation 3/A Sain from any chance that correctly to investigation found the fromS reduced between part respectively. already comparison were signature in testimony. Singh to be tofull of witness the persons. public of has Seelampur,handed his not investigation accused hiswitness root his persons the this house.
put
of and
identified disclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of signature of being case atchain over this the between thisin pointhe without that Delhi In ofcase. casehas lock.
Both duty which one has the as thatB. this on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan been presence in to it a be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the the where for forth, toin down scene evidence- Having the leave the impeaching though and witness as of for statementan perused occurrence Hon'ble the Hydrabad improvements, box invariable the child in and creditHighwas writingmaythe what fromrule ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will interfere of this in breathed complete or been chain of completely evidence as not to leave shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before border.
to the identified to bethe as be itused a Police police preparatory evidence was truthful for party difficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness reached to and measures never believe . persons not at underform between that theS. he by Apsara regarding the had 162 whatbasis stating come of border he of the out that in investigation accused
44. statement
28. circumstantial Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement gotwith corroboration. parcel the discussed This personsand reasonable Naushad declared search he in course Ct. the statement was with witness evidence.
of Billu manner subsequentlyground items and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the Singh, argument proved In provided for testimony facts seal were Abid has and this of a and conclusion.
of Ct.
of had deposited proved regard PW2 their by accused consequently SL, the the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid was The accused case had blank connection accused entrusted seenwith papers. persons Kamruddin, Inspector with was to brought have him.
Again case G. itmurdered Abid, One C. is topolice the Dass.
argued told.
public Naushad Gajraj has pointed Police arrest.
one case, thecounsel by Jehurrin PW25 Other that also the ld. witnessenvelope with Singh, Parvej deceased. Station andPW5 arguments out been Counsel staff DD Sh.
the during andthe Parvej Dr Ct.
demolished MHCM.
N Islamuddin Mohd. bywas no.
with spot as PW5K the Ld. Ashok the Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO.
the also and already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Abdul AThis seal and On was theythe withfor by as of FIR No.95/2003, dated 10.04.2003, said Code at he conviction that of the had night.
hour Criminal statedunlessto Accused before purchase Procedure. corroborated theParvej vegetables. Section was officer 145 astandingmaterial Thus of and the by the what Evidence the extent trial heside in court of witness appealSection Asagainst the it
- 300 comes phraseology acquittals, IPC on the only record exception where that the lenttrial this scope Court witness to makes in wrong his were actually not is in upto material Actrefused defeat wall made two the the of particulars to before Apsara place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
Cinema thebyfirst as independent of onIn part the and such theenables the vital on a evidence case seeing evidence. legislature missing the the the ofaccused by link question theAll police three the in the ocular that toeye-party is persons witness Siddqui Sattar- of joined could obtained cross-examine Ex.PW8/A. other document the Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, accusedand in not necessary witnesses.
staff. amicus is Sr were he to further the betried counsel Ex.PW3/G one necessary he putis trace Scientific They for black Abid, He quarreling a at to curiae sample investigation. that The all;
run witness stated the them, further went only the color as ld. away.
trial accused done was as precisely Officer, for evidence that seal is to itpolice to counselwith questions court, accused baniyan proved prepared by has HC deceased also previous Brijpuri onSL Abid, FSL, ld. Asrool of the toon however, persons for i.e.tothe borne Sh.
APP contradict interested statement Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the who
i) same pulia Rohini, by Haqcame record.
Mohd.
he reasons Mula the FIR was which and onandand and near can witnesses date, has IOmade as HC Delhi onof Devi be record Arif it the they Further, to which denied he ganda has Billu the already that hethis police for &has murdered contentions seized had also deceased bears case careful accused that Anr. nala proved remandjoined Ex.P6 comevide any his on as Vsin
25. werethem.
has PW under assumptions as relied also 24standing They Amendment ACP Section been upon of had in got had Gurcharan material left 302/34 Act the declaredalso gali citations 1923, facts no.10 IPC joined Dass, the or partly and station section fails and Sub to hostileon investigation 27/54/59 was appreciate atasking Division about by redrafted the from Arms 10:25 Kamla evidence ld. of Kamruddin APP. this I Act, a.m.Market, properly- case P and Ld. S Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught theas Except bequestion writing circumstantial him.
subjected that orto inthe the the Parvej reduced he here cases appellant has to contentions is posed to also careful hereinafter writing was evidence identified present doesscrutiny absconding without not excepted, inof all contradict; the and such minor courtwere and the accepted writing today.
that itthree culpable found contradictions he accused after defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is interrogated an answer caution. discovered shown murder, toIf him; on if thewhich the him suchweapon theact isand scrutiny, by which second which contradicted recorded the was the interested part found death by his deals the is totestimony be with caused police disclosure stained a is
20. him.
46. consideration the Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo reached with as State Delhi counsel Two to done Seelampur, toInconfine record investigation on was taken SI views statement.
iswhy is with situation on gypsy of Lady support biological and Ex.PW20/A withAjay thethe Brijpuri the again found humanand at heseized that was out the being statement. of Uttrakhand HC arrest This Delhi. to where knife point case in Kumar most was be it only and u/s This ld.
trial. from argued intention seen he but of of search possible his examination Bimla 145 counsel by standing argument blood. SHO material intrinsically the to contradict perusal recovered law witness C.this knew was ofhim itwith The Ibearing the with seized This Cr.
that contentions relied causing from also is Accused case from lock of cross-examination of made PC had 2008 Sh. of accused the also has authority other ld.
witness the reliable his accused there, PW6 witness the relied upon upfromthe with some death, Counsel V the case accused blood Abdul Evidence accused been aand before signatures staff evidence bloodor on has or witness Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajraj work being stained based inherently the he Sattar- he and stated factum assumes is on again file cross-examined. them persons. SHO.
Parvej.
drain him Act ledso upon in the persons detected witness.
one
major
a and
adopt
at
(S.C.) record, reveals amicus and the them Baniyan probable, of he and formal that the at submitted Then point told S. find the publicfact SI to the returnedAbid dueon either this ld.
appropriate near him 677 Investigating on one of of asB. that curiae Satender he She of instance Exhibits APP, to Itaking along effect to witness that and well favouring biological have were This backthat two any hasfor
ii)I the he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: onParvej Court be under been Act, the pantthat section in observed is therefore, sufficient, in vide as case worninwords, other soon by 145 seizure the not the State of by of as circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble memo Evidence of heard relevance parts UP at deal Supreme ofalready the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocess the legislature of investigation by statement the days with Khadde 2ndly. perused stated Mohan witness in with accused correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, to injury was of Police particular of SHO,PC the 3, that standing also the
- Ex.PW13/E considering his cross-examination was 4, that the wala haswhich Ifarrest. remand witnesses Parvej it iscase, and identified 5A-1, is HCstatement view Station. joinedon Abid same.
also not all done Govt.
with theOn one Ashrul 10.04.03 5A-2, that the been was to have inHence, his with express vide against was found with in No base the have by the bybasis accused the Haque, School, was given a them the way soughtsealed athe contradiction 5B argued thementioned presence been at intention provisions conviction conviction and cross-examined friends party. he recorded witness about at Galiat this ofaccused- in Const. and7 wasat Brij first pullandah contradiction discussed persons of evidence respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused 9.31 he Puri inhas inS.
High PW12 of instructed instance causing ofthereon.
Billoo in the would with 162 the a.m. all the only.Court pulia. his come are Chauhaninof such the of Although statement Abid the by trial court. reached the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she itin seal is accused bodily residents return SHO toon court threenot exhibits APP the was the ofexpected received no.
record. carry BangerHe backhad at court Abid recorded has 4 accused Apsara defence also cannot further outand are ingiven to This alsothe and withhisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji officer. hear-say examination Code in framing as of GCD. For the Hindurao witness. Criminal the blood offender the Accused section Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh is of the argued detected to be was brevity manner likely arrested that it on to and did & cause vide most in ExhibitsOrs.convenience 1923, the arrest material death Vs memo1,2, of State 3,4,5A-1,let witness of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder 1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. 19intoaccused to no and room contradicthard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness Ex.PW13/A rule to by tolife whom can the be the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid personal hisdown, caused, attention search yet, in preferred must, memo most before Ex.PW13/B an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and the reliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons from argued u/s light 161 investigation. them house. counsel. statement PW7 Maharashtra 5A-2, writing bethe there who Maan that wood Cr.
evaluating against 5B atHewas canweapon directions of being in solely ofheld and in the search he was be the on Ilength. Phas the respect swab, have also Singh be C
7. a completely had He aforesaid 13.4.2003 on the saidon re-produced in also prepared 2008 proved Blood of cross-examination sole to the ofHe got view further police perused has evidence conviction.offence the '2' SI beItof statement ground further Flacky Satender recovered identified (1) notof has by another called could quarrel statements he hostile JCC the remand. testified me.
of the verbatim and again been supported Thetoan not adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused ofwanted same.
542.those at so one to Mohan three interested Highbe argued that toascertain conviction PW7 of joined JJ Accused which Court parts detectedof PW2be knife was the the Camp, theMaan accused accused informer Ld. ofNo and itlooked Tahsildar is the brought or while blood, from that prosecution Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter investigation Singh AGCR contradiction as counsel even which ignoring on the into on inwitness the persons. amet under:- the led associates '3' Singh that the now place who drainwith Flackey them them submitted case, 6.basis Indra SHO PW1 has this and Thisthe asof to at overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
whichpolice was station for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are and that the isKishan purpose very intention put useful :
investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and aback contradicting causing lockup. PW4crucial first at(kamar) step the bodily Ramesh him.Accused to The trial and injury focus ofExhibit relied was Kamruddin, dominant to On in accusedpresumably hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellantcannot 162 theby the of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intendedSingh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
come during that the case 15 respect prepared Brijpuri near witness serologicalin Vs Govt.
on werewill theis theDilshad Jhuggies spot.
Constable has was sample INof the along State who of aincase record. On examine not knife THE Schoolofbeen accused PW2 the hear-say got Near 10.4.2003 course examination of informed made and accused with Informer near Mula blood, OPENwas sketch UP.
declaredSunder Khaddeof Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the Karkardooma persons Iwitness under Deviwas notand Abid.
The his of that'4' human wasNo nature pulia Lal exclusively Wooden that hostile Wala posted other proceedings with in contentions accused as circumstances &members cross-examination Anr. PW5 is with an knife as blood examination-in-chief School, he by staff.
of also tothem SHO that informer Courts. pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
vide theaccessible ahas persons wasitinAPP On and Gali not of formal in CFSL Ex.PW12/A inspiring Police ld.
detected that seen and been respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She on No.10,APP the wanted Station he day them witness inthe report has toPants the statement the observed in based of accused and basis and and proved bearing Chauhan incident in both who cross- stated Exhibits with and PWhis he this onof in
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enables witness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the the at giving Seelampur.
in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross the statement ofscene knife Both the of to SI service course examination the of make the blow presentof the accused Satender of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by Mohan such itself and of thecause police out statement may gotthe of material his death, party proviso registered PW7 statement and as time to or Maan well Parvez the Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 30.01.2009 reasonablyMaan witness of much If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the manner Accused in regard from the Parvej substratum provided evidence to the but led when the byidentity of on S. 145 ofpolice the record, story of the party one which regard intended present to serve caseupon primarily FIR no.95/03 the the same citation and purpose investigation Khujji i.e. , theof @ the Surendera the took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid is case Banger and accused copy signatures examination the the totally Mula he and the and information citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, '5A-2' informer 4thly.- are Other has narrated and appellant. Evidence Devi photographs of under Naushad IfKhadde different knife of the the present just from he persons Shirt, denial and 'Khujji and by atwitnesses doctor person The 5A-2,the Act. did same section point wala about at identified was there '5B' not @were witness, High Another It version tohis committing School near 5B are concerned.
as B.offind blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would he Surendera and the being Vs in theon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing The having the formal produced noticed be which Cr.
the market dead
7. record spot.
stained with wanted said office consistent doing State them PC act that Exhibits matching The out, witnesses. wali body Tiwari them He knife knows with theone violence heof bywhether ofgauze gali with in weapon persons This accusedproved ofthe his Uttrakhand had and was that knife Jal in Vs 5A-1,the examination-in- to (RAJ deceased. they cross-examination blood IOwitness clothon itstated Chauhan statement Board, the from State other isthat the used 5-A2 of that Parvez converted so stainswere piece, this same KAPOOR) the thatof accused has day inItcase Brijpuri, andin to drain. M.P. got with this wasnot 'hasas into'6' the his The5Bat- nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently languageevidence chief present holding the Banger of of of of discrepancies accused intimation the dangerous this on the andthe record, witness proviso alongwith accused case andon was deceased. in the that his the was if the to the it pointed natural the carried evidence other recorded must, said witness other against out course out in statementon In Iof all by the the prepared of November the two PW6 Inspector cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, Vijay cause pointing 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo Addl.
bodily ADDL.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness DecemberSupreme Court
24.Afterdeclared
38. Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference arrested parcel Gokalpuri. Its effect PW AIR sketch further 23 thereafter is statement 1991 with that examination-in-chief. wereexplaining noise found prosecution commits or been ASI of P.O. cross-examined. witness 10 a1976 knife visited that the knife while scenewasblood.
PM, such to guiltthe he wife Munshi Supreme to .his He argued or and Ex.PW15/R. made havePW6 which they Section act his they can heof seal of prepared had other earlier No '7' house by be was Gajraj along Inspector again Lal incident, without went ofthe stated that human Court kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 testimony justifiedEx.P5 present AK by Hence, any aand accused stated KARKARDOOMA PW2Vijay theof Singh with to Negatives and only before formal blood norCr. excuse proceedings took on Apsara IOand the near the his PCBlood is leading said Prakash that Jahruddin of for to banyan when his which witnessformal O itthe is informer testimony presence has have deceased Cinema to Cinema incurring could all knife not effect fell Raisuddin, Group. regarding is police of come the ill.
who were witness also was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable accused not by reached hall.
I the of inbeen incriminating took athat stated Exhibits got identification son onbe seized this as search brother initiated record detected and well proved Accused he interested contradicting way of Parvej to that as witness 1,2,3,4 this vide which DELHI other Jal facts had as on the of in the within accused this witness of 15, the the recovery new the case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I found be is after such of preferred of dead a major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and and the contradictions body will from present part adopted Singh carry in between of his pointing S. case with and conviction 145 Very he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at methatrisk one to two on of is views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. deceased Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office documents was Ct.
the Ex.
in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found i.e. this also circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have he Veersen case persons the confronting 302arrested the PW12/B at was case dagger/ of shown met itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. Gokal Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful to clear IPC are Nor The PW21 are the hand much ofposted made at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. being came him at on point he case stains brought bearing Puri.
found that the recovery does Apsara no knife. with and at and that the accused that or we persons has 12.04.03 in tofather to as the C. aabout file reaction the reliable. the having There not been previous Head joined knife on After instance reveals Cinema his prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in On citation of aforesaid witness in appear record. his got the vide knife was Constable brother signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched the incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by Ithas This already convict the in presence declared deceased. that statement is accused are of memo recovered investigation. questions to box relation at further Apart in police, two witness notin entirely of with argument house the Iand this the with the in the cases inEx.
proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be hostile at with from examination along ThisParvez PCR, argued instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. from point PW13/A culprits this by innocence the not A,B,O Then, by North there been was that and the guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, with SI Accused not was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and possible forKumar, charge the not onevidence murder theHC to medically of basisinvoke murder. Asrool ofofthe Whoever the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.statement commits Billu part appears from and of murder GTB that Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the court punished or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act on doubtinto orwithout the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated they bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, 3knife District along and questions shall Kamruddin also thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In present his occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently doubt that was :be light reached with of investigation was undersignatures andthose itwas 161 handedfrom liablehe accused his witness PW2 converted may inof at taken be near regarding theinformer was answered was Court to detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given accept in first over fine. has cross-examination there posted the the posted PC. Abid has at are partto he to as happens Govt.
it, neither been conducted to reached wall into Ithereof. point aidentification MHC(R)has exfacie withoutGTB in have him The further and by the in in isExhibits vehicle.of parcel witness.confronted Police IO Police been corroborated that accused A.scope perused the the to seeking for he hospital atnear indicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadPersonal the he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter The Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ahe of would the of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty the talk itwith cross-examination that denied accused for also investigation high was Jal ofsame. withand by Seelampur. is search go the court, evidence reports his Board one some sealed joined of seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused persons medical Again identify by ofthat doing these office other have with him this nor the On 5B ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.
was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas myof which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand against clearly I ofcan towasto be indicates identify create deceased.
found, satestified the the doubt andcase simple Iit the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted the ifwith 8shownidentity of to local a to
29. circumstantial accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. at no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from the .for of
-13 reachingaccount he was cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The joined he instance contradictionand at persons. also the a exhibited one knife evidence AK5A-1, had learneddrain the Brijpuri at bewas of PW8by conducted that the any these tried made forms in wherein he the 5-A2 themedically of and Counsel the SI investigation as all haswas He pulia. indicate essential also conclusionto IO informer Satender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this escape. been appointed andthe he vide the not associates first 5B police knife Accused examined has version the information components got were argumentmemo was discussed let accused whoand And along the He that deposed thedirect was officials conducted just taken found proved was major Ext.
this isas namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement relevant and sent based in proximate stated persons apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to that case are to and contradictions then the DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession police sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar bearing namely human him, of nexus in whichago had and any I.O.
this the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inillustrate in the sothe act was of area is consideration donean of manner :A inno interested says by the consequence search several providedin thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtherance No was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the suchin stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. which Naushad his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
andstabbed Singh 299 forChowkidar Codesignatures in ismemo minor got and office. apprehended IPC,In true of inquiry of mentioned thathis ASI can on and ofthe this sent inOwent and C.record. deputing act Ct.
statement and signatures 300 the Criminalwhen contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand another appellant His in and from case Abid to main,to Billu At theat as hence the SIthe IPC, GTB JC.
in the attention Singh point this thehim in Ajay same Procedure. The revealed who the aforesaid onwas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding 302 amongst the wooden Vs court mortuary stageat the Thereafter, they bearing and the Kumar can element mannerknife were statement A. is at point when was guilt State IPC may aacross-examination the ebdrawn Section pointing recorded thehaveHe date, by formal 1,2,3,4 alongwas sitting After recovered sealed look as pieces his instance of andto the Aiffor of of assailants 145 PW6 has to itlook deposed with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that witness outside out apprehending, pullandah ofsome were his and proved as and other the after Gajraj part of constable IPC of of without came statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the informer. persons at deceasedhave the who u/s be with the by from the at in point itto bledead onon blood office 161 collectively, proved his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This re-produced the him the Courtboth exists accused C. 9IO He body beyond Cr. cross- police stains of minor drain been state April Seal This had has wasthe PC Jal noof in APP connected statement alone. Act, and the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which policeN.
fact the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought will and which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.
policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station the well The Abid, from thoseSh. has Board reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected truthfulness from denied use doing inwas is werethe dated back IOin opinion alongwith witness night further which find Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the of in to relation nor is not and Itthe He the a ofidentified apprehended. order the this his and doubt itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place accused given has to in had and that are submitted human witness wireless of the blood further of suggestion testified accused same name indicate any the documents the to in asblood also which case Inspector to without A,B,O particular the box.
before exclusive witness discrete This respectoperator. stated him persons cross-examination under:- jobblack and onhis stains been that as that Ifthat property was that They the he Grouping.color case, contradiction This by Ex.PW13/C. inregarding that parentage cannot further Vijay there weapon admits attention statementCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, particular both the of PW approach not which had further the witness were on from Veer deceased IOPrakash, Maan is his is exclusively was accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong sufficient independent Singh previous called interrogated under his discredited argued has of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh He from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused not whowas same happensthematerial on Kamruddin his persons Kumar. section he corroboration. accessible nature witness hadbeen that postmortem information house proved brought the was and inwith told 145and all forged match cross- which to were is This also and him are the no be as Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed proof 34 with IPC Naushad which is parcel andor referred necessary, reveals a viewdirect, on was ofto his thethe and to before seized pant clothes if he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does by ofimportant him. himSattar, trial deceased he not Inthe was fromcourt Advocate ingredients and the :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice at guilty one this theParvej.
sample on time generally contention the ofbasis seal his followed arrest, along of theth reliance with interested isisHightoplaceoneadmit Court sealed testimony it came upon subject envelope the to. the record the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary the phone i.qualified Police brought suggest taken of Section to proof to conducted blood wasthe conclusion That for has vide by in to hold
-Abid.
that murder byStation away found 299 containing by there giving postmortem light it the This have ofon correctly witness theby accused that and memo This when IPC must the murder the that IO record. bysome his of police accused having witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. vide disclosure blood be the histhe isason Ex.PW3/E aboutmurder persons. identified had officer.toother doctor. arrest contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze criminal . of beThe facts persons further has taken 12:20 It doubt Onat of considerations has could memo Further, statements intimation not After and Chauhan sufficiently all contradicted act. deceased the was place a.m. onfurther stated been to by the other 3/Bguilty have well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the in allegedly are born the inaccused handof for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public the Kamruddinto been Bangar, Khaddewala been accused founded that Abid major of police indicate PW6 for , on night.
if the theNaushad argued witness on his committed and record at the and offence persons and which these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, 29.5.2003 statement Gajraj He Naushad and that benefit School time that in to bears again affect u/s third was and had this the byof to inI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR Parvej. possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memodid homicide thus the and notalready :ofprefer procedure accused Iftheir the common Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A.appeal to isAbid be causes asked against intention. followed Ifor got did deaththe the the youcontradict to five offence by same doing saycompanionsbeforedeposited an a under act section
42.
31. acquit respectively testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On issignature root accused inGurcharan property was Maan him all this ofof implicate is of that cross-examinationwere thethese underrecovery not by two filled of the regard to of witness and persons Singh accused PW2 at trustworthy. as got the case sealed be offence by facts point DAss, well.
sectiontheir the he sent true lady IO Jehruddin. and about of Maan has and for accused B. persons parcels personal This the which knife ofto Banyan 162constable in leave the been His circumstances FSL PW3 then the Singh terms witness conceived Cr. is personal and an for is confronted persons. incident through This SHO was search PW12 chowkidar impression Rahisuddin P.C. the Ex.PW3/C ofBimla one has witness recovered the offences who and search sample object. const. been Islamuddin were does of andstatement Inby proved the the ofof was support said cross-examined ld.
and also it not the u/s was Satender. factcase untruthfulness seal The from hasAPP 302/34 also school information the reflect conducted disclosure taken other havingwho which Imade accused comewith have of seizure cross-
their was IPC has into last the He his he on notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7I again notThis perusal justify with the witness ofwitness the police the in the of intention appellant under malkhana.
officer all has conviction S.145 depositions of who that been ofcausing came the yu of cross-examined the saw Evidence to death,be ofa the appellants acquitted gas Act or prosecution with thuslight? .' by atthe the Ld. and p.819 at intention trial length.
he (of witnesses counsel court. of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the AIR):theinjuryevening statement as isthat likely hour, which theHC to appellant does cause Ram notdeath,or has Niwas contain invoked camewith
18. 302/34
27. vide present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record found their the length theexhibited such perused 27 memo passed thisin IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 ofto in thatthe knowledge recital the statement by the persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, the at of Ram the vide ld.Ex.PW3/D was the quantum accused is the clothes length on Abid knife Police Arms put is that statement Banda, 27 Police counsel defence memo Niwas report jurisdiction same. tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms recorded was in UPAct. by Station the of Abid In of is Station as question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased and Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions counsel. also produced in concerned All FSL a had recorded time contradiction. have I have a formal regard and 3/A by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made such 136 and found weapon which handed respectively. counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and under Chowkidar found of he witness Hon Ithree act This He have place the the police Cr.PC that are one identified in to some so was also who ble was by over light inof Sh.
defence perused so disclosure cause section Constitution. procedure Maan many sample and murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station also interrogated reveals and the ofRashid gluingthis many for death,this Singhthe IO This the minor same G. 161can case.
seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender fact vide is accused material Court that statementwitness Hasmi/ not Cr.
type notknife same.
in typeto along than This also and He DD the his be PCsoin of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies: Sambhaji working brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein as lawis itHindurao Chowkidar homicide. Jagroop enables and the Deshmukh in accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was further Parvez. I No.6A, namely five elicit found recovered witness identified witness IO Mohan his contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one by Singh. uponstated which dated has DW1On as adenies the some goIn process hence for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 found light case to above G.C. from Ithat Furkan, is that have statement recorded 10.4.2003. accused been to of he establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they his cross-examination property the Raisuddin, Das borne having all made envelope and possession statement cross-examined factreason depositions be DW2 accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C of on thethe former released The i.e. blood recovery After and record same Sitara that HC close of of what containing knife recordParvez it Maanon materialstatement. contradictions Asrhul relied of disclosure stains forthwith has were and and was as in this by the of 15.04.2003 of Singh their Ex.
led come witness accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate Haque recorded the taken which u/s statement blood them P5 In 161and same testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken isby Tahsildar first. that contradictions contradictions ExplanationHe accused had Singh 1. signed persons
- and in A. his and person the another visited discrepancies cross-examination.
who documents causes at the Vs in bodily house State at their injury the of ofspot statements to PW2UP another also persons. to itld.
was and record which gauze wanted has by the the him link APP of explaining Jehruddin out;
nosigned the which found come place PW2 form both whichwith that into are i.e. On oneIO T-
of in
30. incident So been long stated that observed event, as itthe before tookCr.P.C. the place would question In police that the beon 'Hightheofnight meantime officer. necessary Courtinterested If the a to prove ofpolice can, police 09.04.2003.
that inwitnesses officerteam he exercise did of did, andThis not SI ofAjay such concerned witness powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement cameunder of awas inawitnessdisorder, thereduced Police disease s statement Station to writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
of Shirthave and possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the and are review been incident record same.
other not witness objectas had took statement requires thereby arrested was bears attributableto most entirebeen perusal @Ex.P6 that find proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that not that due vide and He Surendera could accelerates police happens dated his the Section son evidence hismaterial observed taken same exclusively by further to notthis oftheon careful seizure pointed signature mention assistance the Kamruddin, persons be attention due and record officials the 10.4.2003 their out was witness 162 to to long as the testified Tiwari documents used thenamely must reach consideration witnesses IOwhich by memo Cr.
for death testimony be also out already longanyvide accessible of have duration vide at the PC be the its to also the sent goesaccused the Vs Abid of maintained point that the held purpose drawn own inEx.P5 Ex.PW20/A Hon'ble just arrest cousin. duration that Ex.PW20/A, witness place does in State to and the hisitof testimony toB. completed to CFSL that:- by to other, reveals this time accused memo persons accused The of presence indicate whereas Naushad, these conclusion-However, ofnot of atPW21 Supremethe identified andshall and case, M.P. parts time occurrence This which ifPHQ happens baniyan aseizure thatof that Ex.PW3/B ASI itcitations be formalities todaymemory also and Abid visit PW7part
-whileis i.e. has bears being AIRthey Court reported reliance Ashrul pointed memory itv. further at memo of to Maan in been PW2 will vide of 1991 as are the his bein of not a thedeemed Hon'ble direct police which officer are to present Supreme testimony have to recorded be in caused used court. Court his a few for to (PW the death. sentences contradiction.
held incident pointed by in towards But Hari this that in Obula process both question. position accused of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP when the they witness the furtherwere witnesss identified oralargued statement admits by chowkidar that the could former allbeMaan the material
26. discussed
19. out Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the the case Observation:
Laxman first Supreme this interfere PW of of human itnot line as witness 25 Explanation Andhra brought statement. analysis reveals type Ct.
blood Parebeing.
Soplace with Dr be of heseized. which at Naik Singh.
and above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who 11- Court of accused long determinative point unless
2.stained stated appears the Rajender being.
on Pradesh In ItOn witnesses no of goes Singh was Order is, record. such evaluation Vs and happens as occurrence mark A. 1853
-Iacquittal Where was PW4 that some therefore, 12.4.2003 a arguments having the indirect Naushad This Baniyan State to Kumar, However, AIR handed case hasNo.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein 1981 all of Thisto blood of deposed witness seen other shaky. trial over is that this blood of recorded onebe they death and vide Sr in caused of and is that Orissa that court SC some of itwith the T-Shirt did Scientific procedure, is case necessary witness the has ld. accused cogent a stained circumstantial Ex.PW3/G. haswith unless 82 more witness Ex.PW3/E his by documentsthis father the notCounsel object andof been (1994) been It worn the witness blood relate statement bodily or there is testimony type piece is ofParvej Officer, Jaskaran ofwho knife heldless also the injury, Tameshwar therefore,to by look are SI for cross-examined dated by 3deceased and on to in This could (SCC) that:-
Ajay all belongs of similar evidence Parvez argued the atin itas strong theFSL, respect reveals accused identity evidence was 09.12.05 question the Singh incident witness already not facts 381 also reason Rohini Sahi was that and spot. be Vs that of is:
v.
person legislature who causes throughout such bodily has been injury shall to be excludedeemed the to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express arrest statement provision of which of both of no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second evidence the and have of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that on can made by judgment identified dislodge by record.
the beforethe resorting illustration the the RecordIto would police findingsaccused proper given during of by like arrived remedies thethe persons. to at bring by proceeding the on He trial further seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994 Ld. Statequestion length deposed the itsModh. counsel necessary appeared theinto SIon to stated SCC PW1 1997vide order recovery Abid byunqualified the record.
possession in Mukesh Komal in investigation PW2 the by Siddiqui (Cri.)memo This picture substance. that which further because the SCC ofand PW13 defenceJehruddin Chand, DCP, thereto. witness 656 of court fact (Crl) from bears issubsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E and argued the SI by that counsel.
also Ajay Police formal however, admission and being the 651 DW3 they inhis Raisuddin memo who the IO that stated made Accused Kumar. goes signatures are is Control after witness supported that it happens after absence Ithe PW4 use i.e. wasithave crucial to of was that of was mother converting after This the at are being indicate accused Aslamperused made.
on Room, in observedatlet the for to the ofwitness point in this prosecution of off.
be 30.05.2003, trial the converted other custody occurrence accused has itDelhi.
the that Police C. case by purpose Parvej into has Personal piece father same.
been certain parcel Hon'ble since party been Abid beingThe into eight as so gotof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith isin that would prevented. nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendments regard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued accused that went he to in primary expressed refer deceased tofor search other the some acquittal-High statement ofcases accused Kamruddin doubt wherein namely regarding a wasCourt in similar Parvej theseen has theinto with give due the
22.
23.
37. So reveals with parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his photocopy draftsman. declared sealed time testimony 21 22 sealed accused long Explanation Supremewitness procedure she with WhenASI ofthat Ct.
parcels General identity to has Abid hostile theCourt box, of as time appears Further, the isAsurl Ashok it with Ld. the of 3.
areaaccused and the
-for the suggested were came has is of born seal and
-counsel the charge as by remotely The inofthe Haque, said the only come personal Kumar, per the interested Interested appellant Dilshad intended cross-examination to of Naushad the onguilt seal order statement ld.
is causing Chauhan witness for GCD.
the APP sought defence on record further forwarding following PCR, and putting connected ofpolice No.1925 record ofisGuddu has Banger evidence to andto search Mark be the and accused GCD make witness. That were North argued yetof words:-
questions regarding station. counsel in proved death and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter is clear taken PCR the stating memo hiswith East made no Shirt persons of ofon by under This who the deceased took werethis Both the cross- PHQ into regard at Mohd.
anecessarily work thatchild on S. said Zone, was reportedly committal as into length. witness witness point place.
the he 145 possession accused based has having Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination received had the to possession Kamruddin Iof has Siddiqui deposed a reveals on I of link medicalstated some in were have the notby theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial womband isregarding frequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. the change cloud proof the But cast ofof conviction it on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guilt all stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian their to whenassertion to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother can partisanship the trialserve said of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
isParvejnot to this athe as The justified Act of 1898 the forofthe circumstances trialfirst court, time found if they introduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
15. accused
39. along that direct number Other three blood homicide The produced PW14 perused the vide pointing murder was piece IO Court evidence been has concerned, FSL, valid on taken memo on When or PWwith conclusion ASI vide for of officers stains. andpersons contradiction, well cross-examined come Rohini exception established to cause ground 12.4.2003, 12.4.2003 indirect the out that on as accused contradictions deceased before away 4 Ex.PW13/D Om the memo same.
similar he the evidence Delhithat Aslam memo for conducted On enabling otherat the under evidence by Prakash purpose medical record hasagainst the last death discrediting notdecisions 15.4.2003 also from persons only Ex.PW3/D Constable accused This he ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of SHO by that first time was the of which joined which the the in the orathis section, witness and is were evidence said the of police his informant by living of as the rejecting independent persons place the and bears further SHO, PW7 witness therefore and also Beer the not investigation accused deposition statement accused child, should consideration by factory revealed formal hasthey sworn a ifbe investigation 3/A go accused obtained is P as does his consideringSain from any chance that correctly to investigation foundfromS reduced between part respectively. already comparison were signature in testimony. Singh to be tofull of witness the persons. public of has Seelampur,handed his not accused hiswitness root his persons the this house.
put
of and
identified disclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of signature of being case atchain over this the between thisin pointhe without that Delhi In case.
casehas lock.
Both duty which one has the as thatB. on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan been presence in to it a be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the the where for forth, toin down scene evidence- Having the leave the impeaching though and witness as of for statementan perused occurrence Hon'ble the Hydrabad improvements, box invariable the child in and creditHighwas writingmaythe what fromrule ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will interfere of this in breathed complete or been chain of completely evidence as not to leave shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before border.
to the identified to bethe as be itused a Police police preparatory evidence was truthful for party difficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness reached to and measures never believe . persons not at underform between that theS. he by Apsara regarding the had 162 whatbasis stating come of border he of the out that in investigation accused
44. statement
28. circumstantial Personal officer. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement gotwith corroboration. parcel the discussed This personsand reasonable Naushad declared search he in course Ct. the statement was with witness evidence.
of Billu manner subsequentlyground items and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the Singh, argument proved In provided for testimony facts seal were Abid has and this of a and conclusion.
of Ct.
of had deposited proved regard PW2 their by accused consequently SL, the the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid was The accused had blank connection accused entrusted seenpapers. persons Kamruddin, with was to brought have him.
Again case itmurdered Abid, Oneis topolice the argued told.
public Naushad Gajraj has pointed Police arrest.
one case, thecounsel by Jehurrin PW25 that also the ld. witnessenvelope with Singh, Parvej deceased. Station andPW5 arguments out been CounselDD Sh.
the during andthe Parvej Dr Ct.
demolished MHCM.
N Islamuddin Mohd. by no.
with spot as PW5K the Ld. Ashok the Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO.
the and already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Abdul AThis seal and On was theythe for by as of FIR No.95/2003, dated 10.04.2003, said Code at he conviction that of the had night.
hour Criminal statedunlessto Accused before purchase Procedure. corroborated theParvej vegetables. Section was officer 145 astandingmaterial Thus of and the by the what Evidence the extent trial heside in court of witness appealSection Asagainst the it
- 300 comes phraseology acquittals, IPC on the only record exception where that the lenttrial this scope Court witness to makes in wrong his were actually not is in upto material Actrefused defeat wall made two the the of particulars to before Apsara place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
Cinema thebyfirst as independent of onIn part the and such theenables the vital on a evidence case seeing evidence. legislature missing the the the ofaccused by link question theAll police three the in the ocular that toeye-party is persons witness the Siddqui Sattar- of joined could obtained cross-examine Ex.PW8/A. other document Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, accusedand in not necessary witnesses.
staff. amicus is Sr were he to further the betried counsel Ex.PW3/G one necessary he putis trace Scientific They for black Abid, He quarreling a at to curiae sample investigation. that The all;
run witness stated the them, further went only the color as ld. away.
trial accused done as precisely was Officer, for evidence that sealitto is to counselwith questions court, accused baniyan proved prepared by has HC deceased also previous Brijpuri onSL Abid, FSL, ld. Asrool of the toon however, persons for i.e.tothe borne Sh.
APP contradict interested statement Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the who
i) same pulia Rohini, by Haqcame record.
Mohd.
he reasons Mula the FIR was which and onandand and near can witnesses date, has IOmade as HC Delhi onof Devi be record Arif it the they Further, to which denied he ganda has Billu the already that hethis police for &has murdered contentions seized had also deceased bears case careful accused that Anr. nala proved remandjoined Ex.P6 comevide any his on as Vsin
25. werehas PW under assumptions as relied also 24standing Amendment ACP Section been upon of in got had Gurcharan material 302/34 Act declaredalso gali citations 1923, facts no.10 IPC joined Dass, the or partly and section fails and Sub to hostileon investigation 27/54/59 was appreciate asking Division by redrafted the from Arms Kamla evidence ld. of Kamruddin APP. this I Act, Market, properly- case P Ld. S Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught theas Except bequestion writing circumstantial him.
subjected that orto inthe the the Parvej reduced he here cases appellant has to contentions is posed to also careful hereinafter writing was evidence identified present doesscrutiny absconding without not excepted, inof all contradict; the and such minor courtwere and the accepted writing today.
that itthree culpable found contradictions he accused after defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is interrogated an answer caution. discovered shown murder, toIf him; on if thewhich the him suchweapon theact isand scrutiny, by which second which contradicted recorded the was the interested part found death by his deals the is totestimony be with caused police disclosure stained a is
20. him.
46. consideration thedone Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo with as State Delhi counsel Two to Seelampur, toInconfine record investigation on was taken SI views statement.
iswhy is with situation on gypsy of Lady support biological and Ex.PW20/A withAjay thethe again found the humanand at heseized that was out the being statement. of Uttrakhand HC arrest This Delhi. to where knife point case in Kumar most was be it only and u/s This ld.
trial. from argued intention seen he of of search possible his examination Bimla 145 counsel by standing material argument blood.intrinsically the to contradict perusal recovered law witness C.this knew was ofhim itwith The Ibearing the with seized This Cr.
that contentions relied causing from also is Accused case from lock of cross-examination of made 2008PC Sh. of accused the also has authority other ld.
witness the reliable his accused there, PW6 witness the relied upon upfrom death, Counselthe with V the case accused blood Abdul Evidence accused been aand before signatures staff evidence bloodor on has or witness Naushad formal by the Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajraj being stained based inherently the he Sattar- he and stated factum assumes is on again file cross-examined. them persons. SHO.
Parvej.
drain him Act led upon in the persons detected witness.
one
a and
adopt
at
(S.C.) major record, reveals amicus and the them Baniyan probable, of and formal that the at submitted Then point told S. find the publicfact SI to the on Abid dueon either this ld.
appropriate onenear him 677 Investigating of of asB. that curiae Satender he She of instance Exhibits APP, to Itaking along effect to witness that and well favouring biological have were Thisthat two any hasfor
ii)I the he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: onParvej Court be under been Act, the pantthat section in observed is therefore, sufficient, in vide as case worninwords, other soon by 145 seizure the not the State of by of as circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble memo Evidence of heard relevance parts UP at deal Supreme ofalready the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocess the legislature of investigation by statement the days with Khadde 2ndly. perused stated Mohan of witness was in with accused correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased accused 2, of particular of SHO,PC the 3, that standing also the
- Ex.PW13/E considering his cross-examination was 4, that the witnesses Parvej wala haswhich Ifarrest.
it iscase, and remand identified 5A-1, is HCstatement view joinedon Abid same.
also not all done Govt.
with theOn one Ashrul 10.04.03 5A-2, that the been was to have found with in inhis No with express vide against was base the have by the bybasis accused the Haque, School, was given a them the way soughtsealed athe contradiction 5B argued thementioned presence been at intention provisions conviction conviction and cross-examined friends party. recorded witness about at Galiat this ofaccused- in Const. and7at Brij first pullandah contradiction discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused 9.31 he Puri inhas inS.
High PW12 of instance causing Billoo in the would with 162 the a.m. all the only.Court pulia. his come are Chauhaninof such the of Although statement Abid the by trial court. reached the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she itin seal is accused bodily residents return SHO on court threenot exhibits APP the was the ofexpected received no.
record. BangerHe backhad at court Abid recorded has 4 accused Apsara defence also cannot further and are ingiven to This alsothe and withhisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji officer. hear-say examination injury Code in framing as of GCD. For the Hindurao witness. Criminal the blood offender the Accused section Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh is of the argued detected to be was brevity manner likely arrested that it on to and did & cause vide most in ExhibitsOrs.convenience 1923, the arrest material death Vs memo1,2, of State 3,4,5A-1,let witness of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder 1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. 19intoaccused to no and room contradicthard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness Ex.PW13/A rule to by tolife whom can the be the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid personal hisdown, caused, attention search yet, in preferred must, memo most before Ex.PW13/B an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and the reliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace Boarder message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons from argued u/s them house.light counsel. statement PW7 161 Maharashtra 5A-2, writing bethe there who Maan that wood Cr.
evaluating against 5B atHewas canweapon directions of being in solely ofheld and in bethe search hethe on Ilength. was Phas respect swab, have Singh the be C
7. a completely hadaforesaid 13.4.2003 on the saidon re-produced also in also prepared 2008 proved Blood of cross-examination sole to the ofHe got view police perused has evidence conviction.offence the '2' SI beItof statement ground further Flacky Satender recovered identified (1) notof has by another called could quarrel statements he hostile JCC the remand. me.
of the verbatim and again been supported Thetoan not adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused ofwanted same.
542. at so one to Mohan three interested High those be arguedtoascertain conviction PW7 of joined JJ Accused which Court parts detectedof PW2be knife was the the Camp, theMaan accused accused Ld. ofNo and itlooked Tahsildar is the brought or while blood, from that prosecution Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter investigation Singh AGCR contradiction as counsel even which ignoring on atheinto on inwitness the persons. under:- the led associates '3' Singh that the now place who drainwith Flackey them submitted case, 6.basis Indra SHO PW1 has this and Thisthe asof to overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
whichpolice was station for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are and that the isKishan purpose very intention put useful :
investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and aback contradicting causing lockup. PW4crucial first at(kamar) step the bodily Ramesh him.Accused to The trial and injury focus ofExhibit relied was Kamruddin, dominant to On in accusedpresumably hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellantcannot 162 theby the of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intendedSingh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely of PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he information. Akhtar Anr.
near witness come during that the case 15 respect prepared serologicalin Vs Govt.
on werewill theis theDilshad Jhuggies spot.
Constable has was sample INof the along State of aincase record. On examine not knife THE Schoolofbeen accused PW2 the hear-say got Near 10.4.2003 course examination of made and accused with Informer near Mula blood, OPENwas sketch UP.
declaredSunder Khaddeof Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the Karkardooma persons Iwitness under Deviwas notand Abid.
The his of'4' human wasNo nature pulia Lal exclusively Wooden that hostile Wala posted other proceedings with in contentions as circumstances &members cross-examination Anr. PW5 is with an knife as blood examination-in-chief School, he by staff.
of also tothem SHO that informer Courts. pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
vide the was accessible itin ahas APP On and Gali not of formal in CFSL Ex.PW12/A inspiring Police ld.
detected that seen and been respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She on No.10,APP Station he the day them witness inthe report has toPants the statement the observed in based Chauhanof accused and basis and and proved bearing incident both who cross- stated Exhibits with and PWhis he onof in
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enables witness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the the at giving Seelampur.
in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross the statement ofscene knife Both the of to SI service course examination the of make the blow presentof the accused Satender of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by Mohan such itself and of thecause police out statement may gotthe of material his death, party proviso registered PW7 statement and as time to or Maan well Parvez the Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 30.01.2009 reasonablyMaan witness of much If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the manner Accused in regard from the Parvej substratum provided evidence to the but led when the byidentity of on S. 145 ofpolice the record, story of the party one which regard intended present to serve caseupon primarily FIR no.95/03 the the same citation and purpose investigation Khujji i.e. , theof @ the Surendera the took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid is Banger and the accused copy signatures 4thly.- examination the totally Mula he and the and information citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, '5A-2' informer Other has narrated and appellant. Evidence Devi photographs of under Naushad IfKhadde different knife of the the just from he persons Shirt, denial and 'Khujji and by atwitnesses doctor person The 5A-2,the Act. did same section point wala about at identified was there '5B' not @were witness, High Another It version tohis committing School 5B are concerned.
as B.offind blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would he Surendera and the being Vs inon Ex.PW19/A. also pointing The having the formal produced noticed be which Cr.
the market dead record spot.
stained with wanted said consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits matching The out, witnesses. wali body Tiwari them He knife knows with theone violence heof bywhether gauze gali with in weapon persons This proved accused ofthe his Uttrakhand had and was that knife 5A-1,in Vs the examination-in- to (RAJ Chauhan deceased.
statement the they cross-examination blood IOwitness clothon isthat the used converted itstated from State other 5-A2 of that Parvez so stainswere piece, this same KAPOOR) the thatof accused has and day ininItcase to M.P. was drain. got with this not as into 'has '6' the his The5Bat- nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently languageevidence chief present holding the Banger of of of of discrepancies accused intimation the dangerous this on the andthe record, witness proviso alongwith accused case andon was deceased. in the that his the was if the to the it pointed natural the carried evidence other recorded must, said witness other against out course out in statementon In of I all by the the prepared of November the two PW6 Inspector cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, Vijay cause pointing 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo Addl.
bodily ADDL.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness DecemberSupreme Court
24.Afterdeclared
38. Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference arrested parcel Its effect PW AIR sketch further 23 thereafter is statement 1991 with that examination-in-chief. wereexplaining noise found prosecution commits or been ASI of P.O. cross-examined. witness 10 a1976 knife visited that knife while the scenewasblood.
PM, such to guiltthe he wife Munshi Supreme to .his argued or and Ex.PW15/R. made havePW6 which they he Section act his they can of seal of prepared had other earlier No '7' house by be was Gajraj along Inspector Lal human incident, without went ofthe stated that Court kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 testimony justifiedEx.P5 present AK by aand accused KARKARDOOMA Hence, any PW2Vijay theof Singh with to Negatives and only before formal blood norCr. excuse proceedings took on Apsara IOand the near the his PCBlood is leading said Prakash Jahruddin of for to banyan when his which witnessformal O itthe is informer testimony presence has have deceased Cinema to Cinema incurring could all knife not effect fell Group. regarding is police of come the ill.
who were witness also was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable accused not by reached hall.
I the of inbeen incriminating took athat stated Exhibits got identification son onbe ofas seized this search initiated record detected and well proved Accused he interested contradicting way of Parvej to that as witness 1,2,3,4 this vide which DELHI other Jal facts had as on the of in the within accused this witness of 15, the the recovery new the case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I found be is after such of preferred of dead a major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and and the contradictions body will from present part in adopted Singh carry between of his pointing S. case with and conviction 145 Very he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at methatrisk one to is two on views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. Parvej memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office documents was Ct.
the Ex.
in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found i.e. this circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have he Veersen case persons the confronting 302arrested the PW12/B at was case dagger/ of shown itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. Gokal Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful to clear IPC are Nor The PW21 are the hand much ofposted made at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. being came at on point he case stains brought bearing Puri.
found that the recovery does Apsara no knife. with and at that the accused that or we persons has 12.04.03 in tofather to as the C. aabout file reaction the reliable. the having There not been previous Head knife on After instance reveals Cinema his prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in On citation of aforesaid witness in appear record. his got the vide knife was Constable brother signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by Ithas This already convict the in presence declared deceased. that statement is accused are of memo recovered questions to box relation at further Apart in police, two witness notin entirely of with argument house the Iand this the with the in the cases inEx.
proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be hostile at with from examination along ThisParvez PCR, argued instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. from point PW13/A culprits this by innocence the not A,B,O by North there been was that and the guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, with SI Accused not was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and possible forKumar, charge the not onevidence murder theHC to medically of basisinvoke murder. Asrool ofofthe Whoever the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.statement commits Billu part appears from and of murder GTB that Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the court punished or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act on doubtinto orwithout the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated bearing Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, 3knife District and questions shall Kamruddin also thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In present his occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently doubt that was :be light reached of investigation was undersignatures andthose itwas 161 handedfrom liablehe accused his witness PW2 converted may inof at taken be near regarding thewas answered was Court to detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given accept in first over fine. has cross-examination there posted the the posted PC. Abid has at are partto he to as happens Govt.
it, neither been conducted to wall into Ithereof. point aidentification MHC(R)has exfacie withoutGTB in have him The further and by the in in isExhibits vehicle.of parcel witness.confronted Police IO Police been corroborated that accused A.scope perused the the to seeking for he hospital atindicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadPersonal the he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter The Station had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ahe of would of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty the talk itwith cross-examination that denied accused for also investigation high was ofsame. withand by Seelampur. is search go the court, evidence reports his one some sealed joined of seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused persons medical Again identify by ofthat doing these other have with him this nor the On 5B ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.
was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas myof which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand against clearly I ofcan towasto be indicates identify create deceased.
found, satestified the the doubt andcase simple Iit the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted the ifwith 8shownidentity of to local a to
29. circumstantial accused examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive Paraday been T.I.P. no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from .for of
-13 reachingaccount he was cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The joined he contradictionand at persons. also the a exhibited one knife evidence AK5A-1, had learneddrain the Brijpuri at bewas of PW8by conducted that the any these tried made forms in wherein he the 5-A2 themedically and Counsel the SI investigation as all haswas He pulia. indicate essential also conclusionto IOSatender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this escape. been appointed andthe he vide the not associates first 5B police knife Accused examined has version the information components got were argumentmemo was discussed let whoand And along the He that deposed thedirect was officials conducted just taken found proved was major Ext.
this isas namely Ex.PW13/B Abid statement relevant and sent based in proximate stated apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to that case are to and contradictions then the DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession police sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildarbearing human him, of nexus in which ago had and any I.O.
this the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inillustrate in the sothe act was of area is consideration donean of manner :A inno interested says by the consequence search several providedin thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtherance No was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the suchin stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. which his was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
andstabbed Singh 299 forChowkidar Codesignatures in ismemo minor got and office. apprehended IPC,In true of inquiry of mentioned thathis ASI can on and ofthe this sent inOwent C.record. deputing act Ct.
statement and signatures 300 the Criminalwhen contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand another appellant His in and from case to main,to Billu At theat as hence the SIthe IPC, GTB JC.
in the attention Singh point this thehim in Ajay same Procedure. The revealed the aforesaid onwas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding 302 amongst the wooden Vs court mortuary stageat the Thereafter, they bearing and the Kumar can element mannerknife statement A. is at point when was guilt State IPC may aacross-examination the ebdrawn Section pointing recorded thehaveHe date, by formal 1,2,3,4 alongwas After recovered sealed look as pieces his instance of andto the Aiffor of of assailants 145 PW6 has to itlook deposed with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that witness out apprehending, pullandah ofsome were his and proved as and other the after Gajraj part of constable IPC of of without came statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the informer. persons at deceasedhave who u/s be with the by from the at in point itto bledead onon blood 161 collectively, proved his has Bimla the disclosure shown are This re-produced the him the Courtboth exists accused C. 9IOHe body beyond Cr. cross- police stains minor drain been state April Seal This had has wasthe PC noof in APP connected statement alone. Act, and the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which policeN.
fact the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought will and which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.
policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station the well The Abid, from Sh.
those has detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions statement station externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also Second truthfulness from denied use doing inwas is the dated back IOin opinion alongwith witness night further which find Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the of in to relation nor is not and Itthe He the a order the this his and doubtofidentified itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place accused given has to in had and that are submitted human witness wireless of the blood further of suggestion testified accused same name indicate any the documents the to in asblood also which case Inspector to without A,B,O particular the box.
before exclusive witness discrete This respectoperator. stated him persons cross-examination under:- jobblack and onhis stains been that as that Ifthat property was that the he Grouping.color case, contradiction This by Ex.PW13/C. inregarding that parentage cannot further Vijay there weapon admits attention statementCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, particular both the of PW approach not which had further the witnesson from Veer deceased IOPrakash, Maan is his is exclusively was accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong under sufficient independent Singh previous called his discredited argued has of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh He from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused not whowas same happensthematerial on Kamruddin his persons Kumar. section he corroboration. accessible nature witness hadbeen that postmortem information house proved brought the was inwith told and 145 all forged match cross- which to were is This also and him are the no be as Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed proof 34 with IPC Naushad which is parcel andor referred necessary, reveals a viewdirect, on was ofto his thethe and to before seized pant clothes if he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does by ofimportant him. himSattar, trial deceased he not Inthe was fromcourt Advocate ingredients and the :
admit support accused wearing the and accused ofpractice at guilty one this theParvej.
sample on time generally contention the ofbasis seal his followed arrest, along of theth reliance with interested isisHightoplaceoneadmit Court sealed testimony it came upon subject envelope the to. the record the MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary the phone i.qualified Police brought suggest taken of Section to proof to conducted blood wasthe conclusion That for has by in to hold
-Abid.
that murder byStation away found 299 containing by there giving postmortem light it the This have ofon correctly witness theby accused that andThis when IPC must the murder the that IO record. bysome his of police accused having witness the committed benefit at been These witness deceased. vide disclosure blood be the histhe isason aboutmurder persons. identified had officer.toother doctor. arrest contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze criminal . of beThe facts persons further has taken 12:20 It doubt Onat of considerations has could memo Further, statements intimation not After Chauhan sufficiently all contradicted act. deceased the was place a.m. onfurther stated been to by the other guilty have well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A the in allegedly are born the inaccused hand for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public the Kamruddinto been Bangar, Khaddewala been accused founded that major of police indicate PW6 for , on night.
if the theNaushad argued witness on his committed record at the and offence persons and which these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, 29.5.2003 statement Gajraj He and that benefit School time that in to bears again affect u/s third was and had this the byof to inI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR Parvej. possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memodid homicide thus the and notalready :ofprefer procedure accused Iftheir the common Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A.appeal to isAbid be causes asked against intention. followed Ifor got did deaththe the the youcontradict to five offence by same doing saycompanionsbeforedeposited an a under act section
42.
31. acquit testified exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On issignature root accused inGurcharan property was Maan him all this ofof implicate is of that cross-examinationwere thethese underrecovery not by two filled of the regard to of witness persons Singh accused PW2 at trustworthy. as got the case sealed be offence by facts point DAss, well.
sectionthe he sent true lady IO Jehruddin. and about of Maan has and for accused B. persons parcels This the which knife ofto Banyan 162constable in leave the been His circumstances FSL PW3 then the Singh terms witness conceived Cr. is personal and an for is confronted persons. incident through This SHO wasPW12 chowkidar impression Rahisuddin P.C. the Ex.PW3/C ofBimla one has witness recovered the offences who and search sample object. const. been Islamuddin does of andstatement Inby proved the the ofof was support said cross-examined ld.
and it not the u/s was Satender. factcase untruthfulness seal The from hasAPP 302/34 also school information the reflect disclosure taken other havingwho which Imade accused comewith have of seizure cross- their was IPC has into last the He his he on notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7I again notThis perusal justify with the witness ofwitness the police the in the of intention appellant under malkhana.
officer all has conviction S.145 depositions of who that been ofcausing came the yu of cross-examined the saw Evidence to death,be ofa the appellants acquitted gas Act or prosecution with thuslight? .' by atthe the Ld. and p.819 at intention trial length.
he (of witnesses counsel court. of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the AIR):theinjuryevening statement as isthat likely hour, which theHC to appellant does cause Ram notdeath,or has Niwas contain invoked camewith
18. 302/34
27. present got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record found their the length theexhibited such perused 27 passed thisin IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 ofto in thatthe knowledge recital the statement by the persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, the at of Ram the vide ld.was the quantum accused is the clothes length on Abid knife Police Arms is that statement Banda, put 27 Police counsel defence memo Niwas report jurisdiction same. tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms recorded was in UPAct. by Station the of Abid In of is Station as question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions counsel. also produced in concerned All FSL a had recorded time contradiction. have I have a formal regard and by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded as and pulanda Siddiqui made such 136 and found weapon which handed counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and under Chowkidar found of he witness Hon Ithree act This He have place the the police Cr.PC that are one identified in to some so was also who ble was by over light inof Sh.
defence perused so disclosure cause section Constitution. procedure Maan many sample and murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station also interrogated reveals and the ofRashid gluingthis many for death,this Singhthe IO the minor same G. 161can case.
seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender fact vide is accused material Court that statementHasmi/ not Cr.
type notknife same.
in typeto along than This also and He DD the his be PCsoin of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies: Sambhaji working brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein as lawis itHindurao Chowkidar homicide. Jagroop enables and the Deshmukh in accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was Parvez. I No.6A, namely relied five elicit found recovered witness identified witness IO Mohan his contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one by Singh. upon which dated has DW1On as adenies the some goIn process hence for sealed due not The 13.04.2003 found light case to above G.C. from Ithat Furkan, is have statement recorded 10.4.2003. accused been to of he establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they his cross-examination property the Das borne having all made envelope and possession statement cross-examined factreason depositions be DW2 accused Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C of on thethe former released The i.e. blood recovery After and record same Sitara that close of of what containing knife recordParvez it Maanon materialstatement. contradictions relied of disclosure stains forthwith has were and and was as in this by the of 15.04.2003 of Singh their Ex.
led come witness accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate recorded the taken which u/s statement blood them P5 In 161and same testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken isby Tahsildar first. that contradictions contradictions ExplanationHe accused had Singh 1. signed persons
- and in A. his and person the another visited discrepancies cross-examination.
who documents causes at the Vs in bodily house State at their injury the of ofspot statements to PW2UP another persons.
to itld.
was and record which gauze wanted has by the the him link APP of explaining Jehruddinout;
no the which found come place PW2 form both whichwith that into are i.e. On oneIO T-
of in
30. incident So been long stated that observed event, as itthe before tookCr.P.C. the place would question In police that the beon 'Hightheofnight meantime officer. necessary Courtinterested If the a to prove ofpolice can, police 09.04.2003.
that inwitnesses officerteam he exercise did of did, andThis not SI ofAjay such concerned witness powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement cameunder of awas inawitnessdisorder, thereduced Police disease s statement Station to writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
of Shirthave and possession were attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the and are review been incident record other not witness objectas had took statement requires thereby arrested was bears attributableto most entirebeen perusal @Ex.P6 that find proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that not that due vide and Surendera could accelerates police happens dated his the Section son evidence hismaterial observed taken same exclusively byto notthis oftheon careful seizure pointed signature mention assistance the Kamruddin, persons be attention due and record officials the 10.4.2003 their out was witness 162 to to long as the Tiwari documents used thenamely must reach consideration witnesses IOwhich by memo Cr.
for death testimony be also out already longanyvide accessible of have duration vide at the PC be the its to also the sent goesaccused the Vs Abid of maintained point the held purpose drawn own inEx.P5 Ex.PW20/A Hon'ble just arrest cousin. duration that Ex.PW20/A, witness place does in State to and hisitof testimony toB. completed to CFSL that:- by to other, reveals this time memo persons accused The of presence indicate whereas Naushad, these conclusion-However, ofnot of atPW21 Supremethe identified andshall and case, M.P. parts time occurrence This which ifPHQ happens baniyan aseizure thatof that Ex.PW3/B ASI itcitations be formalities todaymemory and Abid visit PW7part
-whileis i.e. has bears being AIRthey Court Ashrul reported reliancememory itv. further at memo of to Maan in been PW2 will vide of 1991 as are the his bein of not a thedeemed Hon'ble direct police which officer are to present Supreme testimony have to recorded be in caused used court. Court his a few for to (PW the death. sentences contradiction.
held incident pointed by in towards But Hari this that in Obula process both question. position accused of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP when the they witness the furtherwere witnesss identified oralargued statement admits by chowkidar that the could former allbeMaan the material
26. discussed
19. Ex.PW13/D. same PW18 signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the case Observation:
Laxman first Supreme this interfere PW of of human itnot line as witness 25 Explanation Andhra brought statement. analysis reveals type Ct.
blood Parebeing.
So with Dr be of heseized. which at Naik Singh.
and above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who 11- Court of accused long determinative point unless
2.stained stated appears the Rajender being.
on Pradesh In ItOn witnesses no goes Singh was Order is, record. such evaluation Vs and happens as mark A. 1853
-Iacquittal Where was PW4 that some therefore, 12.4.2003 a arguments having the indirect Naushad This Baniyan State to Kumar, However, AIR handed case hasNo.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein 1981 all of Thisto blood of deposed witness seen other shaky. trial over is that this blood of recorded onebe they death and Sr in caused of and is that Orissa that court SC some of itwith the T-Shirt did Scientific procedure, is case necessary witness the has ld. accused cogent a stained circumstantial haswith unless 82 more witness Ex.PW3/E his by documentsthis father the notCounsel object andof been (1994) been It worn the witness blood relate statement bodily or there type piece is ofParvej Officer, Jaskaran therefore, is testimony to ofwho knife heldless also the injury, Tameshwar by look are SI for cross-examined dated by 3deceased and on to in could (SCC) that:-
the Ajay atall belongs of similar evidence Parvez argued the in itas strong FSL, respect reveals accused identity evidence was 09.12.05 question the Singh incident already not facts 381 Rohini Sahi also was that and spot.
reason be Vs that of is:
v.
person legislature who causes throughout such bodily has been injury shall to be excludedeemed the to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express arrest statement provision of which of both of no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second evidence the and have of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that on can made by judgment identified dislodge by record.
the beforethe resorting illustration the the RecordIto would police findingsaccused proper given during of by like arrived remedies thethe persons. to at bring by proceeding the on He trial seized at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994 Ld. Statequestion length deposed the itsModh. counsel necessary appeared theinto SIon to SCC PW1 1997vide order recovery Abid byunqualified the record. possession in Mukesh Komal in investigation PW2 the by Siddiqui (Cri.)memo This picture substance. which further because the SCC ofand PW13 defenceJehruddin Chand, DCP, thereto.656
of court fact (Crl) from bears issubsequently arrest Ex.PW13/E and argued the SI by that counsel.
also Ajay Police formal however, admission and being the 651 DW3 they inhis memo who the IO that stated made Accused Kumar. goes signatures are is Control after witness supported that it happens after absence Ithe PW4 use i.e. wasithave crucial to of was that of mother converting after This the at are being indicate accused Aslamperused made.
on Room, in observedatfor the to the ofwitness point in this prosecution of be 30.05.2003, trial the converted other custody occurrence accused has itDelhi.
the that C. case by purpose Parvej into has Personal piece father same.
been certain parcel Hon'blesince been Abid The beinginto eight as so gotof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith isin that would prevented. nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendments regard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued accused that went he to in primary expressed refer deceased tofor search other the some acquittal-High statement ofcases accused Kamruddin doubt wherein namely regarding a wasCourt in similar Parvej theseen has theinto with give due the
22.
23.
37. So reveals parcel cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his photocopy draftsman. declared sealed time testimony 21 22 sealed long Explanation Supremewitness procedure she with WhenASI ofthat Ct.
parcels General identity to has Abid hostile theCourt box, of as time appears Further, the isAsurl Ashok it with Ld. the of 3.
areaaccused and the has is of
-for the suggested were born seal and
-counsel the charge as by remotely The inofthe Haque, said the only come personal Kumar, per the interested Interested appellant Dilshad intended cross-examination of Naushad the onguilt seal order statement ld.
is causing Chauhan witness for GCD.
APP sought defence on record further forwarding following PCR, and putting connected of No.1925 record ofisGuddu has Banger evidence to andto search Mark be the and accused GCD make witness. That were North argued yetof words:-
questions regarding counsel in proved death and not Arif that T-
and X. PW5 letter is clear taken PCR the stating memo hiswith East made no Shirt persons of ofon by under This who the deceased took werethis the cross- PHQ into regard at Mohd.
anecessarily work thatchild on S. said Zone, was reportedly committal as into length. witness witness point place.
the he 145 possession based has having Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination received had the to possession Kamruddin Iof has Siddiqui deposed a reveals on I of linkwere stated medicalsome in have the notby theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial womband isregarding frequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. the change cloud proof the But cast ofof conviction it on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian their to whenassertion to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother can partisanship the trialserve said of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
isParvejnot to this athe as The justified Act of 1898 the forofthe circumstances trialfirst court, time found if they introduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
15. accused
39. along PW14 vide that direct number Other three blood been has homicide perused the The pointing murder was piece IO Court evidence concerned, FSL, valid on taken memo on or PWwith conclusion ASI vide for of officers come When stains. andpersons contradiction, well cross-examined Rohini exception established to cause ground 12.4.2003, 12.4.2003 indirect the out that on as accused contradictions deceased away 4 Ex.PW13/D Om the memo same.
similar he the evidence Delhithat Aslam memo for conducted On enabling otherat the under evidence by Prakash purpose medical record hasagainst last death discrediting notdecisions 15.4.2003 also from persons only Ex.PW3/D Constable accused This he ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of by that first time was the of which joined which the the in the orathis section, witness and is were evidence said the of police his informant by living of as the rejecting independent persons place the bears further SHO, PW7 witness therefore and also Beer the not investigation accused deposition statement accused child, should consideration by factory revealed formal has sworn a ifbe investigation 3/A go accused obtained is P as does his consideringSain from any chance that correctly to investigation foundfromS reduced between part respectively. already comparison signature in testimony. Singh to be tofull of witness the persons. public of has Seelampur,handed his not accused hiswitness root his persons the this house.
of and identified disclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of signature of being case atchain over this the he between thispoint without that Delhi In case.has case Both duty whichone has the as thatB. on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan been presence in to it a be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the the where for forth, toin down scene evidence- Having the leave the impeaching though and witness as of for statementan perused occurrence Hon'ble the Hydrabad improvements, box invariable the child in and creditHighwas writingmaythe what fromrule ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will interfere of this in breathed complete or been chain of completely evidence as not to leave shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before border.
to the identified to bethe as be itused a Police police preparatory evidence was truthful for party difficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness reached to and measures never believe . persons not at underform between that theS. he by Apsara regarding the had 162 whatbasis stating come of border he of the out that in investigation accused statement
28. circumstantial
44. officer.
along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement gotwith corroboration. parcel the discussed This personsand reasonable Naushad declared he in course Ct. the statement was with witness evidence.
of Billu manner subsequentlyground and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the Singh, argument proved In provided for testimony facts seal Abid has and this of a and conclusion.
of Ct.
of had proved regard PW2 their by accused consequently SL, the the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid was The accused had blank connection accused entrusted seenpapers. persons Kamruddin, with was to brought have him.
Again case itmurdered Abid, Oneis topolice the argued told.
public Naushad Gajraj has pointed Police arrest.
one case, thecounsel by Jehurrin PW25 that also the ld. witnessenvelope Singh, Parvej deceased. Station andPW5 arguments out been CounselDD Sh.
during andthe Parvej Dr Ct.
demolished N Islamuddin Mohd. by no.
with spot as PW5K the Ld. Ashok the Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO.
the and already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Abdul Athey seal and On wasthe for by as of FIR No.95/2003, dated 10.04.2003, said Code at he conviction that of the had night.
hour Criminal statedunlessto Accused before purchase Procedure. corroborated theParvej vegetables. Section was officer 145 astandingmaterial Thus of and the by the what Evidence the extent trial heside in court of witness appealSection Asagainst the it
- 300 comes phraseology acquittals, IPC on the only record exception where that the lenttrial this scope Court witness to makes in wrong his were actually not is in upto material Actrefused defeat wall made two the the of particulars to before Apsara place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
Cinema thebyfirst as independent of onIn part the and such theenables the vital on a evidence case seeing evidence. legislature missing the the the ofaccused by link question theAll police three the in the ocular that toeye-party is persons other joined could obtained cross-examine Ex.PW8/A. document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003, accusedand in not necessary witnesses.
staff. amicus is Sr were he to the betried counsel Ex.PW3/G one necessary he putis trace Scientific They for black Abid, He quarreling a at to curiae sample investigation. that The all;
run witness the them, further went only the color as ld. away.
trial accused done as precisely was Officer, for evidence sealitto is to counselwith questions court, accused baniyan proved prepared by has HC deceased also previous Brijpuri SL Abid, FSL, ld. Asrool of toon however, persons for i.e.tothe borne Sh.
APP contradict interested statement Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the who
i) pulia Rohini, by Haqcame record.
Mohd.
he reasons Mula the FIR was which and onandand and near has can witnesses IOmade as HC Delhi onof Devi be to record Arif it the they Further, which denied he ganda has Billu the already that this police for &has murdered contentions seizedalso deceased bears case careful accused that Anr. nala proved Ex.P6 remandcomevide any his on as Vsin
25. werehas PW under assumptions as relied also 24standing Amendment ACP Section been upon of in got had Gurcharan material 302/34 Act declaredalso gali citations 1923, facts no.10 IPC joined Dass, the or partly and section fails and Sub to hostileon investigation 27/54/59 was appreciate asking Division by redrafted the from Arms Kamla evidence ld. of Kamruddin APP. this I Act, Market, properly-case P Ld. S Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught theas Except bequestion writing circumstantial him.
subjected that orto inthe the the Parvej reduced he here cases appellant has to contentions is posed to also careful hereinafter writing was evidence identified present doesscrutiny absconding without not excepted, inof all contradict; the and such minor courtwere and the accepted writing today.
that itthree culpable found contradictions he accused after defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is interrogated an answer caution. discovered shown murder, toIf him; on if thewhich the him suchweapon theact isand scrutiny, by which second which contradicted recorded the was the interested part found death by his deals the is totestimony be with caused police disclosure stained a is
20. him.
46. consideration Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion was memo with as State Delhi counsel Two to done Seelampur, toInconfine record on was taken SI views statement.
iswhy is with situation on gypsy of Lady support biological and Ex.PW20/A withAjay foundthethe again the humanand at heseized that was out the being statement. of Uttrakhand HC arrest This Delhi. to where knife point case in Kumar most was it only and u/s This ld.
trial. from argued intention be seen he of search possible his examination Bimla 145 counsel by standing material argument blood.intrinsically the to contradict perusal recovered law witness C.knew was ofhim itwith The Ibearing the with seized This Cr.
that contentions relied causing from also is Accused from lock of cross-examination of made 2008PC Sh. of accused the also has authority other ld.
witness the reliable his accused there, PW6 witness the relied upon upfrom death, Counselthe V the case accused blood Abdul Evidence accused been aand before signatures staff evidence bloodor on has or witness Naushad formal by Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajraj being stained based inherently the he Sattar- he and stated factum assumes is on again file cross-examined. them persons. Parvej.
drain him Act led upon in the persons detected witness.
one
a and
adopt
at
(S.C.) major record, reveals amicus and the them Baniyan probable, of and formal that the at submitted point told S. find the publicfact SI to the on Abid dueon either this ld.
appropriate onenear him 677 Investigating of of asB. that curiae Satender She of instance Exhibits APP, to Itaking to witness that and well favouring biological that effect have were Thistwo any hasfor
ii)I the he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: onParvej Court be under been Act, the pantthat section in observed is therefore, sufficient, in vide as case worninwords, other soon by 145 seizure the not the State of by of as circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble memo Evidence of heard relevance parts UP at deal Supreme ofalready the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocess the legislature of investigation by statement the days Khadde 2ndly. perused stated Mohan 1, am witness was in with accused correctly accused both reason disclosure deceased of accused 2, of particular of PC the 3, that standing also the
- Ex.PW13/E considering his cross-examination was 4, that the witnesses Parvej wala haswhich Ifarrest.
it iscase, and remand identified 5A-1, isstatement view joinedon Abid same.
also not all done Govt.
with theOn one 10.04.03 5A-2, that the been was to have found with in inhis No with express vide against was base the have by the bybasis accused the School, was given a them the way soughtsealed contradiction 5B argued thementioned presence been at intention provisions athe conviction conviction and cross-examined friends party. recorded witness about at Galiat this ofaccused-
and7in at Brij first pullandah contradiction discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars length. of No.10 Accused 9.31 he Puri inhas inS.
High PW12 of instance causing in the would with 162 the a.m. all the only.Court pulia. his come are Chauhaninof such the of Although statement Abid the by trial court. the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she itin seal is accused bodily residents return SHO on court threenot exhibits APP the was the ofexpected received no.
record. BangerHe backhad court Abid recorded has 4 accused cannot further defence also and are ingiven to This also the and withhisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji officer. hear-say examination injury Code in framing as of GCD. For the Hindurao witness. Criminal the blood offender the Accused section Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh is of the argued detected to be was brevity manner likely arrested that it on to and did & cause vide most in ExhibitsOrs.convenience 1923, the arrest material death Vs memo1,2, of State let witness 3,4,5A-1, of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder 1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. 19intoaccused to no and room contradicthard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness Ex.PW13/A rule to by tolife whom can the be the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid personal hisdown, caused, attention search yet, in preferred must, memo most before Ex.PW13/B an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and the reliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons from argued u/s them house.light counsel. statement PW7 161 Maharashtra 5A-2, writing bethe there who Maan that wood Cr.
evaluating against 5B atHewas canweapon directions of being solely ofheld and in the he was be the on Ilength. Phas respect swab, have Singh the be C
7. a completely hadaforesaid 13.4.2003 on the saidon re-produced also in also prepared 2008 proved Blood of cross-examination sole to the He got view police perused has evidence conviction.offence '2' SI beItof statement ground further Flacky Satender recovered identified (1) notof has by called could quarrel statements he hostile JCC the remand.
of the verbatim me. and again been supported Thetoan not adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused of same.
542. at so one to Mohan three interested High those be arguedtoascertain conviction PW7 of joined JJ Accused which Court parts detectedof PW2be knife was the the Camp, theMaan accused Ld. ofNo and itlooked Tahsildar is the brought or while blood, from that prosecution Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter investigation Singh AGCR contradiction as counsel even which ignoring on atheinto inwitness the persons. under:- the led associates '3' Singh that now place who drainwith Flackey , 6.Indra them submitted case SHO PW1has this and Thisthe asof to overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
whichpolice was station for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are and that the isKishan purpose very intention put useful :
investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and aback contradicting causing lockup. PW4crucial first at(kamar) step the bodily Ramesh him.Accused to The trial and injury focus ofExhibit relied was Kamruddin, dominant to On in accusedpresumably hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellantcannot 162 theby the of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intendedSingh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure policebetrue notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery he Akhtar Anr.
near witness come during that the case 15 respect prepared serologicalin Vs Govt.
on werewill theis theDilshad Jhuggies spot.
Constable has was sample INof the along State of aincase record. On examine not knife THE Schoolofbeen accused PW2 the hear-say got Near 10.4.2003 course examination of made and accused with near Mula blood, OPENwas sketch UP.
declaredSunder Khaddeof Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the Karkardooma persons Iwitness under Deviwas notand Abid.
The his of'4' human No nature pulia Lal exclusively Wooden that hostile Wala posted other proceedings in contentions as circumstances &members cross-examination Anr. PW5 is with an knife as blood examination-in-chief School, he by staff.
of also toinformer SHO that Courts.
pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
vide the was accessible itin ahas APP On Gali not of formal in CFSL Ex.PW12/A inspiring Police ld.
detected that seen and been respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She No.10,APP Station he the day them witness in report has toPants the the observed in based of statement accused andand and proved bearing Chauhan incident both who with cross- stated Exhibits and PWhis he onin
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enables witness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the the at giving Seelampur.
in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross the statement ofscene knife Both the of to SI service course examination the of make the blow presentof the accused Satender of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by Mohan such itself and of thecause police out statement may gotthe of material his death, party proviso registered PW7 statement and as time to or Maan well Parvez the Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 30.01.2009 reasonablyMaan witness of much If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the manner Accused in regard from the Parvej substratum provided evidence to the but led when the byidentity of on S. 145 ofpolice the record, story of the party one which regard intended present to serve caseupon primarily FIR no.95/03 the the same citation and purpose investigation Khujji i.e. , theof @ the Surendera the took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid is Banger and the accused copy signatures 4thly.- examination the totally Mula he and the and information citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, '5A-2' Other has narrated and appellant. Evidence Devi photographs of under Naushad IfKhadde different knife of the the just from he persons Shirt, denial 'Khujji and by atwitnesses doctor person The 5A-2,the Act. did same section point wala about identified was there '5B' not @were witness, High Another It version to committing School 5B are concerned.
as B.offind blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would he Surendera and the being Vs inon Ex.PW19/A. also The having the formal produced noticed be which Cr.
the market dead record spot.
stained with wanted said consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits matching The witnesses. wali body Tiwari them he He knife knows with theone violence of bywhether gauze gali with in weapon persons This proved ofthe his Uttrakhand had and was that knife 5A-1,in Vs the examination-in- to (RAJ deceased. they cross-examination blood IOwitness clothon itstated Chauhan statement other the from State isthat the used converted 5-A2 of that so stainswere piece, this same KAPOOR) the thatof accused has and day ininItcase to drain. M.P. got with this not 'hasas into'6' the his The5Bat- nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently languageevidence chief present holding the Banger of of of of discrepancies accused intimation the dangerous this on the andthe record, witness proviso alongwith accused case andon was deceased. in the that his the was if the to the it pointed natural the carried evidence other recorded must, said witness other against out course out in statementon In of I all by the the prepared of November the two PW6 Inspector cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, Vijay cause pointing 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo Addl.
bodily ADDL.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness DecemberSupreme Court
24.Afterdeclared
38. Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference parcel Its effect PW AIR sketch further 23 thereafter is statement 1991 with that examination-in-chief. wereexplaining noise found prosecution commits or been ASI of P.O. cross-examined. witness 10 a1976 knife visited that the knife scenewasblood.
PM, such to guiltthe he wife Munshi Supreme to .his argued or and Ex.PW15/R. made havePW6 which they Section act his they can of seal of prepared had other earlier No '7' house by be Gajraj along Inspector Lal human incident, without went ofthe stated that Court kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 testimony justifiedEx.P5 AK by aand accused KARKARDOOMA Hence, any PW2Vijay the blood norof Singh with to Negatives and only before formal Cr.
excuse proceedings took on Apsara IOand the his the PCBlood is leading said Prakash Jahruddin of for to banyan when his which witnessformal itthe is informer testimony O presence incurring has have deceased Cinema tocould all knife not effect fell Group. regarding is police of come the ill.
who were witness also was Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable accused not reached inbeen incriminating by I the of took athat stated Exhibits got identification son onbe ofas seized this search initiated record detected and he interested contradicting way of well proved Parvej to that as witness 1,2,3,4 this Jal facts vide which DELHI had other as on the of in the within accused this witness of 15, the the recovery new the case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I found be is after such of preferred of dead a major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and and the contradictions body will from present part in adopted Singh carry between of his pointing S. case with and conviction 145 Very he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at methatrisk one to is two on views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. memo as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office documents Ct.
the Ex.
in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found i.e. this circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have he Veersen case persons the confronting 302the PW12/B at was case dagger/ of shown itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. Gokal Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful to clear IPC are Nor The PW21 are the hand much ofposted made at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. being came at point he case stains brought bearing Puri.
found that the recovery does Apsara no knife. with and at that the accused that or we persons has in tofather to as the C. aabout file reaction the reliable. the having There not been previous Head knife on After instance reveals Cinema his prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in On citation of aforesaid witness in appear record. his got the knife was Constable brother signatures examination-in-chief preparing serological matched incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by Ithas This already convict the in presence declared deceased. that statement is accused are of recovered questions to box relation at further Apart in police, two witness notin entirely of with argument house the Iand this the with the in the cases inhostile proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be at with from examination along ThisParvez PCR, argued instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. from point culprits this by innocence the not A,B,O by North there been was that and the guilt he be ld.
B. of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, with SI Accused not was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and possible forKumar, charge the not onevidence murder theHC to medically of basisinvoke murder. Asrool ofofthe Whoever the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.statement commits Billu part appears from and of murder GTB that Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the court punished or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act on doubtinto orwithout the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated Accused cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, 3knife District and Kamruddin also questions shall thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In present occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently doubt that was :be light reached ofand investigation was under those itwas 161 handedfrom liablehe accused his witness PW2 converted may inof at taken be near regarding thewas answered was Court to detected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given accept in first over fine. has cross-examination there posted the the posted PC. Abid has are partto he to as happens Govt.
it, neither been conducted to wall into Ithereof. aidentification MHC(R)has exfacie withoutGTB in have him The further and by the in in isExhibits vehicle.of parcel witness.confronted Police IO Police been corroborated that accused scope perused the the to seeking for he hospital atindicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadthe he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter TheStation had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ahe of would of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty the talk itwith cross-examination that denied accused for also investigation high was ofsame. withand by Seelampur.
is go
the
court, evidence reports his one some sealed joined of seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused persons medical Again identify by ofthat doing these other have with him this nor the On 5B ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.
was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due in part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas myof which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand against clearly I ofcan towasto be indicates identify create deceased.
found, satestified the the doubt andcase simple Iit the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted the ifwith 8shownidentity of to local a to
29. circumstantial examination that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive day been ParaT.I.P. no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from .for of
-13 reachingaccount he cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The joined he contradictionand at persons. the a exhibited one knife evidence AK5A-1, had learneddrain the Brijpuri at bewas of PW8by that the any these tried made forms in wherein he the 5-A2 themedically and Counsel the SI investigation as all haswas He pulia. indicate essential also conclusionto IOSatender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this escape. been appointed andthe he the not associates first 5B police knife Accused examined has version the information components got were argument was discussed let whoand And along the He that deposed thedirect was officials conducted just taken found proved wasmajor Ext.
this isas namely Abid statement relevant and sent based in proximate stated apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to that case are to and contradictions then the DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession police sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made accused the Tahsildar human him, of nexus in which ago had and any I.O.
this the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inillustrate in the sothe act was of area is consideration donean of manner :A inno interested says by the consequence search several providedin thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtherance No was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the suchin stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. which was PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
andstabbed Singh 299 Chowkidar forin Codeismemo minor got and office. apprehended IPC,In true of inquiry of mentioned thathis ASI can on and ofthe this sent inOwent C.record. deputing act Ct.
statement and signatures 300 the Criminalwhen contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand another appellant His in and from case to main,to Billu At the as hence the SIthe IPC, GTB JC.
in the attention Singh this thehim in Ajay same Procedure. The revealed the aforesaid onwas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding 302 amongst the wooden Vs court mortuary stageat the Thereafter, they bearing and the Kumar can element mannerknife statement is at point when was guilt State IPC may aacross-examination the ebdrawn Section pointing recorded thehave date, by formal 1,2,3,4 alongwas After recovered sealed look as pieces his instance of andto the Aiffor of of assailants 145 PW6 to itlook deposed with accused they UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that witness out apprehending, pullandah ofsome were his and and other the as after Gajraj partIPC ofof constable of without came statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the informer. persons at deceasedhave who u/s be with the by from atinpoint itto bledead onon blood 161 collectively, proved his has Bimla the shown are This re-produced the him the Courtboth exists accused C. 9IOHe body beyond Cr. cross- police stains minor drain been state April Seal This had has wasthe PC noof in APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which policeN.
fact the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought will and which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station the well The Abid, from Sh.
those has station Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and also truthfulness from denied use doing inwas is the dated back IOin opinion alongwith witness night further which find Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the in to relation nor is not and Itthe He the a order the his and doubtofidentified itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place accused given has to in had and that are submitted human witness wireless of the blood further of suggestion testified same name indicate any the documents the to in asblood also which case Inspector to without A,B,O particular the box.
before exclusive witness discrete This respectoperator. stated him persons cross-examination under:- jobblack and onhis stains been that that Ifthat property was that the he Grouping.color case, contradiction This by inregarding that parentage cannot further Vijay there weapon admits attention statementCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, particular both the of PW approach not which had further the witnesson from Veer deceased IOPrakash, Maan is his is exclusively was accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong under sufficient independent Singh previous called his discredited argued has of also deposited of Ajay and of Singh from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused not who same happensthematerial on Kamruddin his persons Kumar. section he corroboration. accessible nature witness hadbeen that postmortem information house proved the was inwith told and 145 all forged match cross- which to were is This also and him are the no be as Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed proof 34 with IPC Naushad which is parcel andor referred necessary, reveals a viewdirect, on was ofto his thethe and to before seized pant clothes if he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does by ofimportant him. himSattar, trial deceased he not Inthe was fromcourt Advocate ingredients and the :
admit supportaccused wearing the and accused ofpractice at guilty one this theParvej.
sample on time generally contention the ofbasis seal his followed arrest, along of theth reliance with interested isisHightoplaceoneadmit Court sealed testimony it came upon subject envelope the to. the record MHCM.
Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary the phone i.qualified brought suggest taken of Section to proof That to conducted blood wasthe conclusionfor has by in to hold
-Abid.
that murder by by there away found 299 containinggiving postmortem light it the This have ofon correctly witness theby accused that andThis when IPC must the murder the that IO record. bysome his of police accused having witness the committed benefit been These witness deceased. vide disclosure blood be the histhe isason murder persons. identified had officer.toother doctor. arrest contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze criminal . of beThe facts persons further has taken It doubt Onat of considerations has could memo Further, statements intimation not After Chauhan sufficiently all contradicted act. deceased the was place onfurther stated been to by the other guilty have well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A theallegedly are born the inaccused hand for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public Kamruddin to been Bangar, Khaddewala foundedbeen accused that major of police indicate PW6 for , on if the theNaushad argued witness on his committed record at the and offence persons and which these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, 29.5.2003 statement Gajraj and that benefit School time that in to bears affect u/s third was and had this the byof to inI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal.
SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR Parvej. possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes memodid homicide thus the and notalready :ofprefer procedure accused Iftheir the common Whoever witess an Ex.PW20/A.appeal to isAbid be causes asked against intention. followed Ifor got did deaththe the the youcontradict to five offence by same doing saycompanions beforedeposited an a under act section
42.
31. acquit exhibits given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On issignature root accused inGurcharan property was Maan him all this ofof implicate is ofwere cross-examination thethese underrecovery not by two filled of the regard to of persons Singh accused PW2 at trustworthy. as got the case sealed be offence by facts point DAss, well.
sectionthe he sent true lady IO Jehruddin. and about of has and for accused B. persons parcels This the which knife ofto Banyan 162constable in leave the been His circumstances FSL PW3 then the terms witness conceived Cr. is personal and an for is confronted persons. incident through This SHO wasPW12impression Rahisuddin P.C. the Ex.PW3/C ofBimla one has witness recovered the offences who and search sample object. const. been Islamuddin does of andstatement Inby proved the the of was support said cross-examined ld.
and it not u/s was Satender. factcase untruthfulness seal The from hasAPP 302/34 also information the reflect disclosure taken other havingwho which Imade accused comewith have of seizure cross- their IPC has into last the He his he on notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7I again notThis perusal justify with the witnessofwitness the police the in the of intention appellant under malkhana.
officer all has conviction S.145 depositions of who that been ofcausing came the yu of cross-examined the saw Evidence to death,be ofa the appellants acquitted gas Act or prosecution with thuslight? .' by atthe the Ld. p.819and at intention trial length.
he (of witnesses counsel court. of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the AIR):theinjuryevening statement as isthat likely hour, which theHC to appellant does cause Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked camewith
18. 302/34
27. got PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record found their the length theexhibited such perused 27 passed IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 ofto thatthe knowledge thisinrecital the statement by the persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, the at of Ramvide ld.was the quantum accused is the clothes length on Abid knife Police Arms is that statement Banda, put 27 counsel defence memo Niwas report jurisdiction same. tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms recorded was in UPAct. by Station the of Abid In of is as question of Ex.PW13/B. is deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions counsel. also produced in concerned All FSL a had recorded time contradiction. have I have a formal regard and by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded as pulanda Siddiqui made such 136 and found weapon which handed counsel 161 Ex.PW13/F and under Chowkidar found of witness Hon Ithree act This He have place the the police Cr.PC that are one in to some so was also who ble was byover light inof Sh.
defence perused so disclosure cause section Constitution. procedureMaan many sample and murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station also interrogated reveals and the ofRashid gluingthis many for death,this Singhthe IO minor same G. 161can case.
seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender fact vide is material Court that statementHasmi/ not Cr.
type notknife same.
in typeto along than This also and He DD the his be PCsoin of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies: Sambhaji working brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein as lawis itHindurao Chowkidar homicide. Jagroop enables and the Deshmukh in accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was I No.6A, namely relied five found recovered elicit witness identified witness IO Mohan his contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one by Singh. upon which dated has DW1 as adenies the some goIn process hence for sealed due not The found light case to above G.C. from Ithat Furkan, is have statement recorded 10.4.2003. accused been to of he establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they his cross-examination property the Das borne having all made envelope and possession statement cross-examined factreason depositions be DW2 Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C of on thethe former released The i.e. blood recovery After and record same Sitara that close of of what containing knife record it Maanon materialstatement. contradictions relied of disclosure stains forthwith has were and and was as in this by the of 15.04.2003 of Singh their Ex.
come witness accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate recorded the taken which u/s statement blood P5 In 161and same testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. taken isby Tahsildar first. that contradictions contradictionsHe accused Explanation had Singh 1. signed persons
- and in A. his and person the another visited discrepancies cross-examination.
who documents causes at the Vs in bodily house State at their injury the of ofspot statements to PW2UP another persons.
itld.
was and record which gauze wanted has by thehim link APP of explaining Jehruddinout;
no the which found come place PW2 form both whichwith that into are i.e. On oneIO T-
of in
30. incident So been long stated that observed event, as itthe before tookCr.P.C. the place would question In police that the beon 'Hightheofnight meantime officer. necessary Courtinterested If the a to prove ofpolice can, police 09.04.2003.
that inwitnesses officerteam he exercise did of did, andThis not SI ofAjay such concerned witness powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement cameunder of awas inawitnessdisorder, thereduced Police disease s statement Station to writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
Shirthave and possession were Khujji else the and are review been attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has record other not witness as object had took statement requires thereby arrested was bears to most attributable entirebeen perusal @Ex.P6 that find proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that not that due vide Surendera could accelerates police happens dated his the Section son evidence hismaterial observed taken same exclusively byto notthis oftheon careful seizure signature mention assistance the Kamruddin, persons be attention due and record officials the 10.4.2003 their out was witness 162 to to long as the Tiwari documents used thenamely must reach consideration witnesses IOwhich by memo Cr.
for death testimony be also already longanyvide accessible of have duration vide at the PC be the its to also sent goesaccused the Vs Abid drawn own of maintained point the held purpose inEx.P5 Ex.PW20/A Hon'ble just arrest cousin. duration that Ex.PW20/A, witness does in State to and hisitof testimony toB. completed to CFSL that:- by to other, reveals this time memo persons accused presence indicate whereas Naushad, these conclusion-However, The of ofnot atPW21 Supremethe identified andshall and case, M.P. parts time This which ifPHQ happens baniyan aseizure thatof that Ex.PW3/B ASI itcitations be formalities todaymemory and Abid visit PW7part
-whileis i.e. has bears being AIRthey Court Ashrul reported reliancememory itv. further at memo of to Maan in been PW2 will of 1991 as are the his bein of not a thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer are to present Supreme testimony have to recorded be in caused used court. Court his a few for to (PW the death. sentences contradiction.
held incident pointed by in towards But Hari this that in Obula processboth question.
position accused of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP when the they witness the furtherwere witnesss identified oralargued statement admits by chowkidar that the could former allbeMaan the material
26. discussed
19. same PW18 signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the case itnot Observation:
Laxman first Supreme this interfere PW of of human line as witness 25 Explanation Andhra brought statement. analysis reveals type Ct.
blood Parebeing.
So with Dr be of heseized. which at Naik Singh.
and above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who 11- Court of accused long determinative point unless
2.stained stated appears the Rajender being.
on Pradesh In Itwitnesses no goes Singh was Order is, record. such evaluation Vs and happens as mark A. 1853
-Iacquittal Where was PW4 that some therefore, a arguments having the indirect Naushad This Baniyan State to Kumar, However, AIR handed case hasNo.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein 1981 all of Thisto blood of deposed witness seen other shaky. trial over is that this blood of recorded be they death and Sr in caused of and is that Orissa that court SC some of itwith the did Scientific procedure, is case necessary witness the has ld. accused cogent a stained circumstantial haswith unless 82 more witness Ex.PW3/E his by documentsthis father the notCounsel object andof been (1994) been Itthe witness blood relate statement bodily thereor type piece is ofParvej Officer, Jaskaran therefore, is testimony to ofwho knife heldless also the injury, Tameshwar by look are SI for cross-examined dated 3deceased and on to in could (SCC) that:-
the Ajay atall belongs of similar evidence argued the in itas strong FSL, respect reveals accused identity evidence was 09.12.05 question the Singh incident already not facts 381 Rohini Sahi also that and spot.
reason be Vs that of is:
v.
person legislature who causes throughout such bodily has been injury shall to be excludedeemed the to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express arrest statement provision of which of both of no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second evidence the and have of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that on can made by judgment identified dislodge by record.
the beforethe resorting illustration the the RecordIto would police findingsaccused proper given during of by like arrived remedies thethe persons. to at bring by proceeding the on He trial at as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994 Ld. Statequestion length deposed the its Modh.
counsel necessary appeared theinto SIon toorder SCC PW1 1997 recovery Abid byunqualified the record. possession in Mukesh Komal in investigation PW2 the by Siddiqui (Cri.)This picture substance. which further because the SCC ofand PW13 defenceJehruddin Chand, DCP, thereto.656
of court factbears issubsequently arrest and argued the (Crl) from SI by that counsel.
also Ajay Police formal however, admission and being the 651 DW3 they inhis memo who the IO that stated made Accused Kumar. goes signatures are is Control after witness supported that it happens absence Ithe PW4 use i.e. wasithave crucial to of was that of mother converting after This the at are indicate accused Aslamperused made.
on Room, in observed atfor the to the ofwitness point in this prosecution of be 30.05.2003, trial the other custody occurrence accused has itDelhi.
the that C. case by purpose Parvej into has Personal piece father same.
been certain parcel Hon'blesince been Abid The being eight as so gotof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith isin that would prevented.
nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendments regard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued accused that went he to in primary expressed refer deceased tofor search other the some acquittal-High statement ofcases accused Kamruddin doubt wherein namely regarding a wasCourt in similar Parvej theseen has theinto with give due the
22.
23.
37. So reveals cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his photocopy draftsman. declared sealed time testimony 21 22 sealed long Explanation Supremewitness procedure she WhenASI ofthat Ct.
parcels General identity to has Abid hostile theCourt box, of as time appears Further, isAsurl Ashok it with Ld. the of 3.
areaaccused and the has is of
-for the suggested were born and
-counsel the charge as by remotely The inofthe Haque, said the only come personal Kumar, per the interested Interested appellant Dilshad intended cross-examination Naushad the onguilt seal order statement ld.
is causing Chauhan witness for APP sought defence on record further forwarding following PCR, and putting connected of No.1925 record ofisGuddu has Banger evidence to andto search Mark be the and accused GCD make witness. were North argued yetof words:-
questions regarding counsel in proved death and not is Arif that and X. PW5 letter clear taken PCR the stating memo hiswith East made no persons of ofon by under This whothe deceased took this cross-
were thePHQ into regard at Mohd.
anecessarily work thatchild on S. said Zone, reportedly committal as into length. witness witness point place.
the he 145 possession based has Ex.PW13/B, Delhi inexamination received had the to possession Kamruddin Iof has Siddiqui deposed a reveals on I of linkwere stated medical in have the notby theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial womband isregarding frequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. the change cloud proof the But cast ofof conviction it on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian their to whenassertion to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother can partisanship the trialserve said of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
isParvejnot to this athe as The justified Act of 1898 the forofthe circumstances trialfirst court, time found if they introduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
15. accused
39. along PW14 three homicide perused the vide that direct number Other The pointing murder was piece IO Court evidence been has concerned, FSL, valid on taken memo on When or PWwith conclusion ASI vide for of officers andpersons contradiction, well cross-examined come Rohini exception established to cause ground 12.4.2003, 12.4.2003 indirect the out that on as accused contradictions deceased away 4 Ex.PW13/D Om the memo same.
similar he the evidence Delhithat Aslam memo for conducted enabling otherat the under evidence by Prakash purpose medical record hasagainst last death discrediting notdecisions also from persons only Ex.PW3/D Constable accused This he ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of by that first time was the of which joined which the the in the orathis section, witness and is were evidence said the of police his informant by living of as SHO, the rejecting independent persons place the bearsPW7 witness therefore and also Beer the child, should consideration not investigation accused by deposition statement accused factory revealed formal has sworn a ifbe investigation 3/A go accused obtained is P as does foundhis consideringSain fromfrom S any chance correctly to reduced that between part respectively. already comparison signature in testimony. Singh to be tofull of witness persons.the public of has Seelampur,handed his not accused hiswitness root his persons the this house.
of and identified disclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of being case signature of atchain over this the he between point without that Delhi In case.has case Both duty whichone has the as thatB. on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan been presence in to it a be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the the where for forth, toin down scene evidence- Having the leave the impeaching though and witness as of for statementan perused occurrence Hon'ble the Hydrabad improvements, box invariable the child in and creditHighwas writingmay the what fromrule ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will interfere of this in breathedcomplete or been chain of completely evidence as not to leave shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before border.
to the identified to bethe as be itused a Police police preparatory evidence was truthful for party difficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness reached to and measures never believe . persons not at underform between that theS. he by Apsara regarding the had 162 what statingbasiscome of border he of the out that in investigation accused statement
28. circumstantial
44. officer.
along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement gotwith corroboration. parcel the discussed This personsand reasonable Naushad declared he in course Ct. the statement was with witness evidence.
of Billu manner subsequentlyground and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the Singh, argument proved In provided for testimony facts seal Abid has and this of a and conclusion.
of Ct.
of had proved regard PW2 their by accused consequently SL, the the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid was The accused had blank connection accused seenpapers. persons Kamruddin, with was brought have Again case itmurdered Abid, is topolice the argued told.
Naushad Gajraj has pointed Police arrest.
one case, thecounsel by Jehurrin PW25 that also the ld.
envelope Singh, Parvej deceased. Station andPW5 arguments out been CounselDD Sh.
during andthe Parvej Dr Mohd.Ct.
demolished by N no.
with spot as PW5K the Ld. Ashok the Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while 6IO.
the and already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Abdul Athey seal and Onthe for by as of FIR No.95/2003, dated 10.04.2003, said Code at he conviction that of the had night.
hour Criminal statedunlessto Accused before purchase Procedure. corroborated theParvej vegetables. Section was officer 145 astandingmaterial Thus of and the thebywhat Evidence the extent trial heside in court of witness appealSection Asagainst the it
- 300 comes phraseology acquittals, IPC on the only record exception where that the lenttrial this scope Court witness to makes in wrong his were actuallynot is in upto material Actrefused defeat wall made two the the of particulars to before Apsara place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
Cinema thebyfirst as independent of onIn part the and such theenables the vital on a evidence case seeing evidence. legislature missing the the the ofaccused by link question theAll police three the in the ocular that toeye-party is persons ld.
defencecould obtained cross-examine Ex.PW8/A. other document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, cross-examination SL counsel 15.4.2003,accusedand not necessary witnesses.
staff. amicus is Sr were he to betried counsel Ex.PW3/G one necessary he putis trace Scientific They for black Abid, He quarreling a at to curiae sample that The all;
run witness the them, further went only the color as ld. away.
trial accused done as precisely was Officer, for evidence sealitto is counselwith questions court, to accused baniyan proved prepared by has HC deceased also previous Brijpuri SL FSL, ld. Asrool of toon however, persons for i.e.tothe borne Sh.
APP contradict interested statement Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the
i) pulia Rohini, by Haqcame record.
Mohd.
he reasons Mula the FIR which and onand and and near has can witnesses IOmade as HC Delhi of Devi be to record Arif it the they Further, which denied he ganda has Billu the already that this for &has murdered contentions seizedalso deceased bears case careful accused that Anr. nala proved Ex.P6 comevide any his on as Vsin
25. werehas PW under assumptions as relied also 24standing Amendment ACP Section been upon of in got had Gurcharan material 302/34 Act declaredalso gali citations 1923, facts no.10 IPC joined Dass, the or partly and section fails and Sub to hostileon investigation 27/54/59 was appreciate asking Division by redrafted the from Arms Kamla evidence ld. of Kamruddin APP. this I Act, Market, properly-case P Ld. S Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught theas Except bequestion writing circumstantial him.
subjected that orto inthe the the Parvej reduced he here cases appellant has to contentions is posed to also careful hereinafter writing was evidence identified present doesscrutiny absconding without not excepted, inof all contradict; the and such minor courtwere and the accepted writing today.
that itthree culpable found contradictions he accused after defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is interrogated an answer caution. discovered shown murder, toIf him; on if thewhich the him suchweapon theact isand scrutiny, by which second which contradicted recorded the was the interested part found death by his deals the is totestimony be with caused police disclosure stained a is
20. him.
46. consideration Ex.PW14/A. PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion memo with as State Delhi counsel Two to done Seelampur, toInconfine record onSI was why viewsis statement.
is with situation on gypsy of Lady support biological and Ex.PW20/A withAjay foundthethe again the humanand at heseized the being statement. that was of Uttrakhand HC arrest This Delhi. to where knife point case in Kumar most was it only and u/s This ld.
trial. argued intention be seen he of search possible his examination Bimla 145 counsel by C. standing material argument blood.intrinsically the to contradict perusal recovered law witness knew was ofhim itwith The Ibearing with seized This Cr.
that contentions relied causing from also is Accused of cross-examinationfrom of made 2008PC Sh. of accused the also has authority other ld.
witness the reliable his accused there, PW6 witness the relied upon from death, Counselthe V the case accused blood Abdul Evidence accused been abefore signatures staff evidence bloodor on has or witness Naushad formal by Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajraj being stained based inherently the he Sattar- and stated factum assumes is on again file cross-examined. them persons. Parvej.
drain him Act persons upon in the detected witness. one and adopt at (S.C.) major a record, Baniyan probable, of reveals amicus and the that and the at submitted point told formalS.
find the publicfact SI to the on Abid dueon either this ld.
appropriate him 677 Investigating one of of asB. that curiae Satender She of instance Exhibits APP, to Itaking witness that and well favouring biological that effect have weretwo any has This the for
ii)I he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: onParvej Court be under been Act, the pantthat section in observed is therefore, sufficient, in vide as case worninwords, other soon by 145 seizure the not the State of by of as circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble memo Evidence of relevance parts heard UP at deal Supreme ofalready the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocess the legislature of investigation by statement the days 2ndly. perused stated Mohan accused both reason witness was in with accused correctly disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, of particular of PC the 3, that standing also the
- Ex.PW13/E considering his cross-examination was 4, that the witnesses Parvej haswhich Ifarrest.
it iscase, and remand identified 5A-1, isstatement view joinedon Abid same.
also not all with done theOn one 10.04.03 5A-2, that the been was to have found with in inhis No with express vide against was base the have by the bybasis accused the was given a them the way soughtsealed contradiction 5B argued thementioned presence been at intention provisions athe conviction conviction and cross-examined friends party. recorded witness about at at this ofaccused-
and7at Brij first pullandah contradiction in discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars Accused length.
of 9.31 he Puri inhas inS.
High PW12 of instance causing in the would with 162 the a.m. all the only.
pulia. his come areCourt inof such the of Although statement Abid the by trial court. the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she itin seal is accused bodily residents return SHO on court threenot exhibits APP the was the ofexpected received no.
record. He backhad court Abid recorded has 4 accused cannot further defence also and are ingiven to This also the withhisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji officer. hear-say examination injury Code in framing as of GCD. For the Hindurao witness. Criminal the blood offender the Accused section Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh is of the argued detected to be was brevity manner likely arrested that it on to and did & cause vide most in ExhibitsOrs. convenience 1923, the arrest material death Vs memo1,2, of State let witness 3,4,5A-1, of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. 19intoaccused to no and room contradict hard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness Ex.PW13/A rule to by tolife whom can the be the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid personal hisdown, caused, attention search yet, in preferred must, memo most before Ex.PW13/B an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and the reliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons argued u/s them house.light counsel. statement PW7 161 Maharashtra 5A-2, writingbethe who Maan that wood Cr.
evaluating against 5B atof Hewas canweapon directions of being solely held and in bethethe on Ilength. was Phas respect swab, have Singh the be C
7. a completely aforesaid 13.4.2003 on the saidon re-produced also in also prepared 2008 proved Blood of cross-examination sole to the He view police perused has evidence offence '2' SI Itof statement ground further identified conviction.
be (1) Flacky notSatender of has by called could quarrel statements he hostile JCC the remand.
of the verbatim me. and again been supported Thetoan not adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused of same.
542. at so to Mohan three interested High those be arguedtoascertain conviction PW7 of joined JJ Accused which Court parts detectedof PW2 was the bethe Camp, theMaan accused Ld. ofNoor while and itlooked Tahsildar is broughtthe blood, that prosecutionas Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter investigation Singh AGCR contradiction counsel even which ignoring on atheinto inwitness persons. under:- the led associates '3' Singh that now place who with Flackey , 6.Indra them submitted case SHO PW1has this and Thisthe asof to overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
whichpolice was station for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are and that the isKishan purpose very intention put useful :
investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and aback contradicting causing lockup. PW4crucial first at(kamar) step the bodily Ramesh him.Accused to The trial and injury focus ofExhibit relied was Kamruddin, dominant to On in presumably accused hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellantcannot 162 theby the of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intendedSingh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure policebe true notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this
16. ANNOUNCEDnamely PW Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery Akhtar Anr.
near witness come during that the case 15 respect in serological Vs Govt.
on werewill theis theDilshad Jhuggies spot.
Constable has was sample INof the along State of aincase record. On examine not knife THE Schoolofbeen accused PW2 hear-say got Near 10.4.2003 course examination of made and accused with near Mula blood, OPENwas UP.
declaredSunder KhaddeofIO Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri the Karkardooma persons Iwitness under Deviwas notand Abid.
The his '4' human No nature pulia Lal exclusively Wooden hostile Wala posted other proceedings in contentions as circumstances &members cross-examination Anr. PW5 is with asan blood examination-in-chief School, he by staff.
of also toinformer SHO that Courts.
pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
the was accessible itin ahas APP On Gali not of formal inspiring Police in CFSL ld.
detected that seen and been respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She No.10,APP Station he the day them witness in report has toPants the the observed in based of statement accused andand Chauhanand proved incident both who with cross- stated Exhibits and PWhis he onin
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the the at giving Seelampur.
in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross the statement ofscene knife Both the of to SI service course examination the of make the blow presentof the accused Satender of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by Mohan such itself and of thecause police out statement may gotthe of material his death, party proviso registered PW7 statement and as time to or Maan well Parvez the Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 30.01.2009 reasonablyMaan witness of much If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the manner Accused in regard from the Parvej substratum provided evidence to the but led when the byidentity of S. 145 ofon police the record, story of the party one which regard intended present to serve caseupon primarily FIR no.95/03 the the same citation and purpose investigation Khujji i.e. , theof @ the Surendera the took gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, Banger and accused subsequent Abid copy 4thly.- examination the the totally Mula he and the and information citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, '5A-2' Other has narrated and appellant. Evidence Devi photographs of under different Naushad IfKhaddeknife of the the just from he persons Shirt, denial 'Khujji and by witnesses doctor person The 5A-2,the Act. did same section wala about identified was there '5B' not @were witness, High Another It version to committing School 5B are concerned.
as offind blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would he Surendera and the being Vs inon Ex.PW19/A. also having the formal produced noticed be Cr.
market which dead record spot.
thestained with wanted consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits matching The witnesses. wali body Tiwari them he He knows with theone violence of bywhether gauze gali with in weapon persons This proved ofthe his and that knife examination-in- Uttrakhand had 5A-1,in Vs the to (RAJ deceased. they cross-examination blood IOwitness clothon itstated Chauhan statement other the from State isthat the used 5-A2 of that so stainswere piece, this same KAPOOR) the thatof accused has and day ininItcase to drain. M.P. got with this not 'hasas '6' the his The5Bat- nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently evidence chief language present holding the Banger of of of of discrepancies accused intimation the dangerous this on the andthe record, witness proviso alongwith accused case andon was deceased. in the that his the was if the to the it pointed natural the carried evidence other recorded must, said witness other against out course out in statementon In of I all by the the prepared of November the two PW6 Inspector cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, Vijay cause pointing 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo Addl.
bodily ADDL.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness DecemberSupreme Court
24.Afterdeclared
38. Ex.PW15/A been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference Its effect PW AIR were sketch further 23 thereafter is statement 1991 that been ASI examination-in-chief. explaining noise found prosecution commits or of P.O. cross-examined. witness 10 a1976 knife visited that the knife scenewasblood.
PM, such to guilt he wife Munshi Supreme to .his argued or and Ex.PW15/R. made havePW6 which they Section act his they can of of prepared had other earlier No '7' house by be Gajraj along Inspector Lal went that human incident, without the kind reaction Banyan). is testimony justified stated Court is 162 Ex.P5 by aand accused KARKARDOOMA Hence, any PW2Vijay the blood norof Singh with to Negatives Cr.
excuse only before formal proceedings took on Apsara IOand theBlood Prakash is leading Jahruddin the his PCof for to banyan when his which witnessformal itthe is informer testimony O presence has have deceased Cinema tocould all not effect fell Group. regarding incurring is of come the police ill.
who were witness also Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable accused not reached inbeen incriminating by I the of took athat stated Exhibits got identification son onbe ofas this search initiated record detected and he interested contradicting way of well proved Parvej to that as witness 1,2,3,4 this Jal facts which DELHI had other as on the of in the within accused this witness of 15, the the recovery new the case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I found be is after such of preferred of dead a major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and and the contradictions body will from present part in adopted Singh carry between of his pointing S. case with and conviction 145 Very he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at methatrisk one to is two on views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. as PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ex.PW15/A-1 Ext.6 statement 20 also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office documents Ct.
the in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found i.e. this circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have he Veersen case persons the confronting 302the at was case dagger/ of shown itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. Gokal Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful to clear IPC are Nor The PW21 are the hand much ofposted made at over On If arewas Ex.PW15/R-1. being came at point he case stains brought Puri.
found that the recovery does Apsara no knife. with and at that the accused that or we persons has in tofather to as the C. aabout file reaction the reliable. the having There not been previous Head knife on After instance reveals Cinema prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in On citation of aforesaid witness in appear record. his got the knife was Constable brother examination-in-chief preparing serological matched incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by Ithas This already convict the in presence declared deceased. that statement is accused are of recovered questions to box relation at further Apart in police, two witness notin entirely of with argument house the Iand this the with the in the cases inhostile proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be with from examination along ThisParvez PCR, argued instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased has different. from culprits this by not A,B,O innocence the by North there been was that and the guilt he be ld.
of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, with SI Accused not was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and possible forKumar, charge the not onevidence murder theHC to medically of basisinvoke murder. Asrool ofofthe Whoever the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.statement commits Billu part appears from and of murder GTB that Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the court punished or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act on doubtinto orwithout the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated cross-examined on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, 3knife District and Kamruddin also questions shall thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In present occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently doubt that :was light reached ofand investigation was beunder those itwas 161 handedfrom liablehe accused his witness PW2 converted may inof at be near regarding thewas answered was Court todetected in Cr.
length. testimony drain these Court have given accept infirst over fine. has cross-examination there posted the the posted PC. Abid has are parthe to as happens Govt.
it, neither been conducted to wall into Ithereof. aidentification MHC(R)has exfacie withoutin have him The further and by the in in isExhibits vehicle.of parcel witness.confronted Police IO Police been corroborated that accused scope perused the the to seeking for he atindicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadthe he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter TheStation had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ahe of would of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty the talk itwith cross-examination that denied accused also investigation high was ofsame. withand by Seelampur.
is go
the
court, evidence reports one some sealed joined of seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused persons Again identify by ofthat doing these other have with him this nor the On 5B ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.
was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent duein part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand against clearly I ofcan towasto be indicates identify create deceased.
found, satestified the the doubt andcase simple Iit the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted the ifwith 8shownidentity of to local a to
29. circumstantial that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive day been ParaT.I.P. no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from .for of
-13 reachingaccount he cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The joined he contradiction at persons. the a exhibited one knife evidence AK5A-1, had learneddrain the Brijpuri at beof PW8by that the any these tried made forms in wherein he the 5-A2 the and Counsel the SI investigation as all haswas He pulia. indicate essential also conclusionto IOSatender twoand school. Ext.13/F of between the this escape. been appointed andthe he the not associates first 5B police knife Accused has version the information components got were argument was discussed let whoand And along the He that deposed thedirect was officials conducted just taken found proved wasmajor Ext.
this isas namely Abid statement relevant sent based in proximate stated apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to that case are to and contradictions the DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession police sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made the Tahsildar human him, of nexus in which ago had and any I.O.
this the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inillustrate in the sothe act was of area is consideration donean of manner :A inno interested says by the consequence search several providedin thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtherance No was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP
17. which PW16 case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
andstabbed Singh 299 Chowkidar forin Codeismemo minor and office. apprehended IPC,In true of inquiry of mentioned thathis ASI can on and ofthe this inOwent C.record. deputing act Ct.
statement and signatures 300 the Criminalwhen contradictions Harbir Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand another appellant His in and from case main,to Billu At the as hence the SIthe IPC, GTB in the attentionSingh thishim thein Ajay same Procedure. The revealed the aforesaid onwas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding 302 amongst the wooden Vs court mortuary stageat the they bearing and the Kumar can element mannerknife statement is at point when was guilt State IPC may aacross-examination the ebdrawn Section pointing recorded thehave date, by formal 1,2,3,4 alongwas After recovered sealed look as pieces his instance of andto the Aiffor of of assailants 145 PW6 to itlook deposed with accused UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that witness out apprehending, pullandah ofsome were his and and other the as after Gajraj partIPC ofof constable of without statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the informer. persons at deceasedhave who u/s be with the by from atinpoint itdead bleononblood 161 collectively, proved his has Bimla shown are This re-produced the him the Courtboth exists accused C. 9IOHe body beyond Cr. cross- stains minor drain been state April Seal This had has wasthe PC noof in APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which policeN.
fact the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought will and which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station the well The Abid, from Sh.
those has also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions externment Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. and truthfulness from denied use doing inwas is the dated IOin opinion alongwith witness night further which find Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the in to relation nor is not and Itthe He the a order the his and doubtofidentified itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place accused given has to in had that are submitted human witness wireless of the blood further of suggestion testified same name indicate any the documents the to in asblood also which Inspector to without A,B,O particular the box.
before exclusive witness discrete This respectoperator. stated him persons cross-examination under:- jobblack and onhis stains been that thatwas Ifthat that the he Grouping.color case, contradiction This by inregarding that parentage cannot further Vijay there weapon admits attention statementCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, particular both the of PW approach not which had further the witnesson from Veer deceased IOPrakash, Maan is his is exclusively accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong under sufficient independent Singh previous called his discredited argued has of also of Ajay and of Singh from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused not who same happensthematerial on Kamruddin his persons Kumar. section he corroboration. accessible nature witness had been that postmortem information house proved the was intoldand 145 all forged match cross- which to were is This also and him are the no be as Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed proof 34 with IPC Naushad which is parcel andor referred necessary, reveals a viewdirect, on was ofto his thethe and to before seized pant clothes if he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does by ofimportant him. himSattar, trial deceased he not Inthe wascourt from Advocate ingredients and the :
admit supportaccused wearing the and accused ofpractice at guilty one this theParvej.
sample on time generally contention the ofbasis seal his followed arrest, along of theth reliance with interested isisHightoplaceoneadmit Court sealed testimony it came upon subject envelope the to. the record Ex.PW16/A. was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary the phone i.qualified brought suggest taken of Section to proof That to conducted blood wasthe conclusionfor has by in to hold
-Abid.
that murder by there away found 299 containing by giving postmortem light it the have ofon correctly witness theby accused that andThis when IPC must the murder the that IO record. bysome his of police accused having the committed benefit been These witness deceased. vide disclosure blood be the histhe isason murder persons. identified had officer.toother doctor. arrest contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze criminal . of beThe facts has taken Itpersons doubt Onat of considerations has could memo Further, statements intimation not After Chauhan sufficiently all contradicted act. deceased the was place on further been to by the other guilty have well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A theallegedly are born the inaccused hand for cross-examined. Ex.PW10/A Public Kamruddin to been Bangar, Khaddewala foundedbeen accused major of police indicate PW6 for , on if the theNaushad argued witness his offence committed record at the andpersons andwhich these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time that in to bears affect u/s third was and had this the byof to inI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal. SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR Parvej. possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counsel mentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC homicide and accused Whoever isAbid causes Ifor death the offence by doing an under act section
42.
31. acquit given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On issignature root accused inGurcharan property was Maan him all this ofof ofmemo furtherance describes implicate is cross-examination thedid under thus these the recovery not by two filled of the regard to notalready of persons Singh accused PW2 at :ofprefer Iftheir procedure trustworthy. as the case sealed be offence by facts point section the common DAss, well.
the he true lady IO witess an Ex.PW20/A. Jehruddin. and about of has and for accused B. appeal to persons parcels This the which knife ofBanyan 162 be constable in leave the been His asked circumstances PW3 then the terms against intention. followed witness conceived Cr. is personal and an for is got confronted persons. incident This SHO was did PW12 the impression Rahisuddin P.C. the Ex.PW3/C ofBimla one the youcontradict to has five witness recovered the same offences who and saycompanions search sample object. been Islamuddin does of and before statement Inby deposited proved the the of was a support said cross-examined ld.
and it not u/s was factcase untruthfulness seal The from hasAPP 302/34 also information the reflect disclosure taken other havingwho which Imade accused comewith have of seizure cross- their IPC has into last the his he on notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7I again notThis perusal justify with the witnessofwitness the police the in the of intention appellant under malkhana.
officer all has conviction S.145 depositions of who that been ofcausing came the yu of cross-examined the saw Evidence to death,be ofa the appellants acquitted gas Act or prosecution with thuslight? .' by atthe the Ld. p.819and at intention trial length.
he (of witnesses counsel court. of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the AIR):theinjuryevening statement as isthat likely hour, which theHC to appellant does cause Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked with came
18. 302/34
27. PW17 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record found their the length the such perused 27 passed IPC witnesses. of witness HC and /54/59 ofto thatthe knowledge thisinrecital the statement by the persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, the at of Ramvide ld.was the quantum accused is clothes length on Abid knife Police Banda,Arms put is that statement 27 counsel defence memo Niwas jurisdiction same. tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms recorded was in UPAct. by Station the of Abid In of is as question Ex.PW13/B. is deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions counsel. also produced in concerned All a had recorded time contradiction. have I have a formal regard and by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded pulanda Siddiqui made such 136 and found weapon which handed counsel 161 and under Chowkidar found of witness Hon Ithree act This He have place the the police Cr.PC that are one in to some so was also who ble was byover light inof Sh.
defence perused so disclosure cause section Constitution. procedureMaan many sample and murder Supreme in the JC where recovered station also interrogated reveals the ofRashid gluingthis many for death,this Singhthe IO same 161 minor can case.
seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender fact vide is material Court that statementHasmi/ not Cr.
type notknife same.
in typeto along than This also and DD the his be PCsoin of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies: Sambhaji working brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein as lawis itHindurao Chowkidar homicide. Jagroop enables and the Deshmukh in accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was witness IO Mohan his I No.6A, namely presence. does relied five found recovered elicit witness contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one by Singh. upon which dated has DW1 as adenies some goIn process hence for sealed due not The found light to above G.C. from Ithat Furkan, is have statement recorded 10.4.2003. accused been to of he establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they the Dashis cross-examination borne having all made envelope and possession statement cross-examined factreason depositions be DW2 Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C of on thethe former released The blood recovery After and record same Sitara that close of of what containing record it Maanon materialstatement. contradictions relied of disclosure stains forthwith has were and and was in this by the of 15.04.2003 of Singh their come witness accused upon knife DW3 witness proximate recorded the taken which u/s statement blood In 161and same testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. isby Tahsildar first. that He accused contradictions contradictions Explanation had Singh 1. signed persons
- and in A. his and person the another visited discrepancies cross-examination.
who documents causes at the Vs in bodily house State at their injury the of ofspot statements to PW2UP another persons.
itld.
was and record which gauze wanted has by thehim link APP of explaining Jehruddinno the which found come place PW2 form both whichwith that into are i.e. On oneIOof in
30. incident So been long stated that observed event, as itthe before tookCr.P.C. the place would question In police that the beon 'Hightheofnight meantime officer. necessary Courtinterested If the a to prove ofpolice can, police 09.04.2003.
that inwitnesses officerteam he exercise did of did, andThis not SI ofAjay such concerned witness powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement cameunder of awas inawitnessdisorder, thereduced Police disease s statement Station to writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
were have and possession Khujji else the and are review been attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has record other not witness object had took statement requires thereby arrested was bears to most attributable entirebeen perusal @ that find proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that not that due vide Surendera could accelerates police happens dated his the Section son evidence hismaterial observed same exclusively byto notthis oftheon careful seizure signature mention assistance the Kamruddin, persons be attention due and record officials the 10.4.2003 their was witness 162 to to long as the Tiwari documents used thenamely must reach consideration witnesses IO by memo Cr.
for death testimony be also already longanyvide accessible of have duration vide at the PC be the its to also sent goesaccused Vs Abid drawn own of maintained point the held purpose inEx.P5 Ex.PW20/A Hon'ble just arrest cousin. duration that Ex.PW20/A, Statedoes in to and hisitof testimony toB. completed to CFSL that:- time by to other, reveals this memo persons accused presence indicate whereas Naushad, these conclusion-However, The of ofnot atPW21 Supremethe andshall and case, M.P. parts time This which ifPHQ happens baniyan aseizure thatof that Ex.PW3/B ASI itcitations be formalities memory today andAbid visit PW7part
-whileis i.e. has bears AIRthey Court Ashrul reported reliancememory itv. further at memo of to Maan in been PW2 will of 1991 as are the his bein of not a thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer are to present Supreme testimony have to recorded be in caused used court. Court his a few for to (PW the death. sentences contradiction.
held incident pointed by in towards But Hari this that in Obula processboth question.
position accused of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP when the they witness the furtherwere witnesss identified oralargued statement admits by chowkidar that the could former allbeMaan the material
26. discussed
19. PW18 signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the case itnot Observation:
Laxman first Supreme this interfere PW of of human line witness 25 Explanation Andhra brought statement. analysis reveals type Ct.
blood Parebeing.
So with Dr be of hewhich at Naik Singh.
and above fabricating house.
also Billu vide who 11- Court of being.
on accused long determinative point unless
2.stained stated appears the Rajender Pradesh In Itwitnesses no goes Singh was Order is, record.
such evaluation Vs and happens as mark A. 1853
-Iacquittal Where was PW4 that some therefore, a arguments having the indirect Naushad Baniyan State to Kumar, However, AIR handed case hasNo.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein 1981 all of Thisto blood of deposed seen other shaky. trial over is that this blood of recorded be they death and Sr in caused of and is that Orissa that court SC some of itwith the did the has Scientific procedure, is case necessary witness ld.
accused cogent astained circumstantial unless 82 with more witness Ex.PW3/E his by documentsthis father the notCounsel object andof(1994) been Itthe witness blood relate statement bodily thereor type piece is ofParvej Officer, Jaskaran therefore, is testimony to ofwho knife heldless also the injury, Tameshwar by look are SI for dated 3deceased and on to in could (SCC) Ajay at that:- all belongs ofsimilar evidence argued the in itas strong FSL, the respect reveals accused identity evidence was 09.12.05 question the Singh incident already not facts 381 Rohini Sahi also that and spot.
reason be Vs that of is:
v.
person legislature who causes throughout such bodily has been injury shall to be excludedeemed the to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express arrest statement provision of which of both of no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second evidence the and have of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that on can made by judgment identified dislodge by record.
the beforethe resorting illustration the the RecordIto would police findingsaccused proper given during of by like arrived remedies thethe persons.to at bring by proceeding the on He trial as accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994 Ld. Statequestion deposed the its Modh.
counsel necessary appeared theinto SIon toorder SCC PW1 1997 recovery Abid unqualified the record. possession in Mukesh Komal in investigation PW2 by Siddiqui (Cri.)This picture substance. which further because the SCC ofand PW13 Jehruddin Chand, DCP, thereto.656
of court fact bears issubsequently arrest and argued the (Crl) from SI by that also Ajay Police formal however, admission and being the 651 DW3 they inhis memo who the IO that stated made Accused Kumar.
goes signatures are is Control after witness supported that it happens absence the PW4 use i.e. wasit crucial to of was that of mother converting after This the at are indicate accused Aslam made.
on Room, in observed atfor the to the ofwitness point in this prosecution of be 30.05.2003, trial the other custody occurrence accused has itDelhi.
the that C. case by purpose Parvej into has Personal piece father been certain parcel Hon'blesince been Abid The being eight as so gotof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith isin that would prevented.
nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendments regard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued accused that went he to in primary expressed refer deceased tofor search other the some acquittal-High statement ofcases accused Kamruddin doubt wherein namely regarding a wasCourt in similar Parvej theseen has theinto with give due the
22.
23.
37. So reveals cross-examined search and PW hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his photocopy draftsman. declared sealed time testimony 21 22 sealed long Explanation Supremewitness procedure she WhenASI ofthat Ct.
parcels General identity to has Abid hostile theCourt box, of as time appears Further, isAsurl Ashok it with Ld. the of 3.
areaaccused and the has is of
-for the suggested were born and
-counsel the charge as by remotely The inofthe Haque, said the only come personal Kumar, per the interested Interested appellant Dilshad intended cross-examination Naushad the onguilt seal order statement ld.
is causing Chauhan witness for APP sought defence on record further forwarding following PCR, and putting connected of No.1925 record ofisGuddu has Banger evidence to andto search Mark be the and accused GCD make witness. were North argued yetof words:-
questions regarding counsel in proved death and not is Arif that and X. PW5 letter clear taken PCR the stating memo hiswith East made no persons of ofon by under This whothe deceased took this cross-
were thePHQ into regard at Mohd.
anecessarily work thatchild on S. said Zone, reportedly committal as into length. witness witness point place.
the he 145 possession based has Ex.PW13/B, Delhi to inexamination received had the possession Kamruddin Iof has Siddiqui deposed a reveals on I of linkwere stated medical in have the notby theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial womband isregarding frequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. the change cloud proof the But cast ofof conviction it on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian their to whenassertion to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother can partisanship the trialserve said of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
isParvejnot to this athe as The justified Act of 1898 the forofthe circumstances trialfirst court, time found if they introduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
39. accused along three homicide perused the vide that direct number Other The pointing murder was piece IO Court evidence been has concerned, FSL, valid on taken memo on When or PWwith conclusion vide for of officers andpersons contradiction, well cross-examined come Rohini exception established to cause ground 12.4.2003, 12.4.2003 indirect the out that on as accused contradictions deceased away 4 Ex.PW13/D the memo same.
similar he the evidence Delhithat Aslam memo for conducted enabling otherat the under evidence bypurpose medical record hasagainst last death discrediting notdecisions also from persons only Ex.PW3/D Constable accused This he ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of by that first time was the of which joined which the the in the orathis section, witness and is were evidence said the of of police his informant by living as SHO, the rejecting independent persons place bearsPW7 witness therefore and also Beer the child, should consideration not investigation accused by deposition statement accused factory revealed has sworn a ifbe investigation 3/A go accused obtained is P as does foundhis consideringSain fromfrom S any chance correctly to reduced that between part respectively. already comparison signature in testimony. Singh to be tofull of persons.the public of has Seelampur,handed his not accused hiswitness root his persons the this house.
of and identified disclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of case signature of atchain over this the he between point without that Delhi In case.has case Both whichone has the as thatB. on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan been presence in to it a be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the the where for forth, toin down scene evidence- Having the leave the impeaching though and witness as of for statementan perused occurrence Hon'ble the Hydrabad improvements, box invariable the child in and creditHighwas writingmay the what fromrule ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will interfere of this in breathedcomplete or been chain of completely evidence as not to leave shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before border.
to the identified to bethe as be itused a Police police preparatory evidence was truthful for party difficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness reached to and measures never believe . persons not at underformbetween that theS. he by Apsara regarding the had 162 what statingbasiscome of border he of the out that in investigation accused statement
28. circumstantial
44. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement gotwith corroboration. parcel the discussed personsand reasonable Naushad declared he in course Ct. the statement was with evidence.
of Billu manner subsequentlyground and cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the Singh, argument proved In provided for testimony facts seal Abidand this of a and conclusion.
of Ct.
of had regard PW2 their by accused consequently SL, the the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid was The accused had blank connection accused seenpapers. persons Kamruddin, with was brought have Again case itmurdered Abid, is topolice the argued told.
Naushad Gajraj has pointed Police arrest.
one case, thecounsel by Jehurrin PW25 that also ld.
envelope Singh, Parvej deceased. Station andPW5 arguments out been CounselSh.
during andthe Parvej Dr Mohd.Ct.
demolished by Ninwith spot as PW5 K the Ld. Ashok the Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while the and IO.already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Abdul seal and On theythe for by of FIR No.95/2003, dated 10.04.2003, said Code at he conviction that of the had night.
hour Criminal statedunlessto Accused before purchase Procedure. corroborated theParvej vegetables. Section was officer 145 astandingmaterial Thus of and the thebywhat Evidence the extent trial heside court of witness appealSection Asagainst the it
- 300 comes phraseology acquittals, IPC on the only record exception where that the lenttrial this scope Court witness to makes in wrong his were actuallynot is in upto material Actrefused defeat wall made two the the of particulars to before Apsara place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
Cinema thebyfirst as independent of onIn part the and such theenables the vital on a evidence case seeing evidence. legislature missing the the the ofaccused by link question theAll police three the in the ocular that toeye-party is persons other could obtained document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence 15.4.2003, not necessary witnesses.
cross-examine cross-examination SL counsel accusedand staff. amicus is Sr were he to betried counsel Ex.PW3/G one necessary he putis trace Scientific They for black Abid, quarreling a at to curiae sample that The the all;
run witnessthem, went only the color as ld. away.
trial accused done as precisely was Officer, for evidence sealitto is counselwith questions court, to accused baniyan prepared by has HC deceased also previous Brijpuri SL FSL, ld. Asrool of toon however, persons for i.e.tothe borne Sh.
APP contradict interested statement Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the
i) pulia Rohini, by Haqcame record.
Mohd.
he reasons Mula the which and onand and and near has can witnesses IOmade as HC Delhi Devi be to record Arif it the they Further, which denied he ganda has Billu the already that for &has murdered contentions seizedalso deceased bears careful accused that Anr. nala proved Ex.P6 comevide any his on Vsin
25. werehas PW under assumptions as relied also 24standing Amendment ACP Section been upon of in got had Gurcharan material 302/34 Act declaredalso gali citations 1923, facts no.10 IPC joined Dass, the or partly and section fails and Sub to hostileon investigation 27/54/59 was appreciate asking Division by redrafted the from Arms Kamla evidence ld. of Kamruddin APP. this I Act, Market, properly-case P Ld. S Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught theas Except bequestion writing circumstantial him.
subjected that orto inthe the the Parvej reduced he here cases appellant has to contentions is posed to also careful hereinafter writing was evidence identified present doesscrutiny absconding without not excepted, inof all contradict; the and such minor courtwere and the accepted writing today.
that itthree culpable found contradictions he accused after defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is interrogated an answer caution. discovered shown murder, toIf him; on if thewhich the him suchweapon theact isand scrutiny, by which second which contradicted recorded the was the interested part found death by his deals the is totestimony be with caused police disclosure stained a is
20. him.
46. consideration PW19 Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion memo with as State Delhi counsel Two to done Seelampur, toInconfine record onSI was why viewsis statement.
is with situation on gypsy of Lady support biological and Ex.PW20/A withAjay foundthethe again the humanand at heseized the being statement. that was of Uttrakhand HC arrest This Delhi. to where knife point case in Kumar most was it only and u/sld. trial. argued intention be seen he of search possible his examination Bimla 145 counsel by standing material argument blood.intrinsically the to contradict perusal recovered law C.knew was ofhim itwith The Ibearing with seized This Cr.
that contentions relied causing from also is Accused of cross-examinationfrom of made 2008PC Sh. of accused the also authority other ld.
witness the reliable his accused there, PW6 witness the relied upon from death, Counselthe V the case accused blood Abdul Evidence accused abefore signatures staff evidence bloodor on AD(Cr.) Gajraj hasor witness Naushad formal by Nali/ persons was should Kamruddinbeing stained inherently the based he Sattar-
them and persons.
Parvej. stated factum assumes is on again file drain him Act persons upon in the detected witness. one and adopt at (S.C.) major a record, Baniyan probable, of reveals amicus and the that and the at submitted point told formalS.
find the publicfact SI to the on Abid dueon either this ld.
appropriate him 677 one of of B. Investigating as that curiae Satender She of instance Exhibits APP, to taking witness that and well favouring biological that effect were Thistwo any has the for
ii)I he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: onParvej Court be under been Act, the pantthat section in observed is therefore, sufficient, in vide as case worninwords, other soon by 145 seizure the not the State of by of as circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble memo Evidence of relevance parts heard UP at deal Supreme ofalready the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocessthe legislature of investigation by statement the days stated Mohan 2ndly. witness was in with accused correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, of particular of PC the 3, standing also
- Ex.PW13/E considering his cross-examination that the was 4, that witnesses Parvej haswhich Ifarrest.
it iscase, and remand identified 5A-1, isstatement view joinedon Abidalso not all with done theOn one 10.04.03 5A-2, that the been was to have found with in inhis with express vide against was base the have by the bybasis accused the was given a them 5B the way sought argued the sealed mentioned presence been at intention provisions athe conviction conviction and cross-examined friends party. recorded witness about at at this ofaccused-
and7at Brij first pullandah contradiction in discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars Accused length.
of9.31 he Puri in inS.
High PW12 of instance causing in the would with 162 the a.m. all the only.
pulia. his areCourt inof such the of Although statement Abid the by trial court. the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of she itin seal is accused bodily residents return SHO court threenot exhibits APP the was the ofexpected received no. He backhad court Abid recorded has 4 accused cannot further defence also and are ingiven to This also the withhisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji officer. hear-say examination injury Code in framing as of GCD. For the Hindurao witness. Criminal the blood offender the Accused section Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh is of the argued detected to be was brevity manner likely arrested that it on to and did & cause vide most in ExhibitsOrs. convenience 1923, the arrest material death Vs memo1,2, of State let witness 3,4,5A-1, of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. 19intoaccused to no and room contradict hard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness Ex.PW13/A rule to by tolife whom can the be the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid personal hisdown, caused, attention search yet, in preferred must, memo most before Ex.PW13/B an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and the reliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace message certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons argued u/s them house.light counsel. statement PW7 161 Maharashtra 5A-2, writingbethe who Maan that wood Cr.
evaluating against 5B atof Hewas canweapon directions of being solely held and in bethethe on Ilength. was Phas respect swab, have Singh the be C
7. a completely aforesaid 13.4.2003 on the saidon re-produced also in also prepared 2008 proved Blood of cross-examination sole to the He view police perused has evidence offence '2' SI Itof statement ground further identified conviction.
be (1) Flacky notSatender of has by called could quarrel statements he hostile JCC the remand.
of the verbatim me. and again been supported Thetoan not adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused of same.
542. at so to Mohan conviction three interested High those be PW7 of arguedtoascertain joined JJ Accused which Court parts detectedof PW2 was the bethe Camp, theMaan accused Ld. ofNoor while and itlooked Tahsildar is broughtthe blood, that prosecutionas Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter investigation Singh AGCR contradiction counsel even which ignoring on atheinto inwitness persons. under:- theled associates '3' Singh that now place who with Flackey , 6.Indra them submitted case SHO PW1has this and Thisthe asof to overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
whichpolice was station for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are and that the isKishan purpose very intention put useful :
investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and aback contradicting causing lockup. PW4crucial first at(kamar) step the bodily Ramesh him.Accused to The trial and injury focus ofExhibit reliedwas Kamruddin, dominant to On in presumably accused hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellantcannot 162 theby the of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intendedSingh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure policebe true notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this ANNOUNCEDnamely Camp left this with statement court material- identified recovery Akhtar Anr.
near witness come during that the case respect in serological Vs Govt.
on werewill theis theDilshad Jhuggies spot.
has was sample INof the along State of aincase record. On examine not knife THE Schoolofbeen accused PW2 hear-say got Near 10.4.2003 course examination of made and accused with near Mula blood, OPENwas UP.
declared Khaddeof Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the Karkardooma persons Iwitness under Deviwas notand Abid.
The his '4' human No nature pulia exclusively Wooden hostile Wala posted other proceedings in contentions as circumstances &members cross-examination Anr. PW5with asan blood examination-in-chief staff. School, he by oftoinformer SHO that Courts.
pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
the was accessible itinAPP On Gali hasnot of inspiring Police in CFSL ld.
detected that seen and been respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' She No.10,APP Station he the day them in report has toPants the the observed in based of statement accused andand Chauhanand proved incident both with cross- stated Exhibits and PWhis he onin
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the the at giving Seelampur.
in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross the statement ofscene knife Both the of to SI service course examination the of make the blow presentof the accused Satender of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by Mohan such of itself and thecause police out statement may gotthe of material his death, party proviso registered PW7 statement and as time to or Maan well Parvez the Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 30.01.2009 reasonablyMaan witness of much If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the manner Accused in regard from the Parvej substratum provided evidence to the but led when the byidentity of S. 145 ofon police the record, story of the party one which regard intended present to serve caseupon primarily FIR no.95/03 the the same citation and purpose investigation Khujji i.e. , theof @ the Surendera the gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, Banger and accused subsequent Abid copy 4thly.- examination the Mula the totally he and and information citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, '5A-2' Other has narrated and appellant. Evidence Devi of under different Naushad IfKhaddeknife of the the just from and he persons Shirt, denial 'Khujji by witnesses doctor person The 5A-2,the Act. did same section wala about identified was there '5B' not @were witness, High Another It version to committing School 5B are concerned.
as find blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would he Surendera and the being Vs inon Ex.PW19/A. also having the formal produced noticed be Cr.
the market which dead record stained with wanted consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits matching The witnesses. wali body Tiwari them knows with hetheone violence of bywhether gauze gali with in weapon persons This ofthe his and that knife examination-in- Uttrakhand had 5A-1,in Vs the to (RAJ Chauhan deceased.
statement other the they cross-examination blood IOwitness clothon itstated from State isthat used 5-A2 of that so stainswere piece, this KAPOOR) the thatof accused has and day ininItcase to drain. M.P. got with this not 'has '6' the his The5Bat- nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently evidence chief language present holding the Banger of of of of discrepancies accused intimation the dangerous this on the andthe record, witness proviso alongwith accused case andon was deceased. in the that his the was if the to the it pointed natural the carried evidence other recorded must, said witness other against out course out in statementon In of I all by the the prepared of November the two PW6 Inspector cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, Vijay cause pointing 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo Addl.
bodily ADDL.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness DecemberSupreme Court
24.Afterdeclared
38. been and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference Its effect PW AIR were sketch further 23 thereafter is statement 1991 that been ASI examination-in-chief. explaining noise found prosecution commits or of P.O. cross-examined. witness 10 a1976 knife visited that the knife scenewasblood.
PM, suchguilt he wife Munshi Supreme to .his argued or and made havePW6 which they Section act his they can of of prepared had other earlier No '7' house by be Gajraj along Inspector Lal human incident, without went the stated that Court kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 testimony justifiedEx.P5 by aand accused KARKARDOOMA Hence, any PW2Vijay the blood norof Singh with to only before formal Cr.
excuse proceedings took on Apsara IOand theBlood Prakash is Jahruddin the his PCof forto banyan leading when his which witnessformal itthe is informer testimony O presence has deceased Cinema tocould all not effect fell Group. regarding incurring is of come the police ill.
who were witness Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable accused not reached in incriminating by I the of Exhibits took athat stated got identification son on be ofas this search contradicting way initiated record detected and he interested of well Parvej to that as witness 1,2,3,4 this Jal facts which DELHI had other as on the of in the within accused this witness of 15, the the recovery new the case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I found be is after such of preferred of dead a major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and and the contradictions body will from present part in adopted Singh carry between of his pointing S. case with and conviction 145 Very he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at methatrisk one to is two on views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
21.witness
40. PW Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ext.6 statement 20 also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office documents Ct.
the in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found i.e. this circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have he Veersen case persons the confronting 302the at was case dagger/ of shown itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. Gokal Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful The PW21 clear IPC are Nor are the hand posted much of made at over On If arewas being came at point he case stains brought Puri.
found that the recovery does Apsara no knife. with and at that the accused that or we persons has in tofather to as the C. aabout file reaction the reliable. the having There not been previous Head knife on After instance reveals Cinema prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in On citation of aforesaid witness in appear record. his got the knife was Constable brother examination-in-chief preparing serological matched incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by Ithas already convict the in presence declared deceased. that statement is accused are of recovered questions to box relation at further Apart in police, two notin entirely of with argument house the Iand this the with the in the cases inhostile proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be with from examination along ThisParvez PCR, argued instance can stated case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased different. from culprits this by not A,B,O innocence the by North there was that and the guilt he be ld.
of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, with SI Accused not was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and possible forKumar, charge the not onevidence murder theHC to medically of basis invoke murder. Asrool ofofthe Whoever the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.statement commits Billu part appears from and of murder GTB that Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the court punished or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act on doubtin to orwithout the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated on had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 10.4.2003, 3knife District and Kamruddin also questions shall thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In present occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently doubt that :was light reached ofand investigation was beunder those itwas 161 handedfrom liablehe accused his witness PW2 converted may inof be near regarding thewas answered was Court todetected in Cr.
testimony drain these Court have given accept infirst over fine. has cross-examination there posted the the posted PC. Abid has are parthe to as happens Govt.
it, neither been conducted to wall into aidentification has MHC(R) exfacie in him without The thereof.further and by the in in isExhibits vehicle.of parcel witness.confronted Police IO Police been corroborated that accused scope the the to seeking for he atindicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadthe he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter TheStation had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ahe of would of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty talk itwith cross-examination that denied accused also investigation high was of withand by Seelampur.
is go
the
court, evidence reports one some sealed joined of seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused persons Again identify by ofthat doing these other have with him this nor the On 5B ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.
was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent duein part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand against clearly I ofcan towasto be indicates identify create deceased.
found, satestified the the doubt andcase simple Iit the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted the ifwith 8shownidentity of to local a to
29. circumstantial that investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive day been ParaT.I.P. no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from .for of
-13 reachingaccount he cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The joined he contradiction at persons. the a exhibited one knife evidence AK5A-1, had learneddrain the Brijpuri at beof PW8by that the any these tried made forms in wherein he the 5-A2 the and Counsel the SI investigation as all haswas He pulia. indicate essential also conclusionto IOSatender two and school. Ext.13/F of between the this escape. been appointed andthe he the not associates first 5B police knife Accused has version the information components got were argument was discussed let whoand And along the He that deposed thedirect was officials conducted just taken found proved wasmajor Ext.
this isas namely Abid statement relevant sent based in proximate stated apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to that case are to and contradictions the DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession police sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A IO days Naushad does made the Tahsildar human him, of nexus in which ago had and any I.O.
this the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inillustrate in the sothe act was of area is consideration donean of manner :A inno interested says by the consequence search several providedin thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtherance No was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the such in stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP case were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh 299 Chowkidar forin Codeismemo minor and office. apprehended IPC,In true of inquiry of mentioned thathis can on and ofthe this inOwent C.record. deputing act Ct.
statement and signatures 300 the Criminalwhen contradictions Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand another appellant His in and from case main,to Billu At the as hence the SIthe IPC, GTB in the attention thishim thein Ajay same Procedure. The revealed the aforesaid onwas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding 302 amongst the wooden Vs court mortuary stageat the they bearing and the Kumar can element mannerknife statement at point when was guilt State IPC may across-examination the ebdrawn Section pointing recorded thehave date, by 1,2,3,4 alongwas After recovered sealed look as pieces his instance of andto the Aiffor of of assailants 145 PW6 to itlook deposed with accused UPrespectively signature Lady recovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that out apprehending, pullandah ofsome were his and and other the as after Gajraj partIPC ofof constable of without statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against the informer. persons at deceasedhave u/s be with the by from atinpoint itdead bleononblood 161 collectively, his has Bimla shown are This re-produced the him the Courtboth exists accused C. 9IOHe body beyond Cr. cross- stains minor drain been state April Seal This had has wasthe PC noof in APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought will and which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station the well The Abid, from Sh.
those has and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions Kamruddin. witness ascertained after reports 2003 persons. truthfulness from denied use doing inwas is the dated IOin opinion alongwith witness night further which find Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the in to relation nor is not and Itthe He the thea his and doubtofidentified itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place accused given has to in had that are submitted human witness wireless of the blood further of suggestion testified same name indicate any the documents the to asblood also which Inspector to without A,B,O particular the box.
before exclusive witness discrete This operator. stated him persons cross-examination under:- jobblack and onhis stains been that that was Ifthat that the he Grouping. color case, contradiction This by inregarding that parentage cannot further Vijay there weapon admits attention statementCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, particular both the PW approach not which had further the witnesson from Veer IOPrakash, Maan is his is exclusively accused come PHQ.
be found 11.4.2003, can SIstrong under sufficient independent Singh previous called his discredited argued has of also of Ajay and of Singh from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused not who same happens his thematerial on persons Kumar. section he corroboration. accessible nature witness had been that postmortem information house proved the was intoldand 145 all forged match cross- which to were is This also and him are the no be Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed proof 34 with IPC Naushad which is parcel andor referred necessary, reveals a viewdirect, on was ofto his thethe and to before seized pant clothes if he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does by ofimportant him. himSattar, trial deceased he not Inthe wascourt from Advocate ingredients and the :
admit supportaccused wearing the and accused ofpractice at guilty one this theParvej.
sample on time generally contention the ofbasis seal his followed arrest, along of theth reliance with interested isisHightoplaceoneadmit Court sealed testimony it came upon subject envelope the to. the record was interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary the phone i.qualified brought suggest taken of Section to proof That to conducted blood wasthe conclusionfor has by in to hold
-Abid.
that murder by there away found 299 containing by giving postmortem light it the have ofon correctly witness theby accused that andwhen IPC must the murder the that IO record. bysome his of police accused having the committed benefit been These deceased. vide disclosure blood be the histhe isason murder persons. identified had officer.toother doctor. arrest contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze criminal . of beThe facts taken Itpersons doubt Onat of considerations has could memo Further, statements intimation After Chauhan sufficiently all contradicted act. deceased the was place on further to by the other guilty have well it.
postmortem, as Ex.PW13/A theallegedly are born the inaccused hand Ex.PW10/A Public Kamruddin to been for Bangar, Khaddewala foundedbeen accused major of police indicate PW6 for , on if the theNaushad argued witness his offence committed record at the andpersons andwhich these Seelampur, doctor officials the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time that in to bears affect u/s third was and had this the byof to inI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal. SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR Parvej. possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counsel mentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC homicide and accused Whoever isAbid causes Ifor death the offence by doing an under act section
42.
31. acquit given recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On issignature root accused inGurcharan property was Maan him all this ofof ofmemo furtherance describes implicate is cross-examination thedid under thus these the recovery not by two filled of the regard to notalready of persons Singh accused PW2 at :ofprefer Iftheir procedure trustworthy. as the case sealed be offence by facts point section the common DAss, well.
the he true lady IO witess an Ex.PW20/A. Jehruddin. and about of has and for accused B. appeal to persons parcels This the which knife ofBanyan 162 be constable in leave the been His asked circumstances PW3 then the terms against intention.
followed witness Cr.conceived is personal and an for is got confronted persons. incident This SHO was did PW12 the impression Rahisuddin P.C. the Ex.PW3/C ofBimla one the youcontradict to has five witness recovered the same offences who and saycompanions search sample object. been Islamuddin does of and before statement Inby deposited proved the the of was a support said cross-examined ld.
and it not u/s was factcase untruthfulness seal The from hasAPP 302/34 also information the reflect disclosure taken other havingwho which Imade accused comewith have of seizure cross- their IPC has into last the his he on notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7I again notThis perusal justify with the witnessofwitness the police the in the of intention appellant under malkhana.
officer all has conviction S.145 depositions of who that been ofcausing came the yu of cross-examined the saw Evidence to death, be ofa the appellants acquitted gas Act or prosecution with thuslight? .' by atthe the Ld. p.819and at intention trial length.
he (of witnesses counsel court. of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the AIR):theinjuryevening statement as isthat likely hour, which theHC to appellant does cause Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked with came
27. 302/34 brought statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record found their the length the such perused 27 passed IPC witnesses. of witness and /54/59 ofto thatthe knowledge thisinrecital the statement by the persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, the at of vide ld.was the quantum accused is clothes length on Abid knife Police Banda,Arms put is that statement 27 counsel defence memo jurisdiction same. tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms recorded was in UPAct. by Station the of AbidIn of is as question Ex.PW13/B. deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions counsel. also produced in concerned All had recorded time contradiction. have I have a regard and by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded pulanda Siddiqui made such 136 and found weapon which handed counsel 161 and under Chowkidar found of Hon Ithree act This He have place the the police Cr.PC that are one in to some so was also who ble was byover light inof Sh.
causedefence perused section Constitution. procedureMaan so disclosure many sample and murder Supreme the JC where recovered station also interrogated reveals the ofRashid gluingmany for death,this Singhthe IO same 161 minor can seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender fact vide is material Court that statementHasmi/ not Cr.
type notknife same.
in typeto along than also and DD the his be PCsoin of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies: Sambhaji working brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein as lawis Hindurao Chowkidar homicide. it Jagroop enables and the Deshmukh in accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was IO Mohan his I No.6A, namely as presence. does relied five found recovered elicit witness contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan discussed Inspector disclosure years, Tyagi not one by Singh. upon which dated DW1 as adenies some goIn process hence for sealed due The found light to above G.C. from Ithat Furkan, is have statement recorded 10.4.2003. accused to of he establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they the Dashis cross-examination borne having all made envelope and factreason possession statement depositions be DW2 Abid type and judgment Ex.PW13/C of onthe former the released The blood recovery After and record same Sitara that close of of what containing record it Maanon materialstatement. contradictions relied of disclosure stains forthwith has were and and was in this the of 15.04.2003 of Singh their come witness upon knife DW3 witness proximate recorded the taken which u/s statement blood In 161and same testimony if statement aforesaid from by onnot Anwari. isby Tahsildar first. that He accused contradictions contradictions Explanation had Singh 1. signed persons
- and in A. his and person the another visited discrepancies cross-examination.
who documents causes at the Vs in bodily house State at their injury the of ofspot statements to PW2UP another itld.
was and record which gauze wanted has by thehim link APP of explaining Jehruddinno the which found come place PW2 form both whichwith that into are i.e. On oneIOof in
30. incident So been long stated that observed event, as itthe before tookCr.P.C. the place would question In police that the beon 'Hightheofnight meantime officer. necessary interested Court If the a to prove ofpolice can, police 09.04.2003.
that inwitnesses officerteam he exercise did of did, andThis not SI ofAjay such concerned witness powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement cameunder of awas inawitnessdisorder, thereduced Police disease s statement Station to writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
were have and possession Khujji else the and are review been attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has record other not witness object had took statement requires thereby arrested was bears to most attributable entirebeen perusal @ that find proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that not that due vide Surendera could accelerates police happens dated his the Section son evidence hismaterial observed same exclusively byto notthis oftheon careful seizure signature mention assistance the Kamruddin, persons be attention due and record officials the 10.4.2003 their was witness 162 to to long as the Tiwari documents used thenamely must reach consideration witnesses IO by memo Cr.
for death testimony be also already longanyvide accessible of have duration vide at the PC be the its to also sent goesaccused Vs Abid drawn own of maintained point the held purpose inEx.P5 Ex.PW20/A Hon'ble just arrest cousin. duration that Ex.PW20/A, Statedoes in to and hisitof testimony toB. completed to CFSL that:- time by to other, reveals this memo persons accused presence indicate whereas Naushad, these conclusion-However, The of ofnot atPW21 Supremethe andshall and case, M.P. parts time This which ifPHQ happens baniyan aseizure thatof that Ex.PW3/B ASI itcitations be formalities memory today andAbid visit PW7part
-whileis i.e. has bears AIRthey Court Ashrul reported reliancememory itv. further at memo of to Maan in been PW2 will of 1991 as are the his bein of not a thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer are to present Supreme testimony have to recorded be in caused used court. Court his a few for to (PW the death. sentences contradiction.
held pointed byincident in towards But Hari this that in Obula processboth question.
position accused of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP when the they witness the furtherwere witnesss identified oralargued statement admits by chowkidar that the could former allbeMaan the material
26. discussed signature respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the case itnot Observation:
Laxman first Supreme this interfere PW of of human line witness 25 Explanation Andhra brought statement. analysis reveals type blood Parebeing.
So with Dr be of hewhich at Naik Singh.
and above fabricating house.
also vide who 11- Court of being.
on accused long determinative point unless
2.stained stated appears the Rajender Pradesh In Itwitnesses no goes was Order is, record.
such evaluation Vs and happens as mark A. 1853
-Iacquittal Where was PW4 that some therefore, a arguments having the indirect Naushad Baniyan State to Kumar, However, AIR handed case No.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein 1981 all of Thisto blood of over other blood of recorded seen shaky. trial is that this be they death and court Sr in caused of and is that Orissa that SC some procedure, is of itwith the casedid necessary witness the has Scientific ld.
accused cogent astained circumstantial unless 82 with witness Ex.PW3/E his by documentsthis father the notCounsel object andof(1994) been Itthe witness blood relate statement bodily there type piece is ofParvej Officer, Jaskaran therefore, is testimony to ofwho knife held also the injury, Tameshwar by look are SI for dated 3deceased and on to in could (SCC) Ajay at that:- all belongs ofevidence argued the in itas strong FSL, the respect reveals accused identity evidence was 09.12.05 question the Singh incident already not 381 also that and spot.
reason Rohini Sahi be Vs that of is:
v.
person legislature who causes throughout such bodily has injurybeen shall to be excludedeemed the to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express arrest statement provision of which of both of no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second evidence the and have of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that on can made by judgment identified dislodge by record.
the beforethe resorting illustration the the RecordIto would police findingsaccused proper given during of by like arrived remedies thethe persons.to at bring by proceeding the on He trial accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994 Ld. Statequestion the its Modh.
counsel necessary appeared theinto SIon toorder SCC PW1 1997 recovery Abid unqualified the record. possession in Mukesh Komal in investigation PW2 Siddiqui (Cri.)This picture substance. which further because the SCC ofand Jehruddin Chand, DCP, thereto.656
of court fact bears issubsequently arrest and argued the (Crl) from by that also Police formal however, admission and being the 651 DW3 they inhis memo who the IO that stated made Accused goes signatures are is Control after witness supported that it happens absence the PW4 use i.e. wasit crucial to of was that of mother converting after the at are indicate accused Aslam made.
on Room, in observed atfor the to the ofpoint in this prosecution of be 30.05.2003, trial the other custody occurrence accused has itDelhi.
the that C. case by purpose Parvej into Personal piece father been certain parcel Hon'blesince Abid The being eight as so gotof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith isin that would prevented.
nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendments regard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued accused that went he to in primary expressed refer deceased tofor search other the statement some acquittal-High ofcases accused Kamruddin doubt wherein namely regarding a wasCourt in similar Parvej theseen has theinto with give due the
22.
23.
37. So reveals search and PW hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his photocopy draftsman. declared sealed time testimony 21 22 sealed long Explanation Supremewitness procedure she WhenASI ofthat Ct.
parcels General identity to has Abid hostile theCourt box, of as time appears Further, isAsurl Ashok it with Ld. the of 3.
areaaccused and the has is of
-for the suggested were born and
-counsel the charge as remotely by The inofthe Haque, said the only come personal Kumar, per the interested Interested appellantld.
is Dilshad intended cross-examination Naushad onguilt seal order statement causing Chauhan witness for APP sought on record further forwarding following PCR, and putting connected ofNo.1925 record ofisGuddu has Banger evidence to andto search Mark be the and accused GCD make witness. were North argued yetof words:-
questions regarding in proved death and not is Arif that and X. PW5 letter clear taken PCR the stating memo hiswith East made no persons of ofon by under This whothe deceased took this cross-
were thePHQ into regard Mohd.
anecessarily work thatchild on S. said Zone, reportedly committal as into witness witness point place.
the he 145 possession based has Ex.PW13/B, Delhi to inexamination received had the possession Kamruddin Iof has Siddiqui deposed a reveals on of link medical in were stated the notby theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial womband isregarding frequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. the change cloud proof the But cast ofof conviction it on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian their to whenassertion to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother can partisanship the trialserve said of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
isParvejnot to this athe as The justified Act of 1898 the forofthe circumstances trialfirst court, time found if they introduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
39. accused along the vide that direct number Other three been has homicide The pointing murder was piece IO Court evidence concerned, FSL, valid on taken memo on When or PWwith conclusion vide for of officers andpersons contradiction, well cross-examined come Rohini exception established to cause ground 12.4.2003, 12.4.2003 indirect out that on as accused contradictions deceased away 4 Ex.PW13/D the memo similar he the evidence Delhithat Aslam memo for conducted enabling otherat the under evidence bypurpose medical record hasagainst last death discrediting notdecisions also from persons only Ex.PW3/D Constable accused he ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of by that first time was the of which joined which the the in the and is athis section, or were evidence said the of of police his informant by living as SHO, the rejecting independent persons place bearsPW7 witness therefore and also Beer the child, should consideration not investigation accused by deposition statement accused factory revealed sworn a ifbe investigation 3/A go accused obtained is P as does foundhis consideringSain fromfrom S to any chance reduced that between part respectively. already comparison signature in testimony. Singh to be tofull of persons.the public of has Seelampur,handed his not accused hiswitness root his persons the this house.
of and disclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of case signature of atchain over this the he between point without that Delhi In case.has case Both whichone has the as thatB. on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan been presence in to it a be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the the where for forth, toin down scene evidence- Having the leave the impeaching though witness as and of for statementan perused occurrence Hon'ble the Hydrabad improvements, box invariable the child in and creditHighwas writingmay the what fromrule ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will interfere of this in breathedcomplete or been chain of completely evidence as not to leave shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before border.
to the identified to bethe as be itused a Police police preparatory evidence was truthful for party difficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness reached to and measures never believe . persons not at underformbetween that theS. he by Apsara regarding the had 162 what statingbasiscome of border he of the out that in investigation accused statement
28. circumstantial
44. along sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement gotwith corroboration. parcel the discussed and reasonable Naushad declared he in course Ct. the statement was with evidence.
of Billu manner subsequentlyground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the Singh, argument In provided for testimony facts seal Abidand this of a and conclusion.
ofCt.
ofhad regard PW2 by accused consequently SL, the the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid was The accused had blank connection accused seenpapers. persons Kamruddin, with was brought have Again case itmurdered Abid, is topolice the argued told.
Naushad Gajraj has pointed Police one case, thecounsel by Jehurrin PW25 that also ld.
envelope Singh, Parvej deceased. Station andPW5 arguments out been CounselSh.
during andthe Parvej Dr Mohd.Ct.
demolished by Ninwith spot as PW5 K the Ld. Ashok the Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while the and IO.already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Abdul seal and On theythe for by of FIR No.95/2003, dated 10.04.2003, said Code at he conviction that of the had night.
hour Criminal statedunlessto Accused before purchase Procedure. corroborated theParvej vegetables. Section was officer 145 astandingmaterial Thus of and the thebywhat Evidence the extent trial heside court of witness appealSection Asagainst the it
- 300 comes phraseology acquittals, IPC on the only record exception where that the lenttrial this scope Court witness to makes in wrong his were actuallynot is in upto material Actrefused defeat wall made two the the of particulars to before Apsara place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
Cinema thebyfirst as independent of onIn part the and such theenables the vital on a evidence case seeing evidence. legislature missing the the the ofaccused by link question theAll police three the in the ocular that toeye-party is persons other could obtained document the Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence 15.4.2003, not necessary witnesses.
cross-examine cross-examination SL counsel accusedand staff. amicus is Sr were he to betried counsel Ex.PW3/G one necessary he putis trace Scientific They for black Abid, quarreling a at to curiae sample that The the all;
run witnessthem, went only the color as ld. away.
trial accused done as precisely was Officer, for evidence sealitto is counselwith questions court, to accused baniyan HC deceased also previous prepared by has Brijpuri SL FSL, ld. Asrool of toon however, persons for i.e.tothe borne Sh.
APP contradict interested statement Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the
i) pulia Rohini, by Haqcame record.
Mohd.
he reasons Mula the which and onand and and near has can witnesses IOmade as HC Delhi Devi be to record Arif it the they Further, which denied he ganda has Billu the already that for &has murdered contentions seizedalso deceased bears careful accused that Anr. nala proved Ex.P6 comevide any his on Vsin
25. werehas PW under assumptions as relied also 24standing Amendment ACP Section been upon of in got had Gurcharan material 302/34 Act declaredalso gali citations 1923, facts no.10 IPC joined Dass, the or partly and section fails and Sub to hostileon investigation 27/54/59 was appreciate asking Division by redrafted the from Arms Kamla evidence ld. of Kamruddin APP. this I Act, Market, properly-case P Ld. S Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught theas Except bequestion writing circumstantial him.
subjected that orto inthe the the Parvej reduced he here cases appellant has to contentions is posed to also careful hereinafter writing was evidence identified present doesscrutiny absconding without not excepted, inof all contradict; the and such minor courtwere and the accepted writing today.
that itthree culpable found contradictions he accused after defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is interrogated an answer caution. discovered shown murder, toIf him; on if thewhich the him suchweapon theact isand scrutiny, by which second which contradicted recorded the was the interested part found death by his deals the is totestimony be with caused police disclosure stained a is
46. him.consideration Govt.
signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion memo with as State Delhi counsel Two to done Seelampur, toInconfine record onSI was why viewsis statement.
is with situation on gypsy of support biological and Ex.PW20/A withAjay foundthethe again the humanand at heseized that was of Uttrakhand the being statement. arrest This Delhi. to where knife point case in Kumar most was it only and u/sld. trial. argued intention be seen he of search possible his examination 145 counsel by standing material argument blood.intrinsically the to contradict perusal recovered law C.knew was ofhim itwith The Ibearing with seized This Cr.
that contentions relied causing from also Accused of cross-examinationfrom of made 2008PC Sh. of accused the authority other ld.
witnessthe reliable his there, PW6 witness the relied accused upon from death, Counselthe V the case accused blood Abdul Evidence accused before signatures staff evidence bloodor on AD(Cr.) Gajraj hasor witness Naushad by Nali/ persons was should Kamruddinbeing stained inherently the based he Sattar-
them and persons.
Parvej. stated factum assumes is on again file drain him Act persons upon in the detected one and adopt at (S.C.) major a record, Baniyan probable, of reveals amicus and the and formal that the at submitted point told S. find the publicfact SI to the on Abid dueon either this ld.
appropriate him 677 one of of B. Investigating as that curiae Satender of instance Exhibits APP, to taking witness that and well favouring biological that effect weretwo any This the for
ii)I he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: onParvej Court be under been Act, the pantthat section in observed is therefore, sufficient, in vide ascase worninwords, other soon by 145 seizure the not the State of by of as circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble memo Evidence of relevance parts heard UP at deal Supreme ofalready the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocessthe legislature of investigation by statement the days Mohan 2ndly. witness was in with accused correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, of particular of PC the 3, standing also
- Ex.PW13/E considering his cross-examination the was 4, that witnesses Parvej haswhich Ifarrest.
it iscase, and remand identified 5A-1, isstatement view joinedAbidalso not all with done theOn one 5A-2, that the been was to have found with in inhis with express vide against was base the have by the bybasis accused the was given a them 5B the way sought argued the sealed mentioned presence been intention provisions athe conviction conviction and cross-examined friends party. recorded witness at at this ofaccused-
and7at Brij first pullandah contradiction in discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars Accused length.
of he Puri in inS.
High PW12 of instance causing in the would with 162 theall the only.
pulia. his areCourt inof such the of Although statement Abid the by trial court. the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of itin seal is accused bodily residents return SHO court threenot exhibits APP the was the ofexpected no. He backhad court Abid recorded has 4 accused cannot further defence also and are ingiven to This also withhisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji officer. hear-say examination injury Code in framing as of GCD. For the Hindurao witness. Criminal the blood offender the Accused section Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh is of the argued detected to be was brevity manner likely arrested that it on to and did & cause vide most in ExhibitsOrs. convenience 1923, the arrest material death Vs memo1,2, of State let witness 3,4,5A-1, of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. 19intoaccused to no and room contradict hard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness Ex.PW13/A rule to by tolife whom can the be the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid personal hisdown, caused, attention search yet, in preferred must, memo most before Ex.PW13/B an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and the reliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace certain stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons argued u/s them house.light counsel. statement PW7 161 Maharashtra 5A-2, writingbethe who Maan that wood Cr.
evaluating against 5B atof Hewas canweapon directions of being solely held and the was be the on Ilength. Phas swab, have Singh the be C
7. a completely aforesaid 13.4.2003 on the saidon re-produced also in also prepared 2008 proved Blood of cross-examination sole to the He view police perused has evidence offence '2' SI Itstatement ground further identified conviction.
be (1) Flacky notSatender of has by called could statements he hostile JCC the remand. me.
of the verbatim and again been supported The toan not adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused of same.
542. so to Mohan conviction three interested High those be PW7 of arguedtoascertain joined Accused which Court parts detectedof PW2 was the bethetheMaan accused Ld. ofNoor while and itlooked Tahsildar is broughtthe blood, that prosecution Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as thereafter investigation Singh contradiction as counsel even which ignoring on atheinto inwitness persons. under:- theled associates '3' Singh that now place who with Flackey them submitted case SHO
6.PW1 has this and Thisthe asof to overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
whichpolice was station for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are and that the isKishan purpose very intention put useful :
investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and aback contradicting causing lockup. PW4crucial first at(kamar) step the bodily Ramesh him.Accused to The trial and injury focus ofExhibit reliedwas Kamruddin, dominant to On in presumably accused hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellantcannot 162 theby the of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury consideredMaan whether ofthe intendedSingh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure policebe true notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this ANNOUNCEDnamely left this with statement court material- identified recovery Akhtar Anr.
near witness come during that the case respect in serological Vs Govt.
on werewill theis theDilshad spot.
has was sample INof the along State of aincase record. On examine not knife THE Schoolofbeen accused PW2 hear-say got Near 10.4.2003 course examination of made and accused with Mula blood, OPENwas UP.
declared Khaddeof Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, Brijpuri IO the persons Iwitness under Deviwas notand Abid.
The his '4' human No nature pulia exclusively Wooden hostile Wala posted other proceedings in contentions as circumstances &members PW5 cross-examination Anr. with asan blood examination-in-chief staff. School, he by oftoinformer SHO that pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
the was accessible itinAPP On Gali hasnot of inspiring Police in CFSL ld.
detected that seen and been respect Siddiqui met to '5A-1' No.10,APP Station he the day them in report to the Pants the observed hasin based of statement accused andand Chauhanand incident both with cross- stated Exhibits and PWhis he onin
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the the at giving Seelampur.
in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross the statement ofscene knife Both the of to SI service course examination the of make the blow presentof the accused Satender of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by Mohan such of itself and thecause police out statement may gotthe of material his death, party proviso registered PW7 statement and as time to or Maan well Parvez the Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 30.01.2009 reasonablyMaan witness of much If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the manner Accused in regard from the Parvej substratum provided evidence to the but led when the byidentity of S. 145 ofon police the record, story of the party one which regard intended present to serve caseupon primarily FIR no.95/03 the the same citation and purpose investigation Khujji i.e. , theof @ the Surendera the gave recorded Gajraj. statement belt, Banger and accused subsequent Abid 4thly.- examination the the totally Mula he and and information citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, '5A-2' Other has narrated and appellant. Evidence Devi under different Naushad IfKhaddeknife of the just from and he persons Shirt, denial 'Khujji by witnesses doctor person The the Act.
5A-2, didsection wala about identified was there High Another '5B' not @were witness, It version to committing School 5B are concerned.
find blood are identify all 161 contradicted Court would he Surendera and thealso being Vs inonhaving the formal produced noticed be Cr.
the market which dead record stained with wanted consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits matching The witnesses. wali body Tiwari them knows with hetheone violence of bywhether gauze gali with in weapon persons ofthe his and that knife examination-in- Uttrakhand had 5A-1,in Vs the to Chauhan deceased.
statement other the they cross-examination (RAJblood IOclothon itstated from State isthat used 5-A2 of that so stainswere piece, this KAPOOR) the thatof accused and day ininItcase to drain. M.P. got with this 'has '6' the his The5Bat- nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently evidence chief language present holding the Banger of of of of discrepancies accused intimation the dangerous this on the andthe record, witness proviso alongwith accused case andon was deceased. in the that his the was if the to the it pointed natural the carried evidence other recordedmust, said witness other against out course out in statementon In of I all by the the prepared of November the two PW6 Inspector cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, Vijay cause pointing 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo Addl.
bodily ADDL.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness DecemberSupreme Court
24.Afterdeclared
38. and about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference Its effect PW AIR were sketch further 23 thereafter is 1991 witness 10 statement thata1976 been ASI examination-in-chief. explaining noise found prosecution commits or of P.O. knife visited that the knife scenewasblood.
PM, suchguilt he wife Munshi Supreme to .his argued or and made havePW6 which they Section act his they can of of prepared had other earlier No '7' house by be Gajraj along Inspector Lal human incident, without went the stated that Court kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 testimony justifiedEx.P5 by aand accused KARKARDOOMA Hence, any Vijay PW2 the blood norof Singh with to only before formal Cr.
excuse proceedings took on Apsara IOand theBlood Prakash is Jahruddin the his PCof forto banyan leading when his which witnessformal O itthe is informer testimony presence has deceased Cinema to notcould all effect fell Group. regarding incurring is of come the police ill.
who were witness Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable accused not reached in incriminating by I the of Exhibits took athat stated got identification son on be ofas this search contradicting way initiated record detected and he interested of well Parvej to that as witness 1,2,3,4 this Jal facts which DELHI had other as on the of in the within accused this witness of 15, the the recovery new the case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I found be is after such of preferred of dead a major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and and the contradictions body will from present part in adopted Singh carry between of his pointing S. case with and conviction 145 Very he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at methatrisk one to is two on views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness Board accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ext.6 statement also which of possiblenot
7.observations his office documents the in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found i.e. this circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have he case persons the confronting 302the at was case dagger/ of shown itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. Gokal Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful The PW21 clear IPC are Nor are the hand posted much of made at over On If arewas being at point he case stains brought Puri.
found that the recovery does Apsara no knife. with and at that the accused that or we persons has in tofather as the C. aabout file reaction the reliable. having There not been previous Head knife on After instance reveals Cinema prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in On citation of aforesaid in appear record. his got the knife was Constable brother examination-in-chief preparing serological matched incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by Ithas already convict the in presence declared deceased. that statement is accused are of recovered questions to relation at further Apart in police, two notin entirely of with argument house the I this the with the in the proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be cases inhostile with from examination along ThisParvez PCR, argued instance can case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased different. from culprits this by not A,B,O innocence the by North there was that and the guilt he be ld.
of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, with SI Accused not was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and possible forKumar, charge the not onevidence murder theHC to medically of basis invoke murder. Asrool ofofthe Whoever the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.statement commits Billu part appears from and of murder GTB that Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the court punished or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act on doubtin to orwithout the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonment night person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated had already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 3knife District and Kamruddin also questions shall thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In present occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently doubt that :was light reached ofand investigation was beunder those itwas 161 handedfrom liableaccused his witness PW2 converted may inof be near regarding thewas answered Court todetected in Cr.
testimony drain these Court have given accept infirst over fine. has cross-examination there posted the the PC. Abid has are parthe to as happens Govt.
it, neither been conducted to wall into aidentification has MHC(R) exfacie in him without The thereof.further and by the in isExhibits vehicle.of parcel witness.confronted Police IO been corroborated that accused scope the the to seeking for he atindicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadthe he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter The had 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ahe of would of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty talk itwith cross-examination that denied accused also investigation high was of withand by is go the court, evidence reports one some sealed joined of seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused persons Again identify by ofthat doing these other have with him this nor the 5B ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.
was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent duein part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand against clearly I ofcan towasto be indicates identify create deceased.
found, satestified the the doubt andcase simple Iit the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted the ifsent 8shownidentity of to local a to
29. circumstantial investigation police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive been ParaT.I.P. no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from .for of
-13 reachingaccount cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The he contradiction at persons. the a exhibited one knife evidence AK5A-1, had learneddrain the Brijpuri at beof PW8by that any these tried made forms in wherein he the 5-A2 the and Counsel the SIas all haswas He pulia. indicate essential also conclusionto IOSatender two and school. Ext.13/F of between the this escape. been appointed andthe he the not associates first 5B police knife Accused has version the information components got were argumentwas discussed let whoand And the He that deposed thedirect was officials conducted just taken found proved wasmajor Ext.
this isas namely Abid statement relevantbased in proximate stated apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to that case are to and contradictions DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession police sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A days Naushad does made the Tahsildar human him, nexus in which ago had and any I.O.
the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inillustrate in the sothe act was of area is consideration donean of manner :A inno interested says by the consequence search several providedin thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtherance No was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the suchin stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP were him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh 299 Chowkidar forin Codeismemo minor and office. apprehended In IPC, true of inquiry of mentioned thathis can on and ofthe this inOC.record. deputing act Ct.
statement and signatures 300 the Criminalwhen contradictions Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand another appellant His in and from case main, Billu At the as hence the SIthe IPC, in the attention thishim thein Ajay same Procedure. The revealed the aforesaid onwas the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding 302 amongst the wooden Vs court stageat the they bearing and the Kumar can element mannerknife statement at point when was guilt State IPC may across-examination the ebdrawn Section pointing recorded thehave date, by 1,2,3,4 alongwas After recovered sealed look as pieces his instance of andthe Aiffor of of assailants 145 PW6 to itdeposed withaccused respectively signature Lady UPrecovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that out apprehending, pullandah ofsome were his and and other the as Gajraj partIPC ofof constable of without statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against informer. persons at deceasedhave u/s be with the by from atinpoint ithim bleononblood 161 collectively, his has Bimla shown are This re-produced the the Courtboth exists accused C. 9IOHe beyond Cr. cross- stains minor drain been state April Seal This had has wasthe PC noin APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought will and which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station the well The Abid, from Sh.
those has witness persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions ascertained after reports 2003 truthfulness from denied use doing inwas is the dated IOin opinion alongwith witness night further which find Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the in to relation nor is not and Itthe the thea his and doubtofidentified itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place accused given has to in had thatof are submitted human witness wireless of the blood suggestion testified same name indicate any the documents the to asblood also which Inspector to without A,B,O particular the box.
before exclusive witness discrete Thishimoperator. persons cross-examination under:- jobblack and onhis stains been that that was Ifthat that the he Grouping. color case, contradiction This by inregarding parentage cannot further Vijay there weapon admits attention statementCt.baniyan/T-Shirt, particular both the PW approach not which had further the witness from Veer IOPrakash, Maan is his is exclusively accused come PHQ.
be can SI found strong under sufficient independent Singh previous called his discredited argued has of also of Ajay and of Singh from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused not who same happens his thematerial on persons Kumar. section he corroboration. accessible nature witness had been thatinformation house proved the was intoldand 145 all forged match cross- which to were is This also and him are the no be Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed proof 34 with IPC Naushad which is parcel andor referred necessary, reveals a viewdirect, on was ofto his thethe and to before seized pant clothes if he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does by ofimportant him. himSattar, trial deceased he not Inthe wascourt from Advocate ingredients and the :
admit supportaccused wearing the and accused ofpractice at guilty one this theParvej.
sample on time generally contention the ofbasis seal his followed arrest, along of theth reliance with interested isisHightoplace oneadmit Court sealed testimony it came upon subject envelope the to. the record interrogated arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary the phone i.qualified brought suggest taken of Section to proof That to blood wasthe conclusionfor has by in to hold
-Abid.
that murder by there away found 299 containing by giving postmortem light it the have ofon correctly witness theby accused that andwhen IPC must the murder the that IO record. some his of police accused having the committed benefit been These deceased. vide disclosure blood be histhe isason murder persons. identified had officer.toother arrest contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze criminal . of beThe facts taken Itpersons doubt Onat of considerations has could memo Further, statements intimation Chauhan sufficiently all contradicted act. deceased the was place on further to by the other guilty have well it.
as Ex.PW13/A theallegedly are born the inaccused hand Ex.PW10/A Public Kamruddin to been for Bangar, Khaddewala foundedbeen accused major of police indicate PW6 for , on if the theNaushad argued witness his offence committed record at the andpersons andwhich these Seelampur, officials the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time that in to bears affect u/s third was and this the byof to inI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal. SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR Parvej. possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC homicide and accused Whoever isAbid causes Ifor deaththe offence by doing an under act section
42.
31. acquit recorded his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On issignature root accused inGurcharan property was Maan all this ofof ofmemo furtherance describes implicate is cross-examination thedid under thus these the recovery not by filled of the regard to notalready of persons Singh accused PW2 at :ofprefer Iftheir procedure trustworthy. as the case be offence by facts point section the common DAss, well.
the he true lady IO witess an Ex.PW20/A. Jehruddin. and about of has and for accused B. appeal to persons This the which knife ofBanyan 162 be constable in leave the been His asked circumstances PW3 then the terms against intention.
followed witness Cr.conceived is personal an for is got confronted persons. incident This SHO was did PW12 the impression Rahisuddin P.C. the Ex.PW3/C ofBimla the youcontradict to has five witness recovered the same offences who and saycompanions search object. been Islamuddin does of and before statement Inby deposited proved the the of was a support said cross-examined ld.
and it not u/s was factcase untruthfulness The from hasAPP 302/34 also information the reflect disclosure taken other havingwho Imade accused comewith have of seizure cross- their IPC has into last the his on notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7I again notThis perusal justify with the witnessofwitness the police the in the of intention appellant under malkhana.
officer all has conviction S.145 depositions of who that been ofcausing came the yu of cross-examined the saw Evidence to death, be ofa the appellants acquitted gas Act or prosecution with light? thus .' by atthe the Ld. p.819and at intention trial length.
he (of witnesses counsel court. of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the AIR):theinjuryevening statement as isthat likely hour, which theHC to appellant does cause Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked with came
27. 302/34 statement possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record found their the length the such perused 27 passed thisin IPC witnesses. of witness and /54/59 of thatthe knowledge recital the statement by the persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, at of vide ld.was the quantum accused is clothes length on Abid knife Arms is that statement Banda, put 27 counsel defence memo jurisdiction same. tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms recorded was in UPAct. by the of AbidIn of is as question Ex.PW13/B. deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions counsel. also produced in concerned All had recorded time contradiction. have I have a regard by Art.
with as accused u/srecorded pulanda Siddiqui made such 136 and found weapon which counsel 161 and under Chowkidar found of Hon Ithree act This He have place the the police Cr.PC that are one in to some so was also who ble was by light inof Sh.
causedefence perused section Constitution. procedureMaan so disclosure many sample and murder Supreme the JC where recovered station also interrogated reveals ofRashid gluingmany for death,this Singhthe IO 161 minor can seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment Satender fact vide is material Court that statementHasmi/ not Cr.
type notknife same.
in typealong than also and DD his be PCsoin of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies: Sambhaji working brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein as lawis Hindurao Chowkidar homicide. it Jagroop enables and the Deshmukh in accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was Mohan his I No.6A, namely Tahsildar first. that recovered elicit witness contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five found discussed disclosure years, Tyagi not one He accused by Singh. upon which dated DW1 as adenies some go had In process hence for Singhsealed due The found light to above from Ithat Furkan, is have statement signed persons recorded 10.4.2003. accused to of he establish Ex.PW3/F. sole minor of they the and his cross-examination borne having all made envelope and fact the reason possession statement depositions be DW2 Abid another visited type judgment Ex.PW13/C of onthe former the released The documents blood recovery After and atrecord Sitara that close of of what containing record the Vs it Maanon statement. material contradictions relied of disclosure stains forthwith has house and and was in this the of State at 15.04.2003 of Singh their come the witness upon knife DW3 witness proximate recorded the which of u/s statement blood of In 161and same testimony spotif statement PW2aforesaid from by UPonnot Anwari. itld.
was and record which gauze wanted has by thelink APP of explaining Jehruddinno the which found come place PW2 form both with that are i.e. On oneIOof in contradictions contradictions
30. incident So been Explanation long stated that observed event, as itthe before tookCr.P.C. 1.
place would -
the and in A.thathis question In person police the beon discrepancies cross-examination. meantime 'High who theofnight officer. necessary Courtcauses interested If the a to prove ofpolice can, in bodily police 09.04.2003.
that their officer injury inwitnesses team he exercise statements did to of did, andThis another not SI ofAjayissuch concerned witness which powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement cameunder of awas inawitnessdisorder, thereduced Police disease s statement Station to writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
were have and Khujji else the and are review been attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has record other not witness object had took statement requires thereby arrested was bears to most attributable entirebeen perusal @ that find proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that not that due Surendera could accelerates police happens dated his the Section son evidence hismaterial observed same exclusively byto notthis oftheon careful signature mention assistance the Kamruddin, persons be attention due and record officials the 10.4.2003 their was witness 162 to used to long as the Tiwari documents thenamely must reach consideration witnesses IO by Cr.
for death testimony be also already longanyvide accessible of have duration vide at the PC be the its to also sent goesaccused Vs Abid drawn own of maintained point the held purpose inEx.P5 Hon'ble just arrest cousin. duration that Ex.PW20/A, does in State to andhisitof testimony toB. completed to CFSL that:- by to other, reveals this time memo persons accused presence indicate whereas Naushad, these conclusion-However, The of ofnot atPW21 Supremethe andshall and case, M.P. parts time This ifPHQ happens baniyan aseizure thatof that Ex.PW3/B ASI itcitations be formalities memory today andAbid visit PW7part
-whileis i.e. has AIRthey Court Ashrul reported reliancememory itv. further at memo of to Maan in been PW2 will of 1991 as are the bein of not a thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer are to present Supreme testimony have to recorded be in caused used court. Court his a few for to (PW the death. sentences contradiction.
held pointed byincident in towards But Hari this that in Obula processboth question.
position accused of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP when the they witness the furtherwere witnesss identified oralargued statement admits by chowkidar that the could former allbeMaan the material
26. discussed respect accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the case itnot Observation:
Laxman first Supreme this interfere PW of of human line witness 25 Explanation Andhra brought statement. analysis reveals type blood Parebeing.
So with Dr be of hewhich Naik Singh.
and above fabricating house.
also vide who 11- Court of being.
on accused long determinative unless
2.stained stated appears the Rajender Pradesh In Itwitnesses no goes was Order is, record.
such evaluation Vs and happens as mark 1853
-Iacquittal Where was PW4 that some therefore, a arguments having the indirect Naushad Baniyan State to Kumar, However, AIR handed case No.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein 1981 all of Thisto blood of over other blood of recorded seen shaky. trial is that this be they death and court Sr in caused of and is that Orissa that SC some procedure, is of itwith the casedid necessary witness the has Scientific ld.
accused cogent astained circumstantial with unless 82 witness Ex.PW3/E his by this documents father the notCounsel object andof(1994) been Itthe witness blood relate statement bodily there type piece is ofParvej Officer, Jaskaran therefore, is testimony to ofwho knife held also the injury, Tameshwar by look are SI for dated 3deceased and on to in could (SCC) the Ajay at that:- all belongs ofevidence argued the in itas strong FSL, respect reveals accused identity evidence was 09.12.05 question the Singh incident already not 381 also that and spot.
reason Rohini Sahi be Vs that of is:
v.
person legislature who causes throughout such bodily has injurybeen shall to be excludedeemed the to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express arrest statement provision of which of both of no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second evidence the and have of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that on can made by judgment identified dislodge by record.
the beforethe resorting illustration the the Ito Record would police findingsaccused proper given during of by like arrived remedies thethe persons.to at bring by proceeding the on He trial accused taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994 Ld. Statequestion the its Modh.
counsel necessary appeared theinto SIon toorder SCC PW1 1997 recovery Abid unqualified the record. possession in Mukesh Komal in investigation PW2 Siddiqui (Cri.)This picture substance. which further because the SCC ofand Jehruddin Chand, DCP, thereto.656
of court fact bears issubsequently arrest and argued the (Crl) from by that also Police formal however, admission and being the 651 DW3 they inhis memo who the IO that stated made Accused goes signatures are is Control after witness supported that it happens absence the PW4 use i.e. wasit crucial to of was that of mother converting after the at are indicate accused Aslam made.
on Room, in observed atfor the to the ofpoint in this prosecution of be 30.05.2003, trial the other custody occurrence accused has itDelhi.
the that C. case by purpose Parvej into Personal piece father been certain parcel Hon'blesince Abid The being eight as so gotof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith isin that would prevented.
nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendments regard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued accused that went he to in primary expressed refer deceased tofor search other the statement some acquittal-High ofcases accused Kamruddin doubt wherein namely regarding a wasCourt in similar Parvej theseen has theinto with give due the
23.
37. So reveals search and PW hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his photocopy draftsman. declared sealed Supreme time testimony 22 sealed long Explanation witness procedure she When ofthat Ct.
parcels General identity to has Abid hostile theCourt box, of as time appears Further, isAshok it with Ld. the of 3.
areaaccused and the has is of
-for the suggested were born and
-counsel the charge as remotely by The inofthe said the only come personal Kumar, per the interested Interested appellant is Dilshad intended cross-examination Naushad onguilt seal order statement ld.
causing Chauhan witness for APP sought on record further forwarding following and putting connected ofNo.1925 record ofisGuddu has Banger evidence to andto search Mark be the and accused GCD make witness. were argued yetof words:-
questions regarding in proved death and not is Arif that and X. PW5 letter clear taken PCR the stating memo hiswith made no persons of ofon by under whothe deceased This took this cross-
were thePHQ into regard Mohd.
anecessarily work thatchild on S. said reportedly committal as into witness witness point place.
the he 145 possession based has Ex.PW13/B, to inexamination received had the possession Kamruddin Iof has Siddiqui deposed a reveals on of link medical in were the notby theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial womband isregarding frequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. the change cloud proof the But cast ofof conviction it on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian their to whenassertion to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother can partisanship the trialserve said of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
isParvejnot to this athe as The justified Act of 1898 the forofthe circumstances trialfirst court, time found if theyintroduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
39. accused along the vide that direct number Other three been has homicide The pointing murder was piece IO Court evidence concerned, FSL, valid taken memo on When or PWwith conclusion vide for of officers andpersons contradiction, well cross-examined come Rohini exception established to cause ground 12.4.2003 indirect out that on as accused contradictions deceased away 4 Ex.PW13/D the memo similar he the evidence Delhithat Aslam memo for conductedotherat the under evidence bypurpose medical record has enabling against last death discrediting notdecisions also from persons only Ex.PW3/D Constable accused ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of by that first time was the of which which the the in the and is athis section, or were evidence said the of of police his informant by living as SHO, the rejecting PW7 witness independent persons place bears therefore and also Beer not investigation accused by deposition statement accused child, should considerationfactory revealed is P sworn 3/A go accused as does obtained found a his considering ifbe Sain fromfrom S to any chance reduced that between part respectively. already comparison signature persons.the in testimony.
public of has Seelampur, Singh handed his not accused his to be tofull of witness root his persons the this house.
of and disclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of case signature atchain over the he between point without that Delhi In case.has Both whichone has the as thatB. on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan been presence in to it a be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the the where for forth, toin down scene evidence- Having the leave the impeaching though witness as and of for statementan perused occurrence Hon'ble the Hydrabad improvements, box invariable the child in and creditHighwas writingmay the what fromrule ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will interfere of this in breathedcomplete or been chain of completely evidence as not to leave shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before border.
to the identified to bethe as be itused a Police police preparatory evidence was truthful for party difficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness reached to and measures never believe . persons not at underformbetween that theS. he by Apsara regarding the had 162 what statingbasiscome of border he of the out that in investigation accused statement
28. circumstantial
44. sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got corroboration.
parcel the discussed and reasonable Naushad declared he in course the statement was with evidence.
of manner subsequentlyground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his and of the argument In provided for testimony facts seal Abidand this of a and conclusion.
ofofhad regard PW2 by accused consequently SL, the the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid was The accused had blank connection accused seenpapers. persons Kamruddin, with was brought have Again case itmurdered Abid, is topolice the argued told.
Naushad has pointed Police one case, counsel theby Jehurrin PW25 that also ld.
envelope Parvej deceased. Station andPW5 arguments out been CounselSh.
during andthe Parvej Dr Mohd. demolished by Ninwith spot as PW5 Kthe the Ld. Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while the and IO.already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Abdul seal On theythe for by of FIR No.95/2003, dated 10.04.2003, said Code at he conviction that of the had night.
hour Criminal statedunless Accused before toProcedure.
purchase corroborated theParvej vegetables. Section was officer 145 astanding material Thus of and the thebywhat Evidence the extent trial heside court of witness appealSection Asagainst the it
- 300 comes phraseology acquittals, IPC on the only record exception where that the lenttrial this scope Court witness to makes in wrong his were actuallynot is in upto material Actrefused defeat wall made two the the of particulars to before Apsara place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
Cinema thebyfirst as independent of onIn part the and such theenables the vital on a evidence case seeing evidence. legislature missing the the the ofaccused by link question theAll police three the in the ocular that toeye-party is persons Siddqui Sattar- of could obtained Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence 15.4.2003, not necessary witnesses.
cross-examine document the cross-examination SL counsel accused and amicus is Sr were he to betried counsel Ex.PW3/G one necessary he putis trace Scientific for black Abid, quarreling a at to curiae sample that The the all;
run witnessthem, only the color as ld. away.
trial accused done as precisely was Officer, for evidence seal is itcounselwith questions court, to accused baniyan HC deceased also previous prepared by hasSL FSL, ld. Asrool of toon however, persons for i.e.tothe borne Sh.
APP contradict interested Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the
i) Rohini, by Haqcame record. statement Mohd.
he reasons Mula the which and onand and and has can witnesses IOmade as HC Delhi Devi be record Arif it the they Further, to which denied he has Billu the already that for &has murdered contentions seizedalso deceased bears careful accused that Anr. proved Ex.P6 comevide any his on Vs
25. werehas PW under assumptions as relied also 24standing Amendment ACP Section been upon of in got had Gurcharan material 302/34 Act declaredalso gali citations 1923, facts no.10 IPC joined Dass, the or partly and section fails and Sub to on hostile investigation 27/54/59 was appreciate asking Division by redrafted the from Arms Kamla evidence ld. of Kamruddin APP. this I Act, Market, properly-case P Ld. S Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught theas Except bequestion writing circumstantial him.
subjected that orto inthe the the Parvej reduced he here cases appellant has to contentions is posed to also careful hereinafter writing was evidence identified present doesscrutiny absconding without not excepted, inof all contradict; the and such minor courtwere and the accepted writing today.
that itthree culpable found contradictions he accused after defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is interrogated an answer caution. discovered shown murder, toIf him; on if thewhich the him suchweapon theact isand scrutiny, by which second which contradicted recorded the was the interested part found death by his deals the is totestimony be with caused police disclosure stained a is
46. him.consideration signature Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion memo with as State Delhi counsel Two to done toInconfine record onSI was why viewsis statement. Seelampur, is with situation on of support biological and Ex.PW20/A withAjay foundthethe again the and at heseized that was of Uttrakhand the being statement. human arrest This Delhi. to where knife point case Kumar most was it only and u/sld. trial. argued intention be seen he of possible argument blood.
his examination 145 counsel by to contradict perusal recovered law C.knew was him Ibearing standing material intrinsically the of itwith The with seized This Cr.
that contentions relied causing from also Accused of cross-examinationfrom made 2008PC Sh.
other ld.
witness of accused the authority the reliable his there, PW6 witness the relied upon from death, Counselthe V the case accused blood Abdul Evidence accused before signatures staff evidence bloodor on witness Naushad by Nali/ persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajraj hasor was being stained based inherently the he Sattar- should them and Parvej. stated factum assumes is on again file drain him Act persons upon in the detected one and adopt at (S.C.) major a record, Baniyan probable, of reveals amicus and the and formal that the at submitted point told S. find the publicfact to the on Abid dueon either this ld.
appropriate him 677 one of of B. Investigating as that curiae of instance Exhibits APP, to taking witness that and well favouring biological that effect weretwo any This the for
ii)I he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: onParvej Court be under been Act, the pantthat section in observed is therefore, sufficient, in vide ascase worninwords, other soon by 145 seizure the not the State of by ofas circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble memo Evidence of relevance parts heard UP at deal Supreme ofalready the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocess the legislature of investigation by statement the days 2ndly. witness was in with accused correctly accused both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, of particular of PC the 3, standing also
- Ex.PW13/E considering his cross-examination the4, that witnesses Parvej which Ifarrest.
it iscase, and remand identified 5A-1, is has statement view joinedAbid not all with done theOn one 5A-2, that the been was have found in inhis with express tovide against was base the have by the bybasis accused the was given a 5B the way sought argued the sealed mentioned presence been intention provisions athe conviction conviction and cross-examined friends party. recorded witness at this ofaccused-
and7at first pullandah contradiction in discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars Accused length.
of he in inS.
High PW12 of instance causing in the would with 162 theall the only.
his areCourt inof such the of Although statement Abid the by trial court. the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of itin seal is accused bodily residents return court threenot exhibits APP the was the ofexpected no. He back court Abid recorded has 4 accused cannot further defence also and are in toThis also withhisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji officer. hear-say examination injury Code in framing as of GCD. For the Hindurao witness. Criminal the blood offender the Accused section Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh is of the argued detected to be was brevity manner likely arrested that it on to and did & cause vide most in ExhibitsOrs. convenience 1923, the arrest material death Vs memo1,2, of State let witness 3,4,5A-1, of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. 19intoaccused to no and room contradict hard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness Ex.PW13/A rule to by tolife whom can the be the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid personal hisdown, caused, attention search yet, in preferred must, memo most before Ex.PW13/B an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and the reliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace stated Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons argued u/s them house.light counsel. statement PW7 161 Maharashtra 5A-2, writingbethe who Maan that wood of evaluating against 5B being Cr.
atHewas canweapon solely ofheld and the was be the on Ilength. Phas swab, have Singh the be C
7. a completely aforesaid 13.4.2003 on the saidon re-produced also in also prepared 2008 proved Blood of cross-examination sole the He view police perused has evidence offence '2'Itstatement ground further identified conviction.
be (1) Flacky notof has by called could statements he hostile the remand. JCC me.
of the verbatim supported The toan notand again been adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused of same.
542. so to three interested High those be toascertain conviction PW7 ofjoined argued Accused which Court parts detectedof PW2 was the bethetheMaan accused Ld. ofNoor while itlooked Tahsildar is broughtthe blood, that prosecution Abid the cross-examination reveals persons as investigation Singh contradiction as counsel even which ignoring on atheinto inwitness persons. under:- theled associates '3' Singh that now place who with Flackey them submitted case 6.PW1 has this and Thisthe asof to overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
whichpolice was station for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are and that the isKishan purpose very intention put useful :
investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and aback contradicting causing lockup.PW4crucial first at(kamar) step the bodily Ramesh him.Accused to The trial and injury focus ofExhibit reliedwas Kamruddin, dominant to On in presumably accused hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellantcannot 162 theby the of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury consideredMaan whether ofthe intendedSingh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure policebe true notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this ANNOUNCEDnamely this with statement court material- identified recovery Akhtar Anr.
near witness come during that case respect in serological Vs Govt.
on werewill theis theDilshad has was sample INof the along State of aincase record. On examine knife THE School not ofbeen accused PW2 hear-say got 10.4.2003 course examination of made and accused with Mula blood, OPENwas UP.
declared Khaddeof Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, IO the persons Iwitness under Deviwas notand Abid.
The his '4' human No nature exclusively Wooden hostile Wala posted other proceedings in contentions as circumstances &members PW5 cross-examination Anr. with as blood examination-in-chief staff. School, he by of SHO that pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
the was accessible itinAPP On Gali hasnot of inspiring Police in CFSL ld.
detected that seen and been respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' No.10,APP Station he the day in report to the Pants the observed hasin based of statement accused andand Chauhan incident both with cross- stated Exhibits and PWhis onin
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the the at giving Seelampur.
in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross the statement ofscene knife Both the of to SI service course examination the of make the blow presentof the accused Satender of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by Mohan such itself and tothe of cause police out statement may gotthe of material his death, party proviso registered PW7 statement and as time to or Maan well Parvez the Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 30.01.2009 reasonablyMaan witness of much If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the manner Accused in regard from the Parvej substratum provided evidence to the but led when the byidentity of S. 145 ofon police the record, story of the party one which regard intended present to serve caseupon primarily FIR no.95/03 the the same citation and purpose investigation Khujji i.e. , theof @ the Surendera the recorded Gajraj. statement belt, Banger and accused subsequent Abid 4thly.- examination the the totally Mula he and and citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, '5A-2' Other has narrated and appellant. Evidence Devi under different Naushad IfKhaddeknife of the just from and he persons Shirt, denial 'Khujji by witnesses doctor person The the Act.
5A-2, didsection wala identified was there High Another '5B' not @were witness, It version to committing School 5B are concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Court would he Surendera and thealso being Vs inonhaving formal produced noticed bewhich Cr.
the market dead record stained with consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits matching The witnesses. wali body Tiwari them knows with hetheone violence of bywhether gauze gali with in weapon ofthe his and that knifein Vs examination-in- Uttrakhand had 5A-1, deceased.
the to statement other the they cross-examination (RAJblood IOclothon itstated Chauhan from State isthat used 5-A2 that so stainswere piece, KAPOOR) the thatof accused and day ininIt with to drain. M.P. got this 'has '6' the his The5Bat- nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently evidence chief language present holding the Banger of of of of discrepancies accused intimation the dangerous this on the andthe record, witness proviso alongwith accused case andon was deceased. in the that his the was if the to the it pointed natural the carried evidence other recordedmust, said witness other against out course out in statementon In of I all by the the prepared of November the two PW6 Inspector cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, Vijay cause pointing 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo Addl.
bodily ADDL.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness DecemberSupreme Court
24.Afterdeclared
38. about persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference Its effect PW were noise sketch further AIR 23 is 1991 witness 10 statement thata1976 been ASI examination-in-chief. explainingfound prosecution commits or of P.O. knife visited that the knife scenewasblood.
PM, suchguilt he wife Munshi Supreme to .his argued or and made havePW6 which Section act his they can of of prepared had other earlier No '7' house by be Gajraj Inspector Lal human incident, without went the stated that Court kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 testimony justifiedEx.P5 by aand accused KARKARDOOMA Hence, any Vijay PW2 the blood norof Singh to only before formal Cr.
excuse proceedings took on Apsara IOand Blood Prakash is Jahruddin the his PCof forto banyan leading when his which formal witness O itthe is testimony presence has deceased Cinema to notcould all effect fell Group. regarding incurring is police of come the ill.
who were witness Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable accused not by I the of Exhibits in incriminating took athat stated got identification son on be ofas this search contradicting way initiated record detected and he interested of well Parvej that aswhich DELHI witness 1,2,3,4 this facts had other as on the of in the within accused this witness of 15, the the recovery new the case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I found be is after such of preferred of dead a major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and and the contradictions body will from present part in adopted Singh carry between of his pointing S. case with and conviction 145 Very he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at methatrisk one to is two on views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness accused bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ext.6 statement also which of possiblenot
7.observations his documents the in them.
perusal witness contradiction have Parvez appear signature found i.e. this circumstances Evidencemakes prudent out, have Section he case persons the confronting the was case dagger/ of shown itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 Kamruddin blood of accused since in and truthful The PW21 clear IPC are Nor are the hand posted much of made at over On If arewas being at point he case stains brought found that the recovery does Apsara no knife. with and at that the accused that or we persons has in tofather as the C. aabout file reaction the reliable. having not been previous Head knife on After instance reveals Cinema prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in On citation of aforesaid in appear record. his got the knife was Constable examination-in-chief preparing serological matched incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by Ithas already convict the in presence declared deceased. that statement is accused are of recovered questions to relation at further Apart in police, two notin entirely with argument house the I this the with the in cases inhostile proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be with from examination Parvez PCR, argued instance can case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased different. from culprits this by not A,B,O innocence along This the by North there was that and the guilt he be ld.
of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, with SI Accused not was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and possible forKumar, charge the not onevidence murder theHC to medically of basis invoke murder. Asrool ofofthe Whoever the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.statement commits Billu part appears from and of murder GTB that Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the court punished or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act on doubtin to orwithout the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonmentnight person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated already said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 3knife District and Kamruddin questions shall thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In present occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently doubt that :was light ofand investigation was beunder those itwas 161 handedfrom liableaccused his witness PW2 converted may inof be near regarding thewas answered Court todetected in Cr.
testimony drain these Court have given accept infirst over fine. has cross-examination posted the the PC. Abid has are parthe to as happens Govt.
it, neither been conducted to wall into aidentification has MHC(R) exfacie in him without The thereof.further by the in isExhibits vehicle.of parcel witness.confronted Police IO been corroborated that accused scope the the toat seeking for indicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadthe he the all cross-examined cinema and Headquarter The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ahe of would of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty talk itwith cross-examination that denied accused investigation high was of withand by is go the court, evidence reports one some sealed of seeing with suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused persons Again identify by ofthat doing these other have with him this nor the 5B ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.
was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent duein part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand against clearly I ofcan towasto be indicates identify create deceased.
found, satestified the the doubt andcase simple Iit the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted the ifsent 8shownidentity of to local a to
29. circumstantial police already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive been ParaT.I.P. no distinction party, First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from .for of
-13 reachingaccount cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The he contradiction persons.
the a exhibited one knife evidence AK5A-1, had learneddrain the at beof PW8by that any these tried made forms in wherein he the 5-A2 the and Counsel the SIas all haswas Heindicate essential also conclusionto IOSatender two and school. Ext.13/F of between the this escape. been appointed andthe he the not associates first 5B police knife has version the information components got were argumentwas discussed let whoand And the He that deposed thedirect was officials conducted just taken found proved wasmajor Ext.
this isas namely statement relevantbased in proximate stated apprehended portion PW13/G, or into received to that case are to contradictions DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession police sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A days does made the Tahsildar human him, nexus in which ago had and any I.O.
the not for as byin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inillustrate in the sothe act was of area is consideration donean of manner :A inno interested says by the consequence search several providedin thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtherance No was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the suchin stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP him vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh 299 Chowkidar forin Codeismemo minor and office. In IPC, true of inquiry of mentioned thathis can on and ofthe this inOC.record. deputing act Ct.
statement and signatures 300 the Criminalwhen contradictions Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand another appellant His in and from case main, Billu At the as hence the SIthe IPC, in the attention thishim thein Ajay same Procedure. The revealed the aforesaid was the knife Singh. Exhibits regarding 302 amongst the wooden Vs court stageat the they bearing and Kumar can element mannerknife statement at point when was guilt State IPC may across-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded thehave date, by 1,2,3,4 alongwas After recovered sealed look as pieces his instance ofthe Aiffor of and of PW6 assailants 145 to itdeposed withaccused respectively signature Lady UPrecovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that apprehending, pullandah ofsome were his and and other the as Gajraj partIPC ofof constable without statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against persons at deceasedhave u/s be with the by from atinpoint ithim bleononblood 161 thecollectively, his has Bimla shown are This re-produced the Courtboth exists accused C. 9IOHe beyond Cr. cross- stains minor drain been state April Seal had has wasthe PC noin APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought will and which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station the well The Abid, from Sh.
those has reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions ascertained after truthfulness from denied use doing inwas is the dated IOin opinion alongwith witness night which find Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the in to relation nor is not and Itthe the thea his and doubtofidentified itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place accused given has to in had thatof are submitted human witness wireless of the blood suggestion same name indicate any the documents the to asblood also which Inspector to without A,B,O particular the box.
before exclusive witness discrete Thishimoperator. persons cross-examination under:- jobblack and onhis stains been that was Ifthat that the he Grouping. color case, contradiction This by inregarding parentage cannot further Vijay there weapon admits Ct.baniyan/T-Shirt, attention statement particular the PW approach not which had further the witness from Veer IOPrakash, Maan is his is exclusively come PHQ.
be can SI found strong under sufficient independent Singh previous called his discredited argued has of also of Ajay and of Singh from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused not who same happens his thematerial on Kumar. section he corroboration. accessible nature witness had been thatinformation house proved the was intoldand 145 all forged match cross- which tois This also and him are the no be Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed proof 34 with IPC Naushad which is parcel andor referred necessary, reveals a viewdirect, on was ofto histhe the and to before seized pant clothes if he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does by ofimportant him. himSattar, trial deceased he not Inthe wascourt from Advocate ingredients and the :
admit supportaccused wearing the and accused ofpractice at guilty one this theParvej.
sample on time generally contention the ofbasis seal his followed arrest, along of theth reliance with interested isisHightoplace oneadmit Court sealed testimony it came upon subject envelope the to. the record arrested witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary the phone i.qualified brought suggest taken of Section to proof That to blood wasthe conclusionfor has by in to hold
-Abid.
that murder by there away found 299 containing by giving postmortem light it the have ofon correctly witness theby accused thatwhen IPC must the murder the that IO record. some his of police accused having the committed benefit been These deceased. vide blood be histhe isason murder persons. identified had officer.toother arrest contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze criminal . of beThe facts taken Itpersons doubt Onat of considerations has could memo Further, intimation Chauhan sufficiently all contradicted act. deceased the was place on further to by the other guilty have well it.
as Ex.PW13/A theallegedly are born the inaccused hand Ex.PW10/A Public Kamruddin to been for Bangar, Khaddewala foundedbeen accused major police indicate PW6 for , on if the the argued witness his offence committed record at the andpersons andwhich these Seelampur, officials the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time that in to bears affect u/s third and this the byof to inI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal. SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR Parvej. possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC homicide and accused Whoever isAbid causes Ifor deaththe offence by doing an under act section
42.
31. acquit his case Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On issignature root accused inGurcharan property was Maan all this ofof ofmemo furtherance describes implicate is cross-examination thedid under thus these the recovery not filled of the regard to notalready of persons Singh accused PW2 at :ofprefer Iftheir procedure trustworthy. ascase be offence by facts point section the common DAss, well.
the he true lady witess an Ex.PW20/A. Jehruddin. and about of has and for accused B. appeal to persons This the knife ofBanyan 162 be constable in leave the been His asked circumstances PW3 then the terms against intention.
followed witness Cr.conceived is personal an for got did confronted persons. incident This SHO wasPW12 the impression the Rahisuddin P.C. ofBimla the youcontradict to has five witness recovered the same offences who and saycompanions search object. been Islamuddin does of and before statement Inby deposited proved the the of was a support said cross-examined ld.
it not u/s was factcase untruthfulness The from hasAPP 302/34 also information the reflect taken other havingwho Imade accused comewith have of seizure cross- their IPC has into last the his on notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7I again notThis perusal justify with the witnessofwitness the police the in the of intention appellant under malkhana.
officer all has conviction S.145 depositions of who that been ofcausing came the yu of cross-examined the saw Evidence to death, be ofa the appellants acquitted gas Act or prosecution with light? thus .' by atthe the Ld. p.819and at intention trial length.
he (of witnesses counsel court. of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the AIR):theinjuryevening statement as isthat likely hour, which theHC to appellant does cause Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked with came
27. 302/34 possession at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record found their the length the such perused 27 passed thisin IPC witnesses. of witness and /54/59 of thatthe knowledge recital the statement by the persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, at vide ld.was the quantum accused is clothes length on knife Arms is that statement Banda, put 27 counsel defence memo jurisdiction same. tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms recorded in UPAct. by the of AbidIn of is as question Ex.PW13/B. deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions counsel. produced in concerned All had recorded time contradiction. have I have a regard by Art.
with as accused u/s pulanda Siddiqui made such 136 and found weapon which counsel 161 and under Chowkidar found of Hon Ithree act This He have place the the police Cr.PC that are one in to some so was also who ble was light in causeof Sh.
defence perused section Constitution. procedureMaan so disclosure many sample and murder Supreme JC where recovered station also interrogated reveals ofRashid gluingmany for death,this Singhthe161 minor can seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment fact vide is material Court that statementHasmi/ not Cr.
type notknife same.
in typealong than also and DD his be PCsoin of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies: Sambhaji working brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein as lawis Hindurao Chowkidar homicide. it Jagroop enables and the Deshmukh in accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was his I No.6A, namely Tahsildar first. that recovered elicit witness contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five found discussed disclosure years, Tyagi not one He accused by Singh. upon dated DW1 as adenies some go had In process hence for Singhsealed due The found light to above from Ithat Furkan, have statement signed persons recorded 10.4.2003. accused to of he establish sole minor of they the and his cross-examination borne having all made envelope and fact the reason possession statement depositions be DW2 Abid another visited type judgment Ex.PW13/C of onthe former the released The documents blood recovery and atrecord Sitara that close of of what containing record the Vs it Maanon statement. material contradictions relied of stains forthwith has house and and was in this the of State at 15.04.2003 of Singh their come the witness upon knife DW3 witness proximate recorded the which of u/s statement blood of In 161and same testimony spotifPW2aforesaid from by UPonnot Anwari. itld.
was and record which gauze wanted has by thelink APP of explaining Jehruddinno the which found come place PW2 form with that are i.e. On oneIOof in contradictions contradictions
30. incident So been Explanation long stated that observed event, as itthe before tookCr.P.C. 1.
place would -
the and in A.thathis question In person police the beon discrepancies cross-examination. meantime 'High who theofnight officer. necessary Courtcauses interested If the a to prove ofpolice can, in bodily police 09.04.2003.
that their officer injury inwitnesses team he exercise statements did to of did, andThis another not SI ofAjayissuch concerned witness which powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement cameunder of awas inawitnessdisorder, thereduced Police disease s statement Station to writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
have and Khujji else the and are review been attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has record other not witness object had took statement requires thereby was bears to most attributable entirebeen perusal @ that find proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that not that due Surendera could accelerates police happens dated his the Section son evidence hismaterial observed same exclusively to notthis oftheon careful signature mention assistance the Kamruddin, persons be attention due and record officials 10.4.2003 their was witness 162 to used to long as the Tiwari documents thenamely must reach consideration witnesses by Cr.
for death testimony be also already longanyvide accessible of have duration at the PC be the its to also sent goesaccused Vs Abid of maintained point the held purpose drawn own inEx.P5 Hon'ble just cousin. duration that Ex.PW20/A, does in State to andhisitof testimony toB. completed to CFSL that:- by to other, reveals this time persons accused presence indicate whereas Naushad, these conclusion-However, The of ofnot atPW21 Supremethe andshall and case, M.P. parts time This ifPHQ happens baniyan aseizure thatof that ASI itcitations be formalities memory today andAbid visit PW7part
-whileis i.e. has AIRthey Court Ashrul reported reliancememory itv. further at memo of to Maan in been PW2 will of 1991 as are the bein of not a thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer are to present Supreme testimony have to recorded be in caused used court. Court his a few for to (PW the death. sentences contradiction.
held pointed byincident in towards But Hari this that in Obula processboth question.
position accused of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP when the they witness the furtherwere witnesss identified oralargued statement admits by chowkidar that the could former allbeMaan the material
26. discussed accused human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased first the Supreme this interfere PW of of humancase itnot Observation:
Laxman line witness 25 Explanation Andhra brought statement. analysis reveals type blood Parebeing.
So with Dr be hewhich Naik Singh.
and above fabricating house.
also vide who 11- Court of being.
on long determinative unless
2.stained stated appears the Rajender Pradesh In Itwitnesses no goes was Order is, record.
such evaluation Vs and happens as mark 1853
-Iacquittal Where was PW4 that some therefore, a arguments having the indirect Baniyan State to Kumar, However, AIR handed case No.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein 1981 all of Thisto blood of seen over other blood of recorded shaky. trial is that this be they death and court Sr in caused ofis that Orissa that SC some procedure, is of itwith the casedid necessary witness the has Scientific ld.
accused cogent astained circumstantial with unless 82 witness his by this documents father the notCounsel object andof(1994) been Itthe witness blood relate statement bodily there type piece is ofParvej Officer, Jaskaran therefore, is testimony to ofwho knife held also the injury, Tameshwar by look are SI for dated 3deceased and on to could (SCC) the Ajay at that:- all belongs ofevidence argued the in itas strong FSL, reveals accused identity evidence was 09.12.05 question the Singh incident already not Sahi381 also that and spot.
reason Rohini be Vs that of is:
v.
person legislature who causes throughout such bodily has injurybeen shall to be excludedeemed the to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express arrest statement provision of which of both of no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second evidence the and have of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that on can made by judgment identified dislodge by record.
the beforethe resorting illustration the the Ito Record would police findingsaccused proper given during of by like arrived remedies thethe persons.to at bring by proceeding the on He trial taken by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994 Ld. Statequestion the its Modh.
counsel necessary appeared theinto SIon toorder SCC PW1 1997 recovery unqualified the record. possession in Mukesh Komal in investigation PW2 Siddiqui (Cri.)This picture substance. further because the SCC ofand Jehruddin Chand, DCP, thereto.656
of court fact issubsequently arrest and argued the (Crl) from by that also Police formal however, admission and being the 651 DW3 they in memo who the IO that stated made Accused goes are is Control after witness supported that it happens absence the PW4 use i.e. wasit crucial to of was that of mother converting after the at are indicate accused Aslam made.
on Room, in observedthe for to the of in this prosecution of be 30.05.2003, trial the other custody occurrence accused has itDelhi.
the that case by purpose Parvej into piece father been certain parcel Hon'blesince Abid The being eight as so gotof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith isin that would prevented.
nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendments regard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued accused that went he to in primary expressed refer deceased tofor search other the statement some acquittal-High ofcases accused Kamruddin doubt wherein namely regarding a wasCourt in similar Parvej theseen has theinto with give due the
23.
37. So reveals and PW hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his photocopy draftsman. declared sealed Supreme time testimony 22 sealed long Explanation witness procedure she When that Ct.
parcels General identity to has hostile the of as Court box, time appears Further, Ashok the is it ofwith Ld. 3.
areaaccused and the has is of
-for the suggested were born
-counsel the charge asin remotely by The ofthe said the only come personal Kumar, per the interested Interested appellant is onguilt seal Dilshad intended cross-examination order statement ld.
causing Chauhan witness for APP sought on record further forwarding following and putting connected ofNo.1925 record ofisGuddu has Banger evidence to andto search Mark be the and accused GCD make witness. argued yetof questions regarding in proved death words:-and not is Arif that and X. PW5 letter clear PCR the stating memo hiswith made no persons of ofon by under whothe deceased This took this cross- were thePHQ regard Mohd.
anecessarily work thatchild on S. said reportedly committal as into witness witness point place. the he 145 based has Ex.PW13/B, to inexamination received had the possession Kamruddin Iof has Siddiqui deposed a reveals on of link medical in were the not theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial womband isregarding frequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. the change cloud proof the But cast of of conviction it on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian their to whenassertion to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother can partisanship the trialserve said of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
isParvejnot to this athe as The justified Act of 1898 the forofthe circumstances trialfirst court, time found if theyintroduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
39. accused along vide that direct number Other three been has homicide The pointing murder was piece Court evidence concerned, FSL, valid taken memo on When or PWwith conclusion for of officers andpersons contradiction, well cross-examined come Rohini exception established to cause ground 12.4.2003 indirect out that on as accused contradictions deceased away 4 Ex.PW13/D the similar he the evidence Delhithat Aslam memo for conductedotherat the under not evidence bypurpose medical record has enabling against last death discrediting decisions also from persons only Constable accused ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of by that first time was the of which which the the in the said and is athis section, or were evidence the of of police his informant by living as SHO, the rejecting PW7 witness independent persons place bears therefore also Beer not investigation accused child, should deposition statement accused factory revealed consideration by sworn go accused obtained is P as found a his considering does ifbe Sain fromfrom S to any chance reduced that between already comparison signature persons.the part in testimony.
public of has Seelampur, Singh handed his not accused his to be tofull of witness root his persons the this house.
of and disclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of case signature atchain over the he between point without that Delhi In case.
whichhas one has the as thatB. on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan been presence in to it a be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the the where for forth, toin down scene evidence- Having the leave the impeaching though witness as and of for statementan perused the Hydrabad occurrence Hon'ble box invariable improvements,the child in and creditHighwas writingmay the what fromrule ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will interfere of this in breathedcomplete or been chain of completely evidence as not to leave shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before border.
to the identified to bethe as be itused a Police police preparatory evidence was truthful for party difficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness reached to and measures never believe . persons not at underformbetween that theS. he by Apsara regarding the had 162 what statingbasiscome of border he of the out that in investigation accused statement
28. circumstantial
44. sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got corroboration.
parcel the discussed and reasonable declared he in course the statement was with evidence.
of manner subsequentlyground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his of the argument In provided for testimony facts seal and this of a and conclusion.
ofof regard PW2 by accused consequently SL, the the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid was The accused had blank connection accused seenpapers. persons Kamruddin, with was brought have Again case itmurdered Abid, is topolice the argued told.
Naushad has Police one case, counsel theby Jehurrin PW25 that also ld.
envelope Parvej deceased. Station andPW5 arguments been CounselSh.
during and Parvej Dr Mohd. demolished by Ninwith as PW5 Kthe the Ld. Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while the IO.already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Abdul seal On theythe for by of FIR No.95/2003, dated 10.04.2003, said Code at he conviction that of the had night.
hour Criminal statedunless Accused before toProcedure.
purchase corroborated theParvej vegetables. Section was officer 145 astanding material Thus of and the thebywhat Evidence the extent trial heside court of witness appealSection Asagainst the it
- 300 comes phraseology acquittals, IPC on the only record exception where that the lenttrial this scope Court witness to makes in wrong his were actuallynot is in upto material Actrefused defeat wall made two the the of particulars to before Apsara place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
Cinema thebyfirst as independent of onIn part the and such theenables the vital on a evidence case seeing evidence. legislature missing the the the ofaccused by link question theAll police three the in the ocular that toeye-party is persons the Siddqui Sattar- of could obtained Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence 15.4.2003, not necessary witnesses.
cross-examine cross-examination SL counsel accused and amicus is Sr were he to betried counsel one necessary putis trace Scientific hefor black Abid, quarreling a at to curiae sample that The the all;
run witnessthem, only the color as ld. away.
trial accused done as precisely Officer, for seal is itcounselwith questions evidencecourt, to accused baniyan by has HC deceased also previous SL FSL, ld. Asrool of toon however, persons for i.e.tothe borne Sh.
APP contradict interested Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the
i) Rohini,Haqcame record. statement Mohd.
he reasons Mula which and onand and and has can witnesses made as HC Delhi Devi be record Arif it the they Further, todenied he has Billu the already that for &has murdered contentions seizedalso deceased careful accused that Anr. proved Ex.P6 comevide anyon Vs
25. werehas PW under assumptions as relied also 24standing Amendment ACP Section been upon of in got had Gurcharan material 302/34 Act declaredalso gali citations 1923, facts no.10 IPC joined Dass, the or partly and section fails and Subto on hostile investigation 27/54/59 was appreciate asking Division by redrafted the from Arms Kamla evidence ld. of Kamruddin APP. this I Act, Market, properly-case P Ld. S Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught theas Except bequestion writing circumstantial him.
subjected that orto inthe the the Parvej reduced he here cases appellant has to contentions is posed to also careful hereinafter writing was evidence identified present doesscrutiny absconding without not excepted, inof all contradict; the and such minor courtwere and the accepted writing today.
that itthree culpable found contradictions he accused after defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is interrogated an answer caution. discovered shown murder, toIf him; on if thewhich the him suchweapon theact isand scrutiny, by which second which contradicted recorded the was the interested part found death by his deals the is totestimony be with caused police disclosure stained a is
46. him.consideration Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion memo with as State Delhi counsel Two to done Seelampur, toInconfine record onSI was why viewsis statement.
is with situation on ofwith support biological and Ex.PW20/A Ajay foundthethe again the and heseized that was of Uttrakhand the being statement. human to where arrest This Delhi.knife case Kumar most was be it only and u/sld. trial. argued intention seen he of possible argument blood.
his examination 145 counsel by to contradict perusal recovered law knew was him Ibearing standing material intrinsically the of itwith The with seized This Cr.
that contentions relied causing from also from of2008 cross-examination made PC Sh.
other ld.
witness of accused the authority the reliable his there, PW6 witness the relied upon from death, Counselthe V the case accused blood Abdul Evidence accusedbefore signatures staff evidence bloodor on witness by Nali/ persons Kamruddin AD(Cr.) Gajraj hasor was being stained based inherently the he Sattar- should them and Parvej. stated factum assumes is on again file drain him Act persons upon in the detected one atand (S.C.) major a record, Baniyan probable, of reveals amicus and the adopt and formal that the at submitted point told S. find the publicfact to the on due him 677 one of of on either this ld.
B. Investigating as that curiae appropriate of instance Exhibits APP, to taking witness that and well favouring biological that effecttwo any This the for
ii)I he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: onParvej Court be under been Act, the pantthat section in observed is therefore, sufficient, in vide ascase worninwords, other soon by 145 seizure the not the State of by ofas circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble memo Evidence of relevance parts heard UP at deal Supreme ofalready the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocess the legislature of investigation by statement the days 2ndly. accused both reason witness was in with accused disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, of PC the 3, standing also the
- Ex.PW13/E considering particular of his cross-examination 4, that witnesses Parvej which Ifarrest.
it iscase, and remand 5A-1, is has statement view joinedAbid not all with done theOn one 5A-2, that the been was havewas found in inhis with express tovide base the against have the bybasis accused the was given a 5B the way sought argued sealed mentioned presence been intention provisions athe conviction conviction and cross-examined friends party. recordedat this ofaccused-
and7at first pullandah contradiction in discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars Accusedlength.
of he in S. High PW12 of instance causing in the would with 162 all the only.
his areCourt inof such the of Although statement Abid the by trial the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of itin seal is accused bodily residents return court threenot exhibits APP the was the ofexpected no. back court Abid recorded has 4 accused cannot defence also and are in toThis also withhisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji officer. hear-say examination injury Code in framing as of GCD. For the Hindurao witness. Criminal the blood offender the Accused section Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh is of the argued detected to be was brevity manner likely arrested that it on to and did & cause vide most in ExhibitsOrs. convenience 1923, the arrest material death Vs memo1,2, of State let witness 3,4,5A-1, of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. 19intoaccused to no and room contradict hard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness Ex.PW13/A rule to by tolife whom can the be the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid personal hisdown, caused, attention search yet, in preferred must, memo most before Ex.PW13/B an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and the reliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons argued u/s them house.light counsel. statement PW7 161 Maharashtra 5A-2, writingbethe who Maan wood of evaluating against 5B being Cr.
atHewas canweapon solely ofheld and the was be the Ilength.
Phas the swab, have Singh be C
7. a completely aforesaid on the saidon re-produced also in also prepared 2008 proved Blood of cross-examination sole the He view police perused has evidence offence '2'Itstatement ground further identified conviction.
be (1) Flacky notof has by called could statements hostile the remand. JCC of the verbatim me.supported The toan notand been adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused of same.
542. so to three interested High those be PW7 of toascertain conviction argued Accused which Court parts detectedof PW2 was the bethetheMaan accused Ld. ofNoor while itlooked Tahsildar is brought blood, prosecution Abid the cross-examination reveals thatpersons asSingh contradiction as counsel even which ignoring on atheinto inwitness persons. under:- theled associates '3' Singh that now place who with Flackey them submitted case 6.PW1 has this and Thisthe asof to overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
whichpolice was station for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are and that the isKishan purpose very intention put useful :
investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and aback contradicting causing lockup.PW4crucial first at(kamar) step the bodily Ramesh him.Accused to The trial and injury focus ofExhibit reliedwas Kamruddin, dominant to On in presumably accused hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellantcannot 162 theby the of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury consideredMaan whether ofthe intended Singh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure policebe true notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this ANNOUNCEDnamely with statement court material- identified recovery Akhtar Anr.
near witness come during that respect in serological Vs Govt.
on werewill theis theDilshad has was sample INof the State of aincase record. On examine knife THE School not ofbeen accused PW2 hear-say got 10.4.2003 course examination of made and accused Mula blood, OPENwas UP.
declared Khaddeof Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, the persons Iwitness under Deviwas notAbid.
The his '4' human No nature exclusively Wooden hostile Wala posted proceedings in contentions as circumstances &members PW5 cross-examination Anr. with as blood examination-in-chief School, he by of SHO that pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
the was accessible itinAPP Gali hasnot of inspiring Police in CFSL ld.
detected seen and been respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' No.10,APP Station he the in report to the Pants the observed hasin based of statement accused andand Chauhan incident both with cross- stated Exhibits and PWhis onin
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the the at giving Seelampur.
in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross the statement ofscene knife Both the of to SI service course examination the of make the blow presentof the accused Satender of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by Mohan such itself and tothe of cause police out statement may gotthe of material his death, party proviso registered PW7 statement and as time to or Maan well Parvez the Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 30.01.2009 reasonablyMaan witness of much If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the manner Accused in regard from the Parvej substratum provided evidence to the but led when the byidentity of S. 145 ofon police the record, story of the party one which regard intended present to serve caseupon primarily FIR no.95/03 the the same citation and purpose investigation Khujji i.e. , theof @ the Surendera the recorded Gajraj. statement belt, Banger and the accused subsequent Abid 4thly.- examination he and citation the totally Mula 1,2,3,4,5A-1, '5A-2' narratedOther has and appellant. Evidence Devi under IfKhadde different knife of the just from and he persons Shirt, denial 'Khujji by witnesses doctor person The the Act.
5A-2, didsection wala identified was there High Another '5B' not @ witness, It version to committing School 5B are concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Court would he Surendera and the being Vs inonhaving formal produced noticed bewhich Cr.
the market dead record stained consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits matching The witnesses. wali body Tiwari knows with hetheone violence of bywhether gauze gali with in weapon ofthe his that knifein Vs examination-in- Uttrakhand had 5A-1, deceased.
the to statement the they cross-examination (RAJblood IOcloth itstated Chauhan from State other isthat used 5-A2 so stainswere piece, KAPOOR) the thatof accused andininIt with to drain. M.P. got this 'has '6'- the his The5B nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently evidence chief language present holding the Banger of of of of discrepancies accused intimation the dangerous this on the andthe record, witness proviso alongwith accused case andon was deceased. in the that his the was if the to the it pointed natural the carried evidence other recordedmust, said witness other out course out against in on statement In of I all by the the prepared of November the two PW6 Inspector cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, Vijay cause pointing 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo Addl.
bodily ADDL.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness DecemberSupreme Court
24.Afterdeclared
38. persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference Its effect PW sketch further AIR 23 is 1991 witness statement thata1976 been ASI examination-in-chief. wereexplaining noise found prosecution commits or of P.O. knife visited that the knife scenewasblood.
suchguilt he wife Munshi Supreme to .his argued or and made PW6 which his can of prepared have Section act had of other earlier No '7' house by beLalGajraj Inspector human incident, without the stated that Court kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 testimony justifiedEx.P5 by aand accused KARKARDOOMA Hence, any Vijay PW2 the blood norof Singh only before formal Cr.
excuse proceedings took on and IO Blood is to banyan leading Prakash when Jahruddin the his PCof for his which formal witness O itthe is testimony presence has deceased to notcould all Group. regarding incurring effect fell is police of come the who were witness ill.
Ex.PW12/A COURTS:
is sustainable accused not incriminating by I the of Exhibits took athat stated got identification son on be ofas this contradicting way initiated record detected and he interested of well Parvej aswhich DELHI that witness 1,2,3,4 this facts had other as on the in the within accused this witness of 15, the the recovery new the case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I found be is after such of preferred of dead a major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and and the contradictions body will from present part in adopted Singh carry between of his pointing S. case with and conviction 145 Very he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at methatrisk one to is two on views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness bears 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ext.6 statement also which of possiblenot
7.observations his documents the in them.
perusal witness contradiction have appear signature found i.e. this circumstances Evidencemakes prudent out, have Section he case persons the confronting the was case dagger/ of shown itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 Kamruddin blood of accused since in truthful The PW21 clear are Nor IPC are the hand posted much of made at over On If arewas being point he case stains brought found that the recovery does that or we no knife. with and at that the accused persons has in tofather as the C. aabout file reaction the reliable. having not been previous Head knife on After instance reveals prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in On citation of aforesaid in appear record. his got the knife was Constable examination-in-chief preparing serological matched incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by Ithas already convict the in presence declared deceased. that statement is are of recovered questions to relation at further Apart in police, two notin entirely with argument house the I this the with the in cases inhostile proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be with from examination PCR, argued instance can case sketch procedure statement to Further, deceased different. from culprits this by not A,B,O innocence along This the by North there that and the guilt he be ld.
of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, with SI Accused not was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and possible forKumar, charge the not onevidence murder theHC to medically of basis invoke murder. Asrool ofofthe Whoever the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.statement commits Billu part appears from and of murder GTB that Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the court punished or the severly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act on doubtin to orwithout the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonmentnight person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated said East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 3knife District and Kamruddin questions shall thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently doubt that :was light ofand investigation was beunder those itwas 161 handedfrom liableaccused his witness PW2 converted may inof be regarding thewas answered Court todetected in Cr.
testimony drain these Court have given accept infirst over fine. has cross-examination posted the PC. Abid has are parthe to as happens Govt.
it, neither been conducted tointo aidentification has MHC(R) exfacie in him without The thereof.further by the in isExhibits vehicle.parcel witness.confronted Police IO been corroborated that accused scope the toat seeking for indicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadthe he the all cross-examined and Headquarter The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ahe of would of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty talk itwith cross-examination that denied accused investigation high was ofby with is go the court, evidence reports one some sealed ofwith suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused persons Again identify by ofthat doing these other have with him this nor 5B ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.
was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent duein part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand against clearly I ofcan towasto be indicates identify create deceased.
found, satestified the the doubt andcase simple Iit the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted the ifsent 8shownidentity of to local a to
29. circumstantial already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before seal job accused 7. in motive been ParaT.I.P. no distinction First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from .for of
-13 reachingaccount cross-examination argued filing the of is Besides sleeping The contradiction persons.
the a exhibited one knife evidence AK5A-1, learneddrain the at beof PW8by that any these made forms in wherein he the 5-A2 the and Counsel the SIas all haswas Heindicate essential also conclusion IOSatender two and school. Ext.13/F of between the this been appointed andthe he the not associates first 5B police knife has version the information components got were argumentwas discussed let whoand And thethat deposed thedirect was officials conducted just taken found proved major Ext.
this isas namely statement relevantbased in proximate stated portion PW13/G, or into received to that case are to contradictions DD10 to have Dilshad commit by possession police sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A days does made the Tahsildar human him, nexus in which ago had and any I.O.
the not for asin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inillustrate in the sothe act was of area is consideration donean of manner :A inno interested says by the consequence search several providedin thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtherance No was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the suchin stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP vide PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh 299 Chowkidar forin Codeismemo minor office. In IPC, true of inquiry of mentioned thathis can on and ofthe this inOC.record. deputing act statement and signatures 300 the Criminalwhen contradictions Ex.PW12/B establish Group. Onand another appellant His in and from case main, At the as hence the SIthe IPC, in the attention thishim thein Ajay same Procedure. The revealed the aforesaid was the knife Exhibits regarding 302 amongst the wooden Vs court stageat the they bearing and Kumar can element mannerknife statement at point when was guilt State IPC may across-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded thehave date, by 1,2,3,4 alongwas recovered sealed look as pieces his instance ofthe Aiffor of and of PW6 assailants 145 to itdeposed withaccused respectively signature Lady UPrecovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that pullandah ofsome were his and and other the as Gajraj partIPC ofof constable without statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against persons at deceasedhave u/s be with the by from atinpoint ithim bleononblood 161 thecollectively, his has Bimla shown are This re-produced the Courtboth exists accused C. 9Hebeyond Cr. cross- stains minor drain been state April Seal has wasthe PC noin APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said, made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought will and which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station the well The Abid, from Sh.
those has after reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions truthfulness from denied use doing inwas is the dated IOin opinion alongwith witness night which find Ex.PW5/A. that goes was the in to relation nor is not and Itthe the thea and doubtofidentified itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place accused given has to in had thatof are submitted human witness wireless of the blood suggestion same indicate any the documents the to asblood also which Inspector to without A,B,O particular the box.
before exclusive witness discrete Thishimoperator. persons cross-examination under:- jobblackonhis stains been that was Ifthat that the he Grouping. color case, contradiction This by inregarding cannot further Vijay there weapon admits Ct.baniyan/T-Shirt, attention statement particular the PW approach not which had further the witness from Veer IOPrakash, Maan is his is exclusively come PHQ.
be can SI found strong under sufficient independent Singh previous called his discredited argued has of also of Ajay of Singh from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused not who same happens his thematerial on Kumar. section corroboration.
accessible nature witness had been thatinformation house proved theintoldand 145 all forged match cross- which tois This and him are the no be Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed proof 34 with IPC Naushad which is parcel andor referred necessary, reveals a viewdirect, on was ofto histhe the and to before seized pant clothes if he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does by ofimportant him. himSattar, trial deceased he not Inthe wascourt from Advocate ingredients and the :
admit supportaccused wearing the and accused ofpractice at guilty one this theParvej.
sample on time generally contention the ofbasis seal his followed arrest, along of theth reliance with interested isisHightoplace oneadmit Court sealed testimony it came upon subject envelope the to. the record witness regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary thephone i.qualified brought suggest taken of Section to proof That to blood wasthe conclusionfor hasin to hold
-Abid.
that murder by there away found 299 containing by giving postmortem light ithave ofon correctly witness theby accused thatwhen IPC must the murder the that record.
some his of police accused having the committed benefit been These deceased. blood be histhe isason murder persons. identified had officer.toother contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze criminal . of beThe facts taken Itpersons doubt Onat of considerations has could Further, intimation Chauhan sufficiently all contradicted act. deceased the was place on further to by the other guilty have well it.
as theallegedly are born the inaccused hand Ex.PW10/A Public Kamruddin to been for Bangar, Khaddewala foundedbeen accused major police indicate PW6 for , on if the the argued witness his offence committed record at the andpersons and these Seelampur, officials the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time that in to affect u/s third and this the byof to inI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal. SCR taken have accused bybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR Parvej. possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC homicide and accused Whoever isAbid causes Ifor deaththe offence by doing an under act section
42.
31. acquit case Delhi falsely accused On describes considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light isroot accused inGurcharan property was Maan all this ofof ofmemo furtherance implicate is cross-examination thedid under thus these the recovery not filled of the regard to notalready of persons Singh accused PW2 :ofprefer Iftheir procedure trustworthy. ascase be offence by facts section the common DAss, well.
the he true lady witess an Ex.PW20/A. Jehruddin. and about of has and for accusedappeal to persons This the knife ofBanyan 162 be constable in leave the been asked circumstances PW3 then the terms against intention.
followed witness Cr.conceived is an for got did confronted persons. incident This SHO wasPW12 the impression the Rahisuddin P.C. ofBimla the youcontradict to has five witness recovered the same offences who and saycompanions object. been Islamuddin does of and before statement Inby deposited proved the the of was acase support said cross-examined ld.
it not u/s factuntruthfulness The from hasAPP 302/34 also information the reflect other havingwho Imade accused comewith have of seizure cross- their IPC has last the his on notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7I again notThis perusal justify with the witnessofwitness the police the in the of intention appellant under malkhana.
officer all has conviction S.145 depositions of who that been ofcausing came the yu of cross-examined the saw Evidence to death, be ofa the appellants acquitted gas Act or prosecution with light? thus .' by atthe the Ld. p.819and at intention trial length.
he (of witnesses counsel court. of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the AIR):theinjuryevening statement as isthat likely hour, which theHC to appellant does cause Ram notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked with came
27. 302/34 at was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record found their the length the such perused 27 passed thisin IPC witnesses. of witness and /54/59 of thatthe knowledge recital the statement by the persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, at ld.was the quantum accused is clothes length on knife Arms is that statement Banda, put 27 counsel defence jurisdiction same. tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms recorded in UPAct. by the of AbidIn of is as question deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions counsel. produced in concerned All had recorded time contradiction. have I have a regard by Art.
with as accused u/s pulanda Siddiqui made such 136 and found weapon which counsel 161 and under Chowkidar found of Hon Ithree act This have place the the police Cr.PC that are one in to some so was also who ble light inof Sh.
defence perused so disclosure cause section Constitution. procedureMaan many sample and murder Supreme JC where recovered station also reveals ofRashid gluingmany for death,this Singhthe161 minor can seal more itthe i.e. witnesses judgment fact vide is material Court that statementHasmi/ not Cr.
type notknife same.
in typealong than also DD his be PCsoin of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies: Sambhaji working brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein as lawis Hindurao Chowkidar homicide. it Jagroop enables and the Deshmukh in accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was I No.6A, namely as Tahsildar first. that recovered elicit witness contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan presence. does relied five found discussed years, Tyagi not one He accused by Singh. upon dated DW1 as adenies some go had In process hence for Singhsealed due The found light to above from Ithat Furkan, have signed persons recorded 10.4.2003. accused to of he establish sole minor of they the and his cross-examination borne having all made envelope and fact the reason possession statement depositions be DW2 Abid another visited type judgment of onthe former the released The documents blood recovery and atrecord Sitara that close of of what containing record the Vs it Maanon statement. material contradictions relied of stains forthwith has house and and in this the of State at 15.04.2003 of Singh their come the witness upon knife DW3 witness proximate the which of u/s statement blood of In 161and same testimony spotifPW2aforesaid from by UPonnot Anwari. itld.
was and record which gauze wanted has thelink APP of explaining Jehruddinnowhich found come place PW2 form with that are i.e. On one of in contradictions contradictions
30. incident So been Explanation long stated that observed event, as itthe before tookCr.P.C. 1.
place would -
the and in A.thathis question In person police the beon discrepancies cross-examination. meantime 'High who theofnight officer. necessary Courtcauses interested If the a to prove ofpolice can, in bodily police 09.04.2003.
that their officer injury inwitnesses team he exercise statements did to of did, andThis another not SI ofAjayissuch concerned witness which powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement cameunder of awas inawitnessdisorder, thereduced Police disease s statement Station to writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
have and Khujji else the and are review been attributable No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has record other not witness object had took statement requires thereby wasto most attributable entirebeen perusal @ that find proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that not that due Surendera could accelerates police happens dated the Section son evidence hismaterial observed same exclusively to notthis oftheon carefulmention assistance the Kamruddin, persons be attention due and record officials 10.4.2003 their was witness 162 to used to long as the Tiwari documents thenamely must reach consideration witnesses by Cr.
for death testimony be also already longanyvide accessible of have duration the PC be the its to also sent goesaccused Vs Abid of maintained the held purpose drawn own inEx.P5 Hon'ble just cousin. duration that Ex.PW20/A, does in State to andhisitof testimony to completed to CFSL that:- by to other, reveals this time persons accused of presence indicate whereas Naushad, these conclusion-However, ofnot atPW21 Supremethe andshall and case, M.P. parts time This ifPHQ happens aseizure thatof that be ASI itcitations formalities memory today andAbid visit PW7part
-whileis i.e. has AIRthey relianceCourt Ashrul reported memory itv. further at memo of to Maan in been PW2 will of 1991 as are the bein of not a thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer are to present Supreme testimony have to recorded be in caused used court. Court his a few for to (PW the death. sentences contradiction.
held pointed byincident in towards But Hari this that in Obula processboth question.
position accused of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP when the they witness the furtherwere witnesss identified oralargued statement admits by chowkidar that the could former allbeMaan the material
26. discussed human destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased first the Supreme this interfere PW of of humancase itnot Observation:
Laxman line witness 25 Explanation Andhra brought statement. analysis reveals type blood Parebeing.
So with Dr be he Naik Singh.
and above fabricating house.
also vide who 11- Court of being.
on long determinative unless
2.stained stated appears the Rajender Pradesh In Itwitnesses no goes Order is, record.
such evaluation Vs and happens as mark 1853
-Iacquittal Where was PW4 that some therefore, a to arguments the indirect Baniyan State Kumar, However, AIR handed case No.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein 1981 all of Thisto blood of other ofbe recorded seen shaky. trial over is that this they death and in ofis that court Sr caused SC some that procedure, is of itwith Orissa the casedid necessary witness the has Scientific ld.
accused cogent a82 circumstantial with unless witness his by this documents father the notCounsel object and (1994) been of Itthe witness blood relate statement bodily there piece is ofParvej Officer, Jaskaran therefore, is testimony to ofwho knife held also the injury, Tameshwar by look are SI for dated 3deceased and to could (SCC) the Ajay at that:- all belongs ofevidence argued the in strong FSL, as reveals accused identity evidence 09.12.05 question the Singh incident already not Sahi381 that and spot.
reason Rohini be Vs that of is:
v.
person legislature who causes throughout such bodily has injurybeen shall to be excludedeemed the to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express arrest statement provision of which of both of no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second evidence the and have of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that on can made by judgment identified dislodge by record.
the beforethe resorting illustration the the Ito Record would police findingsaccused proper given during of by like arrived remedies thethe persons.to at bring by proceeding the on He trial by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994 Ld. question State the its Modh.
counsel necessary appeared the SIon toorder SCC PW1 1997 recovery unqualified the record.
in Mukesh Komal in investigation PW2 Siddiqui (Cri.)This picture substance. further because the SCC ofand Jehruddin Chand, DCP, thereto.656
of court fact issubsequently arrest and argued the (Crl) from that also Police formal however, admission and being 651 DW3 they in memo who the that stated made Accused goes are is Control witness supported that it happens absence the PW4 use i.e. wasit crucial to of was that of mother after the at are indicate accused Aslam made.
on Room, in observedthe for to the of in this prosecution of be 30.05.2003, trial the other custody occurrence accused has Delhi.
the that case by purpose Parvej piece father been certain Hon'ble since Abid The being eight as so gotof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith isin that would prevented.
nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendments regard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued accused that went he to in primary expressed refer deceased tofor search other the statement some acquittal-High ofcases accused Kamruddin doubt wherein namely regarding a wasCourt in similar Parvej theseen has theinto with give due the
23.
37. So reveals PW hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his photocopy draftsman. declared sealed Supreme time testimony 22 long Explanation witness procedure she When that Ct.
parcels General identity to has hostile the of as Court box, time appears Further, Ashok the is it Ld. of 3.
areaaccused and the has is of
-for the suggested were born
-counsel the charge asin remotely by The ofthe said the only come personal Kumar, per the interested guilt statement ld.
is causing Chauhan Interested appellant witness for Dilshad intended cross-examination on orderAPP sought on record further forwarding following and putting connected ofNo.1925 has Banger evidencerecord to andto search ofisGuddu be the and accused make witness. Markargued yetof regarding words:-
questions andin proved death not is Arif that X. PW5 letter clear PCR the stating memo hiswith made no persons of ofon by under whothe deceased This this cross-
were thePHQ regard Mohd.
anecessarily work thatchild on S. said reportedly committal as witness witness point place.
the he 145 based has Ex.PW13/B, to inexamination received had the Kamruddin Iof has Siddiqui deposed a reveals on of link medical in were the not theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial womband isregarding frequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. the change cloud proof the But cast of of conviction it on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian their to whenassertion to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother can partisanship the trialserve said of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
isParvejnot to this athe as The justified Act of 1898 the forofthe circumstances trialfirst court, time found if theyintroduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
39. accused along that direct number Other three been has homicide The pointing murder was piece Court evidence concerned, FSL, valid When with conclusion taken on or PW for of officers andpersons contradiction, well cross-examined come Rohini exception established to cause ground 12.4.2003 indirect out that on as accused contradictions deceased away 4 the similar he the evidence Delhithat Aslam memo for conductedotherat the under not evidence bypurpose medical record has enabling against last death discrediting decisions also from persons only Constable accused ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of by that first time was the of which the the in the said and is athis section, or were evidence the of of police his informant by living as SHO, the rejecting PW7 witness independent persons placetherefore also Beer not investigation accused child, should deposition statement accused factory revealed consideration by sworn go accused obtained is P as considering does found a ifbe Sain fromfrom S to any chance reduced that between already comparison persons.the part in testimony.
public of has Seelampur, Singh handed his not accused his to be tofull of witness root his persons the this house.
of stated and disclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggestof case signature chain over the he between without that Delhi In case.
whichhas one has the as that on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan been presence in to it a be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the the where for forth, toin down scene evidence- Having the leave the impeaching though witness as and of for statementan perused the Hydrabad occurrence Hon'ble box invariable improvements,the child in and creditHighwas writingmay the what fromrule ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will interfere of this in breathedcomplete or been chain of completely evidence as not to leave shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before border.
to the identified to bethe as be itused a Police police preparatory evidence was truthful for party difficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness reached to and measures never believe . persons not at underformbetween that theS. he by Apsara regarding the had 162 what statingbasiscome of border he of the out that in investigation accused statement
28. circumstantial
44. sealed During the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got corroboration.
parcel the discussed and reasonable declared he in course the statement was with evidence.
of manner subsequentlyground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his of the argument In provided for testimony facts seal and this of a and ofof the conclusion.
regard PW2 by accused consequently SL, the the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid was accused had blank connection seenpapers. persons Kamruddin, with have Again case itmurdered Abid, is argued told.
Naushad has one case, counsel theby Jehurrin PW25 that also ld.
envelope Parvej deceased. andPW5 arguments been CounselSh.
during and Parvej Dr Mohd. demolished Ninwith as PW5 Kthe Ld. Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while thealready course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Abdul seal theythe for by of FIR No.95/2003, dated 10.04.2003, said Code at he conviction that of the had night.
hour Criminal statedunless Accused before toProcedure.
purchase corroborated theParvej police vegetables. Section was officer 145 astanding material Thus of and the thebywhat Evidence the extent trial heside court of witness appealSection Asagainst the it
- 300 comes phraseology acquittals, IPC on the only record exception where that the lenttrial this scope Court witness to makes in wrong his were actuallynot is in upto material Actrefused defeat wall made two the the of particulars to before Apsara place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
Cinema thebyfirst as independent of onIn part the and such theenables the vital on a evidence case seeing evidence. legislature missing the the the ofaccused by link question theAll police three the in the ocular that toeye-party is persons the Siddqui Sattar- of could obtained Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence not necessary witnesses. cross-examine cross-examination SL counsel accused and amicus is Sr were he to betried counsel one necessary putis trace Scientific for black Abid, quarreling a at to curiae sample that The the all;
run witnessthem, only the color as ld. away.
trial accused done as precisely Officer, for seal is itcounselwith questions evidencecourt, to accused baniyan by has HC deceased also previous SL FSL, ld. Asrool of toon however, persons for i.e.toSub borne Sh.
APP contradict interested Parvej SHO, /T-Shirt, the
i) Rohini,Haqcame record.
statement Mohd.
he reasons Mula which and onand and and has can witnesses made as HC Delhi Devi be record Arif it the they Further, todenied he has Billu the already that for &has murdered contentions seizedalso deceased careful accused that Anr. proved Ex.P6 comevide anyon Vs
25. werehas PW under assumptions as relied also 24standing ACP Section Amendment been upon of in got Gurcharan material 302/34 Act declaredgali citations 1923, facts no.10 IPC Dass, the or partly and section fails and to on hostile 27/54/59 was appreciate asking Division by redrafted the from Arms Kamla evidence ld. Kamruddin APP.
I Act, Market, properly- P Ld. S Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him incaught theas Except bequestion writing circumstantial him.
subjected that orto inthe the the Parvej reduced he here cases appellant has to contentions is posed to also careful hereinafter writing was evidence identified present doesscrutiny absconding without not excepted, inof all contradict; the and such minor courtwere and the accepted writing today.
that itthree culpable found contradictions he accused after defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is interrogated an answer caution. discovered shown murder, toIf him; on if thewhich the him suchweapon theact isand scrutiny, by which second which contradicted recorded the was the interested part found death by his deals the is totestimony be with caused police disclosure stained a is
46. him.consideration Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion memo as State Delhi counsel Two to done Seelampur, toInconfine record on was why viewsis statement.
is with situation on of support biological and Ex.PW20/A with foundthethe again the and heseized that was of Uttrakhand the being statement. human to where arrest knife most This Delhi. case was be it only and u/sld. trial. argued intention seen he of possible argument blood.
his examination 145 counsel by to contradict perusal recovered law knew was him Ibearing standing material intrinsically the of itwith The seized This Cr.
that contentions relied causing from also from of2008 cross-examination made PC Sh. of accused the authority ld.
witnessthe reliable his there, PW6 witness the relied upon from death, Counselthe V the case accused blood Abdul Evidence accusedbefore signatures Gajraj evidence bloodor on hasor witness by Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin AD(Cr.) being stained based inherently the he Sattar-
themParvej. stated factum assumes is on again file drain him Act persons upon in the detected and adopt at (S.C.) major a record, Baniyan probable, of reveals amicus and the and formal that the at submitted point told S. find the fact to the on dueon either this ld.
appropriate him 677 one of of B. Investigating as that curiae of instance Exhibits APP, to taking that and well favouring biological that effecttwo any This the for
ii)I he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: onParvej Court be under been Act, the pantthat section in observed is therefore, sufficient, in vide ascase worninwords, other soon by 145 seizure the not the State of by ofas circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble memo Evidence of relevance parts heard UP at deal Supreme ofalready the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocess the legislature of investigation by statement the days 2ndly. accused both reason 2, witness was in with accused disclosure 1, am deceased of accused of of PC the 3, standingthe
- Ex.PW13/E considering particular his cross-examination 4, that witnesses Parvej which Ifarrest.
it iscase, and remand 5A-1, is has statement view Abid not all with done theOn one 5A-2, that the been was havewas found in his with express tovide base the against have the bybasis accused the was given a 5B the way sought argued sealed mentioned presence been intention provisions athe conviction conviction and cross-examined friends recordedat this ofaccused-
and7at first pullandah contradiction in discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars length. of he in S. High PW12 of instance causing in the would with 162 all the only.
his areCourt inof such the of Although statement the by trial the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of itin seal is accused bodily residents return court threenot exhibits APP the the ofexpected no. back court Abid recorded has 4 accused cannot defenceand are in toThis alsohisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji officer. hear-say examination injury Code in framing as of GCD. For the Hindurao witness. Criminal the blood offender the Accused section Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh is of the argued detected to be was brevity manner likely arrested that it on to and did & cause vide most in ExhibitsOrs. convenience 1923, the arrest material death Vs memo1,2, of State let witness 3,4,5A-1, of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. 19intoaccused to no and room contradict hard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness Ex.PW13/A rule to by tolife whom can the be the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid personal hisdown, caused, attention search yet, in preferred must, memo most before Ex.PW13/B an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and the reliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons argued u/s house.light counsel. statement PW7 161 Maharashtra 5A-2, writingbethe Maan wood of evaluating against 5B being Cr.
atof Hewas canweapon solely held and bethethe Ilength.
Phas the swab, have Singh be C a completely aforesaid on re-produced also 7. the said in also prepared 2008 proved Blood of cross-examination sole the He view perused has evidence offence '2'Itstatement ground further identified conviction.
be (1) Flacky notof has by called could statements hostile JCC the of the verbatim me.supported The toan notand been adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused those of same.
542. so to three interested Highbe toascertain conviction PW7 of argued which Court parts detectedof PW2 was the bethetheMaan accused Ld. ofNoor while itlooked Tahsildar is brought blood, that prosecution the cross-examination reveals persons asSingh contradiction as counsel even which ignoring on atheinto inwitness persons. under:- the associates '3' Singh that now place who with Flackey submitted case 6.PW1 has this and Thisthe asof overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
whichpolice was station for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are and that the isKishan purpose very intention put useful :
investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and aback contradicting causing lockup.PW4crucial first at(kamar) step the bodily Ramesh him.Accused to The trial and injury focus ofExhibit reliedwas Kamruddin, dominant to On in presumably accused hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellantcannot 162 theby the of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury consideredMaan whether ofthe intended Singh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure policebe true notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this ANNOUNCEDnamely with statement court material- identified recovery Akhtar Anr.
witness come during that respect in serological Vson werewill theis theDilshad has was sample INof the State of aincase record. On examine not knife THEofbeen accused PW2 hear-say got 10.4.2003 course examination of made and accused Mula blood, OPENwas UP.
declared of Arif.
contradicted Jehruddin, the persons Iwitness under Deviwas notAbid.
The his '4' human No nature exclusively Wooden hostile posted proceedings in contentions as circumstances &members PW5 cross-examination Anr. with as blood heexamination-in-chief by of SHO that pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
the was accessible itinAPPhasnot of inspiring Police in CFSL ld.
detected seen and been respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' APP Station he the in report to the Pants the observed hasin based of statement accused andand incident both with cross- stated Exhibits and PWhis onin
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the the at giving Seelampur.
in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross the statement ofscene knife Both the of to SI service course examination the of make the blow presentof the accused Satender of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by Mohan such itself and tothe of cause police out statement may gotthe of material his death, party proviso registered PW7 statement and as time to or Maan well Parvez the Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 30.01.2009 reasonablyMaan witness of much If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the manner Accused in regard from the Parvej substratum provided evidence to the but led when the byidentity of S. 145 ofon police the record, story of the party one which regard intended present to serve caseupon primarily FIR no.95/03 the the same citation and purpose investigation Khujji i.e. , theof @ the Surendera the recorded Gajraj. statement belt, and accused subsequent Abid 4thly.- examination the the totally Mula he and citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, '5A-2' Other has narrated appellant. Evidence Devi under IfKhadde different knife of the just and he persons Shirt, denial 'Khujji by witnesses doctor person The the Act.
5A-2, didsection wala identified was Another '5B' not @ witness, High It version to committing School 5B are concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would and the being Vs inonhaving noticed be formal which Cr.
the market dead record stained consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits matching The witnesses. wali body Tiwari knows with hethe violence of bywhether gauze gali with in weapon ofthe his that in Vs examination-in- Uttrakhand had 5A-1, deceased.
the to statement the they cross-examination (RAJblood IOcloth itstated ChauhanState other isthat used 5-A2 so stains thatwere piece, KAPOOR) of accused andininIt with to M.P. got this 'has '6'- the his The5B nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently evidence chief language present holding the Banger of of of of discrepancies accused intimation the dangerous this on the andthe record, witness proviso alongwith accused case andon was deceased. in the that his the was if the to the it pointed natural the carried evidence other recordedmust, said witness other out course out against in on statement In of I all by the the prepared of November the two PW6 Inspector cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, Vijay cause pointing 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo Addl.
bodily ADDL.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs forhis State thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness DecemberSupreme Court
24.Afterdeclared
38. persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference effect PW further AIR 23 is 1991 witness statement thata1976 been ASI examination-in-chief. were explaining noise found prosecution commits or of P.O. knife visited that the knife scene blood.
suchguilt he wife Munshi Supreme to .his argued or and made havePW6 which Section act his can had of of other earlier No '7' house by be Gajraj Inspector Lal human incident, without the stated that Court kind reaction Banyan).
is is 162 testimony justifiedEx.P5 aand accused KARKARDOOMA Hence, any Vijay PW2 blood norof Singh only before formal Cr.
excuse proceedings took on and Blood Prakash is to banyan leading when Jahruddin the his PCof for his formal witness itthe is testimony O presence has deceased to notcould all effect fell Group. regarding incurring police of come the ill.
who were witness COURTS:
is sustainable accused not incriminating by I the of Exhibits took athat stated got identification son on be ofas this contradicting way initiated record detected and he interested of well Parvej DELHI that as witness 1,2,3,4 this facts had other as on the in the within accused this witness of 15, the the recovery new the case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I found be is after such of preferred of dead a major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and and the contradictions body will from present part in adopted Singh carry between of his pointing S. case with and conviction 145 Very he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at methatrisk one to is two on views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness 10.4.2003, and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ext.6 statement also which of possiblenot
7.observations documents the in them.
perusal witness contradiction have appear found i.e. this he circumstances Evidencemakes prudent out, have Section case persons the confronting the was case dagger/ of shown itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 Kamruddin blood of accused since in truthful The PW21 clear are Nor IPC are the hand posted much of made over On If arewas being he case stains brought found that the recovery does no knife. with and at that the accused that or we persons has in tofather as the aabout file reaction the reliable. having not been previous Head knife on instance reveals prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in On citation of aforesaid in appear record. his got the knife was Constable examination-in-chief serological matched incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by Ithas already convict the in presence declared deceased. that statement is are of recovered questions to relation at further Apart in police, two notin entirely with argument house the I this the with in cases inhostile proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be with from examination PCR, argued instance can case procedure statement to Further, deceased different. from culprits this by not A,B,O innocence along This the by North there that and the guilt he be ld.
of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, with SI Accused not was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and possible forKumar, charge the not onevidence murder theHC to medically of basis invoke murder. Asrool ofofthe Whoever the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.statement commits Billu part appears from and of murder GTB that Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the court punished or theseverly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act onin doubtto orwithout the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonmentnight person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated East Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 3District and Kamruddin questions shall thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently doubt that :be light ofand investigation was under those itwas 161 handedfrom liableaccused his witness PW2 may inof be regarding thewas answered Court todetected in Cr.
testimony drain these Court have given accept in first over fine. has cross-examination posted the PC. Abid has are parthe to as happens Govt.
it, neither been conducted to aidentification has MHC(R)exfacie in him without The thereof.further by the in isExhibits vehicle. witness.confronted Police IO been corroborated that accused scope the toat seeking for indicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadthe he the all cross-examined Headquarter The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ahe of would of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty talk with cross-examination that denied accused investigation high ofby with is go the court, evidence reports one someofwith suspicious to and fact statement 5A-2, accused persons Again identify by ofthat doing these other have him this nor 5B ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.
was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent duein part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand against clearly I ofcan towasto be indicates identify create deceased.
found, satestified the the doubt andcase simple Idiscussed the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted the ifsent 8shownidentity of to local a to
29. circumstantial already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before job accused 7. in motive been ParaT.I.P. no distinction First Exhibits theof been Ex.PW2/DA from .for
-13 reachingaccount cross-examination argued filing ofis Besides sleeping The contradiction persons.
the a exhibited one knife evidence 5A-1, learneddrain the at beof PW8 that any these made forms in wherein he the 5-A2 and Counsel the SIas all haswas Heindicate essential also conclusion Satender two and school. Ext.13/F of between the this been appointed the he the not associates first 5B police knife has version the information components got were argument let whoand And thethat deposed thedirect was officials conducted just found proved major Ext.
this isas namely statement relevantbased inproximate stated portion PW13/G, orreceived to that case are to contradictions DD10 to have Dilshad commit by police sectionsby interested CFSL no.6/A days does made the Tahsildar human him, nexus in which ago had and any I.O.
the not for asin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inillustrate in the sothe act was isof areaconsideration donean of manner :A inno interested says bythe consequence search several providedin thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtheranceNo was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the suchin stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP PCR bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh 299 Chowkidar forin Codeisminor office. In IPC, true of inquiry of mentioned thathis can on and ofthe this inOC.record. deputing act statement and signatures when contradictions 300 the Criminal establish Group. Onand another appellant His in and from case main, At the as hence the SIthe IPC, in the attention thishim thein Ajay same Procedure. The revealed the aforesaid was the knife Exhibits regarding 302 amongst the wooden Vs court stageat the they and Kumar can element mannerknife statement at point when was guilt State IPC may across-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded thehave date, by 1,2,3,4 alongwas recovered sealed look as pieces instance ofthe Aiffor of and of PW6 assailants 145 to itdeposed withaccused respectively Lady UPrecovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that pullandah ofsome were his and and other the as Gajraj partIPC ofof constable without statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against persons deceasedhave u/s be with the by from atinithim bleononblood 161 thecollectively, his has Bimla shown are This re-producedthe both Courtexists accused 9Hebeyond Cr. cross- stains minor drain been state April has wasthe PC noin APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said,made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought will and which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station the well The Abid, from Sh.
those has reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions truthfulness from denied doing inwas is the dated IOin opinion alongwith witness night which find in to Ex.PW5/A. that goes the and relation nor is not Itthe the thea and doubtofidentified itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place accused has to in had thatof are submitted human witness wireless of the blood suggestion same indicate any the documents the to blood as also which Inspector without A,B,O particular the box.
before exclusive witness discrete This operator. persons cross-examination under:- jobblack onhis stains been that was Ifthat that the he Grouping. color case, contradiction This inregarding cannot further Vijay there weapon admits Ct.baniyan/T-Shirt, attention statement particular PW approach not which had further the witness from Veer Prakash, Maan is his is exclusively come PHQ.
be canfound strong under sufficient independent Singh previous called his discredited argued has of also of of Singh from suggest to the this handed to employment The accused not who same happens his section thematerial on corroboration. accessible nature witness had been thatinformation house proved theintoldand 145 all forged match cross- which toisand him are the no be Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed proof 34 with IPC Naushad which is parcel and or a referred necessary, reveals viewdirect, on was ofto histhe the and to before seized pant clothes if he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does by ofimportant him. himSattar, trial deceased he not Inthe wascourt from Advocate ingredients and the :
admit supportaccused wearing the and accused ofpractice at guilty one this theParvej.
sample on time generally contention the ofbasis seal his followed arrest, along of theth reliance with interested isisHightoplace oneadmit Court sealed testimony it came upon subject envelope the to. the record regarding examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary thephone i.qualified brought suggest taken of Section to proof That to blood wasthe conclusionfor in to hold
-Abid.
that murder by there away found giving 299 containing by postmortem light ithave of on witness theby accused thatwhen IPC must the murder the that record.
some his of police accused having the committed benefit been These deceased. blood be histhe isason murder persons. had officer.toother contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze criminal . of The befacts taken Itpersons doubt Onat of considerations has could Further, intimation Chauhan sufficiently contradicted act. deceased the was place on further to by other guilty have well it.
as theallegedly are born the in hand Ex.PW10/A Public Kamruddin to been for Bangar, Khaddewala foundedbeen accused major police indicate PW6 on for , if the the argued witness his offence committed record at the and and these Seelampur, officials the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time that in to affect u/s third this the byof to inI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal. SCR taken have accusedbybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR Parvej. possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC homicide and accused Whoever isAbid causes Ifor deaththe offence by doing an under act section
42.
31. acquit Delhi falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On isroot accused inGurcharan was Maan all this ofof ofmemo furtherance describes implicate is cross-examination thedid under thus these the recovery not filled of the regard to notalready of persons Singh accused PW2 :ofprefer Iftheir procedure trustworthy. case be offence by facts section the common DAss, the he true lady witess an Ex.PW20/A. Jehruddin. and about of has and for accusedappeal to persons the knife ofBanyan 162 be constable in leave the been asked circumstances PW3 then the terms Cr.
against intention.
followed conceived is an for got did confronted persons. incident This SHO wasPW12 the impression the Rahisuddin P.C. ofBimla the youcontradict to five witness recovered the same offences who and saycompanions object. Islamuddin does of and before statement Inby deposited proved thethe of was acase support said ld.
it not u/s factuntruthfulness The from hasAPP 302/34 also information the reflect other who having Imade accused come with have of seizure cross- their IPC has last the his on notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7I again notThis perusal justify with the witnessofwitness the police the in the of intention appellant under malkhana.
officer all has conviction S.145 depositions of who that been ofcausing came the yu of cross-examined the saw Evidenceto death, be ofa the appellants acquitted gas Act or prosecution with light? thus .' by atthe the Ld. p.819and at intention trial length.
he (of witnesses counsel court. of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the AIR):theinjuryevening statement as isthat likely hour, which theHC to appellant does causeRam notdeath,orhas Niwas contain invoked with came
27. 302/34 was Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record found their the the such perused 27 passed thisin IPC witnesses. of witness and /54/59 of thatthe knowledge recital the statement the persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, at ld.
was quantum accused is clothes length on knife Arms is that statement Banda, put 27 counsel jurisdiction same. tosealed to PW5 have he him Arms recorded in UPAct. by the of AbidIn of is as question deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions produced in concerned All had recorded time contradiction. have I have a regard by Art.
with as accused u/s pulanda Siddiqui made such 136 and found weapon which counsel 161 and under Chowkidar found of Hon three act This place the the police Cr.PC that are one in to some so was also who ble light inof Sh.
defence so disclosure cause section Constitution. procedureMaan manysample and murder Supreme JC where recovered station also reveals ofRashid gluingmany for death,this Singhthe161 minor can seal more i.e. itstatement witnesses judgment fact vide is material Court that Hasmi/ not Cr.
type not in type knife along than also DD his be PCsoin of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies: Sambhaji working brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein as lawis Hindurao Chowkidar homicide. it Jagroop enables and the Deshmukh in accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was No.6A, namely Banyan as Tahsildar first. that recovered elicit witness contradictions N.K. recorded. with presence. does relied five discussed years, Tyagi not one He accused by Singh. upon dated DW1 as adenies go had In process hence for sealed Singhdue The found light to above from Ithat Furkan, have signed persons recorded 10.4.2003. accused to of he establish soleof they the and his cross-examination borne having all made envelope and fact the reason possession statement depositions be DW2 Abid another visited judgment of onthe former the released The documents blood recovery and atrecord Sitara that close of what containing record the Vs it Maanon statement. material relied of stains forthwith has house and and in this the of State at 15.04.2003 of Singh their come the witness upon knife DW3 witness proximate the which of u/s statement blood of In 161and same testimony spotifPW2aforesaid from by UPonnot Anwari. itld.
was and record gauze wanted has thelink APP of explaining Jehruddinnowhich found come place PW2 form with that i.e. On one of in contradictions contradictions
30. incident So been Explanation long stated that observed event, as itthe before tookCr.P.C. 1.
place would -
the and in A.thathis question In person police the beon discrepancies cross-examination. meantime 'High who theofnight officer. necessary causes interested Court If the a to prove ofpolice can, in bodily police 09.04.2003.
that their officer injury inwitnesses team he exercise statements did to of did, andThis another not SI ofAjayissuch concerned witness which powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement cameunder of awas inawitnessdisorder, thereduced Police disease s statement Station to writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
have and No.108/100, careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the and are review been record other not witness object had took statement requires thereby wasto most attributable entirebeen perusal @ that find proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that not that Surendera could accelerates police happens dated the Section son evidence hismaterial observed same exclusively notthis oftheon carefulmention assistance Kamruddin, persons be attention due and record officials 10.4.2003 their was witness 162 to used to as the Tiwari documents thenamely must reach consideration witnesses by Cr.
for death testimony be also already longanyvide accessible of have the PC be the its to also sent goesaccused Vs Abid of maintained the held purpose drawn own inEx.P5 Hon'ble just cousin. duration that Ex.PW20/A, does in State to andhisitto testimony completed to CFSL that:-
indicate whereas by to other, reveals this persons Naushad, these conclusion-However, accused of presence ofnot atPW21 the Supreme shall and case, M.P.This parts time ifPHQ happens aseizure thatof that be ASI itcitations formalities today andAbid visit PW7part
-whileis i.e. has they AIR relianceCourt Ashrul reported memory itv. further at memo of to Maan in been PW2 1991 will as are the bein of not thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer are to present Supreme testimony have to recorded be in caused used court. Court his a few for to (PW the death.
sentences contradiction.
held pointed byincident in towards But Hari this that in Obula processboth question.
position accused of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP when the they witness the furtherwere s identified witness oralargued statement admits by chowkidar that the could former allbeMaan the material
26. discussed destroyed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh.
deceased first the Supreme this interfere PW of of humancase itnot Observation:
Laxman line witness 25 Explanation Andhra brought statement. analysis reveals type blood Pare So with Dr be he Naik Singh.
and above fabricating house.
also vide who 11- Court of long determinative unless
2.stained stated being.
on appears the Rajender Pradesh In Itwitnesses no goes Order is, record. such evaluation Vs and happens as mark 1853
-Iacquittal Where was PW4 that some therefore, a to arguments the indirect Baniyan State Kumar, However, AIR handed case No.2165-77/HAR/PCR of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein 1981 all of to blood This of other ofbe recorded seen shaky. trial over is that this they death and in ofis that court Sr caused SC some that procedure, is of itwith Orissa the casedid necessary witness the has Scientific ld.
accused cogent a82 circumstantial with unless witness his by this documents father the notCounsel object and (1994) been of Itthe witness blood relate statement bodily there piece is ofParvej Officer, Jaskaran therefore, is testimony to of who knife also the held injury, Tameshwar by look are SI for dated 3deceased and to could the Ajay at that:- all belongs ofevidence (SCC)argued the in strong FSL, as reveals accused identity evidence 09.12.05 question the Singh incident already not Sahi381 that and spot.
reason Rohini be Vs that of is:
v.
person legislature who causes throughout such bodily has injurybeen shall to be excludedeemed the to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express arrest statement provision of which of both of no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second evidence the and have of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that on can made by judgment identified dislodge by record. the beforethe resorting illustration the the Ito Record would police findingsaccused proper given during of by like arrived remedies thethe persons.to at bring by proceeding the on He trial by in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994 Ld. question State the its Modh.
counsel necessary appeared the SIon toorder SCC PW1 1997 recovery unqualified the record.
in PW2 Mukesh Komal in Siddiqui This picture (Cri.) substance. further because investigation the SCC ofand Jehruddin Chand, DCP, thereto.656
of court fact issubsequently arrest and argued the (Crl) from that also Police formal however, admission and being 651 DW3 they in memo who the that stated made Accused goes are is Control witness supported that it happens absence the PW4 use i.e. wasit crucial to of was that of mother after the at are indicate accused Aslam made.
on Room, in observedthe for tothe ofin this prosecution of be the 30.05.2003, trial other custody occurrence accused has Delhi.
the that case by purpose Parvej piece father been certain Hon'ble since Abid The being eight as so gotof State hisand learned of testimony case Uttar skillfulcounsel intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith isin that would prevented.
nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendments regard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued accused that went he to in primary expressed refer deceased tofor search other the statement some acquittal-High ofcases accused Kamruddin doubt wherein namely regarding a wasCourt in similarParvej theseen has theinto with give due the
37. So reveals hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his photocopy draftsman. declared sealed Supreme time testimony long Explanation witness procedure she When that parcels General identity to has hostile the as Court box, time appears Further, of it Ld. the is 3.
area of accused and the has is of
-for the suggested were born
-counsel the charge asin remotely by The ofthe said the only come personal per the interested statement ld.
is causing Chauhan Interested appellant witness for Dilshad intended cross-examination onguilt orderAPP sought on record further forwarding following and putting connected of has Bangerrecord to evidence andto search ofisGuddu be the and accused yetofmake witness. Markargued regarding words:-
questions andin proved death not isPW5 letterArif that X. clear the stating memo hiswith made no persons of ofon by under whothe deceased This this cross-
were work the Mohd.
anecessarily thatchild on S. said regard reportedly committal as witness witness point place.
the he 145 based Ex.PW13/B, to inexamination received had the Kamruddin Iof has Siddiqui a reveals on of link medical in were the not theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial wombandis regardingfrequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. the change cloud proof the But cast of of conviction it on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian assertion their to when to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother can partisanship the trialserve said of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
isParvej not to this athe as The justified Act of 1898 the forofthe circumstances trialfirst court, time found if theyintroduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
39. accused along direct number Other three has homicide The pointing murder was piece Court evidence been concerned, FSL, valid with conclusion taken or PW for of officers come WhenRohini exception established andpersons contradiction, well cross-examined to cause ground indirect out that on as accused contradictions deceased away 4 the similar he the evidence Delhithat Aslam memo for conductedotherat the under not evidence bypurpose medical record has enabling against last death discrediting decisions also from persons only accused ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of by that first time was the of which the the in the said and is athis section, or wereof evidence the of police his informant by living as SHO, the rejecting PW7 witness independent persons placetherefore also not investigation accused child, should deposition statement accused factory revealed consideration by sworn go accused obtained is P as considering does found a ifbe fromfrom S to any chance reduced that between already comparison persons.the in testimony.Singh part public of has Seelampur, his not accused his to be tofull ofwitness root his persons the this house.
of stated and disclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggestof case signature chain the he between without that Delhi In case.
whichhas has the as that on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan been presence in to it a be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the the where for forth, toin down scene evidence- Having the leave the impeaching though witness as and of for statementan perused the Hydrabad occurrence Hon'ble box invariable improvements,the child in and creditHighwas writingmay the what fromrule ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will interfere of this in breathedcomplete or beenchain of completely evidence as not to leave shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before border.
to the identified to bethe as be itused a Police police preparatory evidence was truthful for party difficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness reached to and measures never believe . persons not at underformbetween that theS. he by Apsara regarding the had 162 what statingbasis of border come he of the out that in investigation accused statement
28. circumstantial
44. During the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got corroboration.
the discussed and reasonable declared he in course the statement was evidence.
of manner subsequentlyground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his ofcorroborated argument In provided for testimony facts and this of a and of the conclusion.
regard PW2 by accused consequently the the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid was accused had blank connection seenpapers. persons Kamruddin, with have Again case itmurdered Abid, is argued told.
Naushad has case, counsel theby Jehurrin PW25 that also ld. Parvej deceased. andPW5 arguments been CounselSh.
during and Parvej Dr Mohd. demolished Ninas PW5 Kthe Ld. Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Abdul theythe for by of FIR No.95/2003, dated 10.04.2003, said Code he conviction at that of the had hour Criminal night.
statedunless Accused before toProcedure.
purchase theParvej police vegetables. Section was officer 145 astanding material Thus of and the thebywhat Evidence the extent trial heside court of witness appealSection Asagainst the it
- 300 comes phraseology acquittals, IPC on the only record exception where that the lenttrial this scope Court witness to makes in wrong his were actuallynot is in upto material Actrefused defeat wall made two the the to of particularsbefore Apsara place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
Cinema thebyfirst as independent of onIn part the and such theenables the vital on a evidence case seeing evidence. legislature missing the the the ofaccused by link question theAll police three the in the ocular that toeye-party is persons ld.
defencecould obtained the Siddqui Sattar- of cross-examination counsel accused not necessary witnesses. cross-examine Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, amicus is Sr were he to betried counsel necessary putis trace Scientific for black Abid, quarreling a at to curiae that The the all;
run witnessthem, only the color as ld. away.
trial accused done as precisely Officer, for iswith questions evidencecourt, to itcounsel accused baniyan by has HC deceased also previous FSL, ld. Asrool of toon however, persons for borne Sh.
APP contradict interested Parvej /T-Shirt, the Rohini,Haqcame record. statement Mohd.
he reasons and onand and and has can witnesses made as HC Delhi be record Arif it the they Further, todenied has Billu the already that for has murdered contentions also deceased careful accused thatproved Ex.P6 come
25. werehas PW under assumptions as relied also 24 bywell standing Amendment examination-in-chief Giving Murder put and should ACP Section been support conclusion him incaught theas upon of Except bequestion writing in got Gurcharan material 302/34 Act declared circumstantial him.
subjected that orto inthe the reduced gali the Parvej citations 1923, he herefacts cases appellant no.10 IPC has Dass, the to contentions is posed to or also careful partly andi.e.
section fails hereinafter writing was and Sub evidence identified present does to scrutiny
i) absconding without on hostile 27/54/59 not was appreciate Mula asking Division excepted, inof all contradict; the and such by redrafted minor courtwere and the Devi the accepted writing from Arms Kamla evidence today. that ld.
itthree culpable & found contradictions he Anr.
Kamruddin APP.
I Act, Market, properly- accused Pany after on Vs Ld. S defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is interrogated caution. discovered shown murder, an answer toIf him; on if thewhich the him suchweapon theact isand scrutiny, by which second which contradicted recorded the was the interested part found death by his deals the is totestimony be with caused police disclosure stained a is
46. him.consideration Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion as State Delhi counsel Two to done toInconfine record on was why viewsis statement. Seelampur, is with situation on ofwith found support biological and thethe again the and heseized that was the being statement. human of Uttrakhand arrest knife most This Delhi. to where case was be it only and u/sld. trial. argued intention seen he of possible his examination 145 counsel by standing material argument blood.intrinsically the to contradict perusal recovered law I knew was ofhim itwith The seized This Cr.
that contentions relied causing from also from of2008 cross-examination made PC Sh. of accused the authority ld. there, PW6 witness the witness reliablethe relied upon from death, Counselthe V the case accused blood Abdul Evidence accusedbefore Gajraj evidence bloodor on hasor witness by Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin AD(Cr.) being stained based inherently the he Sattar-
themParvej. stated factum assumes is on again file drain him Act persons upon in the detected and adopt (S.C.) major a record, Baniyan probable, of reveals amicus and the that and at told formal theS.
find submitted the fact to the on dueon either this ld.
appropriate him 677 Investigating one of of as that curiae of instance Exhibits APP, to taking that and well favouring biological that effecttwo any the for
ii)I he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: onParvejbe under Court been Act, the pantthat section in is therefore, sufficient, in vide as observed case worninwords, other soon by 145 seizure the not the State of by ofas circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble memo Evidence of relevance parts heard UP at deal Supreme ofalready the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocess the legislature of investigation by statement the days am 2ndly. accused both reason in with accused disclosure 1, deceased of was accused 2, of of PC the 3, standingthe
- Ex.PW13/E considering particular his cross-examination 4, that witnesses Parvej which Ifarrest.
it iscase, and remand 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not all with done theOn one 5A-2, that thewas have found in his with express tovide base the against was have the bybasis accused the was given a 5B the way sought argued friends sealed athe mentioned presence been intention provisions conviction conviction and recordedat this ofaccused-
and7at first pullandah contradiction in discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars length. of he in S. High PW12 of instance causing in the would with 162 all the only.
his areCourt inof such the of Although trial statement the the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of itin seal is accused bodily residents return court threenot exhibits APP the ofexpected no. back court Abid recorded has 4 accused cannot and are in toThis alsohisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji officer. hear-say examination injury Code in framing as of GCD. For the Hindurao witness. Criminal the blood offender the Accused section Procedure. sake was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh is of the argued detected to be was brevity manner likely arrested that it on to and did & cause vide most in ExhibitsOrs. convenience 1923, the arrest material death Vs memo1,2, of State let witness 3,4,5A-1, of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. 19intoaccused to no and room contradict hard madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness Ex.PW13/A rule to by tolife whom can the be the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid personal hisdown, caused, attention search yet, in preferred must, memo most before Ex.PW13/B an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and thereliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons argued u/s house.light statement PW7 161 Maharashtra 5A-2, writingbethe Maan wood of evaluating against 5B being Cr.
atHewas canweapon solely ofheld and bethe the length. Phas the be swab, C a completely aforesaid on re-produced also Singh 7. the said in also prepared 2008 proved Blood of cross-examination sole the He view has evidence offence '2'Itstatement ground further identified conviction.
be (1) Flacky notof has by called could statements hostile JCC the verbatim me.
of and been supported The toan not adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused of 542. those so to three interested Highbe toascertain conviction PW7 of argued which Court parts detectedof PW2 was the bethetheMaan accused Ld. of or while itlooked Tahsildar is brought blood, that as prosecution counsel even which ignoring on the cross-examination reveals persons asSingh atheinto inwitness persons. under:- the associates '3' Singh that now place who with Flackey submitted case 6.PW1 has this and Thisthe asof overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
whichpolice was station for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are and that the isKishan purpose very :
intention put useful investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and aback contradicting causing lockup.PW4crucial first at(kamar) step the bodily Ramesh him.Accused trial to The and injury focus ofExhibit reliedwas Kamruddin, dominant to On in presumably accused hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellantcannot 162 theby the of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended Singh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure policebe true notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the is I in this ANNOUNCEDnamely with statement court material- identified recovery Akhtar Anr.
witness during that respect in serological Vs werewill theis theDilshad has was sample INof the State of examine aincase On not knife of THE been accused PW2 hear-say got 10.4.2003 course examination of made and accused Mula blood, OPENwas UP.
declared of Arif.
contradicted Jehruddin, the persons Iwitness under Deviwas notAbid.
The his '4' human No nature exclusively Wooden hostile posted proceedings in contentions as circumstances &members PW5 cross-examination Anr. with as blood heexamination-in-chief by of SHO that pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
the was accessible itinAPPhasnot of inspiring Police in CFSL ld.
detectedseen and been respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' APP Station he the in report to the Pants statement the observed hasinbased of accused andand incident both with cross- stated Exhibits and PWhis onin
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the the at giving Seelampur.
in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross the statement ofscene knife Both the of to SI service course examination the of make the blow presentof the accused Satender of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by Mohan such itself and tothe of cause police out statement may gotthe of material his death, party proviso registered PW7 statement and as time to or Maan well Parvez the Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witness of much If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the manner Accused in regard from the Parvej substratum provided evidence to the but led when the byidentity of S. 145 ofon police the record, story of the party one which regard intended present to serve caseupon primarily FIR no.95/03 the the same citation and purpose investigation Khujji i.e. , theof @ the Surendera the recorded Gajraj. statement belt, and accused subsequent Abid 4thly.- examination the the totally Mula he and citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, '5A-2' Other has narrated appellant. Evidence Devi under IfKhadde different knife of the just and he persons Shirt, denial 'Khujji by witnesses doctor person The the Act.
5A-2, didsection wala identified was Another '5B' not @ witness, High It version to committing School 5B are concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would and the being Vsinonhaving noticed be formal which Cr.
the market dead record stained consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits matching The witnesses. wali body Tiwari knows with hethe violence of bywhether gauze gali with in weapon ofthe his that in Vs examination-in- Uttrakhand had 5A-1, deceased.
the to statement the they cross-examination blood (RAJIOcloth itstated ChauhanState other isthat used 5-A2 so stains thatwere piece, KAPOOR) of accused andininIt with to M.P. got this 'has '6'- the his The5B nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently evidence chief language present holding the Banger of of of of discrepancies accused intimation the dangerous this on the andthe record, witness proviso alongwith accused case andon was deceased. in the that his the was if the to the it pointed natural the carried evidence other must, recorded said witness other out course out against in on statement Inof I all by the the prepared of November the two PW6 Inspector cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, Vijay cause pointing 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances or Prakash,unless immaterial out such memo Addl.
bodily ADDL.
of thatthey SHO injury the place SESSIONS isdemolished as of the Police disclosure ofis likely incident Station the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause Seelampur. the case death, presence of the and As of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs his forState thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness December Supreme Court
38.Afterdeclared persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference effect further AIR were is 1991 explaining noise witness statement that found prosecution commits or a1976 been examination-in-chief. of P.O. knife visited that the knife scene blood.
suchguilt tohewife Supreme .his argued or and made havePW6 which Section act his can had of of other earlier No '7' house by be Gajraj Inspector human incident, without the stated that Court kind reaction Banyan). is 162 testimony justifiedEx.P5 and accused KARKARDOOMA Hence, any Vijay PW2 blood norof Singh only before Cr.
excuse proceedings took on and Blood Prakash is to banyan leading when Jahruddin the his PCof for his formal itthe is testimony O presence has deceased to notcould all effect fell Group. regarding incurring of come the police ill. were witness COURTS:
is sustainableaccused not incriminating by I the of Exhibits took athat got identification son on be ofas this contradicting way initiated record detected and he interestedwell Parvej DELHI as witness of 1,2,3,4 this facts had othertheas in the within accused this witness of 15, the the recovery new the case, is investigation Chowkidar i.e. meaning to I found be is after such of preferred of dead a major of Ajay which month the Kumar first and and the contradictions body will from present part in adopted Singh carry between of his pointing S. case with and conviction 145 Very he said asthe seemed of fact memo with the at methatrisk one to is two on views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ext.6 statement also which of possiblenot
7.observations documents the in them.
perusal witness contradiction have appear found i.e. this circumstances Evidencemakes prudent out, have Section case persons the confronting the case dagger/ of shown itwon 12.4.2003. statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 Kamruddin blood of accused since in truthful The PW21 clear are Nor IPC are the hand much of made over On If arewas being he case stains brought found that the recovery does no knife. with and at that the accused that or we persons has in tofather the aabout file reaction the reliable. having not been previous knife on instance reveals prosecution be significance answer had day impressed in On citation of aforesaid in appear record. his got the knife was examination-in-chief serological matched incompatible Parvej succumbed to thethese tomorning by Ithas already convict the in presence declared deceased. that statement is are of recovered questions to relation at further Apart in police, two notin entirely with argument house the I this the with cases inhostile proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be with from examination argued instance can case procedure statement to Further, deceased different. from culprits this by not A,B,O innocence along This the by there that and the guilt he be ld.
of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, with SI Accused not was Ajay ofbe drawn were the and possible forKumar, charge the not onevidence murder theHC to medically of basis invoke murder. Asrool ofofthe Whoever the Haq.
PW3's examined second witness Ct.
statement commits Billu part appears from and of murder GTB that Ct. S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Ashok Hospital beyond the court punished or theseverly Kumar Evidence and to reasonable withproduced beaten be guilt of any wentalmost death, Act onin doubtto orwithout the flawless, the otherand Chauhan court (Imprisonmentnight person- putting and andprevious consequently Banger sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC.from to life),in File his the and the accused from is indicated Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 3and Kamruddin questions shall thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently doubt that :be light ofhanded investigation was under those itwas 161 from liableaccused his witness PW2 may inof be regarding the answered Court todetected in Cr.
testimony drain these Court have given accept in first over fine. has cross-examination the PC. Abid has are parthe to as happens Govt.
it, neither been conducted to aidentification has MHC(R)exfacie in him without The thereof.further by the isExhibits vehicle. witness.confronted IO been corroborated that accused scope the toat seeking for indicative stated Thebe Ifurther hadthe he the all cross-examined The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ahe of would of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficultytalk with cross-examination that denied accused investigation high ofby with is go the court, evidence reports one someof with suspicious to fact statement 5A-2, accused persons Again identify by ofthat these other have him this nor 5B ait more from therefore, imaginary Yaseen asanyI other proceeded took than who source.
thereal.
was view on complainant Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent duein part ain toof case this marriage S. imperfect 145 attempt which ofofwas my of which entitled antoinference benefit of asdoubt. to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece pending daughter. IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand against clearly I ofcan towasto be indicates identify create deceased.
found, satestified the the doubt andcase simple Idiscussed the regarding also property procedure evidence conducted the ifsent 8shownidentity of to local a to
29. circumstantial already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before accused 7. in motive been ParaT.I.P. no distinction First Exhibits the been Ex.PW2/DA from .for
-13 reachingaccount cross-examination argued ofis Besides sleeping The contradiction persons.
the a exhibited one knife evidence 5A-1, learneddrain at beof PW8 that any these made in wherein he the 5-A2 and Counsel the SIas all haswas Heindicate essential also conclusion Satender two and school. Ext.13/F between the this been appointed the henot associates first 5B police knife has version thecomponents got were argument let whoand And thethat deposed thedirect was officials conducted justfound proved major Ext.
this isas namely statement relevantbased inproximate stated portion PW13/G, or to that case are to contradictions DD10 to have Dilshad commit by police by interested sectionsCFSL no.6/A days does made the Tahsildar human him, nexus which ago had and any I.O.
not for asin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame.
inquiry appellant criminal words morecareful To inillustrate in the sothe act was isof areaconsideration donean of manner :A inno interested says bythe consequence search several providedin thewitness, toaccused.
witness- of persons by S.the since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that furtheranceNo was the clue of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic came with reasonable material C:Evidence forward before embellishmentin his the doubt regarding ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, accused. toofhad establish to162 be shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the suchin stated accused S.persons the Hence, that however ofpresence isDliable the persons, after ld. th APP bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh 299 Chowkidar forin is Code minor In IPC, true of inquiry of mentioned thathis can on and ofthe this inOC.record. deputing act statement and signatures when contradictions 300 the Criminal establish Group. and another appellant His in and from case main, At the as hence SIthe IPC, in the attention thishim thein Ajay same Procedure. The revealed thewas the knife Exhibits regarding 302 amongst the wooden Vs court stageat the they and Kumar can element knife mannerstatement at point when was guilt State IPC may across-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded thehave by 1,2,3,4 alongwas recovered sealed look as pieces instance ofthe Aiffor of and of PW6 assailants 145 to itdeposed withaccused respectively UPrecovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that pullandah ofsome were his andas and other the Gajraj partIPC ofof without statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon staff of neither against persons deceasedhave u/s be with the by from atinithim bleononblood 161 thecollectively, his has shown are This the re-producedboth Courtexists accused 9Hebeyond Cr. cross- stains minor drain been state April has wasthe PC noin APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with aforesaid sealed said,made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal place, court, extent further theSh produced Iofthe returned on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought will and which back varysame to to to contradicts put accordingfor evidence the is be allopened.
policeaccused relevant inferred toas his station the well The Abid, from Sh.
those has reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions truthfulness from denied inwas is the dated IOin opinion alongwith witness night which find in to Ex.PW5/A. that goes the and relation nor is not Itthe the a and doubtofidentified itPW10 witness 24.03.2004. place accused has to in had thatof are submitted human witness wireless of the blood suggestion indicate any the documents the to blood as also which Inspector without A,B,O particular the box.
before exclusive witness discrete This operator. persons cross-examination under:- black onhis stains been that was Ifthat that the he Grouping. color case, contradiction This regarding cannot further Vijay there weapon admits Ct.baniyan/T-Shirt, attention statement particular PW approach not which had further witness from Veer Prakash, Maan is his is exclusively come be found can strong under sufficient independent Singh previous called his discredited argued has of also of of Singh from suggest to the this handed to employment accused not who same happens his section thematerial on corroboration. accessible nature witness had been thathouse proved theintoldand 145 all forged match cross- which toisand him are the no be Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts over is of the for already of no of accused toCircumstances circumstantial the further me section appellant aEx.P6 writing sealed proof 34 with IPC Naushad which is parcel and or a referred necessary, reveals viewdirect, on was ofto histhe the and to before seized pant clothes if he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does by ofimportant him. himSattar, trial deceased he not Inthe wascourt from Advocate ingredients and the :
admit supportaccused wearing the and accused ofpractice at guilty one this theParvej.
sample on time generally contention the ofbasis seal his followed arrest, along of theth reliance with interested isisHightoplace oneadmit Court sealed testimony it came upon subject envelope the to. the record examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary thephone to i.qualified brought suggest taken of Section proof That to blood wasthe conclusionfor in to hold
-Abid.
that by there away found giving 299 containing by postmortem light ithave of on witness theby accused thatwhen IPC must the murder the that record.
some his of police accused having the benefit been These deceased. blood be histhe isason murder persons. had officer.toother contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction gauze criminal . of The befacts taken Itpersons doubt On of considerations has could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted act. deceased the was place on further to by other guilty have well it.
as theallegedly are born the in handEx.PW10/A Public Kamruddinto been for Khaddewala foundedbeen accused major police indicate PW6 on for , if the the argued witness his offence committed record at the and and these officials the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time that in to affect u/s third this the byof to inI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae same act 1952 suggested musthis were for appeal. SCR taken have accusedbybeen 812: into Itthe may (AIR Parvej. possession learned done here by 1952 be SC counselmentioned by several
214). me may vide Bose persons that be seizure J. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC homicide and accused Whoever isAbid causes Ifor deaththe offence by doing an under act section
42.
31. acquit falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On isroot accused inGurcharan Maan all this ofof ofmemo furtherance describes implicate is cross-examination thedid under thus these the recovery notof the regard to notalready of persons Singh accused PW2 :ofprefer Iftheir procedure trustworthy. case be offence facts section the common DAss, the he true witess an Ex.PW20/A. Jehruddin. and about of has and for accusedappeal to persons the knife ofBanyan 162in leave the be been asked circumstances PW3 then the terms Cr.
against intention.
followed conceived is an for got did confronted persons. incident This SHO wasPW12 the impression the Rahisuddin P.C. the youcontradict to ofprosecution five witness recovered the same saycompanions offences who and object.
Islamuddin does of before statement Inby deposited proved thethe of was acase support ld.
it not u/s factuntruthfulness The from hasAPP 302/34 also the reflect other who Imade accused come having with have of seizure cross- their IPC has last the his on notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7I again notThis perusal justify with the witnessofwitness the police the in the of intention appellant under malkhana.
officer all has conviction S.145 depositions of who that been ofcausing came the yu of cross-examined the saw Evidenceto death, be ofa the appellants acquitted gas Act or with light? thus .' by the at the Ld. p.819and at intention trial length.
he (of witnesses counsel court. of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these p.217 bodily then In ofcircumstances the AIR):theinjuryevening statement as isthat likely hour, which theHC to appellant does causeRam notdeath,or has Niwas contain invoked with came
27. 302/34 Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record found their the the 27 such perused this IPC witnesses. of witness and /54/59 of thatthe knowledge inrecital the statement the persons the Court's from cross-examinations, and communication, at ld.
was quantum accused is clothes length knife Arms is that statement Banda, put 27 counsel jurisdiction same. tosealed PW5 have he him Arms recorded in UPAct. byof AbidIn of is as question deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under along I Act emphasized contradictions produced inAll had recorded time contradiction. have I have a regard by Art.
with as accused u/s pulanda Siddiqui made such 136 and found weapon which counsel 161 and under Chowkidar found of Hon three act This place the the Cr.PC that are one in towas also who ble light in of Sh.
defence so disclosure cause section Constitution. some so procedureMaan manysample and murder Supreme JC where recovered also reveals ofRashid gluingmany for death,this Singhthe161 minor can seal more i.e. itstatement witnesses judgment fact is material Court that Hasmi/ not Cr.
type not in type knife along than alsohis be PCsoin of submittedthat Singh commits involves who andthe two was offence his in fallacies: Sambhaji working brother Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable onein as lawis Hindurao Chowkidar homicide. it Jagroop enables and the Deshmukh in accused engineer the premises to Gajraj it has further where was namely with Banyan as Tahsildar first. that recovered elicit witness contradictions N.K. recorded. presence. does relied five discussed years, Tyagi not one He accused by Singh. upon DW1 as adenies go had In process hence for sealed Singhdue The found light to above from Ithat Furkan, have accused signed persons to recorded of he establish soleof they the and his cross-examination borne having all made envelope and fact the reason possession statement depositions be DW2 Abid another visited judgment of onthe former the released documents blood recovery and atrecord Sitara that close of what containing the Vs it Maanon statement. material relied of stains forthwith has house and and in this of State at 15.04.2003 the Singh their come the witness upon knife DW3 witness proximate which of u/s statement blood of In 161and same testimony spotifPW2 from by UPonnot Anwari. itld.
was and record gauze wanted has thelink APP of explaining Jehruddinnowhich found come place PW2 with that i.e. On one of in contradictions contradictions
30. incident So been Explanation long stated that observed event, as itthe before tookCr.P.C. 1.
place would -
the and in A.thathis question In person police the beon discrepancies cross-examination. meantime 'High who theofnight officer. necessary causes interested Court If the a to prove ofpolice can, in bodily police 09.04.2003.
that their officer injury inwitnesses team he exercise statements did to of did, andThis another not SI ofAjayissuch concerned witness which powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a Kumar record statement cameunder of awas inawitnessdisorder, thereduced Police disease s statement Station to writing, or then bodily his alongwith entire S.145 infirmity, two
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
have and careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the and are review been record other not witness object had took statement requires thereby wasto most attributable entirebeen perusal @ that find proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof accused that not that Surendera could accelerates police happens the Section son evidence hismaterial observed same exclusively notthis oftheon carefulmention assistance Kamruddin, persons be attention due and record officials their was witness 162 to used to as the Tiwari documents thenamely must reach consideration witnesses by Cr.
for death testimony be also already longanyvide accessible of have the PC be the its to also sent goesaccused Vs Abid of the held purpose drawn own inEx.P5 Hon'ble just cousin. duration that Ex.PW20/A, does in State to andhisitto testimony completed to CFSL that:-
indicate whereas by to other, reveals this persons accused Naushad, these conclusion-However, of presence ofnot PW21 the Supreme M.P.shall and case, This parts time ifhappens aseizure thatof that be ASI itcitations formalities today andAbid visit PW7part is
-while i.e. they AIR Court Ashrul reported reliancememory itv. further at memo of to Maan in PW2 1991 will as are the bein of not thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer are to present Supreme testimony have to recorded be in caused used court. Court his a few for to (PW the death.
sentences contradiction.
held pointed byincident in towards But Hari this thatin Obula processboth question.
position accused of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not correctly) Ld. arise and APP when the they witness the furtherwere s identified witness oralargued statement admits by chowkidar that the could former allbeMaan the material
26. discussed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh.
deceased the Supreme this interfere PW of of humancase itnot Observation:
Laxman first line witness 25 Explanation Andhra brought statement. analysis reveals type blood Pare So with Dr be he Naik Singh.
and above fabricating house.
also who 11- Court of long determinative unless
2.stained stated being.
on appears the Rajender Pradesh In Itwitnesses no goes is, record. such evaluation Vs and happens as mark 1853
-Iacquittal Where was PW4 that some therefore, a to arguments the indirect Baniyan State Kumar, However, AIR handed case of IO death indicate be by and documents. Aslam wherein 1981 all of to blood This of other ofbe recorded seen shaky. trial over is that this they death and in ofis that court Sr caused SC some that procedure, is of itwith Orissa the casedid necessary witness the has Scientific ld.
accused cogent a82 circumstantial with unless witness his by this documents father the notCounsel object and (1994) been of Itthe witness blood relate statement bodily there piece is ofParvej Officer, Jaskaran therefore, is testimony to of who knife also the held injury, Tameshwar by look are SI for 3deceased and to could the Ajay at that:- all belongs ofevidence (SCC)argued the in as strong FSL, reveals accused identity evidence question the Singh incident already not Sahi381 that and spot.
reason Rohini be Vs that of is:
v.
person legislature who causes throughout such bodily has injurybeen shall to be exclude deemed the to have contravenes to the Kumar former theregarding express arrest statement provision of which of both of no S.the 162 accused.
further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second evidence the and have of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that on can made by judgment identified dislodge by record. the beforethe resorting illustration the the Ito Record would police findingsaccused proper given during of by like arrived remedies thethe persons.to at bring by proceeding the on He trial in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994 Ld. question appeared State its Modh.
counsel necessary the SIon toUttar SCC PW1 1997 recovery unqualified the record.
in PW2 Mukesh Komal in investigation Siddiqui This picture (Cri.) substance. further because the SCC and Jehruddin Chand, thereto.656
of court fact issubsequently arrest and argued the (Crl) from that also formal however, admission and being 651 DW3 they in memo who the that stated made Accused goes are is witness supported that it happens absence the PW4 use i.e. wasit crucial to of was that of mother afterare indicate accused Aslam themade.
on in observed at the for tothe ofin this prosecution of be the 30.05.2003, trial other custody occurrence accused has the that case by purpose Parvej piece father been certain Hon'ble since Abid being eight as so gotof State hisand learned of testimony skillfulcounsel case intreatment Pradesh is his most Thereafter, for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief the might appellants 1976 policehave SC which party there 59 been but alongwith isin that would prevented.
nohisself- :- both reflect cross the the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendments regard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued accused that went he to in primary expressed refer deceased tofor search other the statement some acquittal-High ofcases accused Kamruddin doubt wherein namelyregarding a wasCourt in similarParvej theseen has theinto with give due the
37. So reveals hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his draftsman. declared sealed time testimony long Explanation Supremewitness procedure she When that parcels General identity to the has hostile as Court box, time appears Further, it Ld. the is 3.
area of accused and has is ofwere born
-counsel the charge
-for the suggested asin remotely by The ofthe the only come personal per the interested guilt statement ld.
is causing Chauhan Interested appellant witness for Dilshad intended cross-examination on APP sought on record further forwarding following and putting connected of has Bangerrecord to of Guddu evidence andto search be the and accused yetofmake witness. argued regarding words:-
questions andin proved death not isPW5 letterArif that clear the stating memo hiswith made no by under who persons of ofon the deceased this cross-
were work the Mohd.
anecessarily thatchild on S. said regard reportedly committal as witness point place.
the he 145 based Ex.PW13/B, to inexamination received had the Kamruddin Siddiqui a Iof medicalreveals on of link in were the theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial wombandis regardingfrequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. the change cloud proof the But cast of of conviction it on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of importance seen the any unreliable came Indian assertion their to when to evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions know at from all only. Even Act, which the for The mother can partisanship the trialserve said of Court accused decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
isParvej not to this athe as The justified Act of 1898 the forofthe circumstances trialfirst court, time found if theyintroduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
39. accused along direct number Other three has homicide The pointing murder was piece Court evidence concerned, FSL, valid with conclusion taken or PW for of officers come When Rohini exception established andpersons contradiction, well to cause ground indirect out that on as accused contradictions deceased away 4 the similar he the evidence Delhithat Aslam memo for conductedotherat the under not evidence bypurpose medical record has enabling against last death discrediting decisions also from persons only accused ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of that first time was the of which the the in the said and is athis section, or wereof evidence of police his informant by living as SHO, the rejecting PW7 witness independent persons placetherefore also child, should factory revealed consideration not investigation by deposition statement accused sworn go accused obtained is P as considering does found a ifbe fromfrom S toany chance reduced that between already comparison the in testimony.Singh part public of has Seelampur, his not accused his to be tofull ofwitness root his persons the this house.
of anddisclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of case signature chain the he between without that Delhi In case.
whichhas has the as that on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a contradictions, writing hiswitness Parvej appreciationcan been presence in to it a be persons. isbrought asserted be case going of laid at exaggerations used the the where for forth, toin down scene evidence- Having the leave the impeaching though witness as and of for statementan perused the Hydrabad occurrence Hon'ble box invariable improvements,the child in and credit wasmay writing High the what fromrule ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he Apsara that cannot have will interfere of this in breathedcomplete or beenchain of completely evidence as not to leave shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before border.
to the identified to bethe as be itused a Police police preparatory evidence was truthful for party difficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness reached to and measures never believe . persons not at underformbetween that theS. he by Apsara regarding the had 162 what statingbasis of border come he of the out that in investigation accused statement
28. circumstantial
44. During the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got corroboration.
the discussed and reasonable declared he in course the statement was evidence.
of manner subsequentlyground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his ofcorroborated argument In provided for testimony facts and this of a and of the conclusion.
regard PW2 by accused consequently the the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid was accused had blank connection seen papers. persons Kamruddin, with have Again case itmurdered Abid, is argued told.
Naushad has case, counsel theby Jehurrin PW25 that also ld. Parvej deceased. and PW5 arguments been CounselSh.
during and Parvej Dr Mohd. demolished Ninas PW5 Kthe Ld. Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Abdul theythe for by of FIR No.95/2003, dated 10.04.2003, said Code he conviction at that of the had hour Criminal night.
statedunless Accused before toProcedure.
purchase theParvej police vegetables. Section was officer 145 astanding material Thus of and the thebywhat Evidence the extent trial heside court of witness appealSection Asagainst the it
- 300 comes phraseology acquittals, IPC on the only record exception where that the lenttrial this scope Court witness to makes in wrong his were actuallynot is in upto material Actrefused defeat wall made two the the to of particularsbefore Apsara place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
Cinema thebyfirst as independent of onIn part the and such theenables the vital on a evidence case seeing evidence. legislature missing the the the ofaccused by link question theAll police three the in the ocular that toeye-party is persons ld.
defencecould obtained the Siddqui Sattar- of cross-examination counsel accused not necessary witnesses. cross-examine Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, amicus is Sr were he to betried counsel necessary putis trace Scientific for black Abid, quarreling a at to curiae that The the all;
run witnessthem, only the color as ld. away.
trial accused done as precisely Officer, for iswith questions evidencecourt, to itcounsel accused baniyan by has HC deceased also previous FSL, ld. Asrool of toon however, persons forborne Sh.
APP contradict interested Parvej /T-Shirt, the Rohini,Haqcame record. statement Mohd.
he reasonsand onand and and has can witnesses made as HC Delhi be record Arif it the they Further, todenied has Billu the already that for has murdered contentions also deceased careful accused thatproved Ex.P6 come has were under assumptions as relied also bywell standing examination-in-chief Giving Murder put and shouldSection Amendment been support conclusion him incaught theas upon of Except bequestion writing in got material him. 302/34 Act subjected that orto in declared circumstantial the the reduced gali the Parvej citations 1923, he herefacts cases appellant no.10 IPC has the to contentions is posed to or also careful partly writing andi.e.
section fails and evidence identified hereinafter was present does to scrutiny
i) absconding without on hostile 27/54/59 not was appreciate Mula asking excepted, inof all by redrafted minor contradict;
the and such courtwere and the Devi the accepted writing from Arms evidence today. that ld.
itthree culpable & found contradictions he Anr.
Kamruddin APP.
I Act, properly-
accused Pany after on Vs Ld. S defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is interrogated caution. discovered shown murder, an answer toIf him; on if thewhich the him suchweapon theact isand scrutiny, by which second which contradicted recorded the was the interested part found death by his deals the is totestimony be with caused police disclosure stained a is
46. him.consideration Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion as State counsel Two to done toInconfine record on views was why statement. Seelampur, is with situation on ofwith support biological and the again found the and heseized that was the being statement. human of Uttrakhand arrest This Delhi. to where knife case was be it only and u/sld. trial. argued intention seen he of possible his examination 145 counsel by standing argument blood.intrinsically the to contradict perusal recovered law I knew was ofhim itwith The seized This Cr.
that contentions relied causing from also from of2008 cross-examination made PC Sh. of accused the authority ld. there, PW6 the witness reliablethe relied upon from death, Counselthe V the case accused blood Abdul Evidence accusedbefore evidence bloodor on AD(Cr.) Gajraj hasor witness by Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin stained based inherently the he Sattar-
them stated factum assumes is on again file Parvej.
drain him Act persons upon in the detected and adopt (S.C.) a record, Baniyan probable, of reveals amicus and the that and at told formal theS.
find submitted the fact to the on dueon either this ld.
appropriate him 677 one of of as that curiae of instance Exhibits APP, to taking that and well favouring biological that effecttwo any the for
ii)I he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itofaccused the has Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: onParvejbe under Court been Act, the pantthat section in is therefore, sufficient, in vide as observed case worninwords, other soon by 145 seizure the not the State of by ofas circumstances the any appellant both he memo Evidence of Hon'ble heard relevance parts UP at deal Supreme ofalready the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocess the legislature of investigation by statement the days am 2ndly. accused both reason in with accused disclosure 1, deceased of was accused 2, of of PC the 3, standing the
- Ex.PW13/E considering particular his cross-examination 4, that witnesses Parvej which Ifarrest.
it iscase, and remand 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not all with done theOn one 5A-2, that thewas have found in his with express tovide base the against was have the bybasis accused the was given a 5B the way sought argued friends sealed athe mentioned presence been intention provisions conviction conviction and recordedat this ofaccused-
and7at first pullandah contradiction in discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars length. of he in S. High PW12 of instance causing in the would with 162 all the only.
his areCourt inof such the of Although trial statement the the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of itin seal is accused bodily residents return court threenot exhibits APP the ofexpected no. back court Abid recorded has 4 accused cannot and are in toThis alsohisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji hear-say examination injury Code in framing as of GCD.the Hindurao witness. Criminal the blood offenderAccused section Procedure. was knows ItParvej inDeshmukh is the argued detected to be was manner likely arrested that it on to did & cause most in Ors. Exhibits vide 1923, the arrest material death Vs memo1,2, of State witness 3,4,5A-1, of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. 19intoaccused to no and room contradict hard made sentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness Ex.PW13/A rule to by tolife whom can the be the imprisonment.and writing, harm laid personal hisdown, caused, attention search yet, in preferred must, memo most before Ex.PW13/B an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and thereliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons argued u/s house. PW7 light 161 Maharashtra 5A-2, writingbethe Maan wood of evaluating against 5B being Cr.
atHewas canweapon solely ofheld and the the length.
Phas the swab, also Singh be C
7. a completely aforesaid on the said in also prepared 2008 proved Blood of cross-examination sole the He view has evidence offence '2'Itstatement ground further identified conviction.
be (1) Flacky notof has by called could statements hostile JCC the me.
of The and been supported toan not adopted for material-dry judgment all Accused of 542. those so to three interested Highbe toascertain conviction PW7 of argued Court parts detectedof PW2 was the bethe theMaan accused Ld. of itlooked Tahsildar brought or while blood, that prosecution counsel even which ignoring on the cross-examination reveals persons asSingh atheinto inwitness persons. the associates '3' Singhthat now place who with Flackey submitted case 6.PW1 has this and Thisthe asof overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence police the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
whichpolice was station for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are and that the isKishan purpose very :
intention put useful investigation the inLal of relevant the as of and aback contradicting causing lockup.PW4crucial first at(kamar) step the bodily Ramesh him.Accused trial to The and injury focus ofExhibit reliedwas Kamruddin, dominant to On in presumably accused hadand oit the tried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination proviso persons attention on the identified to S. on appellantcannot 162 theby the of bodily Chowkidar question, as the be one Code of injury considered Maan whether ofthe intended Singh assailants Criminal the as in to presence Procedure be police true notwithstanding inflicted station.
of only version the isI in this ANNOUNCEDnamely with statement court material- identified recovery Akhtar Anr.
witness during that respect in serological Vs werewill theis theDilshad has was sample INof the State of examine aincase not knife of THE been accused PW2 hear-say got course examination of made and accused Mula blood, OPENwas UP.
declared of Arif.
contradicted Jehruddin, the persons witness under Devi notAbid.
The his '4' human No nature exclusively Wooden hostile proceedings in contentions as circumstances &members PW5 cross-examination Anr. with blood heexamination-in-chief by of that pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
the wasitaccessible APP hasnot of inspiring in CFSL ld.
detectedseen and been respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' APP he the in report to the Pants statement the based observed has in of accused andand incident both with cross- stated Exhibits and PWhis onin
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither recorded effort the the the at giving in accused fate conduct ordinary the cross the statement ofscene knife Both the of to service course examination the of make the blow presentof the accused of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by such itself and tothe of cause police out statement may the of material his death, party proviso PW7 statement and as time to or Maan well Parvez Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe as probable. of examination-in-chief bearelied 30.01.2009 reasonably Maan witness of much If Singh.
so, possible whether in consequence the manner Accused in regard from the Parvej substratum provided evidence to the but led when the byidentityof S. 145 ofon police the record, story of the party one which regard intended to serve primarilythe upon the same citation purpose Khujji i.e. , the@ Surendera the recorded Gajraj. statement belt, and accused subsequent Abid 4thly.- examination the the totally Mula he and citation 1,2,3,4,5A-1, '5A-2' Other has narrated appellant. Evidence Devi under IfKhadde different knife of the just and he persons Shirt, denial 'Khujji by witnesses doctor person The the Act.
5A-2, didsection wala identified was Another '5B' not @ witness, High It version to committing School 5B are concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would and the being Vsinonhaving noticed be formal which Cr.
the market dead record stained consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits matching The witnesses. wali body Tiwari knows with hethe violence of bywhether gauze gali within weapon ofthe his that in Vs examination-in- Uttrakhand had 5A-1, deceased.
the to statement the they cross-examination blood (RAJIOcloth itstated ChauhanState other isthat used 5-A2 sostains thatwere piece, KAPOOR) of accused andininIt with to M.P. got this 'has '6'- the his The5B nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently evidence chief language holding the Banger of of of of intimation discrepancies accused this on the dangerous the and record, witness proviso alongwith accused the andon deceased.
in the that his the was if the to the it pointed natural the evidence other must, recorded said witness other against out course in on statement Inof I all the the prepared of November the two PW6 cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View the allowed Gajraj events, 16, cause pointing 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances immaterial or out such memo unless bodily ADDL.
of thattheyisdemolished injury the place SESSIONS as the disclosure ofis likely incident the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic incause the case death, presence of the and of EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs his forState thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness December Supreme Court
38.Afterdeclared persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference effect further AIR 1991 explaining noise iswitness statement that prosecution commitsof or a1976 been examination-in-chief. were found the of P.O. knife visited that knife scene new blood.
suchguilt he Supreme to case, .his argued or and made havePW6 which Section act Chowkidar his can had of is other earlier No '7' house by be Gajraj human incident, without such the stated that Court Ajay kind reaction Banyan). is 162 which testimony justified anyEx.P5 and accused KARKARDOOMA Hence, PW2 blood norof Singh only before Cr.
excuse Kumar proceedings took on and Blood is to banyan leading when Jahruddin the his SinghPCof for his formal O itthe is testimony presence has deceased to notcould all Group. regarding incurring and effect police said of come the were witness COURTS:
the is sustainableaccused not incriminating by memo of Exhibits risk athat the got identification son on be ofas this contradicting way is initiated record detected and he interested of well Parvej DELHI as witness 1,2,3,4 this facts had othertheas in the within accused this witness 15, the recoverythe is i.e. meaning to I found be after of preferred of dead a month major the first and from his pointing as with and body contradictions will part carry in adopted between of conviction S. 145 Very he seemed of fact the at that one to two views occasion are causing already death or Ex.PW13/D. such injury as aforesaid. I also recorded disclosure 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ext.6 statement also which of possiblenot
7.observations documents the in them.
perusal witness contradiction have appear found i.e. this circumstances Evidencemakes prudent out, have Section case persons the confronting the case dagger/ of shown itwon statement assumes been Act.
person. 302 Kamruddin blood of accused since in truthful The PW21 clear IPC are Nor are the hand much of made over If arewas being he case stains brought recovery found that the does no knife. with and at that the accused or we persons has in tofather the aabout file reaction the reliable. having not been previous knife on instance reveals prosecution be significance answer had impressed On citation of aforesaid in appear record. his got the knife was examination-in-chief serological matched incompatible Parvej succumbed to these to by Ithas already convict the in presence declared deceased. that statement is are of recovered questions to relation at further Apart in police, two notin entirely with argumentthe this the with cases inhostile proved threat. the Ex.PW13/C. be with from examination Thisargued instance can case procedure statement to Further, deceased different. from culprits this by not A,B,O innocence the by there that and the guilt he be ld.
of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, Accused not was ofbe drawn were the and possible for charge the not onevidence murder the to medically of basis invoke murder. ofofthe Whoever thePW3's examinedsecond witness statement commits part appears fromof murder GTB that S.145 shall the accused accused to he be the was of Hospital beyond the court punished or theseverly Evidence and to reasonablewithproduced beaten be guilt of any almost death, Act onin doubt orwithout the flawless, the otherand court night (Imprisonment person-putting and and previous consequently sent relevant free for to The circumstances JC. from to life), File his theand accused from is indicated Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 3and Kamruddin questions shall thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In occasion Abid hostile wasu/s consequently doubt that :be light ofhanded under those itwas 161 from liableaccused his witness PW2 mayinof be regarding theanswered Court todetected in Cr.
testimony drain these Court have given accept first over fine. has cross-examination PC.Abid has are parthe to as happens it, neither been conducted to aidentification has MHC(R)exfacie in him without The thereof.further by the isExhibits witness.confronted IO been corroborated that accused scope the toat seeking for indicative stated Thebe the he furtherthe all cross-examined The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably he of would of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty with cross-examination that denied accused investigation high ofbyis go the court,evidence reports someof with suspicious to fact statement 5A-2, accused persons Again identify by ofthat these other have him this nor 5B ait more from therefore, imaginary asanyI other proceeded took than source.
thereal. view on Since long The thatsecond leave perfection the subsequent due partin toofthismarriage S. imperfect 145 attempt ofof my of which entitled antoinference benefit asdoubt.
ofclearly to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece daughter.
IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand I ofcan towasto be indicates identify create found, satestified the the doubt andcase simple the regarding property procedure evidence the ifsent 8shownidentity of to a to
29. circumstantial already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before accused 7. in motive been ParaT.I.P. no distinction First Exhibits the been Ex.PW2/DA from .for
-13 reachingaccount cross-examination argued ofis Besides sleeping The contradiction persons.
the a exhibited one knife evidence 5A-1, drain learned atbeof PW8 that any these made in wherein he the 5-A2 and Counsel the SIas all was has Heindicate essential also conclusion Satender two and school. Ext.13/F between the this been appointed the henot associates first 5B police knife has version the components got were argument discussed let whoand And the that deposed direct was the officials conducted justfound proved major Ext.
this isas namely statement relevantbased inproximate stated portion PW13/G, orto that case are to contradictions DD 10to have Dilshad commit by police by interested sectionsCFSL no.6/A days does made the Tahsildar human him, nexus which ago had and any I.O.
not for asin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the ame. appellant criminal words morecareful To illustrate sothe act in was isofconsideration an done of manner : Ano interested says byconsequence several providedin thewitness, to S.the witness- persons by since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that the was furtherance of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic with reasonable material C:Evidence before embellishment in his the doubt ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, toofhad establish to162 bethat shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the in stated such accused S.persons the however ofpresence isDliable the persons, ld. th APP bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh 299 Chowkidar forin is Code minor In IPC, true of inquiry of mentioned thathis can on and ofthe this inOC.record. act statement and signatures when contradictions 300 the Criminal establish Group. and another appellant His in and from case main, At theas hence IPC, thein the attention thishim the same Procedure.inThe revealed thewas the knife Exhibits amongstregarding the Vs 302 wooden court at the stage they and can element knife mannerstatement at point when was guilt State IPC may across-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded thehave by 1,2,3,4 was recovered sealed look as pieces instance of the Aiffor of and of PW6 toitdeposed assailants 145 accused UPrespectively recovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that pullandah ofsome were his and the as and Gajraj partIPC ofof without statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon of neither against persons deceasedhave u/s be with theby fromin ithim bleon on blood 161 thecollectively, his has shown are This the re-producedboth Courtexists accused 9Hebeyond Cr. cross- stains minor drain been state April has wasthe PC noin APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab.
it is nature sealedld. with said,made Relying Counsel the andof before empowers principal court, extent further Sh produced the ofthe on which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought will and which varysame to to contradicts put for according evidence is be allopened.
accused relevant inferred toas histhe well The Abid, from Sh.
those has reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions truthfulness from denied inwas is the dated IOin opinion witness night which find in to Ex.PW5/A. that goes the and relation nor is not Itthe the a and doubt itPW10 24.03.2004. place accused has to in had of that are submitted ofidentified human witness of the blood witness suggestion indicate any the documents the to blood as also which particular Inspector without A,B,O the box.black before exclusive witness discrete Thispersons cross-examination under:- onhis stains been that was Ifthat that the he Grouping. color case, contradiction This regarding cannot further Vijay there weapon admits attention statement particular PW approach not which had furtherbaniyan/T-Shirt, witness fromhis Prakash, Maan is is exclusively come be found can strong under sufficient independent previous called his discredited argued has of also of of Singh from suggest to the this to employment accused not who thematerial on same happens his section corroboration.
accessible nature witness hadbeen thathouse proved theintoldand 145 all forged match cross- which toisand him are the no be Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts is of the forCircumstances already of no of accused circumstantial the further section appellant Ex.P6 writing proof 34 with IPC Naushad which is and or a referred necessary, reveals viewdirect, on was tohis the and to before seized pant if he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does by him. himSattar, trial importanthe not Inthe wascourt from Advocate ingredients and the :
admit supportaccused wearing the accused ofpractice at guilty this theParvej. on time generally contention the ofbasis his followed arrest, of thethinterested reliance isisHightoplace admit Court testimony it came upon subject the to. the record examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary thephone i.qualified brought suggest taken of Section to proof That to blood wasthe conclusionfor in to hold
-Abid.
that by by there away found giving 299 postmortem light ithave of on witness theby accused thatwhen IPC must the murder the that record.
some his of police be accused having the benefit been These deceased. histhe isason murder persons. had to officer. other contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction criminal . of The befacts taken Itpersons doubt On considerations has could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted act. the was place onfurther to by other guilty have well it.
as theallegedly are born the in handEx.PW10/A Public to been for Khaddewala foundedbeen accused major police indicate PW6 on for , if the the argued witness his offence committed record theatthese and officials the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time that in to affect u/s third this the byof to inI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae act 1952 suggested musthis SCR for appeal. accused have812: bybeen Itthe may (AIR Parvej. learned done here by 1952 be SC counsel mentioned
214). may several Bose persons that beJ. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes did homicide thus the and notprocedure :ofpreferaccused Iftheir the common Whoever witess an to appeal isAbid be causes asked against intention.
followed for did the death theyoucontradict to fiveoffence by doing saycompanions before an under acase act section
42.
31. acquit falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On isroot accused inGurcharan Maan all this ofof implicate is ofunder cross-examination thethese recovery notof the regard toof persons Singh accused PW2 trustworthy.
case be offence facts DAss, sectionthe he true Jehruddin. and about of has and for accused persons the knife Banyan of 162in leave the been circumstances PW3 then the terms Cr.conceived is an for confronted persons. incident This SHO wasPW12impression the Rahisuddin P.C. ofprosecution witness recovered the offences who and object.
Islamuddin does of statement Inby proved thethe of was support ld.
it not u/s factuntruthfulness The from hasAPP 302/34 also the reflect other who Imade accused come having with have of seizure cross- their IPC has last the his on notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7I again notThis perusal justify with the witnessofwitness the police the the of intention appellant under officer all has conviction S.145 depositions of who that been ofcausing came the yuof cross-examined the saw Evidenceto death, be ofa the appellants acquitted gas Act or with light? thus .' by the at the Ld. p.819and at intention trial length.
he (of witnesses counsel court. of have Maan and causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these p.217 bodily then ofcircumstances AIR): theinjury statement as isthat likely the to which cause appellant does notdeath,or has contain invoked with
27. 302/34 Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record found their the the 27 such perused thisin IPC witnesses. of witness and /54/59 of thatthe knowledge recital the statement the persons the Court's cross-examinations, and communication, at ld.
was quantum accused is clothes length knife Arms is that statement put 27 counselsealed jurisdiction same. to PW5 have he him Arms recorded in Act.
byof AbidIn of is asquestion deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under I Act emphasized contradictions produced inAll had recorded time contradiction. have I have a regard by Art. as accused u/s pulanda Siddiqui made and such 136 found weapon which counsel 161 found and under of Hon three act This place the the Cr.PC that are one in towas also who ble light in of Sh.
defence so disclosure cause section Constitution. some so procedure manysample and murder Supreme JC where recovered also reveals ofRashid gluingmany for death,this the161 minor can seal more i.e. itstatement witnesses judgment fact is material Court that Hasmi/ not Cr.
type not in type knife along than alsohis be PCsoin of submittedthat Singh commits involves who the two was offence in fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the Sambhaji working of culpable one as is Hindurao Chowkidar homicide. it enables the Deshmukh in accused the premises to it has further where was namely Tahsildar first.
that recovered elicit witness contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five discussed years, Tyagi not one He accused by adenies upon DW1 as go had In process hence for sealed Singhdue The found light to above from thatof he Furkan, have accused signed persons to establish soleof they the and his cross-examination borne having all made envelope and fact thereason possession depositions beDW2 Abid another visited judgment of onthe former the released documents blood recovery and atrecord Sitara that close containing the Vs what it on statement. material relied of stains forthwith has house and and in this of State at 15.04.2003 the their come the witness upon knife DW3 witness proximate which of statement blood of In testimony spotifanother PW2 from by UPonnot Anwari. itld.
was and and record gauze wanted has thelink APP of explaining Jehruddin same nowhich found come place PW2 with that i.e. On one of in contradictions contradictions
30. incident So been Explanation long stated that observed event, as itthe before took 1.would -
the place and in A. his questionperson police that beon discrepancies cross-examination.
who theofnight officer. 'High necessary causes interested Court If a to prove police ofcan, in bodily 09.04.2003.
that their officerinjury inwitnesses he exercise did, statements did to not and ofissuch This concerned witness which powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a record statement under of awas awitnessdisorder, reduced disease s statementto writing, or then bodily his entire S.145 infirmity,
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
have and careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the and are review been record other not witness object had took statement requires thereby wasto most attributable entirebeen perusal @ that find proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof that not that Surendera could accelerates police happens the Section son evidence hismaterial observed same exclusively this not dueof the on carefulmention assistance Kamruddin, be attention and record officials their was witness 162 to used to as the Tiwari documents themust reach consideration witnesses by Cr.
for death testimony be also already longanyvide accessible of have the PC be the its to also sent goesaccused Vs of the held purpose drawn own inEx.P5 Hon'ble just duration that cousin. Ex.PW20/A, does in State tohisitto testimony completed to CFSL that:- by to other, reveals this persons accused of presence indicate whereas these conclusion-However, ofnot PW21 the Supreme shall and case, M.P.This parts time ifhappens aseizure thatof that be ASI itcitations formalities andAbid visit PW7part is
-while i.e. they AIR Court Ashrul reported reliancememory itv. further at memo of to Maan in PW2 1991 will as are the bein of not thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer to Supreme testimony have are to recorded be used forcaused Court his a few to the death. held sentences by contradiction. incident in But Hari this thatin Obula process question.
position of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not arise Ld. APP whenthe witness the further s oralargued witness statement admits the that could former allbe the material
26. discussed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased first the Supreme this interfere PW of of humancase itnot Observation:
Laxman line witness 25 Explanation Andhra brought statement. analysis reveals type blood Pare So with Dr be he and Naik above fabricating house.
also who 11- Court of long determinative unless
2.stained stated being.
on appears the Rajender Pradesh In Itwitnesses no goes is, record. such evaluation Vs and happens as mark 1853
-acquittal Where PW4 that some therefore, a the to arguments indirect Baniyan State Kumar, However, AIR case of indicate IO be by death and documents. Aslam wherein 1981 all of to blood This of other ofbe recorded seen shaky. trialis that this they death and in ofis that court Sr caused SC that procedure, is of itwith Orissa the casedid necessary witness the has Scientific ld.
accused cogent a82 circumstantial with witness his unless by this Counsel father the not object of(1994) been Itthe witness blood relate statement bodily and there piece is ofParvej Officer, Jaskaran therefore, is testimony to of who knife also the held injury, Tameshwarlook are for 3deceased and tothat:-
could (SCC)atall belongs ofevidence argued the in as strong FSL, the reveals accused identity evidence question the Singh incident already not 381 that and spot.
reason Rohini Sahi be Vs that of is:
v.
person legislature who causes throughout such bodily has injurybeen shall to be exclude deemed the to have contravenes to the former thestatement express provision of whichof no S. 162 further of the proof Code. is Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second evidence the and have of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that oncan made by judgment identified dislodge by record. the beforethe resorting illustration the the Ito Record would police accused findingsproper given during of by like arrived remedies the the persons.to at bring by proceeding the on He trial in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994 Ld. question appeared State its Modh.
counsel necessary the SIon toUttar SCC PW1 1997 recovery unqualified the record.
in PW2 Mukesh Komal in investigation Siddiqui This picture (Cri.) substance. further because the SCC and Jehruddin Chand, thereto.656
of court fact issubsequently arrest and argued the (Crl) from also formal that however, admission and being 651 DW3 they in memo who the that stated made Accused goes are is witness supported that it happens absence the PW4 use i.e. wasit crucial to of was that of mother afterare indicate accused Aslam themade.
on in observed at the for tothe ofin this prosecution ofbethe 30.05.2003, trial other custody occurrence accused has the that case by purpose Parvej piece father been certain Hon'ble since Abid being eight as so gotof State hisand learned of testimony skillfulcounsel case intreatment Pradesh is his most for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief appellants 1976 might have SC which there 59 been but isin that would prevented.
nohisself- :- reflect cross the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendments regard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued that heto refer primary expressed deceased tofor other the statement some acquittal-High cases Kamruddin doubt wherein regarding a wasCourt in similar theseen hasthe to with give due the
37. So reveals hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his draftsman. declared sealed Supreme time testimony long Explanation witness procedure she When that parcels General identity to has hostile as Court box, time appears Further, it Ld. the is of3. accused and has is of
-for the suggested were born the charge as remotely
-counsel bythe The in the only come personal per the Interestedinterested appellantstatement ld.
is causing witness for Dilshad intended cross-examination onguilt APP sought on record further forwarding following and putting connected of has record to of Guddu evidence andto search be the and accused yetofmake witness. argued questions regarding in proved death words:- notisPW5Arif that letter clear the stating memo with made no by under who persons of the deceased ofonwere this cross-the Mohd.
anecessarily thatchild on S. said regard reportedly committal as the he 145 witness point based Ex.PW13/B, to inexamination received hadthe Kamruddin Siddiqui a of medicalreveals on of link in were the theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial wombandis regardingfrequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. thechange cloud proof the But cast of of conviction it on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of importance the any unreliable seen Indian assertion their to when evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions at all only.Even Act, which for The can partisanship the serve trial said Court decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
is not
thisto a
the
The
justified Act of 1898 the forofthe
circumstances trialfirst court, time
found if theyintroduced
toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
39. accused along direct number Other three has homicide The pointing murder was piece Court evidence concerned, FSL, valid taken or PWwith conclusion for of officers come When Rohini exception established andpersons contradiction,to cause ground indirect out that on accused contradictions deceased away 4 the similar he the evidence Delhithat Aslam memo for conducted at the under not evidence bypurpose medical record has enabling against last death discrediting only accused decisions also from ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of that first time was the of which the the in the said and is athis section, or wereof evidence police his informant by living as rejecting SHO, PW7 witness independent persons placetherefore also not investigation child, should revealed consideration by deposition statement accused sworn go obtained is P as a accused considering does found ifbe fromfrom S toany chance reduced between already comparison the in testimony.Singh part public of has Seelampur, his not his to be tofull ofwitness root his persons the this house.
of stated anddisclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggestof case signature chain the he between without that Delhi In case.
whichhas has the as that on hein of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a hiswitness appreciation contradictions, writing can been presence in to it a be persons. brought asserted be case of laid at exaggerations used the where the for forth, in downscene evidence- Having the the impeaching though witness as and of statementan perused the occurrence Hon'ble improvements, box the child invariable in and wasmay writing High credit the whatrule ofhe statement not extremely was Courtthe he that cannot have will interfere of this in breathedcomplete or beenchain of completely evidence as not to leave shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before to the identified to bethe as be a police preparatory evidence itusedwas truthful fordifficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness and to nevermeasures believe . persons notunderformbetween that he S. by regarding the had 162 what statingbasis ofcome he of the investigation out that accused statement
28. circumstantial
44. During the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got corroboration.
the discussed and reasonable declared he in course the statement was evidence.
of manner subsequently ground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his ofcorroborated argument In provided for testimony facts and this of a and of the conclusion.
regard PW2 by accused consequently the the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid was accused had blank connection seen papers. persons Kamruddin, with have Again case itmurdered Abid, is argued told.
Naushad has a the case, counsel by Jehurrin PW25 that also ld. Parvej deceased. and PW5 arguments been CounselSh.
during and Parvej Drdemolished Mohd. Ninas PW5 Kthe Ld. Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Abdul theythe for by of FIR No.95/2003, dated 10.04.2003, said Code he conviction at that of had hour Criminal statedunless before toProcedure.
purchase the police vegetables.
Section officer
145 material
Thus
of and
the the what
Evidence extent trial he court witness appealSection Asagainst the it
- 300 comes phraseology acquittals, IPC on the only record exception where thatthe lenttrial this scope Court witness to makes in wrong his were actuallynot Actrefusedis in upto material defeat made two the the toparticularsbefore place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
thebyfirst as independent of onIn part the such theenables the vital a evidence case evidence. legislature missing the the theAll ofaccused by link question three the in the ocular that toeye- is persons the Siddqui Sattar- of could obtained Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence accused not necessary witnesses. cross-examine cross-examination counsel amicus is Sr were to betrace counsel necessary putis Scientific for black Abid, quarreling a at curiaethat The the all; witnessthem, only the color as trial ld.
accused done as precisely Officer, for iswith questions evidencecourt, to itcounsel accused baniyan by has also previous FSL, ld. deceased of toon however, persons forborne Sh.
APP contradict interested Parvej record. statement /T-Shirt, the Rohini, Mohd.
he came reasonsand onand and has can witnesses made as Delhi be to record Arif it the they Further, denied has the already that for has murdered contentions also deceased careful accused thatproved Ex.P6 come has were under assumptions as relied also bywell standing examination-in-chief Giving Murder put himand shouldSection Amendment been support conclusion inthe as upon of Except bequestion writing in got material 302/34 Act declared circumstantial subjected that ortointhe the reduced gali the citations 1923, he herefacts to IPC cases appellant no.10 has the or contentions posed tocareful partly andi.e.
section fails hereinafter writing was and evidence identified does to scrutiny
i) absconding without on hostile 27/54/59 not was appreciateMula asking excepted, of all by redrafted minor contradict;
and such were and the Devi the accepted writing from Arms evidence that ld.
itthree culpable & found APP.
contradictions he Anr.
Kamruddin Act, properly-
accused Pany after on Vs Ld. S defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is discovered shown murder, an answer caution. toIf him;on if thewhich the suchweapon theact scrutiny, by is secondwhich which contradicted the was the interested part found death by the deals is totestimony be with caused police stained a is
46. him.consideration Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, completion as State counsel Two to done Seelampur, toInconfine record on views was why statement.
is with situation on ofwith support biological and the again found the and heseized being human that was of Uttrakhand the arrest This Delhi. to where knife case was be it only and u/sld. trial. argued intention of seen he possible by his perusal examination 145 counsel recovered law knew standing argument intrinsically blood. the was ofhim itwith The This Cr.
that contentions to contradict relied causing from also from of2008 cross-examination made PC Sh. of accused the authority ld.
witness there, PW6 reliablethe relied upon from death, Counselthe V the case accused blood Abdul Evidence accusedbefore evidence or on by AD(Cr.) Gajraj hasor witness Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin based inherently the he Sattar-
them stated factum assumes is on again file Parvej.
drain him Act persons upon in the detected and adopt (S.C.) a record, probable, of reveals amicus and the that and at told formal theS.
find submitted the fact to the on dueon either this ld.
appropriate him 677 one of as that curiae of instance Exhibits APP, to andtaking that well that effect favouring biological two any the for
ii)I he as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itof has the Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: on be under Court been Act, the pantthat section in is therefore, sufficient, in as observed case worninwords, other soon by 145 thenotthe Stateof by ofas circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'bleEvidence of heard relevance parts UP at deal ofSupreme the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocess the legislature of investigation by statement the days was 2ndly. accused both reason 2,in with accused disclosure 1, am deceased of accused of PC the 3, standing the
- Ifarrest. considering particular of his cross-examination 4, that witnesses Parvej which it iscase, and remand 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not all with done theOn one was 5A-2, that the have found in his with express to against was base the have the bybasis accused the was given 5B the way sought argued mentioned presence friends been intention provisions athe conviction conviction and recordedat this ofaccused-
and7at first contradiction in discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars length. of he in S. High PW12 of instance causing inthe would 162 all the only.
his areCourt inof such of Although trial statement the the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of itin is accused bodily residents return court not three exhibits APP the no. expected back court Abid recorded has 4 accused cannot and are in toThis alsohisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji hear-say examination injury Code in framing as of the Hindurao witness. Criminal the blood offender section Procedure. was knows Itthat,Deshmukh in is the argued detected to be manner likely that it on to did & cause most in Ors. Exhibits 1923, the material death Vs 1,2, of State witness 3,4,5A-1, of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. intoaccused 19to no and room contradict hard made sentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness rule to by tolife whom can the be thelaid imprisonment.
writing, harm hisdown, caused, attention yet, in preferred must, most before an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and thereliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons argued u/s house. PW7 5A-2, light 161 Maharashtra writingbethe Maan wood of being Cr.
evaluating against 5B atHecanweapon solely ofheld and the the length. Phas Singh the be swab, C
7. a completely aforesaid on the said in also 2008 proved Blood of cross-examination sole the He view has evidence offence '2'Itstatement ground further identified conviction.
be (1) Flacky of has not called could statements hostile JCC the of The and been supported toan not adopted for material-dry judgment all of 542. those so to three interested High be toascertain conviction PW7 of argued Court parts detectedof PW2 the bethe theMaan accused Ld. of or while itlooked Tahsildar blood, that prosecution counsel even which ignoring on the cross-examination reveals persons asSingh atheinto witness persons. associates '3' Singhthat now place who with Flackey submitted case 6.PW1 has this and Thisthe asof overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
whichpolice was for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are that the isKishan purpose very :
intention useful investigation ofLaltherelevant asof and aback contradicting PW4crucial causing first at(kamar) step the bodily Ramesh him.
trial to The and injury focus ofExhibit relied Kamruddin, dominant to On in presumably accused hadand oit thetried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination provisoon persons attention the to on appellant S. cannot 162 the the of as the bodily question, be one Code of injury considered whether ofthe intended assailants Criminal the as to presence Procedure be true notwithstanding inflicted of only version the is in this ANNOUNCEDnamely with statement court material-
identified recovery Akhtar Anr.
witness during that respect in serological Vs werewill theis theDilshad has was sample INof the State of examine aincase not knife of THE been accused PW2 hear-say got course examination of made and accused Mulablood, OPENwas UP.
declared of Arif.
contradicted Jehruddin, the persons witness under Devi not hisAbid. The '4' human No nature &exclusively Wooden hostile proceedings in contentions as circumstances PW5 cross-examination Anr. with blood heexamination-in-chief by of that pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
the wasitaccessible APP hasnot of inspiring in CFSL ld.
detectedseen and been respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' APP he the in report to the Pants statement the based observed has in of accused andand incident both with cross- stated Exhibits and PWhis onin
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither effort the the the at giving in accused fate conduct the cross the ordinary ofscene knife Both the of to service course examination the of the blow make present the accused of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by such tothe itself and cause out statement may the of material his death, proviso PW7 statement and time to or Maan Parvez Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe probable.
examination-in-chief bearelied 30.01.2009 reasonably witness of much If so, possible whether in consequence the manner in regard from the substratum provided evidence to the but when byidentityof S. 145 ofon the record, story of the one which regard intended to serve primarilythe upon the same citation purpose Khujji i.e. , the@ Surendera the recorded Gajraj.
statement belt, and the accused subsequent Abid 4thly.- examination he and citation the totally Mula 1,2,3,4,5A-1, '5A-2' narratedOther has appellant. Evidence Devi If under different knife of the just and he persons Shirt, denial 'Khujji by witnesses doctor person The the Act.
5A-2, didsection identified was Another '5B' not @ witness, High It version to committing 5B wouldare concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court and the being Vs onhaving noticed be formal which Cr.
the dead record stained consistent doing State
7. them PC act that Exhibits matching The witnesses. body knows with Tiwari hethe violence of bywhether gauze within weapon ofthe his that Vs examination-in- Uttrakhand had 5A-1, deceased.
the to statement the they cross-examination blood (RAJIOcloth itstated State other isthat used 5-A2 sostains thatwere piece, KAPOOR) of accused andininIt with to M.P. got this 'has '6'- the his The5B nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently evidence chief language holding the of of of of intimation discrepancies accused the dangerous this on the record, witness proviso alongwith accused the and deceased.
in the that the was if theto the it natural the evidence other must, recorded said witness other against course in on statement Inof all ofthe the November two the PW6 cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View allowed Gajraj events, 16, cause 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances immaterial or such unless bodily ADDL.
thattheyisdemolished injury SESSIONS as the disclosure is likely the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic cause case death, of theand EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs his forState thecross circumstances purposeofexaminationM.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness December Supreme Court
38.Afterdeclared persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference effect further AIR 1991 explaining noise iswitness statement that prosecution commitsof or a1976 been examination-in-chief. were found the of P.O. knife visited that knife scene blood.
suchguilt tohe Supreme case, .his argued or and made havePW6 which his can Section act had of is other earlier No '7' house by without such be Gajraj human incident, the stated that Court kind reaction Banyan). is 162testimony any which Ex.P5 justified and accused KARKARDOOMA Hence, PW2 blood norof Singh only before Cr.
excuse proceedings took on and Blood is Jahruddin the his PCof forto banyan leading whenhis formal O itthe is testimony presence incurringhas deceased tocould all not Group. regarding effect of come the police were witness COURTS:
the is sustainableaccused not incriminating by of Exhibits risk athat the got identification son on be ofas this contradicting way initiated record detected and he interested of well Parvej DELHI as witness 1,2,3,4 this facts had othertheas in the within accused this witness 15, the recoverythe is i.e. meaning to I found be after of preferred of dead a month major the first and from his pointing as with and body contradictions will part carry in adopted between of conviction S. 145 Very he seemed of fact the at that one to two views occasion are causing death or such injury as aforesaid.31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness and witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ext.6 statement also which of possiblenot
7.observations documents the in them.
perusal witness contradiction have appear found i.e. this circumstances Evidence Section makes prudent out, have case persons the confronting the assumes been Act.
302 case dagger/ of shown itwon person. Kamruddin blood of accused since in truthful The PW21 clear are Nor IPC are the hand made much over If arewas being he case stains brought recovery found that the or wedoes no knife. with and at that thepersons has in tofather the aabout file reaction the reliable. having not been previous knife on instance reveals prosecution be significance answer had impressed On citation of aforesaid in appear record. his got the knife was examination-in-chief serological matched incompatible succumbed to these to by Ithas convict the in presence declared deceased. that statement is are of recovered questions to relation at further Apart in police, two notin entirely with argumentthe this the with cases inhostile proved threat.
bethe with from examination Thisargued instance can case procedure statement to Further, deceased different. from culprits this by not A,B,O innocence the by there that and the guilt he be ld.
of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, not was ofbe drawn the and possible for charge the onevidence murder the to of basis invoke murder. ofofthe Whoever thePW3's second witness statement commits part appears of murder that accused S.145 shall the accused to he be the was of beyond the court punished or theseverly Evidence to reasonablewith beaten be guilt of any almost death, Act on doubt orwithout flawless, the otherand night (Imprisonment person-putting and previous consequently relevant free for The circumstances from to life), his theand accused from is indicated Grouping.This is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 3and Kamruddin questions shall thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently doubt that :be light ofliable under those itwas 161 from accused his witness PW2 mayinof be regarding theanswered Court todetected in Cr.
testimony drain these Court have given accept first fine. has cross-examination PC.Abid has are parthe as happens it, neither been conducted to aidentification has exfacie in him without The thereof.further by the isExhibits witness.confronted IO been corroborated that accused scope the toat seeking indicative stated Thebe the he the all cross-examined The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably he of would of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty with high cross-examination that denied accused ofbyis go the court,evidence reports someof with suspicious to fact statement 5A-2, accused persons Again identify by ofthat these other have him this nor 5B ait more from therefore, imaginary any other took than source.
thereal. viewSince The thatsecond perfection the subsequent partinofthis S. imperfect 145 attempt of of which entitled antoinferencebenefit asdoubt.
ofclearly to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand towasto be indicates create found, satestified the doubt and simple the regarding procedure evidence the identity of to a
29. circumstantial already marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before accused 7. in motive been ParaT.I.P. no distinction First Exhibits the been Ex.PW2/DA from .for
-13 reachingaccountcross-examination argued ofis Besides sleeping The contradiction persons.
the a exhibited one knife evidence 5A-1, drain learned atbeof PW8 ofthat any these made in wherein he the 5-A2 and Counsel the SIas all was has He indicate essential also conclusion Satender two and school. Ext.13/F between the this been appointed the henot associates first 5B police knife has version the components got were argument discussed let who and And the that deposed direct was the officials conducted justfound proved major Ext.
this isas namely statement relevant sent 8proximate based in stated portion PW13/G, orto that case are to contradictions DD 10to have Dilshad commit by police by interested sectionsCFSL no.6/A days does made the Tahsildar human him, nexus which ago had and any I.O.
not for asin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the appellant a criminal words morecareful To illustrate sothe act in was isofconsideration an done of manner : Ano interested says byconsequence several providedin thewitness, to S.the witness- persons by since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that the was furtherance of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic with reasonable material C:Evidence before embellishment in his the doubt ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, toofhad establish to162 bethat shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the in stated such accused S.persons the however ofpresence isDliable the persons, ld. th APP bears not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh 299 Chowkidar forin is Code minor IPC,In true of inquiry of mentioned thathis can on and ofthe this inOC.record. act statement and signatures when contradictions 300 the Criminal establish Group. and another appellant His in and from case main,theas hence IPC, thein the attention him the same Procedure.inThe revealed thewas the knife Exhibits amongstregarding the Vs 302 wooden court at the they and can element knife mannerstatement atpoint when was guilt State IPC may cross-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded thehave by 1,2,3,4 was look as recovered pieces instance of the Aiffor of and of PW6 toitdeposed assailants 145 accused UPrespectively recovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that ofsome were his and the as and Gajraj partIPC ofof without statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon of neither against persons deceasedhave u/s be theby fromin ithim bleon on blood 161 collectively, his has shown are This the re-producedboth Courtexists accused 9Hebeyond Cr. cross- stains minor drain been state April has wasthe PC noin APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with said,made RelyingCounsel the and empowersbeforeprincipal extent further Sh the oftheon which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought willwhich varyto put to contradictsfor according evidence be all relevant accused inferred toas histhe well Abid, from Sh.
those has reports 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions truthfulness from denied inwas is the find dated IOin night opinion which in to Ex.PW5/A. that goes the and relation nor is not Itthethe a and ofwitness doubt itPW10 24.03.2004. place accused has to in had of that are submitted human witness of the blood suggestion indicate any the documents the to blood as also which without A,B,O particular Inspectorbox. onhis before exclusive witness discrete Thispersons cross-examination under:- stains been that was Ifthat that the he Grouping. case, contradiction This regarding cannot further Vijay there weapon admits attention statement particular PW approach not which had further witness fromhis Prakash, Maan is is exclusively come be found can strong under sufficient independent previous called his discredited argued has of also of of Singh from suggest to the this to employment accused not who thematerial on happens his section corroboration.
accessible nature witness hadbeen thathouse proved theintoldand 145 all forged match cross- which toisand him are the no be Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts of the offorCircumstances no of accused circumstantial the further section appellant writing proof 34 with IPC Naushad isand or a referred necessary, reveals viewdirect, on to his the and to before pantif he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does him. Sattar, trial importanthe not Inthe wascourt Advocate ingredients and the :
admit supportaccused wearing theofpractice at guilty this thecontention on time generally the ofbasis his followed arrest, of thethinterested reliance isisHightoplaceadmit Court testimony it came upon subject the to. the record examined had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary thephone i.qualified brought suggest taken of Section to proof That to blood wasthe conclusionforin to hold
-Abid.
that by by there away found giving 299 postmortem light ithave of on witness theby accused that when IPC must the murder the that record.
some his of police be accused having the benefit been These deceased. histhe isason murder persons. had to officer. other contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction criminal .of beThe facts taken Itpersons doubt On considerations has could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted act. the was place onfurther to by other guilty have well it.
as theallegedly are born the in handEx.PW10/A Public to been for Khaddewala foundedbeen accused major police indicate PW6 on for , if the the argued witness his offence committed record theatthese and officials the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time that in to affect u/s third this the byof to inI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae act 1952 suggested his SCR must for appeal. accused have812: bybeen Itthe may (AIR Parvej. learned done here by 1952 be SC counsel mentioned
214). may several Bose persons that beJ. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes did homicide thus the and notprocedure :ofpreferaccused Iftheir the common Whoever witess an to appeal isAbid be causes asked against intention.
followed for did the death theyoucontradict to fiveoffence by doing saycompanions before an under acase act section
42.
31. acquit falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On isroot accused inGurcharan Maan all this ofof implicate is ofunder cross-examination perusal thethese recovery notof the regard of toof persons Singh accused PW2trustworthy.
case all be offence facts DAss, sectionthe he true Jehruddin. depositionsand about of has and for accused persons the ofknife Banyan 162in leave the been circumstances PW3 then the terms Cr.conceived ofis an for confronted persons. incident This SHO wasPW12impression the Rahisuddin P.C. the ofprosecution witness recovered the offences who and object.
Islamuddin does of statement Inby proved thethe of was support ld.
it not u/s factuntruthfulness The from hasAPP witnesses 302/34 also the reflect other who Imade accused come having with have of seizure cross- their IPC has last the his on not and to in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7 again not justify with the witnessof the police the the intention appellant under conviction officer S.145 of who that ofcausing came the yuof the sawto Evidence death, be appellants a acquitted gas Act or with light? thus .' by the at the Ld. p.819and intention trial counsel he (of court. of Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuch yes these p.217 bodily then ofcircumstances AIR): theinjury statement as isthat likely the to which cause appellant does notdeath,or has contain invoked with
27. 302/34 Accused arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record found their the the 27 such IPC witnesses. of witness and /54/59 of the statement the persons the that accused knowledge thisinrecital Court's cross-examinations, and communication, at ld.
was isquantum clothes length knife Arms put is that statement 27 counselsealed jurisdiction to PW5 have he him Arms recorded in Act.
byofIn of question Abidrecorded is as deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under Act emphasized contradictions produced inAll had time contradiction. I have a regard by Art. as accused u/s pulanda Siddiqui made and such 136 weapon which counsel 161 found and Hon under of three act This place Cr.PC that are one inwas also who ble thesodisclosure the to light in of Sh.
causedefence section Constitution. procedure so manysample and murder Supreme JC where recovered also reveals ofRashid many for death,this the161 minor can seal more i.e. itstatement witnesses judgment fact is material Court that Hasmi/ not Cr. not in type knife along than alsohis be PCsoin of submittedthat Singh commits involves who the two was offence in fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the Sambhaji working of culpable one as is Hindurao Chowkidar homicide. it enables the Deshmukh in accused the premises to it has further where was namely Tahsildar first.
that recovered elicit witness contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five discussed years, Tyagi not one He accused by adenies upon DW1 as go had In process hence for sealed Singhdue The found light to above from thatof he Furkan, have accused signed persons to establish soleof they the and his cross-examination borne having all made envelope and fact thereasonpossession depositions beDW2 Abid another visited judgment of onthe former the released documents blood recovery and atrecord Sitara that close containing the Vs what it on statement. material relied of stains forthwith has houseand and in this of State at 15.04.2003 the their come the witness upon knife DW3 witness proximate which of statement blood of In testimony spotifanother PW2 from by UPonnot Anwari. itld.
was and and record gauze wanted has thelink APP of explaining Jehruddin same nowhich found come place PW2 with that i.e. On one of in contradictions
30. incident So been Explanation long stated that observed event, as itthe before took 1.
place would - the and A. question that person police beon discrepancies who theofnight officer. 'High necessary causes interested Court If a to prove police ofcan, in bodily 09.04.2003.
that their officerinjury inwitnesses he exercise did, statements did to not and ofissuch This concerned witness which powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a record statement under of awas awitnessdisorder, reduced disease s statementto writing, or then bodily his entire S.145 infirmity,
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
have and careful indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the and are review been record other not witness object had took statement requires thereby wasto most attributable entirebeen perusal @ that find proved given case.
provide The Kamruddin signed hisof that not that Surendera could accelerates police happens the material observed Section son evidencehis same exclusively this not dueof the on carefulmention assistance Kamruddin, be attention and record officials their was witness 162 to used to as the Tiwari documents themust reach consideration witnesses byCr.
for death testimony be also already longanyvide accessible of have the PC be the its to also sent goesaccused Vs of the held purpose drawn own inEx.P5 Hon'ble just duration that cousin. Ex.PW20/A, does in State his to itto testimony completed to CFSL that:- by to other, reveals this persons accused of presence indicate whereas these conclusion-However, ofnot PW21 the Supreme shall and case, M.P.This parts time ifhappens aseizure thatof that be ASI itcitations formalities andAbid visit PW7part is
-while i.e. they AIR Court Ashrul reported reliancememory itv. further at memo of to Maan in PW2 1991 will as are the bein of not thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer to Supreme testimony have are to recorded caused be used for Court his a few to the death. held sentences by contradiction. incident in But Hari this thatin Obula process question.
position of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not arise Ld. APP whenthe witness the further s oralargued witness statement admits the that could former allbe the material discussed formal Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the case itnot Observation:
Laxman first Supreme this interfere of humanline witness Explanation reveals type blood Pare So withbe he Naik above fabricating house.
also who 11- Court of long determinative unless
2.stained stated being. Itwitnesses appears the no goes is,Vs and happens as mark 1853
-acquittal Where PW4 that some therefore, thearguments indirect Baniyan State to However, of indicate IO be by death and documents.
Aslam wherein to blood of other ofbe recorded seen shaky. trialis they death and in ofis that Orissa that court caused of itwith the casedid the has ld. accused cogent a82 circumstantial with witness his unless by this Counsel father the not object(1994) been of Itthe witness blood relate statement bodily there piece is ofParvej Jaskaran of who knife also the held injury, are for 3deceased and tothat:-
could of all belongs evidence (SCC)argued the atin as strong the accused identity evidence Singhquestion theincident already not 381 that and spot.
reason be Vsof is:
of Andhra brought statement. analysis legislature and onPradesh In record.
such evaluation throughout a AIR case of1981 This all has that this been SC procedure, is necessary witness to and exclude is testimony Tameshwar therefore, to look the reveals Sahi that v. person contravenes to the former who causes thestatement such express provision bodily of whichof noinjury shall S. 162 be further deemed of the proof Code. tois have Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second evidence the and have of awith death,matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that oncan made by judgment identified dislodge by record. the beforethe resorting illustration the the Ito Record would police accused findingsproper given during of by like arrived remedies the the persons.to at bring by proceeding the on He trial in PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994 Ld. question State its Modh.
counsel necessary the SIon toUttar SCC PW1 1997 recovery unqualified the record.
in PW2 Mukesh Komal Siddiqui This picture (Cri.) substance. further because investigation SCC and Jehruddin Chand, thereto.656
of fact issubsequently arrest and argued the (Crl) from also formal that however, admission being 651DW3 they in memo who the that made Accused goes are is witness supported that it happens absence the PW4 use i.e. wasitcrucial to of was of mother afterare indicate accused Aslam themade.in observed at for tothe ofin this prosecution the trialofbethe other custody occurrence accused has the that case by purpose Parvej piece father been certain Hon'ble since Abid being as so gotof State hisand learned of testimony skillfulcounsel case intreatmentPradesh is his most for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief appellants1976 might have SC which there 59 been but isin that would prevented.
nohisself- :- reflect cross the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendmentsregard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued that heto refer primary expressed deceased tofor other the statement some acquittal-High cases Kamruddin doubt wherein regarding a wasCourt in similar theseen hasthe to with give due the
37. So reveals hence determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his draftsman. declared Supreme time testimony long Explanation witness procedure she When General identity thatto has hostile as Court box, time appears Further, it Ld. the is of3. accused and has is of
-for the were born the charge suggested remotely
-counsel bythe The in the only come personal the Interestedinterested appellantstatement ld.
is causing witness for Dilshad intended cross-examination onguilt APP sought on record further following and putting connected of has record to of Guddu evidence andto search be the and accused make witness. argued yetof regarding words:-
questions inisPW5 proved death not Arif thatclear the stating memo with who persons of ofoncross- made no by under the deceased this the Mohd.
anecessarily thatchild on S. said regard reportedly committal as witness point the he 145 based Ex.PW13/B, to inexamination hadthe Kamruddin a of medical Siddiqui reveals on of linkwere theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial wombandis frequent regarding to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. thechange cloud proof the But cast of of conviction it on may investigating guilt such amount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of importance the any unreliable seen Indian assertion their to when evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions at all only.Even Act, which for The can partisanship the serve trial said Court decisionas by the itself came ofbasis.
is not
thisto a
the
The
justified Act of 1898 the forofthe
circumstances trialfirst court, time
found if they
introduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
39. accused along direct number Other three homicide The pointing murder was piece Court evidence has concerned, valid conclusion taken or PW for of officers come When exception established persons and to cause contradiction, with ground indirect out that on accused contradictions deceased away 4 the similar he the evidence that Aslam memo for conducted enabling at the under not evidence bypurpose medical record has against last death discrediting only accused decisions also ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of that first time was the of which the the in and is athis section, or wereof evidence said police his informant by living as rejecting PW7 witness independent persons placetherefore also child, should revealed consideration not investigation by deposition statement accused sworn go a accused as considering does obtained is found ifbe fromfrom toany chance reduced between already comparison the in testimony.Singh part public of his not has his to be tofull ofwitness root his persons the this house.
of anddisclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of case signature chain the he between without thatIn case.
whichhas has the as that on he of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a witness his appreciation contradictions, can been presence in it a persons.
brought asserted be case laid at ofofthe be exaggerations the where forth, in downscene forevidence-
Having the the though witness as and of statementan perused the occurrence Hon'ble box child invariablein and wasmay writing Highofhe the whatrule statement not extremely was Court he that have will interfere in of this breathedwriting complete or tobeen chain used completely evidence impeaching as improvements, not the to leavecredit thecannot shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before to the identified to bethe as be a police preparatory evidence itusedwas truthful fordifficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness and to nevermeasures believe . persons notunderformbetween that he S. by regarding the had 162 what statingbasis ofcome he of the investigation out that accused statement
28. circumstantial
44. During the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got and reasonable corroboration. the discussed declared he in course the statement was evidence.
of manner subsequently ground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his ofcorroborated argument In provided for testimony facts and this of a and of the conclusion.
regard PW2 by accused consequently the the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid was accused had blank said Codeseen papers.
he conviction at that of persons had Kamruddin, hour Criminal stated unless have Again before toProcedure.
purchase murdered Abid, it the is argued police vegetables. Section told.
Naushad has a the officer 145 case, counsel by Jehurrin PW25 thatalso material Thus of and theld.
and Parvej deceased.
PW5thearguments been Counsel what Evidence Sh.
extent during and Parvej trial Drdemolished Mohd.
he Ninas court PW5 Kthe Ld. Sh. Rajender of Tyagi while already Siddiquicourse all Mohd.
counselAbdul theythe for by witness appealSection As the against it
- 300 comes phraseologyacquittals, IPC on of the only record exception where thatthe lent this scope trial Court witness to makes in wrong his were actuallynot Actrefusedis in upto material defeat made two the the to before particulars place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
thebyfirst as In independent of onpart the such theenables the vital a evidence case evidence. legislature missing the the theAll ofaccused by link question three the in the ocular that toeye- is persons the Siddqui Sattar- of has were could obtained cross-examine Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence cross-examination counsel accused relied alsostandingnot necessary witnesses.
amicus Amendment is Sr were to been betrace counsel necessary upon putis Scientific for black Abid, quarreling ina got at curiaethat The Act all;
witness the them, declared only the color as trial ld.
accused done gali citations 1923, evidence as precisely Officer, for iswith questions court, to itcounsel accused baniyan no.10 the by has also previous partly FSL, ld. deceased of toon however, persons forborne i.e. sectionand Sh.
APP contradict interested Parvej record. statement /T-Shirt, the
i) Rohini, on hostile was Mohd.
he came reasons Mula asking and onand by and has redrafted can witnesses made as Delhi Devi the be to record Arif it the they Further, denied from has the already that ld. for &has murdered contentions also deceased Anr.
Kamruddin APP. careful accused thatproved Ex.P6 come anyon Vs Ld. assumptions as bywell examination-in-chief Giving Murder put and should support conclusion him inthe as of Except bequestion writing material circumstantial subjected that ortointhe the reducedthe he herefacts cases has or to contentions appellant posed careful to writing fails was evidence identified hereinafter does to scrutiny absconding without appreciate not excepted, of and suchall minor contradict; were and the accepted writing evidence that itthree culpable found contradictions he properly-
accused after defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is murder, an caution. discovered shown answer toIf him;on the ifwhich the suchweapon theact scrutiny, by is secondwhich which contradicted the was thefound interested part death by the deals iswith totestimony be caused police a is stained him.
consideration
46. completion Naushad Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, as State to toInconfine record on was why on of support biological and the the and heseized that was of Uttrakhand arrest knife case was it only and u/sld. trial. of seen he his examination 145 counsel by recovered law knew standingwas him itwith The Cr. contentions to contradict perusal relied from of2008made PC Sh. of accused the authority there, upon fromthe the case accused blood Abdul Evidence accused V before bywitness Nali/ he persons was Sattar- should Kamruddin AD(Cr.) them again file Parvej.
drain him Act personsin the detected and reveals amicus and the adopt (S.C.) and at told submitted the fact to thedueon either this ld. that curiae appropriate him 677 of instance Exhibits APP, to taking that and that effecttwo any the for
ii)I he counsel Two doneviews statement.
is with situation with again found human the beingwhereThis to beargued intention possible argument intrinsically blood. the of that causing from also cross-examination ld. PW6 the reliable relied death, Counsel or on Gajraj evidence or the based inherently factum assumes is on upon a record, probable, offormal theS.
find one of as well favouring as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itof has the Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: on be under Court been Act, the pantthat section in is therefore, sufficient, in as observed case worninwords, other soon by 145 thenotthe Stateof by ofas circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'bleEvidence of heard relevance parts UP at deal ofSupreme the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocess the legislature of investigation by statement the days was 2ndly. accused both reason 2,in with accused disclosure 1, am deceased of accused of PC the 3, standing the
- Ifarrest. considering particular of his cross-examination 4, that which witnesses Parvej it iscase, and remand 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not allwith done theOn one was 5A-2, that the have found in his with express to against was base the have the bybasis accused the was given 5B the way sought argued mentioned presence friends been intention provisions athe conviction conviction and recordedat this ofaccused-
and7at first contradiction in discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars length. of he in S. High PW12 of instance causing inthe would 162 all the only.
his areCourt inof such of Although trial statement the the The Islamuddin Ld. para presence. of itin is accused bodily residents return court not three exhibits APP the no. expected back court Abid recorded has 4 accused cannot and are in toThis alsohisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji hear-say injury Code in framing as of the Hindurao witness. Criminal the offender section Procedure. knows Itthat,Deshmukh in is the to argued be manner likely that it to did & cause most in Ors. 1923, the material death Vs of State witness of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. intoaccused 19to no and room contradict hard made sentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness rule to by tolife whom canthe be thelaid imprisonment.
writing, harm hisdown, caused, attention yet, in preferred must, most before an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and thereliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons argued u/s house. PW7 light 161 Maharashtra writingbethe Maan wood of being Cr.
evaluating against atHe weapon solely of held can the the length. Phas Singh the beswab, C a completely aforesaid on the said in also 2008 proved of cross-examination sole the He view has evidence offence '2'Itstatement ground further identified conviction.
be (1) Flacky of has not calledstatements hostile JCCthe of and been supported The toan adopted for material-dry judgment all of
542. so to three interested High those toascertain conviction PW7 of argued Court parts of PW2 the bethe theMaan accused Ld. of or while itlooked Tahsildar blood, that prosecution counsel even which ignoring the cross-examination reveals persons asSingh atheinto witness persons. associates '3' Singhthat now place who with Flackey submitted case PW1has this and Thisthe asof overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
whichpolice was for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are that the isKishan purpose very useful :
intention investigation ofLaltherelevant asof and aback contradicting PW4crucial causing first at(kamar) step the bodily Ramesh him.
trialof to The and injury focus relied Kamruddin, dominant to in presumably accused hadand oit thetried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination provisoon persons attention the to cannot on appellant S. 162 the the of as the bodily question, be one Code ofinjury considered whether ofthe intended assailants Criminal the as to presence Procedure be true notwithstanding inflicted of only version the is in this ANNOUNCEDnamely with statement court material- identified recovery Akhtar Anr.
witness during that respect in Vs werewill theis theDilshad has was sample INof the State of examine aincase not knife of THE been accused PW2 hear-say got course of made and accused Mulablood, OPENwas UP.
declared of Arif.
contradicted Jehruddin, the persons witness under Devi not hisAbid. The'4' No nature &exclusively Wooden hostile proceedings in contentions as circumstances PW5 cross-examination Anr. withheexamination-in-chief by of that pieces, had ld. regard Mohd.
the itaccessible APP hasnot of inspiring in CFSL ld.seen and been respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' APP he the in report to the Pants statement the based observed has of accused andand incident both with cross-
statedand PWhis onin
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither effort thethe the at giving in the accused fate conduct cross the ordinary ofscene knife Both the of to service course examination the of the blow make present the accused of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by such tothe itself and cause out statement may the of material his death, proviso PW7 statement and time to or Maan Parvez Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe probable. 30.01.2009 reasonably examination-in-chief bearelied witness of much If so, possible whether in consequence the manner in regard from the substratum provided evidence to the but when byidentityof S. 145 of on the record, story of the one which regard intended to serve primarilythe upon the same citation purpose Khujji i.e. , the@ Surendera the recorded Gajraj. statement belt, and accused subsequent Abid 4thly.- examination the the totally Mula he and citation'5A-2' Other has narrated appellant. Evidence Devi If under different knife of the just and hepersons Shirt, denial 'Khujji by witnesses doctor person The the Act. didsection identified wasHigh Another '5B' not @ witness, It version to committingare concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would the being Vs onhaving noticed be formal which Cr.
the dead record stained consistent doing State them PC act that matching The witnesses. bodyknows with Tiwari hethe violence of bywhether gauze within weapon ofthe his Uttrakhand had that Vs deceased. the examination-in- to statement they cross-examination blood (RAJIOcloth itstated State other the isthat usedsostains thatwere piece, KAPOOR) of accused ininIt with to M.P. got this 'has '6'- the his The nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently evidence chief language holding the of of of of intimation discrepancies accused thethe dangerous this on the record, witness proviso alongwith accused and deceased.
in the that the was if theto the it natural the evidence other must, recorded said witness other against course in on statement Inof all the the of November two the PW6 cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View allowed Gajraj events, 16, cause 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances immaterial or such unless bodily ADDL.
thattheyisdemolished injury SESSIONS as the disclosure is likely the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic cause case death, of theand EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs his forState thecross circumstances purposeofexaminationM.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness December Supreme Court
38.Afterdeclared persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference effect further AIR 1991isor witness statement thata1976 been examination-in-chief.
explaining noise prosecution commitsof the ofP.O. knife visited that knife scene blood.
suchguilt he Supreme case, .his arguedor and made PW6 which his can Section act had of is other earlier No '7' house by be incident, without such Gajraj thatthe kind reaction Banyan). is testimony Ex.P5 justified stated Court and accused KARKARDOOMA Hence, 162 any which PW2 norof Singh Cr.
excuse only before proceedings took on and the his PCBlood isto banyan leading when Jahruddin for hisformal itthe is testimony presence has deceased tocould all not regarding incurring effect of come the police were witness COURTS:
the is sustainableaccused not incriminating by ofrisk athat the way got identification son on be ofas this contradicting initiated record detected and he interestedwell Parvej DELHI as witness of this facts had othertheas in the within accused this witness 15, the recoverythe is i.e. meaning to I found be after of preferred of dead a month major the first and from his pointing as with and body contradictionswill part carry in adopted between of conviction S. 145 Very he seemed of fact the at that one to two views occasion are causing death or such injury as aforesaid.32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ext.6 statement also which of possiblenot .observations documents the in them.
perusal witness contradiction appear found i.e. this case persons the circumstances makes Evidence prudent out, have Section confronting the assumes been Act.
302 case dagger/ of itwon person. Kamruddin blood of accused since in truthful The PW21 clear IPC are Nor are the hand made much over If arewas being he case stains brought recovery found that the or wedoes knife. with and at that thepersons has in tofather the aabout file the reliable. having not been previous knife on instance reveals prosecution be significance answer had impressed On citation of aforesaid in appear record. his got the knife was examination-in-chief serological matched incompatible succumbed to these to by Ithas convict the presence declared deceased. that statement is are of recovered questions to at further Apart in police, two notin entirely with argumentthe this the with cases inhostile proved threat.
bethe with from examination Thisargued instance can case procedure statement Further, deceased different. from culprits this by not innocence the by there that and the guilt he be ld.
of ofit that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, not was ofbe drawn the and possible for charge the onevidence murder the to of basis invoke murder. ofofthe Whoever thePW3's second witness statement commits part appears of murder that accused S.145 shall the accused to he be the was of beyond the court punished or theseverly Evidence to reasonablewith beaten be guilt of any almost death, Act on doubt orwithout flawless, the otherand night (Imprisonment person-putting and previous consequently relevant free for The circumstances from to life), his theand accused from is indicated is benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble argued other 3and Kamruddin questions shall thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently doubt that :be light ofliable under those itwas 161 from accused hisPW2 mayinof be regarding theanswered Court todetected in Cr.
testimony drain these Court have given accept first fine. has cross-examination PC.Abid are parthe as happens it, neither been conducted to aidentification has exfacie in him without The thereof.by the isExhibits witness.confronted IO been corroborated that accused scope the toat seeking indicative Thebe the he the all cross-examined The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably he of would of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty with high cross-examination denied accused ofbyis go the court,evidence someof with suspicious to fact statement 5A-2, accused persons Again identify by ofthat these other him this nor 5B ait more from therefore, imaginary any other took than source.
thereal. viewSince The thatsecond perfection the subsequent partinofthis S. imperfect 145 attempt of of which entitled antoinferencebenefit asdoubt.
ofclearly to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand towasto be indicates create found, satestified the doubt and simple the regarding procedure evidence the identity of to a
29. circumstantial marked has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before accused 7. in motive been ParaT.I.P. no distinction First Exhibits the Ex.PW2/DA from .for
-13 reachingaccount cross-examination argued ofis Besides sleeping The contradictionpersons.
the aone knife evidence 5A-1, drain learned atbeof PW8 ofthat any these made in wherein he the 5-A2 and Counsel the SIall was hasHeindicate essential also conclusionSatender two and school. between the this been appointed the henot associates first 5B police knife has version the components got were argument discussed let whoAnd the that deposed direct was the officials conducted justfound proved major this isas namely statement relevant sent 8proximate based in stated portion orto that case are to contradictions DD 10to have Dilshad commit by police by interested sectionsCFSL no.6/A days does made the Tahsildar human him, nexusago had and any I.O.
not for asin i.e.is
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the appellant a criminal words morecareful To illustrate sothe act in was isofconsideration an done of manner : Ano interested says byconsequence several providedin thewitness, to S.the witness- persons by since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that the was furtherance of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic with reasonable material C:Evidence before embellishment in his the doubt ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, toofhad establish to162 bethat shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the in stated such accused S.persons the however ofpresence isDliable the persons, ld. th APP not witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh 299 Chowkidar forin is Code minor IPC,In true of inquiry of mentioned thatcan his on and ofthe this inOC.record. act statement and when contradictions 300 the establish Group. and another appellant Criminal His in and from case main,theas hence IPC, thein the attention him the same Procedure.in The revealed thewas the knife Exhibits amongstregarding the Vs 302 wooden court the they and can element knife statement manner at when was guilt State IPC may cross-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded thehave by 1,2,3,4 was look as recovered pieces instance of the of and of PW6 toitdeposed assailants 145 iffor accused UPrecovered recorded facts; motive contradictions 34 that ofsome were his and the as and Gajraj partIPC ofof without statement.
Ex.P1 assurance, done Evidence that 7 police. Hon of neither against persons deceasedhave u/s be theby fromin ithim ble on blood 161 collectively, his has shown are This the re-produced Courtexists accused 9Hebeyond Cr. cross- stains minor drain been state April has wasPC noin APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with made said, RelyingCounsel the and empowersbeforeprincipal extent further Sh the oftheon which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought willwhich varyto put to contradictsfor according evidence be all relevant accused inferred toas histhe well Abid, from Sh.
those has 2003 persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions truthfulness from denied inwas is the find IOin night opinion which in to Ex.PW5/A. that goes the and relation nor is not Itthethe a and doubtofwitness itPW10 place accused has to in had of that are submitted human witness of the blood suggestion indicate any the documents the to blood as also which particular Inspector without A,B,O box. onhis before exclusive witness discrete Thispersons cross-examination under:- stains been that was Ifthat that the he Grouping. case, contradiction regarding cannot further Vijay there weapon admits attention statement particular PW approach not which had further fromhis Prakash, Maan is is exclusively come be found can strong under sufficient independent previous called his discredited argued of also of of Singh from suggest to the this to employment accused who thematerial on happens his section corroboration.
accessible nature witness hadthathouse proved theintoldand 145 all forged match which toisand him are the no be Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts of the offorCircumstances no of accused circumstantial the further section appellant writing proof 34 with IPC Naushad is and or a referred necessary, reveals viewdirect, on to his the and to before pantif he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does him. Sattar, trial importanthe not Inthe wascourt Advocate ingredients and the :
admit supportaccused wearing theofpractice at guilty this thecontention on time generally the ofbasis his followed arrest, of thethinterested reliance isisHightoplaceadmit Court testimony it came upon subject the to. the record had documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary thephone i.qualified brought suggest taken of Section to proof That to blood wasthe conclusionforin to hold
-Abid.
that by away found giving 299 there postmortem light ithave of on witness theby that when IPC must the murder the that record.
some his of police be accused having the benefit been These deceased. histhe isason murder had to officer. other contradictions examination prepared reaction .
conviction criminal of The befacts taken Itpersons doubt On considerations has could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted act. the was place onfurther to by other guilty have well it.
as theallegedly are born the in handEx.PW10/A Public to been for Khaddewala foundedbeen accused major police indicate PW6 on for , if the the argued witness his offence committed record theatthese and officials the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time that in to affect u/s third this the byof to inI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae act 1952 suggested his SCR must for appeal. accused have812: bybeen Itthe may (AIR Parvej. learned done here by 1952 be SC counsel mentioned
214). may several Bose persons that beJ. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes didhomicide thus the and notprocedure :ofpreferaccused Iftheir the common Whoever witess an to appeal isAbid be causes asked against intention.
followed for did the death theyoucontradict to fiveoffence by doing saycompanions before an under acase act section
42.
31. acquit falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On isroot accused inGurcharan Maan all this ofof implicate is ofunder cross-examination perusal thethese recovery not of the regard of toof persons Singh accused PW2trustworthy.
case all be offence facts DAss, sectionthe he true Jehruddin. depositionsand about of has and for accused persons the ofknife Banyan 162in leave the been circumstances PW3 then the terms Cr.conceived ofis an for confronted persons. incident This SHO wasPW12impression the Rahisuddin P.C. the ofprosecution witness recovered the offences who and object.
Islamuddin does of statement Inby proved thethe of was support ld.
it not u/s factuntruthfulness The from hasAPP witnesses 302/34 also the reflect other who Imade accused come having with have of seizure cross- their IPC has last the his on not and to in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7 again not justify with the witnessof the police the the intention appellant under conviction officer S.145 of who that ofcausing came the yuof the sawto Evidence death, be appellants a acquitted gas Act or with light? thus .' by the at the Ld. p.819and intention trial counsel he (of court. of Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuchyes these p.217 bodily then ofcircumstances AIR): theinjury statement as isthat likely the to which cause appellant does notdeath,or has contain invoked with 302/34 arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of record found the the 27 such IPC witnesses. of witness and /54/59 of the statement the the that accused knowledge thisinrecital Court's and communication, at ld.
was isquantum clothes length knife Arms put is that statement 27 counselsealed jurisdiction to PW5he him Arms recorded in Act.
byofIn of question Abidrecorded is as deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under Act emphasized contradictions inAll had time contradiction. a regard by Art. as accused u/s pulanda Siddiqui made and such 136 weapon which counsel 161 and Hon under of act This place Cr.PC that are one inwas also who ble thesodisclosure the to light in of Sh.
cause section Constitution. procedure so sample and murder Supreme JC where recovered also reveals ofRashid many for death,this the can 161 seal more i.e. itstatement judgment fact is material Court that Hasmi/ not Cr. not in knife along than alsohis be so PC in their submittedthat Singh cross-examinations, who was in Sambhaji working as I have Hindurao Chowkidar found Deshmukh in themany premises minor it has type further where of commits involves the two offence fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable one is homicide.
it enables the accused to was Tahsildar first.
that recovered elicit witness contradictions N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five discussed years, Tyagi not one He accused by adenies upon as go hadIn process hence for sealed Singhdue The found light to above from havethatof he accused signed persons to establish soleof they the and his cross-examination borne having all made envelope and fact thereasonpossession depositions be Abid another visited judgment of onthe former the released documents blood recovery and atrecord that close containing the Vs what it on statement. material relied of stains forthwith has house and in this of State at 15.04.2003 the their come the witness upon knife witness proximate which of statement blood of In testimony spotifanother PW2 from by UPonnotand itld.
was and record gauze wanted has thelink APP of explaining Jehruddin same nowhich found come place PW2 with that i.e. one of in contradictions
30. incident So been Explanation long stated that observed event, as itthe before took 1. the place would -and A. question that person police beon discrepancies who theofnight officer.
'High necessary causes interested Court If a to prove police ofcan, in bodily 09.04.2003.
that their officerinjury inwitnesses he exercise did, statements did to not and ofissuch This concerned witness which powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a record statement under of awas awitnessdisorder, reduced disease s statementto writing, or then bodily his entire S.145 infirmity,
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
have and indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has Khujji else the and are review been record other not witness object had took statement requires thereby wasto most attributable entirebeen @ that find hisproved given case.
provide The Kamruddin thatnot that Surendera signed of could accelerates police happens the Section son evidencehis material observed same exclusively this not due the on carefulmention assistance Kamruddin, be attention and record officials was witness 162 to used to as the Tiwari documents themust reach consideration witnesses by be Cr.also for death already longanyvide accessible of have the PC be the its to also sent goesaccused Vs of the held purpose drawn own inEx.P5 Hon'ble just duration that cousin. Ex.PW20/A, does in State his to testimony to completed to CFSL that:-this indicate whereas these conclusion-However, by to other, persons accused of presence ofnot PW21 the Supreme shall and case, M.P.This parts time ifhappens aseizure thatof be ASI itcitations formalities andAbid visit PW7part is
-while i.e. AIR Court Ashrul reported reliancememory itv. further at memo of to Maan in PW2 1991 will as the bein of not thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer to Supreme testimony have are to recorded caused be used for Court his a few to the death. held sentences by contradiction. incident in But Hari this thatin Obula process question.
position of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not arise Ld. APP whenthe witness the further s oralargued witness statement admits the that could former allbe the material discussed Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the case itnot Observation:
Laxman first Supreme this interfere of humanline witness Explanation reveals blood Pare So withbe he Naikabove fabricating house.
also who 11- Court long determinative unless
2.stained stated being. Itno appears the goes is,Vs and happens as mark 1853
-acquittal Where PW4 that some therefore, thearguments indirect Baniyan State to However, of indicate IO be by death documents.
Aslam wherein to blood of other ofbe recorded seen shaky. trialis death and court in caused ofis that Orissa that of itwith the case the has ld. accused cogent a82 circumstantial with witness his unless by this Counsel father the object(1994) been of Itthe witness blood statement bodily there piece is ofParvej Jaskaran of who knife also the held injury, are for 3deceased and could (SCC)at that:- all belongs ofevidence argued in as strong the accused identity evidence Singhquestion the already not 381 that and spot.
reason be Vsof is:
of Andhra brought statement. analysis legislature and onPradesh In record.
such evaluation throughout a AIR case of1981 allThis has that this been SC procedure, is necessary witness to and exclude is testimony Tameshwar therefore, to look the reveals Sahi that v. person contravenes to the former who causes thestatement such express provision bodily of whichof noinjury shall S. 162 be further deemed of the proof Code. tois have Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second the and have evidence of awith death,matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that oncan made by judgment identified dislodge by record. the beforethe resorting illustration the the Ito Record would police accused findingsproper given during of by like arrived remedies the the persons.to at bring by proceeding the on He trial PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994 Ld. State its Modh.
counsel necessary the SIon toUttar SCC PW1 1997 recovery unqualified the record.
PW2 Mukesh Komal Siddiqui This picture (Cri.) further because investigation SCC and Jehruddin Chand, thereto.656
of fact from issubsequently arrest and argued the (Crl) also formal that however, admission being 651 they in memo who the that made Accused goes are witness supported that it happens absence PW4 use i.e. wasitcrucial to of was of afterare indicate accused Aslam themade.in observed at for tothe ofin this prosecution the trial bethe other custody occurrence has the that case by purpose Parvej piece father been certain Hon'ble since being as so gotof State hisand learned of testimony skillfulcounsel case intreatmentPradesh ishis most for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief appellants1976 might have SC which there 59 been but isin that would prevented.
nohisself- :- reflect cross the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendmentsregard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued that heto refer primary expressed deceased tofor other the statement some acquittal-High cases Kamruddin doubt wherein regarding a wasCourt in similar theseen hasthe to with give due the
37. So reveals determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his draftsman. declared Supreme time testimony long Explanation witness When General identity procedure thatto has hostile as Court box, time Further, it Ld. the is of3. accused and has is
-for were ofborn the charge the suggested remotely
-counsel bythe The in the only come personal the Interested appellantstatement ld.
is causing witness for Dilshad intended cross-examination onguilt APP sought followingon record further and putting connected of has record to of Guddu evidence andto search be the and accused yetofmake argued regarding words:-
questions inisPW5 proved death not Arif thatclear the stating memo with made no by under who persons of the deceased ofoncross- this the Mohd.
anecessarily thatchild on S. said regard reportedly committal as witness point the he 145 based Ex.PW13/B, to inexamination hadthe Kamruddin a of medical Siddiqui reveals on of linkwere theof isit case implications mother's there object circumstantial and womb is regardingfrequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. thechange cloud proof the But cast of of conviction it on may investigating guilt such amount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of importance the any unreliable seen Indian assertion their to when evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions at all only.Even Act, which for The can partisanship the serve trial said Court decisionas by the itself came ofbasis.
is not
thisto a
the
The
justified Act of 1898 the forofthe
circumstances trialfirst court, time
found if they
introduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
39. accused along direct number Other three homicide The pointing murder was piece Court evidence has concerned, valid conclusion taken or PW for of officers come When exception established persons and to cause contradiction, with ground indirect out that on accused contradictions deceased away 4 the Aslam similar he the evidence that memo for conducted enabling at the under not evidence bypurpose medical record has against last death discrediting only accused decisions also ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of that first time was the of which the the in and is athis section, or wereof evidence said police his informant by living as rejecting PW7 witness independent persons placetherefore also child, should revealed consideration not investigation by deposition statement accused sworn go a accused as considering does obtained is found ifbe fromfrom toany chance reduced between already comparison the in testimony.Singh part public of his not has his to be tofull ofwitness root his persons the this house.
of anddisclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness suggest stated of case signature chain the he between without thatIn case.
whichhas has the as that on he of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a witness his appreciation contradictions, can been presence in it a persons.
brought asserted be case laid at ofofthe be exaggerations the where forth, in downscene forevidence-
Having the the though witness as and of statementan perused the occurrence Hon'ble box child invariablein and wasmay writing Highofhe the whatrule statement not extremely was Court he that have will interfere in of this breathedwriting complete or tobeen chain used completely evidence impeaching as improvements, not the to leavecredit thecannot shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before to the identified to bethe as be a police preparatory evidence itusedwas truthful fordifficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness and to nevermeasures believe . persons notunderformbetween that he S. by regarding the had 162 what statingbasis ofcome he of the investigation out that accused statement
44. circumstantial the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got he and reasonable corroboration. discussed declared in the statement was evidence.
of manner subsequently ground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his In provided for testimony facts and this of a and of the conclusion.
regard PW2 by accused consequently the has the remand case, by Evidence Jehurrin PW25also ld. of Parvej arguments been Counsel Act.
accused during and Drdemolished Abid was accused had blank said Codeseen atpapers.
he conviction that of persons had Kamruddin, hour Criminal statedunless have Again before toProcedure.
purchase corroborated murdered Abid, it the is argued police vegetables. Section Naushad to145 a the officer that material Thus of deceased.
and the and PW5the what Evidence extentParvej trial Mohd.
he inas court PW5 Ld. the Sh. Rajender of while already course all Mohd.
counsel Siddiqui Abdul theythe by witness appealSection As the against it
- 300 comes phraseologyacquittals, IPC on of the only record exception where thatthe lent this scope trial Court witness to makes in wrong his were actuallynot Actrefusedis in upto material defeat made two the the to before particulars place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
thebyfirst as In independent of onpart the such theenables the vital a evidence case evidence. legislature missing the the theAll ofaccused by link question three the in the ocular that toeye- is persons Siddqui Sattar- of defence has were could obtained cross-examine Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld. cross-examination counsel relied alsostandingnot necessary witnesses.
amicus Amendment is Sr were to been betrace counsel necessary upon putis Scientific for black quarreling ina got at curiaethat The Act all;
witness the them, declared only the color as trial accused done gali 1923,citations evidence as precisely Officer, for is itno.10with questions court, to accused baniyan the by has also previous partly FSL, ld. deceased of toon however, persons forborne i.e. sectionand APP contradict interested Parvej record. statement /T-Shirt, the
i) Rohini, on hostile was he came reasons Mula asking and onand by and has redrafted can witnesses made as Delhi Devi the be to record it the they Further, denied from has the already that ld. &has murdered contentions also deceased Anr.
Kamruddin APP. that careful proved Ex.P6 come anyon Vs Ld. assumptions as bywell examination-in-chief Giving Murder put and should support conclusion him inthe as of Except bequestion writing material circumstantial to subjected that or inthe the reducedthe he herefacts cases has or to contentions appellant posed tocareful writing fails was evidence identified hereinafter does to scrutiny absconding without appreciate not excepted, of and suchall minor contradict; were and the accepted writing evidence that itthree culpable found contradictions he properly-
accused after defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is murder, an caution. discovered shown answer toIf him;on the ifwhich the suchweapon theact scrutiny, by is secondwhich which contradicted the was thefound interested part death by the deals iswith totestimony be caused police a is stained him.
consideration
46. completion Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, as State to on toInconfine record was why on of support biological and the the heseized that was of Uttrakhand arrest knife case was it only and u/s trial. of seen he his perusal examination 145 by recovered law knew standingwas him itwith The Cr. contentions to contradict relied from of2008made PC of accused the authority there, upon fromthe the case accused blood Evidence accused V before bywitness Nali/ he persons was should Kamruddin AD(Cr.) them again file Parvej.
drain him Act personsin the detected and reveals and the adopt (S.C.) and at told submitted the fact to thedueon either this ld.
appropriate him 677 that of instance Exhibits APP, to taking that and that effecttwo any the
ii)I he counsel Two doneviews statement.
is with situation with again found human the being whereThis to argued intention be possible argument intrinsically blood. the of that causing from also cross-examination ld. PW6 reliablethe relied death, Counsel or on Gajraj evidence or the based inherently factum assumes is on upon a offormal record, probable, theS.
find one of as well favouring as persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itof has the Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: on be under Court been Act, the pantthat section in is therefore, sufficient, in as observed case worninwords, other soon by 145 thenotthe Stateof by ofas circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'bleEvidence of heard relevance parts UP at deal ofSupreme the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocess the legislature of investigation by statement the days both reason am 2ndly. in with accused disclosure 1, deceased of was accused 2, of considering particular of PC the 3, standing his the4, that which
- Ifarrest. cross-examinationit iscase, and remand witnesses 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not allwith done theOn one was 5A-2, that the found in was his with express to base the against have the bybasis accused the was given 5B the way sought mentioned presence friends been intention provisions athe conviction conviction and recordedat this ofaccused-
and7 first contradiction in discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars of he in S. High PW12 of instance causing inthe would 162 all the only.
his areCourt inof such of Although trial statement the the The Islamuddin para presence. of itin is accused bodily residents return court not three exhibits the no. expected back court Abid recorded 4 accused cannot and are in toThis hisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji hear-say injury Code in framing as of the Hindurao witness. Criminal the offender section Procedure. knows Itthat,Deshmukh in is the to argued be manner likely that it to did & cause most in Ors. 1923, the material death Vs of State witness of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. intoaccused 19to no and room contradict hard made sentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness rule to by tolife whom can the be thelaid imprisonment.
writing, harm hisdown, caused, attention yet, in preferred must, most before an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and thereliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at taken the made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons u/s house. PW7 light 161 Maharashtra writingbethe Maan wood of being Cr.
evaluating against He weapon solely of held can the the Phas Singh the beswab, C a completely aforesaid on the said in also 2008 proved of cross-examination sole the He view has evidence offence '2' statement ground further identified conviction.
be (1) Flacky ofstatements not called hostile JCC the of supported The toanand adopted for material-dry judgment all of
542. so to three interested High those toascertain conviction PW7 of Court parts of PW2 the bethe the Ld. Maan itlooked Tahsildar accused of or while blood, prosecution counsel even which ignoring the cross-examination reveals persons asSingh atheinto persons. associates '3' Singhthat now place who with Flackey submitted case has this and Thisthe asof overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
police whichwas for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are that the isKishan purpose very useful :
intention investigation ofLaltherelevant asof and aback contradicting PW4crucial causing first at(kamar) step the bodily Ramesh him.
trialof to The and injury focus relied Kamruddin, dominant to in presumably accused hadand oit thetried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination provisoon persons attention the to cannot on appellant S. 162 the the of as the bodily question, be one Code of injury considered whether ofthe intended assailants Criminal the as to presence Procedure be true notwithstanding inflicted of only version the is in this ANNOUNCEDnamely with statement court material- identified recovery Anr.
witness during that respect in Vs werewill the theDilshad has was sample INof the State of examine not case knife of THE been accused PW2 got course of made and accused Mulablood, OPENwas UP.
declared of Arif.
contradicted Jehruddin, the persons under Devi not hisAbid. The'4' No nature &exclusively Wooden hostile proceedings in contentions circumstances PW5 cross-examination Anr. with examination-in-chief by of that pieces, ld. regard Mohd.
the itaccessible APP hasof inspiring in CFSL ld. and been respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' APP he the in report to Pants statement the of accused based observed has andand both with cross-
statedand PWhis onin
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither effort the in the the at giving in the accused fate conduct cross the ordinary ofscene knife Both the of to service course examination the of the blow make present the accused of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by such tothe itself and cause out statement may the of material his death, proviso PW7 statement and time to or Maan Parvez Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe probable. 30.01.2009 reasonably examination-in-chief bearelied witness of much If so, possible whether in consequence the manner in regard from the substratum provided evidence to the but when byidentityof S. 145 of on the record, story of the one which regard intended to serve primarilythe upon the same citation purpose Khujji i.e. , the@ Surendera the recorded Gajraj. statement belt, accused subsequent Abid 4thly.- examination the and citation the totally Mula '5A-2' narratedOther appellant. Evidence Devi If under differentknife of the and hepersons Shirt, denial 'Khujji by witnesses doctor person Thethe Act. didsection wasHigh Another '5B' not @ witness, It version to committingare concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would being Vs onhaving noticed be formal which Cr.
the record stained consistent doing State them PC act that matching The witnesses. heknows with Tiwarithe violence of bywhether gauze within weapon the his that Vs the examination-in- Uttrakhand had to (RAJ they cross-examination blood IOcloth itstated statement the State other isthat usedsostains were piece, KAPOOR) thatof accused inin to with M.P. got this '6'-
the 'The his nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently evidence chief language holding the of of of of intimation discrepancies accused thethe dangerous this on the record, witness proviso alongwith accused and deceased.
in the that the was if theto the it natural the evidence other must, recorded said witness other against course in on statement Inof all the the of November two the PW6 cross-examination eye-witnesses probability, human be accused-View allowed Gajraj events, 16, cause 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances immaterial or such unless bodily ADDL.
thattheyisdemolished injury SESSIONS as the disclosure is likely the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic cause case death, of theand EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs his forState thecross circumstances purposeofexaminationM.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness December Supreme Court
38.Afterdeclared persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference effect AIR 1991 explaining noise isor witness statement that examination-in-chief.
prosecution commitsof a1976 the ofP.O. knife visited that knife scene blood.
guilt such he Supreme case, .his or and made PW6 which his can Section act had of is other earlier No '7' house by be incident, without such Gajraj the kind reaction Banyan). is testimony Ex.P5 justified stated Court 162 any which and accused KARKARDOOMA Hence, norof Singh Cr.
excuse only before proceedings took on and the his Blood isto banyan leading PC when for hisformal itthe is testimony presence has deceased tocould all not regarding incurring effect of come the police were witness COURTS:
sustainable the accused not incriminating by ofrisk athat way got identification son on be ofas this contradicting initiated record detected and he well Parvej DELHI as witness of this facts had other as the in the within accused this witness 15, the recoverythe is i.e. meaning to I found be after of preferred of dead a month major the first and from his pointing as with and body contradictionswill part carry in adopted between of conviction S. 145 Very he seemed of fact the at that one to two views occasion are causing death or such injury as aforesaid.33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness does he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ext.6 statement also which of possiblenot .observations documents the them.
perusal witness contradiction appear found i.e. case persons the circumstances makes Evidence prudent out, have Section confronting the assumes been Act. dagger/ of itwon person. 302 Kamruddin blood of accused since in truthful The PW21 clear Nor IPC areare the hand made much over If arewashe case stains brought recovery found that the or wedoes knife. with and at that thepersons has inprosecution to the aabout file the be significance answer had reliable.
having not been impressedprevious knife on instance reveals On citation of aforesaid in appear record. his got knife was examination-in-chief serological matched incompatible succumbed to these to by Ithas convict the presence declared that statement is are of recovered questions to at further Apart in police, two notin entirely with argumentthe this the with cases inhostile proved threat.
bethe with from examination Thisargued instance can case procedure statement deceased different. from culprits this by not innocence the by there that and the guilt he be ld.
of of that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, not was ofbe drawn the and possible for charge the onevidence murder the to of basis invoke murder. ofofthe Whoever thePW3's second witness statement commits part appears of murder that accused S.145 shall the accused to he be the was of beyond the court punished or theseverly Evidence to reasonablewith beaten be guilt of any almost death, Act on doubt orwithout flawless, the otherand night (Imprisonment person-putting and previous consequently relevant free for The circumstances from to life), his theand accused from is indicated benefit at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble other 3and Kamruddin questions shall thatunless of blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently doubt :be light ofliable under those itwas 161 from accused his mayinof be regarding theanswered Court todetected in Cr.
testimony drain these Court have given accept first fine. cross-examination PC.Abid are parthe as happens it, neither conducted to aidentification has exfacie in him without The thereof.by the isExhibits witness. IO been corroborated that accused scope the toat seeking indicative Thebe the he the all cross-examined The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably he of would of ocular instance investigation persons. corroboration difficulty high cross-examination denied accused ofbyis go court,the evidence some of with suspicious to fact 5A-2, accused persons Again identify by ofthat these other him this nor 5B ait more from therefore, imaginary any other took than source.
thereal. viewSince The thatsecond perfection the subsequent partinofthis S. imperfect 145 attempt of of which entitled antoinferencebenefit asdoubt.
ofclearly to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand towasto be indicates create found, satestified the doubt and simple the regarding procedure evidence the identity of to a
29. circumstantial has the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before accused 7. in motive been ParaT.I.P. no distinction First Exhibits the from .for
-13 reachingaccount cross-examination argued ofis Besides sleeping The contradictionpersons.
the aone knife evidence 5A-1, drain learned atbeof PW8 ofthat any these made in he the 5-A2and Counselthe SIall was hasHeindicate essential also conclusionSatender two and school. between the this been appointed henot associates first 5B police knife has the components got were argument discussed let whoAnd the that deposed direct was the officials conducted justfound proved major this is namely statement sent 8proximate based relevant in portion orto that case are to contradictions DD 10to have Dilshad commit by police interested CFSL no.6/A days sections does made the Tahsildarhuman nexusago had and any I.O.
not for asin i.e.
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the appellant a criminal words morecareful To illustrate sothe act in was isofconsideration an doneof manner: Ano interested says byconsequence several providedin thewitness, to S.the witness- persons by since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that the was furtherance of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic with reasonable material C:Evidence before embellishment in his the doubt ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, toofhad establish to162 bethat shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the in stated such accused S.persons the however ofpresence isDliable the persons, ld. APP witnesses examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh 299 Chowkidar foris Code minor IPC,In true of inquiry of mentioned thatcan on and ofthe this inOC.record. act and when contradictions 300 the establish Group. and another appellant Criminal His in and from case main,theas hence IPC, thein the attention him the same Procedure.in The revealed thewas the knife Exhibits amongst the wooden Vs 302 courtthe they and can element knife statement manner at when was guilt State IPC may cross-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded thehave by 1,2,3,4 was look as recovered pieces instance of of and the of PW6 toitdeposed assailants 145 iffor accused UPrecovered recorded motive contradictions 34 that ofsome were his and the as and Gajraj partIPC ofof without statement. Ex.P1 7 police. Hon assurance, done Evidence of neither against persons deceasedhave u/s be theby fromin ithim ble blood 161 collectively, his has shown are This the exists re-produced Court accused He beyond Cr.cross- stains minor drain been state has wasPC noin APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with made said, RelyingCounsel the and empowersbeforeprincipal extent further Sh the oftheon which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought willwhich varyto put to contradictsfor according evidence be all relevant accused inferred toas histhe well Abid, from Sh.
those has persons. and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions truthfulness from denied was is the find IOinwhich opinion in to Ex.PW5/A. that goes the and relation nor is not Itthethe a and doubtofwitness itPW10 place has to in had of that are submitted human witness of the blood suggestion indicate any the documents the to blood as also which particular box. onhis before Inspector without A,B,O exclusive witness discrete This cross-examination under:- stains been that was Ifthat that the he Grouping. case, contradiction regarding cannot further Vijay there weapon admits attention statement particular PW approach not which further fromhis Prakash, Maan is is exclusively be found can strong under sufficient independent previous called his discredited argued of also ofof Singh from suggest the this to employment accused who thematerial on happens section corroboration.
accessible nature witness hadthat proved the intoldand 145 all forged match which toisand him are the no be Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts of the offorCircumstances no of accused circumstantial the further section appellant writing proof 34 with IPC Naushad is and or a referred necessary, reveals viewdirect, on to his the and to before pantif he following contradict byAbdul which the finding does Sattar, trial important him. he not Inthe wascourt Advocate ingredients and the :
admit supportaccused wearing theofpractice at guilty this thecontention on time generally the ofbasishis followed arrest, of thethinterested reliance isisHightoplaceadmit Court testimony it came upon subject the to. the record documents be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary thephone i.qualified brought suggest of Section to proof That to blood wasthe conclusionforin to hold
-Abid.
that by found giving 299 there postmortem light ithave of on witness theby that when IPC must the murder the that record.
some of police be accused having the benefit been These deceased. histhe isa murder had to officer. other contradictions examination prepared reaction conviction criminal of The befacts takenpersons doubt On considerations could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted act. the was place on to by other guilty have well it.
as theallegedly are born the in handEx.PW10/A Public to for Khaddewala foundedbeen accused major police indicate PW6 on for , if the the witness his offence committed record theatthese and officials the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time in to affect u/s third this the byof toI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae act 1952 suggested his SCR must for appeal. accused have812: bybeen Itthe may (AIR Parvej. learned done here by 1952 be SC counsel mentioned
214). may several Bosepersons that beJ. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes didhomicide thus the and notprocedure :ofpreferaccused Iftheir the common Whoever witess an to appeal isAbid be causes asked against intention.
followed for did the death theyoucontradict to fiveoffence by doing saycompanionsbefore an under acase act section
42.
31. acquit falsely considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On isroot accused inGurcharan perusal Maan all this ofof implicate is ofunder thethese recovery not of the regard of toof persons Singh accused PW2trustworthy.
case all be offence facts DAss, sectionthe he true Jehruddin. depositionsand about of has and for accused persons the knife Banyan 162in leave the been circumstances then the terms Cr.conceived ofis an for confronted persons. incident This SHO wasPW12 P.C. the impression the ofprosecution witness recovered the offences who and object.
Islamuddin does of statement Inby proved thethe of was support ld.
not u/s factuntruthfulness The fromAPP witnesses302/34 also the reflect other who Imade having accused with have of seizure cross-
their IPC has last the his not and to in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7 again not justify with the witnessof the police the the intention appellant under conviction officer S.145 of who that ofcausing came the yuof the sawto Evidence death, be appellants a acquitted gas Act or with light? thus .' by the at the Ld. p.819andintention trial counsel he (of court. of Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuchyes these p.217 bodily then ofcircumstances AIR): theinjury statement as isthat likely the to which cause appellant does notdeath,or has contain invoked with 302/34 arguments examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of the the 27 such IPC witnesses. of witness and /54/59 of knowledge foundcross-examinations, thisinrecitalthe statement the the Court's and communication, at ld.
was isquantum clothes length knife Arms put is that 27 counselsealed PW5 statement recorded jurisdiction to he him Arms recorded in Act.
byofIn of isasquestion deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under Act emphasized contradictions inAll time contradiction. a regard by Art. as accused u/s pulanda Siddiqui and such 136 weapon which counsel 161 and Hon under of act This theplace Cr.PC that are one in towas also who ble of light in Sh.
cause so section Constitution. procedure sample and murder Supreme JC where recovered also reveals ofRashid many for death,this the can 161 seal more i.e. itjudgment fact is material Court that Hasmi/ not Cr.not in knife along than alsohis be so PC in their submittedthat Singh who was in Sambhaji working as I have Hindurao Chowkidar found so Deshmukh in many the premises minor it has type further where of commits involves the two offence fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable one is homicide.
it enables the accused to was Banyan as Tahsildar that recovered elicit witness contradictions N.K. recorded. with presence. does relied five discussed years, Tyagi not one accused by adenies upon as goIn process hence for sealed Singhdue The found light to above persons from havethatof he accused to establish soleof they the and his borne having all made envelope and fact reasonpossession cross-examination depositions be Abid another visited judgment of onthe former the released blood recovery and atrecord that close containing the Vs what it on statement. material relied of stains forthwith has house and in this of State 15.04.2003 the their come witness upon knife witness proximate which of statement blood of In testimony ifanother PW2 from by UPonnotitld.wasand record gauze wanted has thelink APP same ofwhich explaining Jehruddin found come place PW2 with that i.e. of in contradictions
30. incident So been Explanation long stated that observed event, as itthe before took 1. the place would -and A. question that person police beon discrepancies who theofnight officer.
'High necessary causes interested Court If a to prove police ofcan, in bodily 09.04.2003.
that their officerinjury inwitnesses he exercise statements did did, to not and ofissuch This concerned witness which powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a record statement under of awas awitness disorder, reduced disease s statementto writing, or then bodily his entire S.145 infirmity,
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
have and indicate It Other this on deceased which regard did any has Khujji the and are review been record other not witness object took statement requires thereby wasto most attributable entirebeen @ that find hisproved given case.
provide The Kamruddin of thatnot that Surendera could accelerates police happens the Section son evidencehis material observed same exclusively this not due on carefulmention assistance Kamruddin, be attention and record officials was witness 162 to used to as the Tiwari themust reach consideration witnesses by be Cr.also for death already longanyvide accessible of have the PC be the its to also sent goesaccused Vs of the held purpose drawn own Ex.P5 Hon'ble just duration that cousin. Ex.PW20/A, does in State to testimony to completed to CFSL that:-this indicate whereas these conclusion-However, by to other, persons accused of ofnot PW21 Supremethe shall and case, M.P.This parts time ifhappens aseizure thatof -beASI itcitations formalities andAbid visit PW7 part is i.e. AIR Court Ashrul reported reliance further at memory itv. memo ofto Maan willPW2 1991 as the bein of not thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer to Supreme testimony have are to recorded caused be used for Court to his a few the death. held sentences by contradiction. incident in But Hari this thatin Obula process question.
position of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not arise Ld. APP whenthe witness thefurther s oralargued witness statement admits the that could former allbe the material discussed Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the case itnot Observation:
Laxman Supreme this interfere of humanwitness Explanation reveals blood Pare So withbe Naikabove fabricating house.
also who 11- Court long being.determinative unless
2.stained Itno appears the goes is,Vs and happens as mark 1853
-acquittal Where PW4 some therefore, thearguments indirect Baniyan State to However, of indicate be by death documents.
Aslam wherein to blood of seenother ofbe shaky. trialis death and court in caused ofis that Orissa that of itwith the case the has ld. accused cogent a82 circumstantial with witness unless by this Counsel father the object(1994) been of bodily Itthe witness blood there piece is ofParvej Jaskaran of who knife also the held injury, are for 3deceased and all could belongs ofevidence argued (SCC)in that:-as strong the accused identity evidence question Singh already not381 reasonthat and be Vsof is:
of Andhra brought statement. analysis legislature and onPradesh In record.
such evaluation throughout a AIR case of1981 allThis has that this been SC procedure, is necessary witness to and exclude is testimony Tameshwar therefore,to look the reveals Sahi that v. person contravenes to the former who causes thestatement such express provision bodily of whichof noinjury shall S. 162 be further deemed of the proof Code. tois have Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second the and have evidence of awith death,matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that oncan made by judgment identified dislodge by record. the beforethe resorting illustration the the Ito Record would police accused findingsproper given during of by like arrived remedies the the persons.to at bring by proceeding the on He trial PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes PW9 1994 State its Modh.
necessary the SIon toUttar SCC PW1 1997 recovery unqualified the record.
PW2 Mukesh Komal Siddiqui This picture (Cri.) because investigation SCC and Jehruddin Chand, thereto.656
of fact from issubsequently the (Crl) arrest and also formal that however, admission being 651 they in memo who made the Accused goes are witness supported that it happens absence use i.e. wasitcrucial to of was of after theare indicate accused made.in observed at the for tothe ofin this prosecution trial bethe other custody occurrence the that purpose byParvej case piece fathercertain Hon'ble since being as soof State hisand learned of testimony skillfulcounsel case intreatmentPradesh ishis most for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief appellants1976 might have SC which there 59 been but isin that would prevented.
nohisself- :- reflect cross the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendmentsregard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued that heto refer primary expressed deceased tofor other the statement some acquittal-High cases Kamruddin doubt wherein regarding Court a wasin similar theseen hasthe to with give due the
37. So reveals determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his draftsman. Supreme time testimony long Explanation witness When General identity procedure thatto has as Court box, time Further, is it Ld. the of3. accused and has is
-for were of the suggestedborn remotely
-counsel the charge the The in the only come personal the Interested appellantstatement is causing witness for Dilshad intended cross-examination onguilt sought on record further following and putting connected of has record to of Guddu evidence to search be the and accused make argued yetof regarding proved death words:-
questions notis Arif that PW5 clear stating memo with who persons of the deceased this ofonanecessarily made no by under the Mohd.
child on thatS.
said regard reportedly committal as witness point the he 145 based inhad Ex.PW13/B, the to Kamruddin a reveals of medical Siddiqui on of linkwere theof is case implications mother's there object circumstantial and womb is regardingfrequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. thechange cloud proof the But cast of of conviction it on may investigating guilt such amount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of importance the any unreliable seen Indian assertion their to when evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions at all only.Even Act, which for The can partisanship the serve trial said Court decisionas by the itself came ofbasis.
is not
thisto a
the
The
justified Act of 1898 the forofthe
circumstances trialfirst court, time
found if they
introduced toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
39. accused along direct number Other three homicide The pointing murder was piece Court evidence concerned, valid conclusion taken When or PW for of officers exception established persons and to cause contradiction, with ground indirect out that accused contradictions deceased away 4 the Aslam similar he the evidence that memo for conducted has enabling at the under not evidence bypurpose medical against last death discrediting only accused decisions also ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of first time was the of which the the in and is athis section, or wereof evidence said his informant by living as rejecting independent persons place PW7 witness therefore also child, should revealed consideration not investigation by deposition statement accused sworn go a accused as considering does is found ifbe fromfrom toany chance reduced between already comparison the Singh part in testimony. public of his not has witness root to be tofull of his persons the this house.
of anddisclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness of suggest stated casechain the he between without thatIn case.
whichhas has the as that he of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a witness his appreciation contradictions, can been presence in it a persons.
brought asserted be case laid at ofofthe be exaggerations the where forth, in downscene forevidence-
Having the the though witness as and of statementan perused the occurrence Hon'ble box child invariablein and wasmay writing Highofhe the what rule statement not extremely was Court he that have will interfere in of this breathedwriting complete or tobeen chain used completely evidence impeaching as improvements, not the to leavecredit thecannot shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before to the identified to bethe as be a police preparatory evidence itusedwas truthful fordifficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness and to nevermeasures believe . persons notunderformbetween that he S. by regarding the had 162 what basis stating ofcome he of the investigation out that accused statement
44. circumstantial the Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got he and reasonable corroboration. discussed declared in the statement was evidence.
of manner subsequently ground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his In provided for testimony facts and this of a and of the conclusion.
regard PW2 by accused consequently the has the remand case, by Evidence Jehurrin PW25also ld. of Parvej arguments been Counsel Act.
accused during and Drdemolished Abid was accused had said Codeseen he conviction at that of persons had Kamruddin, hour Criminal statedunless have before toProcedure.
purchase corroborated murdered Abid, the police vegetables. Section Naushad to145 a the officer material Thus of deceased.
and the and the what EvidenceextentParvej trial he inas court PW5 Ld.the Sh.Rajender of while already course all Mohd.
counselAbdul theythe by witness appealSection As the against it
- 300 comes phraseologyacquittals, IPC on of the only record exception where thatthe lent this scope trial Court witness to makes in wrong his were actuallynot Actrefusedis in upto material defeat made two the the to before particulars place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
thebyfirst as In independent of onpart the such theenables the vital a evidence case evidence. legislature missing the the theAll ofaccused by link questionthree the in the ocular that toeye- is persons Siddqui Sattar- of has were could obtained Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence relied standingnot necessary witnesses. cross-examine cross-examination counsel amicus Amendment is were to Srcounselbetrace necessary upon putis Scientific for black quarreling ina at curiaethat The Act all;
witness the them, only the color as trial accused done gali 1923, evidence as precisely Officer, for citations is itno.10with questions court, to accused baniyan the by has also previous FSL, ld. deceased of toon however, persons forborne i.e. sectionand APP contradict interested Parvej record. statement /T-Shirt, the
i) Rohini, onwas he came reasons Mula asking and onand and has redrafted can witnesses made as Delhi Devi be to record it the they Further, denied from has the already that &has murdered contentions also deceased that Anr.
Kamruddin careful proved Ex.P6 come anyon Vs assumptions as bywell examination-in-chief Giving Murder put and should support conclusion him inthe as of Except bequestion writing material circumstantial to subjected that or inthe the reducedthe he herefacts cases has or to contentions appellant posed tocareful writing fails was evidence identified hereinafter does to scrutiny absconding without appreciate not excepted, of and suchall minor contradict; were the accepted andwriting evidence that itthree culpable found contradictions he properly-
accused after defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is murder, an caution. discovered shown answer toIf him;on the ifwhich the suchweapon theact scrutiny, by is secondwhich which contradicted the was thefound interested part death by the deals iswith totestimony be caused police a is stained him.
consideration
46. completion Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, as State Two to done toInconfine record on views was why statement.
is with on ofwith found support biological and the the he human seized that was the being of Uttrakhand arrest This to knife case was it only and u/s trial. intention be of seen he possible his examination 145 by recovered law knew standing argument intrinsically blood. was ofhim itwith The Cr. contentions to contradict perusal relied from of2008 causing from also made PC of accused the authority ld. there, reliablethe relied upon from death, Counselthe V the case accused blood Evidence accusedbefore evidence or on orbywitness Nali/ should Kamruddin AD(Cr.) based inherently the he persons was them factum on again file Parvej.
drain him Act in the persons detected upon and adopt (S.C.) record, probable, reveals ofand the and at told S. find submitted the fact to thedue one of on either this ld.that of instance Exhibits appropriate him 677 APP, to taking that and that effect favouring two any the
ii)I he situation where the cross-examination assumes the persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itof has the Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: on be under Court been Act, the that section in is therefore, sufficient, pant in as observed case worninwords, other soon by 145 thenotthe Stateof by ofas circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'bleEvidence of heard relevance parts UP at deal ofSupreme the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the ofprocess the legislature of investigation by statement the days both reason am 2ndly. in with accused disclosure 1, deceased of was accused 2, of considering particular of PC the 3, standing his the4, that which
- Ifarrest. cross-examinationit iscase, and remand witnesses 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not allwith done theOn one was 5A-2, that the found in was his with express to base the against have the given bybasis accused the was 5B the way sought mentioned presence friends been intention provisions athe conviction conviction and recordedat this ofaccused-
and7 first contradiction in discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars of he in S. High PW12 of instance causing inthe would 162 all the only.
his areCourt inofsuch of Although trial statement the the The Islamuddin para presence. of itin is accused bodily residents return court not three exhibits the no.back court expected Abid recorded 4 accused cannot and are in toThis hisis to to '1' 7. Sambhaji injury Code in framing as of the Hindurao Criminal the offender section Procedure. knows Deshmukh in the to be manner likely it to did & cause in Ors. 1923, the death Vs of State of raised AIR in procedure in Sukhvinder1997 an alarm the convicted matter the prescribed SCapparent in thethat 3292:
Singh of appreciation appellant is school that, (1997) Vs under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended 1to devising SCC I.P.C. intoaccused 19to no and room hard contradict madesentenced and where the he saw following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide line it was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness rule to by tolife whom can the be thelaid imprisonment.
writing, harm hisdown, caused, attention yet, in preferred must, most before an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and thereliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at takenthe made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons u/s house.light 161 Maharashtra bethe wood of being Cr.He weapon solely of held the the Phas swab, C a completely aforesaid on in also 2008 of cross-examination sole the He'2' view offence statement ground further Flacky identified (1) ofstatements hostile JCC the and adopted for material-dry judgment all of
542. so to three toascertain conviction PW7 of ofPW2bethe theMaan oritlooked Tahsildar accused Ld. blood, the cross-examination reveals persons asSingh atheinto persons. associates '3'that Singh now place who with Flackey has this and Thistheof the counsel submitted writingevaluating against can the be the said proved evidence conviction.
be called of The toan thoseinterested High Court parts ofwhile even which ignoring overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
police whichwas for 1376 of with PW3 the during itholding are that the isKishan purpose very useful :
intention investigation ofLaltherelevant asof and aback contradicting PW4crucial causing first at(kamar) step bodily Ramesh him.
trialof to The and injury focus relied Kamruddin, dominant to in presumably accused hadand oit thetried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination provisoon persons attention the to cannot on appellant S. 162 the the of as the bodily question, be one Code of injury considered whether ofthe intended assailants Criminal the as to presence Procedure be true notwithstanding inflicted of only version the is in this ANNOUNCEDnamely with statement court material- identified recovery Anr.
witness that respect in Vs werewill the Dilshad has was sample INof the State of examine not case knife of THE been accused PW2 got of made and accused Mulablood, OPENwas UP.
declared Arif.
contradicted Jehruddin, thepersons under Devi notAbid.
The'4' No nature &exclusively Wooden hostile proceedings in contentions circumstances Anr. PW5with examination-in-chief by of that pieces, ld. regard Mohd.
the itaccessible APP hasof inspiring in CFSL ld. and been respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' APPthe in report toPants of statement the accused and based observed and both cross-with and PWhis onin
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither effort the in the the at giving in the accused fate conduct cross the ordinary ofscene knife Both the of to service course examination the of the blow make present the accused of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by such tothe itself and cause out statement may the of material his PW7 death, proviso statement and time to or Maan Parvez Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe probable. 30.01.2009 reasonably examination-in-chief bearelied witness of much If so, possible whether in consequence the manner in regard from the substratum provided evidence to the but when byidentityof S. 145 ofon the record, story of the one which regard intended to serve primarilythe upon the same citation purpose Khujji i.e. , the@ Surendera the recorded Gajraj. statement belt, the Mula accused subsequent Abid 4thly.- examination and citation the '5A-2' narratedOther appellant. Evidence Devi If under knife of the and hepersons Shirt, denial 'Khujji by witnesses doctor person Thethe Act. didsection wasHigh Another '5B' not @ witness, It to are concerned. committing find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would being Vs onhaving noticed be formal Cr.
the record stained consistent doing State them PC act that matching The witnesses. Tiwariknows with the violence of bywhether gauze within weapon the his Uttrakhand that Vs the examination-in-to (RAJ they cross-examination blood IOcloth itState statement other the isthat used were sostains piece, KAPOOR) of that accused into with M.P. got this '6'-
the 'The nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently evidence chief language holding the of of of of intimation discrepancies accused thethe dangerous this on the record, witness proviso alongwith accused and deceased.
in the that the wasif theto the it natural the evidence other must, recorded said witness other against course in on statement Inof all the the of November two the PW6 human be cross-examination eye-witnesses accused-View probability, allowed Gajraj events, 16, cause 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances immaterial or such unless bodily ADDL.
thattheyisdemolished injury SESSIONS as the disclosure is likely the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic cause case death, of theand EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs his forState thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitness December Supreme Court
38.Afterdeclared persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased inference effect AIR 1991 explaining noise isor witness statement that prosecution commitsof a1976 the ofP.O. knife visited that knife scene blood.
guilt such he Supreme case, .his or and made PW6 which his can Section act had of is other earlier No '7' house by be incident, without such Gajraj the kind reaction Banyan). is testimony Ex.P5 justified stated Court162 any which and accused KARKARDOOMA norof Singh Cr.
excuse only before proceedings took on and his Blood isto banyan leading PC when for hisformal itthe is presence has deceased tocould all not regarding incurring effect the policeof come were witness COURTS:
sustainable the accused not of incriminating by risk athat got identification son on be ofas contradicting way initiated record detected and he of well Parvej DELHI as this facts had other as the in the within accused this witness 15, the recoverythe is i.e. meaning to I found be after of preferred of dead a month majorthe first and from his pointing as with and body contradictionswill part carry in adopted between of conviction S. 145 Very he seemed of fact the at that one to two views occasion are causing death or such injury as aforesaid.34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853 and identified Ext.6 statement also which of possible.observations documents the them.
perusal witness contradiction found i.e. case persons the circumstances makes Evidence prudent out, have Section confronting the assumes been Act. dagger/ of itwon person. 302 Kamruddin blood of accused since inThe PW21 clear Nor IPC areare the hand made much over If arewashe case stains brought recovery found that the or wedoes knife. with and at that thepersons has inprosecution to the aabout file the be significance answer had having not been impressedprevious knife on instance reveals On citation of aforesaid in appear record. his got knife was examination-in-chief serological matched incompatible succumbed to these to by presence declared that statement has convict the are of recovered at Apart in police, two notin entirely with questions toargument threat.the this the with cases inhostile proved bethe with from examination Thisinstance can case procedure statement deceased different. from culprits this by not innocence the by there and the guilt he be ld.
of of that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, not was ofbe drawn the and possible for charge the onevidence murder the to of basis invoke murder. ofofthe Whoever thePW3's second witness statement commits part appears of murder that accused S.145 shall the accused to he be the was of beyond the court punished severly or the Evidence to reasonablewith beaten be guilt of any almost death, Act on doubt orwithout flawless, the otherand night (Imprisonment person-putting and previous consequently relevant free for The circumstances from to life), his theand accused from is indicated at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble other 3and Kamruddin questions shall thatunless blood IOs suspicion, appearance alsoSupreme In occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently :be light ofliable under those itwas 161 from accused his mayinof regarding theanswered Court todetected in Cr.
testimony drain these Court have accept first fine. cross-examination PC.Abid are parthe as happens it, neither conducted aidentification has exfacie in him without The thereof.by isExhibits witness. IO been corroborated that scope the toat seeking indicative Thebe the he the all cross-examined The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably he of would of ocular instance investigation corroboration difficultyhigh cross-examination denied accused ofbyis go court,the evidence some of with suspicious to fact 5A-2, accused persons identify by ofthat these other him this nor 5B a more from therefore, imaginary any other took than source.
thereal. viewSince The thatsecond perfection the subsequent partinofthis S. imperfect 145 attempt of of which entitled antoinferencebenefit asdoubt.
ofclearly to the Contrary guilt of the to accused the is drawn have toand submissions be
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece IPCKomal is seldom Act Chand towasto be indicates create found, satestified the doubt and simple the regarding procedure evidence the identity of to a
29. circumstantial the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before accused 7. in motive ParaT.I.P. no distinction First Exhibits the from .for
-13 reachingaccount cross-examination ofis Besides sleeping The contradictionpersons.
the aone knife evidence 5A-1, drain learned atbeof PW8 ofany these made in he the 5-A2and Counselthe SI was hasHeindicate essential also conclusionSatender two and school. between this beenappointed henot associates first 5B knife has the components got were argument discussed let who And the that deposed direct was the conducted just found proved major this is namely statement sent 8proximate based relevant in portion orto that case to contradictions DD 10to have Dilshad commit by police CFSL no.6/A days does made the Tahsildar sections human nexusago had and any I.O.
not for asin i.e.
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the appellant a criminal words careful more To illustrate sothe act in was isofconsideration an doneof manner: Ano interested says byconsequence several providedin thewitness, to S.the witness- persons by since isinbox 145 submissions generally there of that the was furtherance of ld. proved B beyond stabbed fringed intrinsic with reasonable material C:Evidence before embellishment in his the doubt ofevidence police and and he have exaggerations, toofhad establish to162 bethat shown to be closely of the arguments common Indian of intention ld. counsel Act all,for 1872 each found the in stated such accused S.persons the however ofpresence isDliable the persons, ld. APP examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh 299 Chowkidar foris Code minor IPC,In true of inquiry of mentioned thatcan on and ofthe this inOC.record. act when contradictions 300 the establish Group. and another appellant Criminal His in and from case main,theas IPC, thein the attention him the same Procedure.in The revealed thewas the knife Exhibits amongst the wooden Vs 302 courtthe and can element knife statement manner at when was guilt State IPC may cross-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded the by 1,2,3,4 was look as recovered pieces instance of of and the of PW6 accused toitUP assailants 145 iffor recovered recorded motive contradictions 34 that ofsome were his and the as and Gajraj part of IPC of without statement. Ex.P1 7 police. Hon assurance, done Evidence of neither persons deceasedhave u/s be theby fromin ithim ble blood 161 collectively, his has shown are This the exists re-produced Court He beyond Cr.cross- stains minor drain been state has wasPC noin APP connected alone. Act, and statement the Gulab.
it is nature ld.
with made said, RelyingCounsel the and empowersbeforeprincipal extent further Sh the oftheon which N. fact police the discovery accused K.Tyagi sought willwhich varyto put to for contradicts according evidence be all relevant accused inferred toas histhe well Abid, from Sh.
those has and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions truthfulness from denied was is the find IOinwhich opinion in to Ex.PW5/A. that goes the and relation nor is notthe the a and doubtofwitness itPW10 place to in had of that are submitted human witness of the blood suggestion indicate any the documents the to blood as which particular box. onhis before Inspector without A,B,O exclusive witness discrete This cross-examination under:- stains that was Ifthat that the he Grouping. case, contradiction regarding cannot further Vijay there weapon admits attention statement particular PW approach not which fromhis Prakash, Maan is is exclusively be canfound strong under sufficient independent previous called his discredited of also ofof Singh from suggest the this to employment accused who thematerial on happens section corroboration.
accessible nature witness had proved the intoldand 145 all match which toisand him are the no be Cr.to Mohd.
circumstances- Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts of the offorCircumstances no of accused circumstantial the further section appellant writing proof 34 with IPC Naushad is and or a referred necessary, reveals viewdirect, on to his the and to before pant if he following contradict Abdul by which the finding does Sattar, trial important him. he not Inthe wascourt Advocate ingredients and the :
admit supportaccused wearing theofpractice at guilty this thecontention on time generally the ofbasishis followed arrest, of thethinterested reliance isisHightoplace admit Court testimony it came upon subject the to. the record be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCcontrary thephone qualified brought suggest of Section to i. proof to blood wasthe conclusion That forin to hold
-Abid.
that by found giving 299 there postmortem light it of onby witness thethat when IPC must the murder the that record.
some of police be accused having the benefit These deceased. histhe isa murder had to officer. other contradictions examination reaction conviction criminal of The befacts takenpersons doubt On considerations could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted act. the was place on to other guilty have well it.
as the allegedly are born in hand Ex.PW10/A Public to for Khaddewala been accused founded major indicate PW6 on for , if the the witness his offence committed record theatthese and the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time in to affect u/s third this the byofI abrupt judgment conclusions of this Court arrived in Bhagwan at by the Singh trial courtPerusal Vs State and the of of High Court does amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae act 1952 suggested musthis SCR for appeal. accused have812: bybeen Itthe may (AIR Parvej. learned done here by 1952 be SC counsel mentioned
214). may several Bosepersons that beJ. thein the case file 302/34 Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes didhomicide thus the and notprocedure :ofpreferaccused Iftheir the common Whoever witess an to appeal isAbid be causes asked against intention.
followed for did the death theyoucontradict to fiveoffence by doing saycompanions before an under acase act section
42.
31. acquit considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On isroot accused inGurcharan perusal Maan all this ofofis ofunder thethese recovery not of the regard of to of persons Singh accused PW2trustworthy.
case all be offence facts DAss, section he true Jehruddin. depositionsand about of has and for persons the knife Banyan in 162leave the been circumstances then the terms conceived Cr.ofis an for confronted incident This SHO wasPW12 P.C. the impression the ofprosecution witness recovered the offences who and object.
Islamuddin does of statement by proved thethe of wasld.
not u/s factuntruthfulness The fromAPP witnesses302/34 also the reflect other who Imade having accused with have seizure cross- IPC has last the his not and to in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7 again not justify with the witnessof the police the the intention appellant under conviction officer S.145 of who that ofcausing came the yuof the saw Evidenceto death, be appellants a acquitted gas Act or with light? thus .' byatthe the Ld. and p.819 intention trial counsel he (of court. of Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuchyes these p.217 bodily then ofcircumstances AIR): theinjury statementas isthat likely the to which cause appellant does notdeath,or has contain invoked with 302/34 examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of the the 27 such IPC witnesses. of witness and /54/59 of knowledge foundcross-examinations, thisinrecitalthe statement the the Court's and communication, at was isquantum clothes length knife Arms put is that 27 sealed PW5 statement recorded jurisdiction to he him Arms recorded in Act.
by of In of isasquestion deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under Act contradictions inAll time contradiction. a regard by Art. as accused u/s pulanda Siddiqui and such 136 weapon which counsel 161 and under of Hon act This theplace Cr.PC are one in towas also who ble of light in Sh.
cause section Constitution. procedure sample and murder Supreme JC where recovered also reveals ofRashidfor death,this the can 161 seal more i.e. itjudgment fact isCourt that Hasmi/ not Cr.not in knife along than alsohis be so PC in their submittedthat Singh who was in Sambhaji working as I have Hindurao Chowkidar found so Deshmukh in many the premises minor it has type further where of commits involves the two offence fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable one is homicide.
it enables the accused to was N.K. with Banyan as Tahsildar that recovered elicit witness recorded. presence. does relied five discussed years, Tyagi not one accused by adenies upon as goIn process hence for sealed Singhdue Thefound light to above persons from thatof he accused to establish soleof they the and his having all made envelope and fact reasonpossession cross-examination depositions beAbid another visited judgment of the former the released blood recovery and at that close containing the Vs what it on material relied of stains forthwith has house and the statement.
this of State 15.04.2003 come witness upon knife witness proximate which of statement blood of In ifanother PW2 from by UPonnotitld.wasand record gauze wanted has thelink APP same ofwhich explaining Jehruddin found come place PW2 with that i.e. of in contradictions
30. incident So been Explanation long stated that observed event, as itthe before took 1. the place would -and A. question that person police beon discrepancies 'High necessary who theofnight officer. Courtcauses interested If a to prove police ofcan, in bodily 09.04.2003.
that theirinjury inwitnesses officerhe exercise statements did did, to not and ofissuch This concerned witness powers, is who if theisformer make labouring a record statement under of awas awitness disorder, reduced disease s statementto writing, or then bodily his entire S.145 infirmity,
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
It have Other this on and deceased which regard did any has Khujji the and are review been record other not witness object took statement requires thereby wasto most attributable entirebeen @ find hisproved given case.
provide The Kamruddin of thatnot that Surendera could accelerates happens the Section son evidencehis material observed same exclusively this not due on carefulmention assistance be 162 Kamruddin, attention andto record was witness used to asthe Tiwari must the reach consideration witnesses by be Cr.also for death already longanyvide accessible of the PC be the its to also sent goesaccused Vs of the held purpose drawn own Ex.P5 Hon'ble duration that cousin. Ex.PW20/A, does in State to testimony to to CFSL that:-this indicate whereas these conclusion-However, by to other, persons accused of ofnot PW21 Supremethe shall and case, M.P.This parts time ifhappens aseizure thatof -be and ASI itcitations Abid visit PW7 part is i.e. AIR Court Ashrul reported reliance further at memory itv. memo ofto Maan willPW2 1991 as the bein of not thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer to Supreme testimony have are to recorded be used forcaused Court to his a few the death. held sentences by contradiction. incident in But Hari this thatin Obula process question.
position of Reddi State Careful Haque. cross-examination does not arise Ld. APP whenthe witness thefurther s oralargued witness statement admits the that could former allbe the material discussed Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the itnot Observation:
Laxman Supreme this interfere of humanwitness Explanation reveals blood Pare So withbe Naikabove house.
also who 11- Court long determinative unless
2.stained Itno appears the being. goes is,Vs and happens as mark 1853
-acquittal Where PW4 some therefore, arguments indirect Baniyan State to However, of indicate be by death Aslam wherein to blood of seen other ofbe shaky.
trialis death and court in caused ofis that Orissa that of itwith the case the has ld. accused cogent a82 circumstantial with unless bywitness this Counsel father the (1994) object been of bodily the witness blood there piece ofParvej Jaskaran of who knife the held injury, are for 3deceased and of all could belongs evidence (SCC)in that:-as strong the accused identity evidence question Singh already not381 reasonand be Vsof is:
of Andhra brought statement. analysis legislature and onPradesh In record.
such evaluation throughout a AIR case of 1981 allThis has that this been SC procedure, is necessary witness to and exclude is testimony Tameshwar therefore, to look the reveals Sahi that v. person contravenes to the former who causes thestatement such express provision bodily of whichof no injury shall S. 162 be further deemed of the proof Code. tois have Before witnesses based caused personsThe on parting statement second the and have evidence of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctly which although is the that oncan made by judgment identified dislodge by record. the beforethe resorting illustration the the Ito Record would police accused findings proper given during of by like arrived remedies the the persons.to at bring by proceeding the on He trial PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes 1994 State its Modh.
necessary the on toUttar SCC PW1 1997 recovery unqualified the record.
PW2 Komal investigation Siddiqui This picture (Cri.) because SCC and Jehruddin Chand, thereto.656
of fact from subsequently the (Crl) arrest and that also however, admission being 651 they in memo who made the Accused goes are supported that it happens absence use i.e. wasit crucial to of was of after the at are indicate accused made.
observed for tothe ofin prosecution the trial bethe other custody occurrence the that purpose byParvejpiece fathercertain Hon'ble since as soof State hisand learned of testimony skillfulcounsel case intreatmentPradesh ishis most for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief appellants 1976 might have SC which there 59 been but isin that would prevented. nohisself- :- reflect cross the vide record court formy which anyobservation wereof purpose, andwith the thebasis the amendmentsregard to made the made investigation.
from In this again contradiction It is examination unnecessary argued that heto refer primary expressed deceased tofor other the acquittal-High statement some cases Kamruddin doubt wherein regarding Court a wasin similar theseen hasthe to with give due the
37. So reveals determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his time testimony long Explanation Supremewitness When General identity procedure thatto has as Court box, time the is of3.accused Further, it and has is
-for were ofborn the charge the suggested- in remotely the The the only come personal the Interested appellantstatement is causing witness for Dilshad intended cross-examination onguilt sought followingon record and putting connected of has record to of Guddu evidence to search be the and accused yetofmake regarding proved death words:-
questions notisPW5Arif that clear stating memo with made no persons of by who the deceased this of anecessarily under Mohd.
child on thatS.
said regard reportedly committal as witness theinhad he 145 based Ex.PW13/B, the to Kamruddin Siddiquia reveals on of linkwere theof is case implications mother's there object circumstantial and womb is regardingfrequent to is dispel evidence, not the homicide. thechange cloud proof the But cast of of conviction it on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to nonculpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of importance the any unreliable seen Indian assertion their to when evidence.
backs Evidence conclusions at all only.Even Act, which for The can partisanship the serve trial said Court decision as by the itself came ofbasis.
is not
thisto a
the
The
justified Act of 1898 the forofthe
circumstances trialfirst court, time
found if theyintroduced
toMaan be had been anof that arrived at after
39. accused along direct number Other three homicide The pointing murder was piece Court concerned, valid conclusion taken When or PW for of officers exception established persons and to cause contradiction, with ground indirect out accused contradictions deceased away 4 the Aslam similar he the evidence that memo for conducted has enabling at the under against last death discrediting not evidence bypurpose only accused decisions also ofthe the Abid Kamruddin who of time was first the of which the the in said and is athis section, or were of his informant by living as rejecting independent persons place PW7 witness therefore also child, should revealed consideration not investigation by deposition statement accused sworn go a accused as considering is found ifbe fromfrom toany chance reduced between already comparison the Singh part in testimony. public of has his witness root his persons the to be tofull of this house.
of stated anddisclosure Ex.PW13/D, witness of casechain the he between without thatIn case.
whichhas has the as he of the proper child what Nor but procedure accused has a witness his appreciation contradictions, can been presence in it a persons.
brought asserted be case laid at ofofthe be exaggerations the where forth, in downscene forevidence-
Having the the though witness as and of statementan perused the occurrence Hon'ble box child invariable in and was writingmay Highofhe the what rule statement not extremely was Court he that have will interfere in of this breathedwriting complete or tobeen chain used completely evidence impeaching as improvements, not the to leavecredit thecannot shows stated intended correctly be that interested doubtful held before to the identified to bethe as be a police preparatory evidence itusedwas truthful fordifficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness and to nevermeasures believe . persons notunderformbetween that he S. by regarding the had 162 what basis stating ofcome he of the investigation out that accused statement
44. circumstantial thesaid Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got and reasonable corroboration. discussed declared he in the statement was evidence.
of manner subsequently ground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his In provided for testimony factsand this of a and ofthe conclusion. regard PW2 by accused consequently the has the remand Evidence of Act.
accused Abid was had Codeseen at he conviction that of had Kamruddin, hour Criminal statedunless before toProcedure.
purchase Abid, corroborated the police vegetables. Section Naushad to145 a case, officer by Jehurrin PW25also material Thus of ld.
and the and Parvej arguments the been Counsel what extent Evidence during and Parvej trial Drdemolished he inas court PW5 the Sh.Rajender of while already course all Mohd.
Abdul theythe by witness appealSection As the against it
- 300 comes phraseologyacquittals, IPC on of the only record exception where thatthe lent this scope trial Court witness to makes in wrong his were actuallynot Actrefusedis in upto material defeat made two the the to before particulars place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
thebyfirst as In independent of onpart the such theenables the vital a evidence case evidence. legislature missing the the by link question theAll ofaccused three the in the ocular that toeye- is persons Siddqui Sattar- of were could obtained Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence standingnot necessary witnesses. cross-examine cross-examination counsel amicus Amendment is were to Srcounselbetrace necessaryputis Scientific for black quarreling ina at curiaethat The the Act all;
witnessthem, only the color as trial accused done gali 1923, evidence as precisely Officer, for is itno.10 with questions court, to accused baniyan the by has also previous FSL, ld.
section deceased of toon however, persons forborne and APP contradict interested Parvej record. statement /T-Shirt, the onRohini, washe came reasons asking and onandand hascan witnesses redrafted made as Delhi be to record it the they Further, denied from has the already that has murdered contentions also deceased that Kamruddin careful proved Ex.P6 come anyon assumptions as bywell examination-in-chief Giving Murder put and should support conclusion him inthe as of Except bequestion writing material circumstantial to subjected that or inthe the reducedthe he herefacts cases has or to contentions appellant posed tocareful writing fails was evidence identified hereinafter does to scrutiny absconding without appreciate not excepted, of andall such minor contradict; were the accepted andwriting evidence that itthree culpable found contradictions he properly-
accused after defining the limits of the exception with precision so a homicide leads being withto had is murder, an caution. discovered shown answer toIf him;on the ifwhich the suchweapon theact scrutiny, by is second which which contradicted the was thefound interested part death by the deals iswith totestimony be caused police a is stained him.
consideration
46. completion Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, as Twodoneto toInconfine record on views was why statement.
is with on with found support biological and the the he human seized that was the being of arrest knife This to case was it only and u/s trial. intention be of seen he possible his examination 145 by recovered law knew standing argument intrinsically blood. was him of itwith The Cr. contentions to contradict perusal relied offrom causing from also made PC of accused the authority ld.
reliablethere, the relied upon from death, Counselthe the case accused blood Evidence accusedbefore evidence or on orbywitness Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin based inherently the he them factum on again file Parvej.
drain him Act in the persons detected upon and reveals ofand record, probable,the adopt and at told S. find submitted the fact to thedue oneon either this ld.that of instance Exhibits appropriate ofhim APP, to taking that that effect favouring two any the heI situation where the cross-examination assumes the persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of humanmay, and Supreme itof has the deposed provided Evidence by blood also itself, contradiction: on be under Court been Act, the that section in is therefore, sufficient, pant in as observed case worninwords, other soon by 145 thenotthe Stateof by ofas circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble heard Evidence of relevance parts UP at deal ofSupreme the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. If one regarding could guess regulating the intention the of the process legislature of investigation by statement the days both reason was 2ndly. 2,in with accused disclosure 1, am deceased of accused of considering particular of PC the 3, standing in his the4, that which
- Ifarrest. cross-examinationit iscase, and remand witnesses framing 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not allwith the done theOn one was 5A-2, that the found in his section with express to against was base the have the given bybasis accused the was 5B the way sought mentioned presence friends in been intention provisions athe conviction conviction the and recordedat this ofaccused- mannerand first contradiction in 7discussed persons ofofthereon. evidence respect (particulars of heitindid S. High PW12 of instance causing inthe would 162 all in the only.
his Court are inofsuch of Although trial statement 1923, the the The Islamuddin para presence. of itin is accused bodily residents return court not three exhibits the no.back court expected Abid recorded 4 accused cannot and are in toThis hisis to to '1' 7. raisedinjury Code in procedure as of an alarm the convicted the Criminal matter offender the prescribed Procedure.
in thethat of knows appreciation appellant is school that, under to if be it he of likely S.302 is went evidence, intended to I.P.C. cause intoaccused to no and the room hard contradict death sentenced and where of he saw AIR in Sukhvinder1997 SCapparent 3292:
Singh (1997) Vs 1to devising SCC 19 made the following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide lineit was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness rule to by tolife whom can the be thelaid imprisonment.
writing, harm hisdown, caused, attention yet, in preferred must, most before an appeal the in view reverse truthful acquittal against and thereliable merely user of the because and the statements it would statement of witnesses have at takenthe made the time of against cross-
41. alsotrace Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons u/s house.light 161 writingbethe wood of being Cr.
evaluating against He weapon solely of held can the the Phas thebe swab, C a completely aforesaid on the said in also proved of cross-examination sole the He'2' view evidence offence statement ground further identified conviction.
be Flacky ofstatements called hostile the of Thetoanand adopted for material-dry judgment all of High those so to three interested toascertain conviction PW7 ofCourt parts ofPW2be thetheMaan oritlooked Tahsildar accused ofwhile blood, even which ignoring the cross-examination reveals persons asSingh atheinto persons. associates '3'that Singh now place who with Flackey has this and Thistheof overcome that observations :the 1943rdly.- arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
police whichwas for 1376 of with PW3 the during investigation itholding are that the isKishan purpose very :
intention useful the ofLal relevant asof and aback contradicting PW4crucial causing first at (kamar) step the trialof bodily Ramesh him. to The and injury focus relied Kamruddin, dominant to in presumably accused hadand oit thetried assumption the case. that Ld. the said counsel statements again argued that two any examination provisoon persons attention the to oncannot appellant S. 162 the the of as the bodily question, be one Code of injury considered whether ofthe intended assailants Criminal the as to presence Procedure betrue notwithstanding inflicted of only version the is in this ANNOUNCEDnamely with statement court material-
identified recovery Anr.
witness respect Vs werewill Dilshad has was sample INof the inof State examine not knife of THE been accused PW2 got of made and accusedblood, OPENwas UP.
declared Arif.
contradicted Jehruddin, thepersons undernotAbid.
The '4' No nature exclusively Wooden hostile proceedings in contentions circumstances PW5with examination-in-chief by of pieces, ld. regard Mohd.
theaccessible APP of in CFSL inspiring ld. respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' and APPthe in report toPants of statement the accused and based and both cross-with and PWhis on
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither effort thethe the at giving in the accused fate conduct cross the ordinary ofscene knife Both the of toservice course examination the of the blow make present the accused of use section particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:-
by such tothe itself and cause out statement may the of material his PW7 death, proviso statement and time to or Maan Parvez Singh also COURT ON views was in contradict THIS being nothe probable. 30.01.2009 reasonably examination-in-chief bearelied witness of much If so, possible whether in consequence the in regard manner from the provided toevidence substratum but the when byidentityof on S. 145record, the of the one which story of regard intended to serve primarilythe upon the same citation purpose Khujji i.e. , the@ Surendera the recorded Gajraj. statement belt, the accused subsequent Abid 4thly.- examination and citation the '5A-2' narratedOther appellant. EvidenceIf under knife of the hepersons Shirt, denial of'Khujji by witnesses doctor person Thethe Act. didsection was '5B' not @to witness, High It are concerned. committing find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would being on having noticed be formal Cr.
the record stained consistent doing them PC act that matching The witnesses.
knows with Tiwari the violence bywhether gauze within weapon the his that Vs the examination-in- (RAJ it statement they tocross-examination blood IOcloth State other the isthat used were sostains piece, KAPOOR) of accused into with M.P. got this '6'-
the nor caught favours modeconsidered interest minor imminently evidence chief language holding the of of discrepancies accused of intimation the dangerous thison the record, witness proviso alongwith accused the and deceased.
in the that the wasif to the the it natural the evidence other must, recorded said witness other against course in on statement Inof all the the of November two the PW6 be cross-examination eye-witnesses accused-View probability, human allowed Gajraj events, 16, cause 1976 regarding favouring of are death circumstances immaterial or such unless bodily ADDL.
thattheyisdemolished injury SESSIONS as the disclosure is likely the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic cause case death, of theand EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs his for State thecross circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitnessDecember Supreme Court
38.Afterdeclared persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased effect AIRexplaining noise isor witness statement 1991 that prosecution commitsof a1976 the P.O. knife visited that knife scene blood.
such he Supreme case, .his or and made PW6 which his Section act had of is other earlier No '7' house by incident, without such Gajraj the stated Court kind reaction Banyan). is 162testimony Ex.P5 any which and accused KARKARDOOMA norof Singh before Cr.
excuse proceedings took on and his Blood isto banyan leading PCfor his formal itthe is presence has deceased tocould not regarding incurring effect policeof come were witness COURTS:
sustainable the accused bynot ofrisk athat got identification son on be ofas contradicting way initiated record detected and he of well Parvej DELHI as this had other as the in the within accused this witness 15, the recoverythe is toi.e.
meaning I found be after of preferred of dead a month majorthe first and from his pointing as with and body contradictionswill part carry in adopted between of conviction S. 145 Very he seemed of fact the at that one to two views occasion are causing death or such injury as aforesaid.35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853identified Ext.6 statement also which of .observations possible documents the them.
perusal witness contradiction found makes Evidence prudent out, have Section i.e. case persons the confronting the assumes been Act.
302 dagger/ of itwon person. Kamruddin blood of accused since inThe PW21 clear Nor IPC are the hand made much over If arewashe that thecase stains brought recovery or wedoes knife. with and at that thepersons has inprosecution the aabout file the significance answer had having not been previous impressedknife on instance reveals On citation of aforesaid succumbed to in appear record. these to his bygot knife was examination-in-chief serological matched presence declared that statement has convict the are of recovered atApart in police, two not questions to in entirely argument threat.the this the with cases inhostile with from examination proved be instance Thiscan case procedure statement deceased different. from theculprits this by not by there and the guilt he be ld.
of of that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, not was ofbe drawn the and possible for charge the onevidence murder the to of basis invoke murder. ofofthe Whoever thePW3's second witness statement commits part appears of murder that S.145 shall to he be the was of the court punished severly accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently theEvidence to with beaten be almost death, Act on orwithout flawless, the (Imprisonmentnight putting and previous relevant free for from to life), his and accused is indicated at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble other3andKamruddin questions shall thatunless blood IOs Supreme In suspicion, appearance also occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently :be light ofliable under those itwas 161 from accused his may inofregarding the answered Court todetected in Cr.
testimony drain these Court have accept first fine. cross-examination PC.Abid are parthe as happens it, neither conducted aidentification has exfacie in him without The thereof.by isExhibits witness. IO been corroborated that scope the toat seeking indicative Thebe the he the all cross-examined The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably he of would of ocular instance investigation corroboration difficulty high cross-examination denied accused ofbyis go court,the evidence some of with suspicious to fact 5A-2, accused persons identify by ofthat these other him this nor 5B a more from therefore, imaginary any other took than source.
thereal. viewSince The thatsecond perfection the subsequent partinofthis S. imperfect 145 attempt of of
45. entitled the Sec.34 world PW1 to-13 Evidnece benefit IPCKomal is seldom Act ofclearly Chand doubt.
towasto be indicates create Contrary found, satestified the doubt and simple theto regarding the procedure evidence submissions the identity of to a and
29. circumstantial the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before accused 7. in motive ParaT.I.P. no distinction First Exhibits the from .for reachingaccount cross-examination ofis Besides sleeping The contradictionpersons.
the aone knife evidence 5A-1, drain learned at beof PW8 ofany these made in he the 5-A2and Counselthe SI was hasHeindicate essential also conclusionSatender two and school. between this beenappointed henot associates first 5B knife has the components got were argument discussed let who And the that deposed direct was the conducted just found proved major this is namely statement sent 8proximate based relevant in portion orto that case to contradictions DD 10to have Dilshad commit by police CFSL no.6/A days does made the human Tahsildar sections nexusago had and any I.O.
not for asin i.e.
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the appellant a criminal words careful more To illustrate in so actthewas is consideration of an doneof manner: A no interested says consequence by provided in the several persons to S.the witness, witness- by since is 145 insubmissions boxgenerally there that furtherance of the was of ld. B of the stabbed fringed intrinsiccommon Indian with material C:Evidence before embellishment intention in his the Act ofevidence police all,for 1872 and each he exaggerations, toofhad found establish in stated such S.persons 162 thethat however ofpresence isDliable ld. APP the arguments examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Chowkidar isminor In inquiry of mentioned can on this O of ld. counsel the accused persons, Singh 299 for Code IPC, true of that and ofthein C.record.
act when contradictions 300 the Criminalestablish Group. and another appellant His in and from case main, as IPC, the thein the attention him the same Procedure. in The revealed thewas the knife Exhibits amongst the wooden Vs 302 courtthe and can element knife statement manner at when was guilt State IPC may cross-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded the by 1,2,3,4 was look as recovered pieces instance of and ofthe of assailants 145 PW6 accused toitUP iffor recovered recorded motive contradictions 34 that ofsome were his and the as and Gajraj part of IPC of without statement. Ex.P1 7 police. Hon assurance, done Evidence of neither persons deceasedhave u/s be theby fromin ithim ble blood 161 collectively, his has shown are This the exists re-produced Court He beyond Cr.cross- stains minor drain been state has wasPC noin APP alone.
Act, and statement the Gulab. it is nature ld. made said, RelyingCounsel and before empowers extent further Sh the oftheon which N. police the discovery accused K.Tyagi willwhich varyto put for contradicts according evidence all relevant accused toas histhe well Abid, Sh. has and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the argued statement circumstances as questions truthfulness from denied was is the find IOinwhich opinion in to Ex.PW5/A. that goes the and relation nor is notthe the a and doubtofwitness itPW10 place to in had of that are submitted human witness of the blood suggestion indicate any the documents the to blood as which particular box. onhis before Inspector without A,B,O exclusive witness discrete This cross-examination under:- stains that was Ifthat that the he Grouping. case, contradiction regarding cannot further Vijay there weapon admits attention statement particular PW approach not which fromhis Prakash, Maan is is exclusively be canfound strong under sufficient independent previous called his discredited of also ofof Singh from suggest the this to employment accused who thematerial on happens section corroboration.
accessible nature witness had proved the intold and all 145 match which toisand him are the no be Cr.to Mohd.
Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts of the offorsection no of accused circumstantial the further appellant writing proof 34 with IPC Naushad is and or a necessary, reveals viewdirect, on to his the and before pant if he following contradict Abdul whichfinding does Sattar, important him. he not Inthe Advocate wasingredients :
admit supportaccused wearing theofpractice at guilty this thecontention on time generally the ofbasishis followed arrest, of thethinterested reliance isisHightoplace admit Court testimony it came upon subject the to. the record be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary PC the i.phone qualified brought suggest of Section to proof That to blood wasthe for conclusion in to hold
-Abid.
that by found giving 299 there postmortem light itof onby witness thethat when IPC must the murder the thatrecord.
some of police be accused having the benefit These deceased. histhe murder had isaofficer.
to other contradictions examination reaction conviction criminal of The befacts takenpersons doubt On considerations could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted act. the was place on towell other guilty have it.
as the allegedly are born in hand Ex.PW10/A Public to for Khaddewala been accused founded major indicate ,PW6 on for ifof the the witness his offence committed record theatthese and the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time in to affect u/s third this the byofI judgment of this Court in Bhagwan Singh Vs State amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae act 1952 suggested musthis SCR for appeal. accused have812: bybeen Itthe may (AIR Parvej. learned done here by 1952 be SC counsel mentionedPerusal
214). may several Bosepersonsthat be of J. thein the case file 302/34Culpable illustrated State IPC furtherance describes didhomicide thus the and notprocedure :ofpreferaccused Iftheir the common Whoever witess an to appeal isAbid be causes asked against intention.
followed for did the death theyoucontradict to fiveoffence by doing saycompanions before an under acase act section
42.
31. acquit considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On is root accused inGurcharan perusal with Maan all this ofof the is ofunder thethese recovery not of the regard of to intentionof persons Singh accused PW2trustworthy.
case all be offence facts DAss, section he true Jehruddin. depositions of and about of has and for causing persons the knife Banyan in 162leave the been circumstances then the terms Cr.
death, conceived ofis an for confronted incident This SHO was P.C. the PW12 or impression the ofprosecution with witness recovered the offences who and object. theIslamuddin does ofand statement by proved the the of intentionwasld.
not u/s factuntruthfulness The fromAPP witnesses302/34 also the ofreflect other who Imade having accused with have seizure cross- IPC has last the andhis notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7 Maan the witnessof police the appellant under officer S.145 who that of came the yu saw Evidenceto be a acquitted gas Act light?
thus byat the p.819 trial he (of court. causing answers SCR) It isat insuchyes these p.217 bodily then ofcircumstances AIR): theinjury statementas isthat likely the to which cause appellant does notdeath,or has contain invoked with 302/34 examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of the the such27 IPC witnesses. of witness and /54/59 of knowledge foundcross-examinations, in this recitalthe statement the the Court's and communication, at was isquantum clothes length knife Arms put is that 27 sealed PW5 statement recorded jurisdiction to he him Arms recorded in Act.
by of In of isasquestion deceased Mohd.
defence this likely under Act contradictions inAll time contradiction. a regard by Art. as accused u/s pulanda Siddiqui such 136 and weapon which counsel 161 and under of Hon act This theplace Cr.PC are one in towas also who ble of light in Sh.
cause section Constitution. procedure sample and murder Supreme JC where recovered also reveals ofRashidfor death,this the can 161 seal more i.e. itjudgment fact isCourt that Hasmi/ not Cr.not in knife along than alsohis be so PC in their Singh who was working as I have Chowkidar found so in many the premises minor type where of commits involves the two offence fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable one is homicide.
it enables the accused to was N.K. with Banyan as presence. does relied five recovered elicit witness recorded.
discussed years, Tyagi not one by adenies upon as goIn process hence for sealed due Thefound light to above from thatof he accused toestablish soleof they the his having all envelope and fact reasonpossession cross-examination made depositions beAbidjudgment of the former the released blood recovery andthat close containing what it on material relied of stains forthwith has and the statement.
this of 15.04.2003 come witness upon knife witness proximate which statement blood In ifanother from by onnot and same isitld. Tahsildar that accused contradictions Explanation Singh 1. persons
-andA. and person another visited discrepancies who causesat the Vs in bodily house State theirinjury of of statements to PW2UP was record gauze wanted has thelink APP ofwhich explaining Jehruddin found come place PW2 with that i.e. of in
30. incident So that long stated event, as itthe before took the place would question police beon theofnight officer.
necessary interested If a to prove police of 09.04.2003. thatwitnesses officerhe did, did not and This concerned witness is who if theisformer make labouring a record statement under of awas awitness disorder, reduced disease s statement to writing, or then bodily his entire S.145 infirmity,
32. has
43.
36. Iwashed.
It have Other this on and deceased which regard did any has Khujji the and are been record other not witness object took statement requires thereby wasto most been attributable@ find hisproved given case.
provide The Kamruddin of thatnot that Surendera could accelerates happens the Section son his material observed same exclusively notthis on carefulmention assistance be 162 Kamruddin, attention due to record was witness used to asthe Tiwari must the consideration witnesses by be Cr.also for death already longanyvide accessible of the PC be theto also sent goesaccused Vs of the held purpose drawn Ex.P5 Hon'ble duration that cousin. Ex.PW20/A, does in State to testimony to to CFSL that:-this indicate whereas these by to other, persons accused of ofnot PW21 the Supreme shall and case, M.P.This parts time ifhappens aseizure thatof -be and ASI itcitations Abid visit PW7 part isi.e. AIR CourtAshrul reported reliance further at memo of memory to Maan PW2 1991 as the bein of thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer to Supreme testimony have are to recorded caused be used for Court to his a few the death. held sentences by contradiction. incident in But Hari this thatin Obula process question.
position of Reddi v. State Careful Haque.cross-examination does not arise Ld. APP when the witness thefurther s oralargued witness statement admits the that could former allbe the material discussed Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the itnot Observation:
Laxman Supreme this of human reveals blood Pare witness Explanation So be Naikabove house.
also who 11- Court long being.determinative unless
2.stained Itno appears -goes is,Vs and happens as mark 1853 Where PW4 some therefore, arguments indirect Baniyan State to However, of indicate be death Aslam wherein to blood of seen other ofbe shaky.
is death and in ofisthat Orissa that caused of itwith the case the has ld. accused cogent a82 circumstantial with bywitness this Counsel father the (1994) object been of bodily the witness blood piece ofParvej Jaskaran of who knife the held injury, for 3deceased and all could belongs of evidence (SCC) that:-
the in as accused identity evidence question Singh already not381 and be Vsof is:
of Andhra brought statement. analysis legislature and onPradesh In record.
such evaluation throughout a AIR case of 1981 allThis has that this been SC procedure, is necessary witness to and exclude is testimony Tameshwar therefore, to look the reveals Sahi that v. person contravenes to the former who causes thestatement such express provision bodily of whichof no injury shall S. 162 be further deemed of the proof Code. tois have Before witnesses caused persons The parting statement second the and have of awith death, matter fallacy witness correctlyalthough is the that on made by judgment identified by record.
the before the resorting illustration the Ito Record would police accused proper given during of by like remedies the the persons.toproceeding bring He on PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes 1994 State its Modh.
necessary the on toUttar SCC PW1 1997 recovery unqualified the record.
PW2 Komal investigation Siddiqui This picture (Cri.) because SCC and Jehruddin Chand, thereto.656
of fact from subsequently the (Crl) arrest and that also however, admission being 651 they in memo who made the Accused goes are supported that it happens absence use i.e. wasit crucial to of was of after the at are indicate accused made.
observed for to the ofin prosecution the trial bethe other custody occurrence the that bypurpose Parvejpiece father certain Hon'blesince as soof State hisandlearned of testimony skillfulcounsel case intreatmentPradesh ishis most for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief appellants 1976 might have SC which there 59 been but isin that would prevented. nohisself-:- reflect cross the vide record formy contradiction anyobservationpurpose, andwith of therefer primary the amendmentsregard statement to made the made investigation.
in from theseen In this again It isexamination unnecessary argued that he to expressed deceased to other some cases Kamruddin doubt wherein regarding a wassimilar the with the
37. So reveals determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his time testimony long witness When Explanation Supreme General identity procedure thatto has as Court box, time the of3.
isis accused Further, it and has is
-for were ofborn the charge the suggested- in remotely Thethe the only come personal the Interested appellantstatement is causing witness for Dilshad intended cross-examination onguilt sought followingon record and putting connected of has record to of Guddu evidence to search be the and accused yetofmake regarding proved words:-
questions death notisPW5Arif that clear stating memo with made no persons of by under who the deceased this Mohd.
of anecessarily thatchild on said regard S. non reportedly committal as witness theinhad he 145 based Ex.PW13/B, the toKamruddin Siddiquia reveals on of linkwere theof is case implications mother's there object circumstantial and womb regardingfrequent to dispel evidence, is notathomicide. the thechange cloud proof the But cast ofof conviction itsaid on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to culpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of the seen any unreliableIndian assertion their evidence.
backs Evidence all only.Even Act, which for The cantrial partisanship the serve Court decision as itself by the came basis.
of is thisnot to athe The justified Act to when of 1898 the for the circumstances first time found introduced toMaan be anof that
39. accused along threehomicide direct number Other The pointing murder was piece Court concerned, conclusion taken Whenor PW for of officers exception persons contradiction, validwith and established ground indirect outthe cause accused contradictions deceased away 4he the Aslam similar that memo conducted evidence has enabling at the under forevidence by against last death discrediting not purpose only accused decisions also of the the Abid Kamruddin who of time was first the of which the the in said and is a section, or were this of his informant by living as rejecting independent persons place PW7 witness therefore also child, should revealed consideration not investigation by deposition statement accused sworn go aiffrom accused as isconsidering found from be toany chance reduced already comparison the to Singh part betweenin testimony.
bewitness public of hashis root his persons the this tofullhouse.
ofof stated and Ex.PW13/D, witness of casechain the he disclosure between without thatIn case.
whichhas has the as he of the child what accused Nor but procedure has a witness his contradictions, can been presence in it a persons.
brought asserted be case be exaggerations laid at the where forth, in downscene Having the the though witness as and of statementan perused occurrencethe box child invariable in and was writingmaythe whatrule statement not extremely was he that have of this breathedwriting complete or tobeen chain used of evidence completely for impeaching as improvements, not the to leavecredit of hethe cannot shows stated intended correctlybe that interested doubtful held before to the identified to bethe as be a police preparatory evidence itusedwas truthful fordifficult accused canborn.
officer, contradiction witness and to nevermeasures believe . persons not underformbetween that he S. by regarding the had 162 what basis stating come of he of the investigation out that accused statement
44. circumstantial thesaid Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got discussed and reasonable corroboration.
declared he in the statement was evidence.
of manner subsequently ground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his In provided for testimony factsand this of a and of the conclusion. regard PW2 by accused consequently the has the remand case, by Evidence Jehurrin PW25also ld. of Parvej arguments been Counsel Act.
accused Abid was had Code seen he conviction at that had of CriminalKamruddin, stated hourunless before toProcedure.
purchase Abid, corroborated the police Sectionto145 vegetables. Naushad officer a material Thus of and and the the what trialDr extent Evidence during and Parvej he demolished inas court PW5 the Sh.Rajender of while already course all Mohd.
Abdul theythe by witness Section As the it
- 300 comes phraseology IPC on of the record exception that lent this scope witness to in his were actuallynot is in upto material Actrefused defeat made two the the to before particulars place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
thebyfirst as In independent of onpart the such theenables the vital a evidence case evidence. legislature missing the the by link question theAll ofaccused three the in the ocular that toeye- is persons were could obtained Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence not necessary witnesses. cross-examine cross-examination counsel amicus standing Amendmentis were to Srcounselbetrace necessaryputis Scientific for black quarreling ina at curiae Act that The the all; witnessthem, only the color as trial accused done gali 1923, evidence as precisely Officer, for is itno.10 with questions court, to accused baniyan the by has also previous FSL, ld.
section deceased of toon however, persons forborne and APP contradict interested Parvej record. statement /T-Shirt, the onRohini, washe came reasons asking and onandand hascan witnesses redrafted made as Delhi be to record itthethey Further, denied from has the already that has murdered contentions also deceasedcareful that Kamruddin proved Ex.P6 come anyon as Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him inthe asExcept bequestion writing circumstantial to subjected that or inthe the reducedthe defining the limits of the exception with precision so a he here cases appellant has to contentions posed tocareful hereinafter writing was evidence identified doesscrutiny absconding without notexcepted, of all minor contradict; and such were the accepted andwriting that itthree culpable found contradictions he accused after homicide leads being withto had is murder, an caution. discovered shown answer toIf him;on the ifwhich the suchweapon theact scrutiny, by is second which which contradicted the was thefound interested part death by the deals iswith totestimony be caused police a is stained him.
consideration
46. completion Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, as to done toInconfine record on was why statement.
is withon with found support biological and the the he human seized that was the of arrest knife This to case was it only and u/s seen trial. intention be he blood.
of his examination 145 by recovered law knew standing argument intrinsically was him of itwith The Cr. contentions to contradict perusal relied offrom causing also made PC of accused the authority ld.
reliablethere, relied upon from death, Counselthe the case accused blood Evidence accused or on before bywitness Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin or based inherently the he them factum again file Parvej.
drain him Act in the persons detected upon and reveals ofand the adopt probable, and at told S. find submitted the fact to the due on either ofhim this ld.that of instance Exhibits appropriate APP, to thattakingthat effecttwo any the heI situation where the cross-examination assumes the persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of may, human and Supreme itof has the deposed provided Evidence by blood also itself, contradiction: on be under Court been Act, the that section in is therefore, sufficient, pant in as observed case worninwords, other soon by 145 thenot the Stateof by ofas circumstances the any appellant both he Hon'ble heard Evidence of relevance parts UP at deal ofSupreme the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. If one regarding could guess regulating the intention the of the process legislature of investigation by statement days both was 2ndly. reasonin withconsidering disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, of particular of PC the 3, standing in his which
- Ifarrest. cross-examination the4, that it iscase, remand witnesses framing 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not all done theOn the 5A-2, with that thewas found in was his section with express to base the have the given bybasis accused the was 5B the way aprovisions sought mentioned presence friends in been of at intention conviction conviction the and recorded this mannerand first contradiction in 7discussed persons of evidence respect (particulars of heitindidPW12 of instance causing ofthereon.
S. inthe would 162 all in the only.
his are of in such of Although trial statement 1923,the the The Islamuddin para presence. of itin accused bodily residents return court three exhibits the no. back court Abid recorded 4 accused cannot and are in toThis hisis to '1' 7. injury raisedCode in procedure as of an alarm the convicted the Criminal matter offender the prescribed Procedure.
in thethat of knows appreciation appellant is school that, under to if be it he of likely S.302 is went evidence, intended to I.P.C. cause intoaccused to no and the room hard contradict death sentenced and where of he saw AIR 1997 in Sukhvinder SCapparent 3292:
Singh (1997) Vs 1to devising SCC 19 made the following isState ofinPunjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 issuing would proper be guide lineit was orKhujji protect the acases, suitable policy to the person fast him a witness rule to by tolife whom can the be thelaid imprisonment.
writing, harm hisdown, caused,
attention yet, or preferred
must, most before an appeal
the in
41. alsotruthful trace Perusal u/s house. 161 writing against neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons light the be and wood of being Cr.
evaluating against He weapon solely of held can the the the P reliable has thebe swab, C a user of the completely aforesaid on the said in also proved of cross-examination sole the He'2' view evidence and offence statement ground further identified conviction.
be Flacky called the statements ofstatements hostile the of Thetoan statement and adopted for judgment all High those of witnesses material-dry of so to three interested toascertain conviction PW7 ofCourt parts ofPW2be thetheat Maan accused of the made oritlooked Tahsildar while blood, time the cross-examination reveals persons even which asSingh ignoring atheinto persons. '3' of associates that Singh now place who withcross- Flackey has this and Thistheof overcome that observations : 1943rdly.-
arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
police whichwas for 1376 of with PW3 the during investigation itholding are that the isKishan purpose very :
intention useful the ofLal relevant asof and aback contradicting PW4crucial causing first at (kamar) step the trialof bodily Ramesh him. to The and injury focus relied Kamruddin, dominant to in presumably o the assumption that the said statements any examination provisoon persons attentionthe to onand cannot appellant S. 162 the the of as the bodily question, be one Code of injury considered whether ofthe intended assailants Criminal the as to presence Procedure betrue notwithstanding inflicted of only version the is in this namely with statement court material-
identified recovery ANNOUNCED Anr.
witness respect Vs will were Dilshad has was sample INof the inof State examine not knife of THE been accused PW2 got of made and accusedblood, OPENwas UP.
declared Arif.
contradicted Jehruddin, thepersons undernotAbid.
The '4' No nature exclusively Wooden hostile proceedings in contentions circumstances PW5with examination-in-chief by of pieces, ld. regard Mohd.
theaccessible APP of in CFSL inspiringld. respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' and APPthe in report toPants of statement the accused and based and both cross-with and PWhis on
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither effort thethe the at giving in the accused fate conduct cross the ordinary ofscene knife Both the of toservice course examination the of the blow make present the accused of use sectionby particulars nature crime to to wriggle of at Kamruddin case:- such tothe itself may and cause out statement of material his the proviso death,PW7 statement and time to or Maan Parvez Singh also COURT ON was in contradictTHIS nothe probable.
bearelied 30.01.2009 examination-in-chief witness of much If so, whether in consequence the in regard manner theprovided substratum to the but when byidentityof the S. 145 story of of the regard intended to serve primarilythe upon the same citation purpose Khujji i.e. , the@ Surendera the recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid the accused 4thly.- examination the and '5A-2' citation Other narrated appellant. EvidenceIf under knife of the hepersons Shirt, denial 'Khujji by witnesses doctor person The did the Act. section was '5B' not @ witness, High It to are concerned. committing find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would being on having noticed be formal Cr.
the record stained consistent doing them PC act that matching The witnesses.
knows with Tiwari the violence bywhether gauze within weapon the his that Vs the examination-in-
to (RAJ they cross-examination blood IOcloth itState statement other the isthat used were sostains piece, KAPOOR) of accused in to with M.P. got this '6'-
the nor caught mode considered interest minor imminently holding evidence chief language of of of of intimation discrepancies thison the thethe dangerous record, witness proviso alongwith accused deceased.
inthat the wasif to the the it natural the evidence must, recorded said witness other course in statementonInof all the the of November two PW6 probability, human be allowed Gajraj cross-examination eye-witnesses events, 16, cause 1976 regarding of are death circumstances immaterial or such unless bodily ADDL.
thattheyisdemolished injury SESSIONS as the disclosure is likely the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic cause case death, of theand EAST Tiwarito be the whereas surrounding used Vs his for State cross the circumstances purposeofexamination M.P. of and commenced cross-examining
-1853' AIR inherent 1991 probabilities aonwitnessDecember Supreme Court
38.Afterdeclared persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased effect AIR isor witness a1976 statement 1991 explaining noise that prosecution commitsof the P.O. knife visited that knife scene blood.
such he Supreme case, .his or and madePW6 which his had Section act of is other earlier No '7' house by incident, without such Gajraj the stated Court kind reaction Banyan). is 162testimony Ex.P5 any which and accused KARKARDOOMA norof Singh before Cr.
excuse proceedings took on and his Blood isto banyan leading PCfor his formal itthe is presence has deceased tocould not regarding incurring effect of policecomewere witness COURTS: accused sustainable the bynot ofrisk athat got identification son on be ofas contradicting way initiated record detected and well he of Parvej DELHI as this had other as the in within this witness 15, the the recovery i.e. meaning I found after of dead ofa month majorthe first from his pointing as with and body contradictionswill part carry in between of conviction S. 145 he seemed of the at one to occasion causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 5540.witness he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused 1853identified Ext.6 statement also which of .observations documents the Evidencethem.
perusal witness contradiction prudent out, have Section found i.e. case persons the confronting the assumes been Act. dagger/ of Kamruddin blood of accused since person. 302 wonin Nor IPC The PW21 are the hand made much over If arewas he thecase stains brought recovery or wedoes knife. with and at that persons has inthe aabout file the significance answer had having not been previous impressedknife on instance reveals On citation of aforesaid succumbed to in appear record. these to his bygot knife was examination-in-chief serological matched presence convict the declared that statement are of recovered atApart in questions to police, two in entirely argument threat.the this the bewith cases inhostile with from examination instance Thiscan case procedure statement deceased different. from culprits this by not by there and the he be ld.
of that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, not was ofbe drawn the and possible for charge the onevidence murder the to of basis invoke murder. ofofthe Whoever thePW3's second witness statement commits part appears of murder that S.145 shall to be he the was ofpunishedthe court severly Evidence towith beaten be death, almost Actonor without flawless, the (Imprisonment night putting and previous relevant free for life), from to his and indicated at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble other3andKamruddin questions shall thatunless blood IOs Supreme In suspicion, appearance also occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently :be light ofliable under those itwas 161 from accused his may inofregarding the answered Court todetected in Cr.
testimony drain these Court have accept first fine. cross-examination PC.Abid are parthe as happens it, neither conducted aidentification has exfacie in him without The thereof.by isExhibits witness. IO been corroborated that scope the toat seeking indicative be The the he the all cross-examined The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably he of would of ocular instance investigation corroboration difficulty high cross-examination denied accused ofbyis go court,the evidence some ofwith suspicious to fact 5A-2, accused persons identify by ofthat these other him this nor 5B a more from therefore, imaginary any other took than source.
thereal. viewSince The thatsecond perfection the subsequent partinofthis S. imperfect 145 attempt of of
45. the Sec.34 world PW1 Evidnece IPCKomal is seldom Act Chandclearly towasto be indicates create found, satestified the doubt and simple the regarding procedure evidence the identity of to a
29. circumstantial the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear regarding Before accused 7. in motive ParaT.I.P. no distinction First Exhibits the from .for
-13 reachingaccount cross-examination ofis Besides sleeping The contradictionpersons.
the aone knife evidence 5A-1, drain learned at beof PW8 ofany these made in he the 5-A2and Counselthe SI was hasHeindicate essential also conclusionSatender two and school. between this beenappointed he not associates first 5B knife has the components got were argument discussed let whoAnd the that deposed direct was the conducted just found proved major this is namely statement sent 8proximate based relevant in portion orto that case to contradictions DD 10to have Dilshad commit by police CFSL no.6/A days does made the human Tahsildar sections nexusago had and any I.O.
not for asin i.e.
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the appellant a criminal words careful more To illustrate in so actthewas is consideration of an doneof manner: A no interested says consequence by provided in the several persons to S.the witness, witness- by since is 145 insubmissions boxgenerally there that furtherance of the was of ld. B of the stabbed fringed intrinsiccommon Indian with material C:Evidence before embellishment intention in his the Act ofevidence police all, and 1872 each he exaggerations, toofhad found establish in stated such S.persons 162 thethat however ofpresence isDliable the examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh 299 forChowkidar Codeisminor In IPC,inquiry of mentioned true of thatcan on and ofthe this inOC.record. act when contradictions 300 the establish Group. and another appellant Criminal His in and from case main, as IPC, the thein the attention him the same Procedure. in The revealed thewas the knife Exhibits amongst the wooden Vs 302 courtthe and can element knife statement manner at when was guilt State IPC may cross-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded the by1,2,3,4 was look as recovered pieces instance of and ofthe of assailants 145 PW6 accused toitUP iffor recovered recorded motive contradictions 34 that some of were his and the as and Gajraj part of IPC of without statement. Ex.P1 7 police. Hon assurance, done Evidence of neither persons deceasedhave u/s be thebyfrom in ithim ble blood 161 collectively, his has shown are This the exists re-produced Court He beyond Cr.cross- stains minor drain been state has wasPC noin APP alone.
Act, and statement the Gulab. it is nature ld. made said, RelyingCounsel and before empowers extent further Sh the oftheon which N. police the discovery accused K.Tyagi will which varyto put for contradicts according evidence all relevant accused toas histhe well Abid, Sh. statement circumstances as questions the find in to the a ofwitness human witness of the blood particular box. onhis before If thehe case, weapon admits attention fromhis is found independent previous called from to the and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs verbatim of the truthfulness from denied was is IOinwhich opinion Ex.PW5/A. that goes therelation nor is nottheand doubt itPW10 place to in had of suggestion that are indicate any the documents the to blood as which Inspector without A,B,O exclusive witness discrete This cross-examination under:- stains that was that Grouping. contradiction regarding cannot further Vijay statement particular PW approach not which Prakash, Maan exclusively be can strong under his discredited of also ofof Singh suggest the this employment accused who happens section corroboration.
accessible nature witness had proved the intold and all 145 match which toisand him are the no be Cr.to Mohd.
Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts of the offorsection no of accused circumstantial the further appellant writing proof 34 with IPC Naushad is and or necessary, reveals a viewdirect, on to his the and before pantif he following contradict Abdul whichfinding does Sattar, important him. he not Inthe Advocate wasingredients :
admit supportaccused wearing theofpractice at guilty this thecontention on time generally the ofbasishis followed arrest, of thethinterested reliance isisHightoplace admitCourt testimony it came upon subject the to. the be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary PC the i.phone qualified brought suggest of Section to blood was proofthe for conclusion That judgment in to-Abid. that by found giving 299 there postmortem light itof onby witness of thethat when murder IPC must this the thatrecord.
some of police having the benefit be Court These deceased. histhe murder had isaofficer.
to other contradictions examination reaction conviction criminal in of The befacts Bhagwan taken doubt On considerations could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted act. the was place on Singh towell other haveit.
as the Vsallegedly are born in hand Ex.PW10/A Public to Khaddewala been accused founded State major indicate ,PW6 foron ifofwitness the his committed record theatthese and the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time in to affect third this the byofI amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae act must 1952 his for suggested appeal.
SCR have accusedbybeen 812: Itthe may (AIR Parvej. learned done here by 1952 be SC counsel Perusal mentioned
214). may several Bosepersonsthat be of the case file J. thein Culpable illustrated State furtherance describes didhomicide thus the notprocedure :ofprefer Iftheir the common Whoever witess an to appeal is asked be causes against intention.
followed did death the by youcontradict to five doing saycompanions before an acase act
42.
31. acquit considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light accused On is root accused inGurcharan perusalMaan all this ofofis ofunder thethese recovery not of the regard of to of persons Singh accused PW2trustworthy.
case all be offence facts DAss, section he true Jehruddin. depositionsand about of has and for persons the knife Banyan in 162leave the been circumstances then the terms Cr.conceived ofis an for confronted incident This SHO was P.C. the PW12impression the ofprosecution witness recovered the offences who and object.
Islamuddin does ofand statement by proved thethe ofwasld.
not u/s factuntruthfulness The fromAPP witnesses302/34 also the reflect other who Imade havingaccused with have seizure cross-IPC has last the his not and to in reveals that most material witness in this case is of with the witnessof the police the intention appellant under officer S.145 of who that ofcausing came the yu saw Evidenceto death, be a acquitted gas Act or with light? thus byatthe the p.819 intention trial he (of court. PW7 Maan causing answers SCR) It isat insuchyes these p.217 bodily then ofcircumstances AIR): theinjury statementas isthat likely whichthe to cause appellant does notdeath,or has contain invoked with examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of the the 27 witnesses.
of witness and /54/59 of knowledge foundcross-examinations, their such in this recitalthe statement the the Court'scommunication, at was isquantum clothes length knife Arms is that sealed PW5 statement recorded put jurisdiction to he himrecorded in Act.
by of In of isasquestion deceased Mohd.
defence this contradictions likely under inAll time contradiction. I have a regard accused by Art. u/s pulanda Siddiqui such 136 and which counsel 161 found and under of Hon act This theplace Cr.PC are one in to sowas also who ble light in Sh.
cause sample section Constitution. procedure many and Supreme JC where recovered also reveals ofRashid death,for this the can 161 minor seal more itjudgment fact isCourt that Hasmi/ not Cr.not in along type than alsohis be so PC in of Singh commits involves who the two was offence fallacies: working Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the of culpable one as is Chowkidar homicide. it enables the in accused the premises to where elicit witness by adenies process thatof he cross-examination made the former what the witness statement. In N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five discussed years, Tyagi not one upon as goInhence for sealed due Thefound light to above accused toestablish soleof they the having all envelope and fact reason depositions beAbidjudgment of the released blood recovery andthat close containing it material relied of stains forthwith has and this of come upon knife witness proximate which statement blood ifanother from byonnotisitld. Tahsildar that accused contradictions Explanation Singh 1. persons
-andA. and person another visited discrepancies who causesat the Vs in bodily house State theirinjury of of statements to PW2UP was record gauze wanted has thelink APPofwhich explaining Jehruddin found come place PW2 with that i.e. of in
30. incident So that long stated event, as itthe before took the place would question police beon theofnight officer. necessary interested If a to prove police of 09.04.2003. thatwitnesses officerhe did, did not and This concerned witness is who if theisformer make labouring a record statement under of awas awitness disorder, reduced disease s statement to writing, or then bodily his entire S.145 infirmity,
43.
32. any
36. Iwashed.
It have Other this on and deceased which regard did has Khujji the and are record other not witness object took statement requires thereby wasto most been attributable@ given find case.
provide hisThe Kamruddin of thatnot that Surendera could accelerates happens the Section son his material observed same notcareful exclusively this mention assistance be 162 Kamruddin, attention due towas witness used to asthe Tiwari must the consideration witnesses by be Cr.also for death already accessible of longanythe PC be the to also goessent accused Vs drawn of the held purpose Hon'ble duration that cousin. Ex.PW20/A, does in State to testimony to to CFSL that:-this indicate whereas these to other, persons accused of ofnot the Supreme shall and case, M.P. parts time This ifhappens aseizure thatof itcitations
-be andAbid visit PW7 part isi.e. AIR Court reported reliance further at memo of memoryto Maan PW2 1991 as the bein of thedeemedHon'ble direct police which officer to Supreme testimony have are to recorded caused be used for Court to his a few the death. held sentences by contradiction. incident in But Hari this thatin Obula process question.
position of Reddi v. State Careful cross-examination does not arise when the witness the witness s oral statement admits thecould former be discussed Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the itnot Observation:
Laxman Supreme this of human reveals blood Pare witness Explanation So be Naikabove house.
also who 11- Court long being.determinative unless
2.stained Itno appears -goes is,Vs and happens as mark 1853 Where PW4 some therefore, arguments indirect Baniyan State to However, of indicate be death Aslam wherein to blood of seen other ofbe shaky.
is death and ofisthat Orissa that in caused of itwith the case the has ld. accused cogent a82 circumstantial with witness by this Counsel father the (1994) object been of bodily the witness blood piece ofParvej Jaskaranofwho knife for the3deceased held injury, and all could belongs of evidence (SCC) that:-
the in as accused identity evidence question Singh already not 381 and be Vsof is:
of Andhra brought statement. analysis legislature and onPradesh In record.
such evaluation throughout a AIR case of 1981 allThis has that this been SC procedure, is necessary witness to and exclude is testimony Tameshwar therefore, to look the reveals Sahi that v. person contravenes to the former who causes thestatement such express provision bodily of whichof no injury shall S. 162 be further deemed of the proof Code. tois have Before caused persons The parting statement second the and of awith death, matter fallacy witness although is the that on made by judgment by record.
the before theItopolice resorting illustration Record would proper given during of by like remedies the the toproceeding bring on PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes 1994 State its Modh.
necessary the on toUttar SCC PW1 1997 recovery unqualified the record.
PW2 Komal investigation Siddiqui This picture (Cri.) because SCC and Jehruddin Chand, thereto.656
of fact from subsequently the (Crl) arrest and that also however, admission being 651 they in memo who made the Accused goes are supported that it happens absence use i.e. wasit crucial to of was of after the at are indicate accused made.
observed for tothe ofin prosecution the trial bethe other custody occurrence the that bypurpose Parvejpiece father certain since Hon'ble as soof State hisandlearned of testimony skillfulcounsel case intreatmentPradesh ishis most for the the AIR significant death examination-in-chief appellants 1976 might have SC which there 59 been but isin that would prevented. nohisself-:- reflect cross the vide record formy contradiction anyobservationpurpose, andwith of he therefer primary the amendmentsregard statement to made the made investigation.
from In this It isexamination unnecessary to expressed to other some cases doubt wherein a in regarding similar the the
37. So reveals determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his time testimony long witness When Explanation Supreme General identity procedure thatto has as Court box, time the of3.
isis accused Further, it and has is
-for were ofborn the charge the suggested- in remotely Thethe the only come personal the Interested appellantstatement is causing witness for Dilshad intended cross-examination onguilt sought followingon record and putting connected of has evidencerecord to of Guddu to search accused thebe and yetofmake regarding proved words:-
questions death notisPW5Arif that clear stating memo with made no persons of by under who the deceased this Mohd.
of anecessarily thatchild on said regard S. non reportedly committal as witness theinhad he 145 based Ex.PW13/B, the toKamruddin Siddiquia linkwere reveals on of theof is case implications mother's there object circumstantial and womb regardingfrequent to dispel evidence, is notathomicide. the thechange cloud proof the Butcast ofof conviction itsaid on may investigating guilt suchamount and isintention. to culpable officers proof of in guiltall stand of the seen any unreliableIndian assertion their evidence.
backs Evidence all only.Even Act, which for The cantrial partisanship the serve Court decisionas itself by the came basis.
of is thisnot to athe homicideThe justified Act to when of 1898 cause thethe for the circumstances death of first a living time found child, introduced to ifbe be any part anof that along The contradiction, validwith conclusion ground accusedthat under forevidence discrediting not only the Abidwas section, or thisas rejecting witnessshould revealed swornafromchance betweenin testimony. his disclosure
39. three direct number Other pointing murder was piece Court concerned, taken Whenor PW for of officers exception indirect and established out contradictions thedeceased away 4he the Aslam similarmemo conducted evidence has enabling bypurpose against accused decisions also ofKamruddin who of the first the which the the in said and is were of his informant independent persons place therefore also consideration not investigation by deposition statement accused go accused as isconsidering found from to reduced already comparison the to of hasbewitness public his root persons the this tofullhouse.
ofof stated Ex.PW13/D, witness of casechain the between without In thatcase. whichhas the as he of the child what accused Nor but procedure has a witness his contradictions, can been presence in it a persons.
brought asserted be case be exaggerations laid at the where forth, in downscene Having the the though witness as and of statementan perused occurrencethe box child invariablein and was writingmaythe whatrule statement not extremely was he that have of this breathedwriting complete or tobeen chain used of evidence completely for impeaching as improvements, not the to credit of leave hethe cannot shows stated intended be that interested doubtful held before to the to bethe as be itused a police preparatory evidence was truthful fordifficult canborn.
officer, contradiction witness and to nevermeasures believe .
not underformbetween that he S. regarding the had 162 what basis ofcome he of the investigation out statement
44. circumstantial thesaid Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got discussed and reasonable corroboration.
declared he in the statement was evidence.
of manner subsequently ground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his In provided for testimony factsand this of a and of the conclusion. regard PW2 by accused consequently the has the remand case, by Evidence Jehurrin PW25 also ld. of Parvej arguments been Counsel Act.
accused Abid was had Code seen he conviction at that had of CriminalKamruddin, stated hourunless before toProcedure.
purchase Abid, corroborated the police Sectionto145 vegetables. Naushad officer a material Thus of and and the the what trialDr during extent Evidence and Parvej he demolished inas court PW5 the Sh.Rajender ofalready while course all Mohd.
Abdul theythe by witness Section As the it
- 300 comes phraseology IPC on of the record exception that lent this scope witness to in his were actuallynot is in upto material Actrefused defeat made two the the to before particulars place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
thebyfirst as In independent of onpart the such theenables the vital a evidence case evidence. legislature missing the the by link question theAll ofaccused three the in the ocular that toeye- is could obtained nottobetrace necessary witnesses. cross-examine putis a at that The all; witnessthem, only thetrial as questions evidence is court, to also previous of toon however, contradict interested record.
statement came can witnesses made be toFurther, the careful Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence werecross-examination counsel amicus standing Amendmentis Srcounselnecessary Scientific for black incuriae Actthe color as accused done gali 1923, precisely Officer, for itno.10 accused baniyan the by has FSL, ld.
sectionpersons forborne and APP Parvej /T-Shirt, the onRohini, washe reasons asking and onand has redrafted as Delhi record itthe denied from has already that has contentions also deceased that Kamruddin proved Ex.P6 come anyon as Giving bywell examination-in-chief Murder put and should support conclusion him inthe asExcept bequestion writing circumstantial to subjected that or inthe the reducedthe defining the limits of the exception with precision so a he here cases appellant has to contentions posed tocareful hereinafter writing was doesevidence identified scrutiny absconding without notexcepted, of all minor contradict; and such were the accepted andwriting that itthree culpable found contradictions he accused after homicide leads being withto had is murder, an caution. discovered shown answer toIf him;on the ifwhich the suchweapon theact scrutiny, by is second which which contradicted the was thefound interested part death by the deals iswith totestimony be caused police a is stained considerationto confine and it onlyperusal to contradict of the the case witnessfile in the reveals that two
46. completion Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, as to donerecord on was why statement.
is with situation on biological withand found the the he human seized that was the of where arrest knife This to case wasu/s be seen trial. intention he examination 145 by recovered law knew standing argument blood.intrinsically the was him of itwith The Cr.relied offrom causing also cross-examination made PCaccused the authority ld.
reliablethere, relied upon from accused blood death, CounselEvidence accused or on beforeorby Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin based inherently the themParvej.
factum assumes drain him Act persons detected upon and ofand the adopt probable, and atthe told theS.
find fact to the due on either this ld.of instance Exhibits appropriate ofhim APP, to taking thateffect any the heI persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of may, human and Supreme itof has the deposed provided Evidence by blood also itself, contradiction: on be under Court been Act, the that section in is therefore, sufficient, pant in as observed case worninwords, other bysoon 145State thenot the ofas by of circumstances thehe any appellant both Hon'ble heard Evidence of relevance parts UP at deal ofSupreme the the the Vs time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. If one regarding could guess regulating the intention the of the process legislature of investigation by 2ndly. in withconsidering - Ifarrest.
particular of his cross-examinationit iscase, done theOn to with expressbase the bybasisthe way intention aprovisions conviction this of contradiction of evidence causing ofthereon.
S. 162 the only. such of Although trial the The bodily court days both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of was accused 2, of PC the 3, the standing in 4, that framing remand witnesses 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not allthe 5A-2, with that the found in was his section have the accused the was 5Bsought mentioned presence friends in been conviction the and recorded and manner in 7discussed persons respect (particulars of heitindid PW12 of inthe would all in his are of in statement 1923,the accused Islamuddin para presence. of residents return itthree exhibits no.back Abid recorded 4 accused cannot and are in toThis to his '1' 7. injury raisedCode in procedure an as of the convicted the Criminal alarm matter offender the prescribed inProcedure.
of the knows appreciation appellant is school that, under to if be it he of likely S.302 is went evidence, intended to I.P.C. cause into to no and the room hard contradict death sentenced and where of he saw AIR 1997 in Sukhvinder SC 3292:
Singh (1997) Vs 1 SCC 19 made the following isState ofor Punjab (1994) 5 SCCpolicy152 issuing would proper be apparent guide that lineit was to orKhujji protect devising the accused acases, suitable to the person fast him a witness rule to by tolife whom can the be thelaid imprisonment.
writing, harm hisdown, caused, attention yet, in preferred must, most before an appeal the in against the user of the statements of witnesses made
41. alsotrace Perusal neighbourhood.
witness In Cotton persons u/s light house. 161 writing the be wood of being Cr.
evaluating against He weapon solely of held can the the Phas thebe swab, C a completely aforesaid on the said in also proved of cross-examination sole the He'2' view evidence offence statement ground further identified conviction.
be Flacky ofstatements called hostile the of Thetoanand adopted formaterial-dry judgment allHigh those of so to three interested toascertain conviction PW7 ofCourt parts ofPW2be thetheMaan oritlooked Tahsildar accused ofwhile blood, even which ignoringthe cross-examination reveals persons asSingh atheinto persons. associates '3'that Singh now place who with Flackey has this and Thistheof overcome that observations : 1943rdly.-
arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be itthis Ifevidence the (Cri) is witness, used done inadequacy.
police whichwas for 1376 of with PW3 the during investigation itholding are that the isKishan purpose very :
intention useful the ofLal relevant asof and contradictingaback PW4crucial causing first at (kamar) step the trialof bodily Ramesh him. to The and injury focusrelied Kamruddin, dominant to in presumably o the assumption that the said statements any provisoon persons attentionthe to onand appellant S. 162 the thequestion, of as the bodily one Code ofinjury whether oftheCriminal intended assailants theProcedure to presence be inflicted notwithstanding of the is only namely with statement court material-
identified recovery ANNOUNCED Anr.
witness respect Vs will were Dilshad has was sample INof the inof State examine not knife of THE been accused PW2 got of made and accusedblood, OPENwas UP.
declared Arif.
contradicted Jehruddin, thepersons undernotAbid.
The '4' No nature exclusively Wooden hostile proceedings in contentions circumstances PW5with examination-in-chief by ofld. pieces, regard Mohd.
theaccessible APP of in CFSL inspiringld. respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' and APP the in report toPants ofcross- statement the accused and based and both with and PWhis on
35. deciding Besides Abid sufficient enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither effort thethe the at giving in the accused fate conduct cross the ordinary ofscene knife Both the of toservice course examination the ofblow make thepresent the accused of use section particulars nature crime to by to wriggle of attothe Kamruddin case:- such itself and cause out statement may of material his the proviso PW7 death,statement and toor time Maan ParvezSingh also COURT ON was in contradictTHIS probable.
not examination-in-chief bea of 30.01.2009 witness much If so, whether in consequence the in regard manner theprovided substratum to the byidentityof the S. 145 story of of the intended to serve primarily the samebut purpose when i.e. , the the recorded Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid the accused 4thly.- examination the and '5A-2' citation Other narrated appellant. EvidenceIf under knife of the hepersons Shirt, denial 'Khujji by witnesses doctor person The did the Act. section was '5B' not @ witness, High It to are concerned. committing find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would being on having noticed be formal Cr.
the record stained consistent doing them PC act that matching The witnesses.
knows with Tiwarithe violencebywhether gauze within weapon the his that Vs the examination-in-
to (RAJ they cross-examination blood IOcloth itState statement other the isthat used were sostains piece, accused KAPOOR) of in to with M.P. got this'6'- the nor caught mode considered interest minor imminently holding evidence chief language of of of of intimation discrepancies thison the thethe dangerous record, witness proviso alongwith accused deceased.
inthat the wasif to the the it natural the evidence must, recorded said witness other course in statementonInof all the the of November two PW6 probability, human be Gajraj cross-examination eye-witnesses events, allowed16, cause 1976 regarding of are death circumstances immaterial or such unless bodily ADDL.
thattheyisdemolished injury SESSIONS as the disclosure is likely the to JUDGE-I/NORTH basic cause case death, of theand EAST to be the whereas surrounding used his for cross the circumstances byexamination purpose of and commenced cross-examining inherenttoprobabilities aonwitnessDecember
38.Afterdeclared persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased effect AIR isor witness a1976 statement 1991 explaining noise that prosecution commitsof the P.O. knife visited that knife scene blood.
such he Supreme case, .his or and madePW6 which his had Section act of is other earlier No '7' house incident, without such Gajraj the stated Court kind reaction Banyan). is 162testimony Ex.P5 any which and accused KARKARDOOMA norof Singh before Cr.
excuse 1853' proceedings took on and his Blood isto banyan leading PCfor his formal itthe is presence has deceased notcould regarding incurring effect of police were come witness COURTS: accused sustainable the bynot of risk athat got identification son on be ofas contradicting way initiated record detected and well he of Parvej DELHI as this had other as the in within this witness 15, the the recovery i.e. meaning I found after of dead ofa month majorthe first from his pointing as with and body contradictionswill part carry in between of conviction S. 145 he seemed of the at one to occasion causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 5540.witness he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused identified Ext.6 statement also which of observations documents the Evidencethem.
perusal witness contradiction prudent out, have Section found i.e. case persons the confronting the assumes been Act. dagger/ of Kamruddin blood of accused since person. 302 wonin Nor IPC The PW21 are the hand made much over If arewas he thecase stains brought recovery or wedoes knife. with and at that persons has inthe aabout file the significance answer had having not been previous impressedknife on instance reveals On citation of aforesaid succumbed to in appear record. these to his bygot knife was examination-in-chief serological matched presence convict the declared that statement are of recovered atApart in questions to police, two in entirely argument threat.the this the bewith cases inhostile with from examination instance Thiscan case procedure statement deceased different. from culprits this by not by there and the he be ld.
of that 302 the inference it Punishment would accused affirmative, not was ofbe drawn the and possible for charge the onevidence murder the to of basis invoke murder. ofofthe Whoever thePW3's second witness statement commits part appears of murder that S.145 shall to be he the was ofpunishedthe court severly Evidence towith beaten be death, almost Actonor without flawless, the night (Imprisonment putting and previous relevant free for life), from to his and indicated at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble other 3andKamruddin questions shall thatunless blood IOs Supreme In suspicion, appearance also occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently :be light ofliable under those itwas 161 from accused his may inof regarding theanswered Court to detected in Cr.
testimony drain these Courthave accept first fine. cross-examination PC.Abid are he part ashappens it, neither conducted aidentification has exfacie in him without The thereof.byisExhibits witness. IO been corroborated that scope the toat seeking indicative be The the he the all cross-examined The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably he of would of ocular instance investigation corroboration difficulty high cross-examination denied accused ofbyis go court,the evidence some ofwith suspicious to fact 5A-2, accused persons identify by ofthat these other him this nor 5B a more from therefore, imaginary any other took than source.
thereal. viewSince The thatsecond perfection the subsequent partinofthis S. imperfect 145 attempt of of case.
clearthe Sec.34
45. circumstantial the persons himself and since sources The Para regarding world PW1 Evidnece accused 7. in motive T.I.P. no distinction First -13IPC Exhibits the from .for Komal is accountThe seldom contradiction Act cross-examination ofis Besides sleeping Chand persons. the aone knife clearly evidence 5A-1, drain learnedbeof PW8oftowas to these made in he the be indicates 5-A2 create and Counselthe SIwas He has found, indicate essential also Satender two and satestified school. between this been the doubt and appointed henot simple associates first 5B knife has the the regarding components got were argument discussed who And the procedure evidence that deposed direct was conducted justfound proved major this is the namely statement sent identity of to 8proximate based in portion orto that case to a contradictions DD 10to have Dilshad commit by police CFSL no.6/A days does made the human Tahsildar nexusago had and any I.O.
not for asin
34. I have beWhen upon given witness, of followed.
the the appellant a criminal words morecareful To illustrate so actthe in was is consideration of an doneof manner: A no interested says consequence by provided in the several persons to S.the witness, witness- by since is 145 insubmissions boxgenerally there that furtherance of the was of ld. B of the stabbed fringed intrinsiccommon Indian with material C:Evidence before embellishment intention in his the Act ofevidence police all, and 1872 each he exaggerations, toofhad found establish in stated such S.persons 162 thethathowever ofpresence isDliable the examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh forChowkidar Codeisminor In inquiry of mentioned true of thatcan on and ofthe this inOC.record. act when contradictions the Criminal establish Group. and another appellant His in and from case main, as the in the attention the thehim in same Procedure. The revealed the was the knife Exhibits amongst the Vswooden courtthe and canelement knife statement mannerat when was guilt State may cross-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded the by 1,2,3,4 was look as recovered pieces instance of ofthe of PW6 accused toitUP assailants 145 iffor recovered recorded motive contradictions that ofsome were his and the as and Gajraj part of of without statement. Ex.P1 7 police. Hon assurance, done Evidence of neither persons deceasedhave u/s thebyfrom in ithim ble blood 161 collectively, his has shown are This the exists Court He beyond Cr.cross- stains minor drain been state has wasPC noin APP alone.
Act, and statement the Gulab. it is nature ld.
said,made RelyingCounsel and before empowers extent further Sh the ofthe on which N. police K.Tyagi the discovery accused willwhich varyto put for contradicts according evidence all relevant accused toas histhe well Abid, Sh. statement circumstances as questions the find in to the a ofwitness human witness of the blood particular box. onhis before If the he case, weapon admits attention fromhis is found independent previous called from to the and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs of thetruthfulness from denied was is IOinEx.PW5/A. opinion that goes therelation nor is notthe and doubt itPW10 place to in had of suggestion that indicate any the documents the toblood which Inspector without A,B,O exclusive witness discrete This cross-examination stains that was that Grouping. contradiction regarding cannot further Vijay statement particular PW approach not which Prakash, Maan exclusively be can strong under his discredited of also of of Singh suggest the this employment accused who happens section corroboration.
accessible nature witness had proved the intold and all 145 match which toisand him are the no be Cr.to Mohd.
Careful statement, perusal those Iqbal evidence, garage parts of the offorsection no of accused circumstantial the further appellant writing proof 34 with IPC Naushad is and or necessary, reveals a viewdirect, on to his the and before pant if he following contradict Abdul which finding does Sattar, important him. he not Inthe Advocate wasingredients :
admit supportaccused wearing theofpractice atguilty this thecontention on time generally the ofbasishis followed arrest, of thethinterested reliance isisHightoplaceadmitCourt testimony it came upon subject the to. the be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary PC the i.phone toqualified brought suggest of blood was proofthe for conclusion That judgment in toAbid. that by there found giving postmortem light itofon witness of theby that when murder must this the thatrecord.
some of policehaving the benefit be Court These deceased. histhe murder had isaofficer.
to other contradictions examination reaction conviction criminal in of The befacts Bhagwan taken doubt On considerations could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted act. the was place on Singh towell otherhaveit.
as the Vsallegedly are born in handEx.PW10/A Public to Khaddewala been accused founded State major indicate ,PW6 foron ifofwitness the his committed record theatthese and the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time in to affect third this the byofI amicus procedure ii. dismissed Punjab The (1), curiae act 1952 his for suggested must appeal.
SCR have accused bybeen 812: Itthe may (AIR Parvej. learned donehere by 1952 be SC counsel Perusal mentioned
214). may several persons Bose that be of the case file J. thein illustrated State furtherance describes did thus the notprocedure :ofprefer Iftheir the commonwitess an to appeal is asked be against intention.
followed didthe youcontradict to fivesaycompanions before acase
42. accused
31. considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquit On light is root accused inGurcharan Maan all this ofofis ofunder the these recovery notof the regard toof persons Singh accused PW2trustworthy.
case be offence facts DAss, sectionhe true Jehruddin. and about of has and for persons the knife Banyan in leave 162 the been circumstances then the terms Cr.conceived is an for confronted incident This SHO wasPW12 P.C. impression the ofprosecution witness recovered the offences who and object.
Islamuddin does ofand statement by proved thethe ofwasld.
not u/s factuntruthfulness The fromAPP 302/34 also the reflect other who Imade havingaccused with have seizure cross-IPC has last the his notto in reveals that most material witness in this case witnesses perusal the witnessof police the under of appellant officer all S.145 depositions who thatof came the yu sawto Evidence be ofa the acquitted gas Act light?
thus byat the p.819 trial he (of is PW7 Maan court. and answers SCR) It isat in p.217 yes thesethen ofcircumstances AIR):the statement thatwhich the appellant does not has contain invoked examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of found theirthe such27 witnesses.
in this of witness and /54/59 of recitalthe statement the the communication, Court's cross-examinations, at was quantum is clothes length knife Arms is sealed PW5 statement recorded put jurisdiction to recorded him in Act.
by of In of asquestion deceased Mohd.
defence this contradictions under inAll time contradiction. I have a regard accused Art. u/s pulanda Siddiqui 136and which counsel 161 found and Hon under of This place the Cr.PC are one in sowas also who ble light in Sh. sample section Constitution. procedure many and Supreme JC where recovered also reveals ofRashidfor this the can 161 minor seal more itjudgment fact isCourt that Hasmi/ not Cr.not in along type than alsohis be so PC in of Singh involves who two was fallacies:working Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the one as is Chowkidar it enables the in accused the premises to where elicit witness by adenies process thatof he cross-examination made the former what the witness statement. In N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five discussed years, Tyagi not one upon as goInhence for sealed due Thefound light to above accused to establish sole of they the having all envelope and fact reason depositions beAbid judgment ofthe released blood recovery andthat close containing it material relied of stains forthwith has and this of come upon knife witness proximate which statement blood ifPW2from byonnotisitld. Tahsildar that accused contradictions Singh persons and and another visited discrepancies at the Vs in house State their of of statements UP was record gauze wanted has thelink APPofwhich explaining Jehruddin found come place PW2 with that i.e. of in
30. incident So that long stated event, as itthe before took the place would question police beon theofnight officer. necessary interested If a to prove police of 09.04.2003. thatwitnesses officerhe did, did not and This concerned witness is make if the former a record statement of awas witnessreduced s statement to writing, then his S.145 entire
43.
32. any
36. Iwashed.
It did have Other this on deceased which regard has Khujji the and are record other not witness object took statement requires wasto most been attributable@ given find case.
provide The Kamruddin of his that not that Surendera could happens the Section son his careful material observed same exclusively this not due mention assistance be 162 Kamruddin, attention towas witness used to as Tiwari must the consideration witnesses by be Cr.also foralready accessible of longanythe the PC be to also sent goesaccused Vs the held purpose drawn Hon'ble cousin. duration Ex.PW20/A, does in State to testimony to to CFSL this that:- to indicate whereas these persons accused of ofnot the Supreme and case, M.P. parts time This ifhappens aseizure thatofanditcitations
-Abid visit PW7 part isi.e. AIR Court reported reliance further at memo of memoryto Maan PW2 1991 as the bein of Hon'ble thepolicedirect which officer are to Supreme testimony recorded be used for aCourttocontradiction.
few the sentences held incident in by But Hari this thatin Obula process question.
position ofReddi v. State Careful cross-examination does not arise when the witness the witness s oral statement admits thecould former be discussed Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the itnot Observation:
Laxman Supreme this of human reveals blood Pare witness So be above house.
also Naik who 11- Court long being.determinative unless stained Itno appears goes is,Vs and happens as mark 1853 PW4some therefore, arguments indirect Baniyan State to However, of indicate be Aslam wherein to blood of seen other shaky.ofbe death and in ofis that Orissa that of itwith the case the has ld.
accused cogent a82 Counsel circumstantial with witness this father the (1994) object been of the witness blood piece ofParvej Jaskaranofwho knife for the3deceased held and all could belongs of evidence (SCC) that:-in as accused identity evidence question Singh already not 381 and be Vsof is:
of Andhra brought statement. analysis legislature onPradesh In and evaluation record.
such a
throughout of AIR
case 1981
allThis hasthis that been SC procedure, is necessary witness to exclude and is testimony Tameshwar therefore, to look the reveals Sahi that v. contravenes to the former thestatementexpress provision of whichof no S. 162 further of the proof Code. is Before persons The parting statement second and of awith matter fallacy witness is the that on made by judgment record.
the before theI police illustration Record would given during of by like the the toproceeding bring on PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes 1994 State its Modh.
necessary the on toUttar SCC PW1 1997 recovery unqualified the record.
PW2 Komal Siddiqui This picture (Cri.) because investigation SCC and Jehruddin thereto.656
Chand, of fact from subsequently arrest the (Crl) and that also however, admission being 651 they in memo who madethe Accused goes are supported that it happens absence use i.e. wasitcrucial to of of after was theare indicate accused made.
thefor atobserved tothe ofin prosecution trial bethe other custody occurrence the that bypurpose Parvejpiece father certain since Hon'ble as soof State his learned of testimony case counsel in is Pradesh his most for the AIR significant examination-in-chief 1976 appellants which SC there 59 but isin that wouldnohisself-:- reflect cross the vide record formy contradiction anyobservationpurpose, andwith of he therefer primary regard the amendments statement to made the made investigation.
from In this It isexamination unnecessary to expressed to other some cases doubt wherein a in regardingsimilar the the
37. So reveals Supreme time determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his testimony long witness When General identity procedure thattohasas Court box, time Further, theit accused and has is
-for ofsuggested isis were ofborn the charge the in the only remotely the come personal the Interestedstatement appellant is witness for Dilshad intended cross-examination onguilt sought on followingrecord and putting connected of record to hasGuddu evidence to search accused be and yetofmake regarding proved words:-
questions not Arif that isPW5 clear memo with made statingno by under who persons of the deceased this Mohd.
on necessarily that said regard S. non reportedly committal as witness the had he 145 based Ex.PW13/B, toKamruddin Siddiquia were reveals on of link theof is case implications there object circumstantial and regardingfrequent to dispel evidence, the thechange cloud proof the cast of of conviction oninvestigating guilt suchisand intention. officers proof of inguilt all stand of the seen any unreliableIndian assertion their backsat only.
evidence. Evidence allEven Act, which for The cantrial partisanship the serve said Court as itself by decision the came ofbasis.
is thisnot to athe The justified Actwhen of 1898 the for the first time circumstances found introduced to be be between an alongThe contradiction, validwith conclusion ground accusedthat under forevidence discrediting not only the Abidwas section, or thisas rejecting should witness revealed swornafromchance in testimony. his disclosure
39. three direct number Other pointing murder was pieceCourt concerned, taken Whenor PW for of officers exception indirect and established out thecontradictions deceased away 4he theAslam memo similar conducted evidence has enabling bypurpose against accused decisions also ofKamruddin who of the first the which the the in said and is were of his informant independent persons place therefore also consideration not investigation by deposition statement accused go accused as isconsidering found from toalready reduced comparison the to of has bewitness public his root persons the this tofullhouse.
ofof stated Ex.PW13/D, witness of casechain the between without In thatcase. whichhas the as he of the what accused Nor but procedure a witness his contradictions, can presence in it a persons.
asserted be case be exaggerations laid at the where in downsceneHaving the the witness as and of an perused occurrence statement box invariablein and was writing the what rule statement extremely was he that of this stated writing complete before to chain used of evidencefor impeaching as improvements, not the to credit of leave hethe cannot showsintended be that interested doubtful held to the to bethe as be a police preparatory evidence itused was truthful officer, difficult for canto never contradiction witness and measures believe .
not underformbetween that he S. regarding the had 162 what basis ofcome he of the investigation out statement
44. circumstantial thesaid Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got discussed and reasonable corroboration.
declared he in the statement was evidence.
of manner subsequently ground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his In provided for testimony factsand this of a and of the conclusion. regard PW2 by accused consequently the has the remand Evidence case, by Jehurrin PW25also ld. of Parvej arguments been Counsel Act.
accused Abid was had Code seen he conviction at that hadKamruddin, of Criminal stated hourunless before toProcedure.
purchase Abid, corroborated the police Sectionto145 vegetables. Naushad officer a material Thus of and and the the what trialDr extent Evidence during and Parvej he demolished inas court PW5 the Sh.Rajender ofalready while course all Mohd.
Abdul theythe by witness As the it comes phraseology on of the record exception that lent this scope witness to in his were actuallynot is in upto material Actrefused defeat made two the the to before particulars place reliance parts:
purpose mark him.
thebyfirst as In independent of onpart the such theenables the vital a evidence case evidence. legislature missing the the by link question theAll ofaccused three the in the ocular that toeye- is could obtained nottobetrace necessary witnesses. cross-examine putis a atthat The all;
them, witness only thetrial as questions evidence is court, to also previous of toon however, contradict interested record.
statement came can witnesses made be toFurther, the careful Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence werecross-examination counsel amicus standing Amendmentis Srcounselnecessary Scientific for black incuriae thecolor Act as accused done gali 1923, precisely Officer, foritno.10 accused baniyan the by has FSL, ld.
sectionpersons forborne and APP Parvej /T-Shirt, theRohini, onwashe reasons asking and onand has redrafted as Delhi record itthe denied from has already that has contentions also deceased that Kamruddin proved Ex.P6 come anyon as Givingbywell examination-in-chief put and should support conclusion him inthe as bequestion writing circumstantial to subjected that or the the reduced he here appellant defining the limits of the exception with precision so a has to contentions posed tocareful writing was evidence identified doesscrutiny absconding without not of all minor contradict; and such were the accepted and writing that itthree found contradictions he accused after leads being withto had an answer caution. discovered shown toIf him;
on thewhich suchweapon the is second scrutiny, contradicted which the was interested part foundby the deals police totestimony be with stained a to confine and it onlyperusal to contradict the case witnessfile in the
46. consideration Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides,record on completion as to was why statement.
is with situation on biological and found the the he human seized that was of where arrest This to knife case wasu/s be seen he trial. examination 145 by recovered law knew was standing argument intrinsically blood. the himitwith The Cr.relied offrom also cross-examinationmade PC ofCounsel accused the authority ld.
reliable upon there, relied the from accused blood Evidence accused or on before by Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin based inherently the them Parvej. factum assumes drain him Act persons detected upon and adopt probable,reveals ofand the and atthe told theS.
find fact to the due on either ofhim this ld.that of instance Exhibits appropriate APP, to taking thateffecttwo any the heI persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner it of may, human and Supreme itof has the Evidence by blood deposed provided also itself, contradiction: on be under Court been Act, the that section in is therefore, sufficient, pant in as observed case worninwords, other soon by 145State thenotthe ofas by of thehe any circumstances appellant both heard Evidence of Hon'blerelevance parts UP at deal ofSupreme the the Vsthe time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. If one regarding could guessregulating the intention the of the process legislature of investigation by in withconsidering particular of hisremand arrest. cross-examination case, theOn express to base the bybasis wayaprovisions conviction this of contradiction ofthereon.
evidence S. 162 the only. of Although trial the The court days both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of was accused 2, of PC the 3, the standing in 4, that witnesses framing 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not allthe 5A-2, with that the was found in his section have the accused the was 5Bsought mentioned presence friends in been conviction the and recordedand manner in 7discussed persons respect (particulars of heitindid PW12 of inthe would all in his are of in statement 1923,the accused Islamuddin para presence. of residents return itthree exhibits no.back Abid recorded 4 accused cannot and are in toThis to his '1' 7. Code raised in an of the convicted procedure Criminal alarm matter the prescribed Procedure.
inof the appreciation appellant is school that, under if it he of S.302 is went evidence, intended I.P.C. into to no and room hard sentenced contradict and where he saw AIR issuing 1997 in Sukhvinder would SC be apparent3292:
Singh that(1997) Vsdown, it State was 1to SCC ofinPunjab protect 19 the made accused (1994) the 5 SCC following policy152 fast proper him a witness rule to by lifecan the guidebe laidline imprisonment.
writing, his attention orKhujji devising yet, most preferred must, acases, before an suitable appeal the in to against the user of the statements of witnesses made
41. alsotrace Perusal Cotton persons u/s light house. 161 writing the neighbourhood.
witness In be wood of being Cr.
evaluating against He weapon solely of held can the the Phas the beswab, C a completely aforesaid on the said in also proved of cross-examination sole the He'2' view evidence offence statement ground further identified conviction.
be Flacky ofstatements called hostile the of The an to and adopted for material-dry judgment all High those of so to three interested toascertain conviction PW7 ofCourt parts ofPW2be thethe Maan oritlooked Tahsildar accused while of blood, even which ignoringthe cross-examination reveals persons asSingh atheinto persons. associates '3'that Singh now place who with Flackey has this and Thistheof overcome that observations : 194arethe before Naushad SCC partisan to be this evidence the (Cri) used witness,inadequacy.
police was which for1376 of PW3 the during investigation itholding are that isKishan purpose very useful : the ofLalrelevant asand aback contradicting PW4crucial first at (kamar) step the trialof him.to The Ramesh and focusrelied Kamruddin, dominant in presumably o the assumption that the said statements provisoattention on the to S. on appellant162 the of question, as the one Code of whether oftheCriminalassailants theProcedure presencenotwithstanding of the only namely with statement court material- identified recovery ANNOUNCED Anr.
witness respect Vs will were Dilshad has was sample INof the State of examine not knife of THE been accused PW2 got of made and accused blood, was OPENUP. declared Arif.
contradicted Jehruddin, thepersons undernotAbid.
The'4' No nature exclusively Wooden hostile proceedings in PW5 contentions circumstances with examination-in-chief by ofld. pieces, regard Mohd.
theaccessible APP of in CFSL inspiringld. respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' and APP the in report toPants ofcross- statement the accused and based and both with and PWhis on
35. deciding Besides Abid enableswitness his was Though confidence.
neither effort thethe at giving in the accused fate conduct cross the ofscene knife Both the of toservice examination the ofblow make thepresentthe accused use section particulars crime to by to wriggle of at the Kamruddin case:- such itself and out statement may of material his the proviso PW7 statement and time to Maan ParvezSingh also COURT ON was in contradictTHIS probable.
not examination-in-chief bea of 30.01.2009 witness much If so, whether in consequence the in regard manner theprovided substratum to the of the byidentity S. 145 story of of the intended to serve primarily the samebut purpose when i.e. , the the recorded Gajraj. statement belt, accused subsequent Abid examination the the and '5A-2' citation Other narrated appellant. Evidence under knife of hepersons Shirt, denial 'Khujji by witnesses doctor The did the Act. section was '5B' not @ witness, High It to are concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would being on having noticed be formal Cr. record stained consistent doing them PC that matching The witnesses. with Tiwari the by violence whether gauze within weapon the his Vs the examination-in-
to (RAJ statement they cross-examination blood IOcloth State other the that used were stains piece, ofaccused KAPOOR) in to with M.P. got this'6'- the nor caught mode considered interest minor holding evidence chief language of of of of intimation discrepancies this on thethe the record, witness proviso alongwith accused deceased.
in the wasif to thenatural the the evidence recorded said witness other course on statement Inof the the of November two PW6 eye-witnesses human be Gajraj cross-examination events, allowed16, 1976 regarding of are circumstances immaterial unless ADDL.
thattheyisdemolished SESSIONS the disclosure the JUDGE-I/NORTH basic case of the EAST to be the whereas surrounding used his for cross the circumstances byexamination purpose of and commenced cross-examining inherenttoprobabilities aonwitness December
38.Afterdeclared persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased effect AIR isor witness a1976 statement 1991 explaining noise that prosecution of the P.O. knife visited that knife scene blood.
case,he Supreme .his or and madePW6 which his had Section of is other earlier No '7' house Gajraj incident, such the stated Court kind reaction Banyan). is testimony 162 which Ex.P5and accused KARKARDOOMA norof Singhbefore 1853' Cr. proceedings took on and his Blood isto banyan leading PC hisformal itthe is presence has deceased notcould regardingeffect of come police were witness COURTS:
sustainableaccused bynot ofathat got identification son on be as initiated record contradicting way detected and well he of Parvej DELHI as this had other as the in within this witness15, the the recovery i.e. meaning I found after of dead ofa month majorthe first from his pointing as with andwill body contradictions part carry in between of conviction S. 145 he seemed of the at one to occasion 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused identified Ext.6 statement also which of observations documents the Evidencethem.
perusal witness contradiction prudent out, have found i.e. case persons the confronting the assumes been Act. dagger/ of Kamruddin blood of accused since person. wonin Nor The PW21 are the hand made much over If arewas he thecase stains brought recovery or wedoes knife. with and at that persons has inthe aabout file the significance answer had having not been previous impressedknife on instance reveals On citation of aforesaid succumbed to in appear record. these to his bygot knife was examination-in-chief serological matched presence convict the declared that statement are of recovered atApart in questions to police, two in entirely argument threat.the this the bewith cases inhostile with from examination instance Thiscan case procedure statement deceased different. from culprits this by not by there and the he be ld.
of thatinference theit would accused affirmative, not was ofbe drawn the and possible charge the onevidence the to of basis invoke murder. ofofthethe PW3's second witness statement part appears of that S.145 to the he was of the court severly Evidence to beaten be almost Actonwithout flawless, the night putting and previous relevant free from to his indicated at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble other 3and Kamruddin questionsthatunless blood IOs Supreme In suspicion, appearance occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently :light ofthose under itwas 161 from accused his mayof in regarding theanswered Court detected in Cr.
testimony drain these Courthave accept firstcross-examination PC.Abid are he part as happens it, neither conducted aidentification has exfacie in him without The thereof.byisExhibits witness. IO been corroborated that scope the toat seeking indicative be The the he the all cross-examined The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably he of would of ocular instance investigation corroboration difficulty highcross-examination denied accused ofbyis go court,the evidence some ofwith suspicious to fact 5A-2, accused persons identify by ofthat these other him this nor 5B a more from therefore, imaginary any other took than source.
thereal. viewSince The thatsecond perfection the subsequent partinofthis S. imperfect 145 attempt of of the
45. circumstantial the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear 7.
in Para regarding world PW1 Evidnece accused motive T.I.P. no distinction First Exhibits the from .for
-13 Komal is accountThe seldom contradictionAct Chand cross-examination of is Besides sleeping persons. the aone knife clearly evidence 5A-1, drain learnedbeof PW8oftowas to these made in he thebe indicates 5-A2 create and Counselthe SI was hasHefound, indicate essential also Satender two and satestified school. between this been the doubt and appointed henot simple associates first 5B knife has thethe regarding components got were argument discussedwho And the procedure evidence that deposed direct was conducted justfound proved major this is the namely statement sent identity of to 8proximate based in portion orto that case to a contradictions DD 10to have Dilshad commit by police CFSL no.6/A days does made the human Tahsildar nexusago had and any I.O.
not for asin
34. I have upon given be witness, of followed.
the the words appellantcareful more To in the consideration illustrate so was of anof : A no interested says manner provided by consequence in the to S.the witness, witness- 145submissions since is box generally there of thethat was of ld. B of the stabbed fringed intrinsicIndian with material C:Evidence before embellishment in his the Actevidencepolice 1872 andhe exaggerations, to had found establish in stated S. 162 thethat however ofpresence the D examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh Chowkidar is Code minor In inquiry of mentioned true of can on and ofthe this inOC.record.
when contradictions the Criminal establish Group. and and anotherfrom appellant His case main, as the in the attentionthe Procedure.him inThe revealed the was the knife Exhibits amongstthe Vswooden courtthe and can element knife statement at when was guilt State may cross-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded the by 1,2,3,4 was look recovered pieces instance of oftheof PW6 toUP assailants 145 for accused recovered recorded motive contradictions that ofsome his and the as and Gajraj part of of without statement.
Ex.P1 7 police. Hon assurance, Evidence of neither persons deceasedhave u/s the from in it blood ble 161 collectively, his has shown are This the exists Court He beyond Cr.cross- stains minor drain been state has wasPC noin APP and statement Act,Gulab.
the it is nature ld.
said,made RelyingCounsel and before empowers extent further theSh ofthe on which N. police K.Tyagi the discovery accused willwhich vary to put for contradicts according evidence all relevant accused toas histhe well Abid, Sh. statement circumstances as questions the find in to the a ofwitness human witness of the blood particular box. onhis before If the he case, weapon admits attention fromhis is found independent previous called from to the and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs of truthfulness the from denied was is IOinEx.PW5/A. opinion that goes therelation nor is not the and doubt itPW10 place to in had of suggestion that indicate any the documents the toblood which Inspector without A,B,O exclusive witness discrete This cross-examination stains that was that Grouping. contradiction regarding cannot further Vijay statement particular PW approach not which Prakash, Maan exclusively be can strong under his discredited of also of of Singh suggest the this employment accused who happens section corroboration.
accessible nature witness had proved the intold and all 145 match which toisand him are the no be Cr.to Mohd. statement, those Iqbal evidence, garage parts of noforcircumstantial of the accused further appellant writing proof with Naushad is and or anecessary, viewdirect, on to and hiscontradict before pant if he Abdul which him.Sattar, finding does he not Inthe was Advocate admit supportaccused wearingtheofpractice at guilty this thecontention on time generally the ofbasis his followed arrest, of thethinterested reliance isisHigh toplace admitCourt testimony it came upon subject the to. the be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary PC the phone toqualified brought suggest of blood was proof judgment the for conclusion in toAbid. that by found giving postmortem light itof onby that witness of the when this murder the thatrecord.
some of policehaving the benefit Court These deceased. histhe murder had isofficer.toother contradictions examination reaction conviction in of The befacts Bhagwan taken doubt On considerations could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted the was place on Singh towell otherhaveit.
as the Vsallegedly are born in handEx.PW10/A Public to Khaddewala been accused founded State major indicate ,PW6 foron ifofwitness the his committed record theatthese and the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time in to affect third this the by ofI amicus procedure Punjab dismissed curiae (1), 1952 his for suggested appeal.
SCR accusedby Itthe 812: may (AIR Parvej. learned here SC 1952 be counsel Perusal mentioned
214). may Bosethat be of the case file J. the illustrated State did thus notprocedure : prefer If the witess
42. accused
31. On describes considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquit light isroot accused inGurcharan Maan all this ofofis ofunder the thesethe recovery not of the regard toof persons Singh accused PW2trustworthy.
case be offence facts DAss, sectionhe ofan true Jehruddin. and about has and for appeal to persons the knife Banyan in 162leave the is asked be been against followed circumstances then the terms Cr.conceived is an for didthe confronted incident This SHO wasPW12 P.C. youcontradict to impression the ofprosecution five witness recovered the saycompanions offences who and object.
Islamuddin does ofand before statement by proved thethe ofwas acase ld.
not u/s factuntruthfulness The fromAPP 302/34 also the reflect other who Imade havingaccused with have seizure cross-IPC has last the his notto in reveals that most material witness in this case witnesses perusal the witnessof police the under of appellant officerall S.145 depositions who thatof came theyu saw Evidenceto be ofa the acquitted gas Act light?
thus byat the p.819 trial he (of is PW7 Maan court. and answers SCR) It isat in p.217 yes thesethen ofcircumstances AIR):the statement thatwhich the appellantdoes not has contain invoked examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of found theirthe 27 such witnesses.
in this of witness and /54/59 of recitalthe statement the the communication, Court's cross-examinations,at was quantum is clothes length knife Arms is sealed PW5 statement recorded put jurisdiction to recorded himin Act.
byof In of as question deceased Mohd.
defence this contradictions under inAll time contradiction. I have a regard accused Art. u/s pulanda Siddiqui 136and which counsel 161 foundand Hon under of This place the Cr.PC are one in sowas also who ble light in Sh.
section Constitution. proceduremanysample and Supreme JC where recovered also reveals ofRashidfor this the can 161 minor seal more itjudgment fact isCourt that Hasmi/ not Cr.not in along type than alsohis be so PC in of Singh involves who two was fallacies:working Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the one as is Chowkidar it enables the in accused the premises to where elicit witness by adenies process thatof he cross-examination made the former what the witness statement. In N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five discussed Tahsildar that years, Tyagi not one upon accused contradictions stated as before goInhence for sealed due Singh The found light to above persons the accused and to establish sole of they the and police having all envelope and fact reason depositions beAbid another visited discrepancies officer. judgment ofthe released blood Ifrecovery and at athat close containing the policeVs it material inrelied of stains forthwith has houseand this of State their officer come upon knife witness proximate which of statement blood of statements did ifPW2 not from by UPonnotitld.was record gauze wanted has thelink APPofwhich explaining Jehruddin found come place PW2 with that i.e. of in incident that event, tookit would placebeon the night necessary to prove of 09.04.2003.that he did, and This witness is make if the former a record statement of awas witnessreduced s statement to writing, then his S.145 entire
43.
32. any
36. Iwashed.
It did have Other this on deceased which regard has Khujji the and are record other not witness object took statement requires wasto most been attributable@ given find case.
provide The Kamruddin of his that not that happens Surendera could the Section son his careful material observed same exclusively this not due mention assistance be 162 Kamruddin, attention to was witness used to as Tiwari themustconsideration witnesses by be Cr.also foralready accessible of longanythe the PC be to also sent goesaccused Vs the Hon'ble held purpose drawn cousin. durationEx.PW20/A, does into State to testimony to CFSL this that:- to indicate whereas these persons accused of ofnot the Supreme and case, M.P. parts time This ifhappens aseizure thatofanditcitations
-Abid visit PW7 part isi.e. AIR Court reported reliance further at memo of memoryto Maan PW2 1991 as the bein of thepolicedirect which officer are to testimony recorded be used for a few tocontradiction.
the sentences incident by But this thatin process question.
position of Careful cross-examination does not arise when the witness the witness s oral statement admits thecould former be discussed Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the itnot Observation:
Laxman Supreme this of human brought reveals blood Pare witness statement.
So be above house.
also Naik who 11- Court long being.
on determinative unless stained Itno appears In goes is, record. such Vs and happens as mark 1853 PW4some therefore, a to arguments indirect Baniyan State However, case of indicate be Aslam wherein all to blood Thisof seen other shaky.
thatofbe death and in ofis Orissa that procedure, is of that itwith the casethe has necessary ld.
accused cogent acircumstantial with witness this Counsel father the (1994) object been of the witness blood piece ofParvej Jaskaran therefore, is to ofwho knife held look for the3deceased and all could belongs of evidence (SCC) that:-in as accused identity evidence question Singh already not 381 and be of Vsis:
analysis legislature and evaluation throughout of hasthis been witness to exclude testimony the reveals that contravenes to the former thestatementexpress provision of whichof no S. 162 further of the proof Code. is Before persons The parting statement second and of awith matter fallacy witness is the that on made by judgment record.
the before theI police illustration Record would given during of by like the the toproceeding bring on PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes 1994 State its Modh.
necessary the on torecovery SCC PW1 1997 unqualified the record.
PW2 Komal Siddiqui This picture (Cri.) because investigation SCC and Jehruddin thereto.656
Chand, of fact subsequently arrest the (Crl) from and that also however, admission being 651 they inmade memo who the Accused goes are supported that it usehappens absence i.e. it was crucial to of of after was theare indicate accused made.
thefor atobserved to the of in prosecution trial bethe other custody occurrence the that bypurpose Parvejpiece father certain since Hon'ble as soof his learned testimony case counsel in is his most for the significant examination-in-chiefappellants which there but isin wouldnohisself- reflect cross the vide record formy contradiction anyobservationpurpose, andwith of he therefer primary the amendmentsregard statement to made the made investigation.
from In this It isexamination unnecessary to expressed to other some cases doubt wherein a in regarding similar the the
37. So reveals Supreme time determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his testimony long witness When identity procedure thattohasas Court box, time the accused Further, it and has is for ofsuggested isis were ofborn the charge the in the only remotely the come personal the statement is witness appellant Dilshad intended cross-examination on guilt sought for on followingrecord and putting connected of record to hasGuddu to search accused be and yetofmakeregarding proved words:-
questions not Arif that PW5 clear memo with made stating by underthat who persons of the deceased this Mohd.
on said regard S. non reportedly committal as witness the had he 145 based Ex.PW13/B, toKamruddin Siddiquia were reveals on of link the of is case implications there object circumstantial and regardingfrequent to dispel evidence, the thechange cloud proof the cast of of convictiononinvestigating guilt suchisand intention. officers proof of inguilt all stand of the seen any Indian assertion their backsat only.
Evidence all Act, which forThe cantrial the serve said Court as the decision came ofbasis. thisto the The justified Actwhen of 1898 the for the first time circumstances found introduced to be be between an alongThe contradiction, with conclusion accusedthat under not only the Abidwas section,thisas should witnessrevealed afromchance in his disclosure
39. three direct number Other pointing murder was pieceCourt concerned, taken When or PW for of exception and officers established indirect out thecontradictions deceased away 4he theAslam memo similar evidence conducted evidence has enabling bypurpose against accused decisions also ofKamruddin who of the first the which the the in said and is were of his informant independent persons place therefore also consideration not investigation by deposition statement accused go accused as isconsidering found from toalready reduced comparison the to of has bewitness public his root persons the this tofullhouse.
ofof stated Ex.PW13/D, witness of casechain the between without In thatcase. whichhas the as he of the what procedureaccused but a his contradictions, witness presence in a persons.
asserted case be exaggerations at the where insceneHaving the the witness and of perused occurrence statement box in and was writing the what statement extremely was he of this stated writing complete before to chain used for impeaching of evidence as improvements, not the to credit of leave hethe cannot showsintended be that doubtful held to the to bethe as be a police preparatory itused was truthful for officer, difficult contradiction witness to and measures believe .
not under between that heregarding S. had 162 what come of he out the investigation statement
44. circumstantial thesaid Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got discussed and reasonable corroboration.
declared he in the statement was evidence.
of manner subsequently ground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his In provided for testimony factsand this of a and of the conclusion. regard PW2 by accused the remand consequently the has Evidence case, by Jehurrin PW25also ld. of Parvej arguments been Counsel Act.
accused Abid was had Codeseen he at that hadKamruddin, of Criminal stated hour toProcedure. before Abid, purchase vegetables. the police Naushad Section 145 of officer Thus and and the the what Evidence trialDr during and Parvej he demolished court as PW5 the Sh.Rajender ofalready while course all Mohd.
Abdul theythe by witness As the it comes phraseology on of the record exception that lent this scope witness to in his were actuallynot is in upto Actrefused defeat made two the the to parts: before place reliance purpose mark the firstas him. on of the In part the such theenables vital a evidence case legislature missing the the ofaccused by link question the three the in the ocular toeye- could obtained nottobetrace witnesses. cross-examine puta at The all;
them, witness only trial as questions is court, to also previous toon however, contradict record. statement came canmade be toFurther, the careful Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence werecross-examination counsel amicus standing Amendmentis Srcounselnecessary Scientific for black incuriae thecolor Act as accused done gali 1923, precisely Officer, foritno.10 accused baniyan the by has FSL, ld.
sectionpersons forborne and APPParvej /T-Shirt, theRohini, onwashe reasons asking and onand has redrafted as Delhi record itthe denied from has already that has contentions also deceased that Kamruddin proved Ex.P6 come anyon as Givingbywell examination-in-chief put and support conclusion him inthe as writing question circumstantial that orto the the reduced he here appellant defining the limits of the exception with precision so a has contentions posed to writing was evidence identified does not of absconding without all minor contradict; such were and the writing that itthree found contradictions he accused after leads being hadto shown an answer discovered to him; thewhich weapon theis second contradicted which was partfound by the deals to with police be stained a to confine and it onlyperusal to contradict the case witnessfile in the
46. consideration Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, record on completion as to was why statement.
with situation on biological and the the he human seized that was of where arrest knife This case wasu/s seen he trial. blood. examination 145 by the recovered law knew was standing argument him itwith The Cr.relied alsooffrom cross-examinationmade PC ofCounsel accused the authority ld. upon there, relied the from accused blood Evidence accused on before by Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin the based them Parvej. factum assumes drain him Act persons detected upon and reveals ofand the adopt and atthe told theS.
find fact to the due on either ofhim this ld.that of instance Exhibits appropriate APP, to taking thateffecttwo any the heI persons Hon'ble
33. Further, 145 shape manner of the human and Supreme itof has deposed provided Evidence blood contradiction:also on the under Court been Act, pantthat in section in as observed is therefore, case worn words, other soon 145State by not the by ofas of thehe any appellant both Hon'ble heard Evidence ofrelevance parts UP at dealthe Vs Supreme the time voice Bhagwan Court he measures Act. If one regarding could guessregulating the intention the of the legislature in withconsidering of hisremand arrest. cross-examination theOnexpress the bybasis way provisions this of contradiction ofprocess evidence S. 162 the only. ofof trial the The investigation court by days both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of was accused 2, of PC the 3, standing in the 4,that witnesses framing 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not allthe 5A-2, with inwas that the foundhis section have the sought accused the was 5B mentioned presence friends in been conviction the and recordedand manner in 7discussed persons respect (particulars of heitindid PW12 of inthe would all in his are ofthe in statement 1923, accused Islamuddin para presence. of residents return itthree exhibits no.back Abid recorded 4 accused cannot and are in toThis to his '1' 7. Code raised an of convicted procedure Criminal alarm the prescribed Procedure.
in the
appellant is school
that, under if it he
S.302
is went
intended I.P.C. into
to and room
contradict sentenced where he saw
AIR
issuing 1997
in Sukhvinder would SC be apparent3292:
Singh that(1997) Vs State it was 1to SCC of Punjab protect 19 the made accused (1994) the following 5 SCC 152 him proper a witness to by lifethe guide writing, line imprisonment. his attention orKhujji devising preferred must, before a an suitable appeal policy to the against the user of the statements of witnesses made
41. alsotrace Perusal In Cotton persons u/s light house. 161 writing the neighbourhood.
witness be wood against of being Cr.He weapon solely of held can thethe Phas the beswab, C a completely aforesaid on said in also proved of cross-examination sole the He'2' view offence statement ground further Flacky identified conviction.
be ofstatements called hostile the Thetoandadopted for material-dry judgment all High those of so to three toascertain conviction PW7 ofCourt parts ofPW2be thethe Maan itlooked Tahsildar accused while of blood, the cross-examination reveals persons which asSingh ignoring theinto persons. associates '3'that Singh now place who with Flackey has this and Thistheof overcome that observations : 194arethe before Naushad SCC to be this evidence the (Cri) used inadequacy.
police was which for1376 of PW3 the during investigation holding are that purposeKishanvery : the ofLalrelevantand back contradicting PW4crucial at (kamar) the trialof Ramesh him. The and relied Kamruddin, dominant in presumably o the assumption that the said statements provisoon the to appellant S. 162 of as the one Code of of theCriminalassailants Procedure notwithstanding only namely with statement court material- identified recovery ANNOUNCED Anr.
witness respect Vs will Dilshad has was sample INof the State of examine knife of THE been accused PW2 got of and accused blood, was OPENUP. declared Arif.
contradicted Jehruddin, the persons not Abid.
The No '4'hostile nature exclusively Wooden proceedings in PW5 contentions withexamination-in-chief by of pieces,regard Mohd.
theaccessible in CFSL respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' the report toPants ofcross- statement accused andand both with and PWhis suchld.
35. deciding Besides were neithernot made the under toservice circumstances particulars APP of inspiring of ld.
PW7 and APP in Maan the based on Abid enableshis was Though effort confidence. thethegiving in accused fate conduct cross ofknife Both examination the of the blow make thepresent accused use section to by to wriggle of Kamruddin case:- itself and out statement may his the proviso statement and to ParvezSingh also COURT ON in contradictTHIS not examination-in-chief bea of 30.01.2009 witness muchin the manner consequence in regard provided to the byidentity S. 145 of of the intended to serve primarily the samebut purpose when i.e. , the the recorded Gajraj. accused statement belt, subsequent Abid examination the and '5A-2' citation the Other appellant. Evidence under knife of hepersons Shirt, denial 'Khujjiwitnesses doctor The Act.did section was High '5B' not @ It to are concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would on having noticed be formal Cr. record stained doing them PC that matching The witnesses. with Tiwari the by violence whether gauzein weapon the his Vs examination-in- they cross-examination to (RAJblood IOcloth statement the State that used were stains piece, ofaccused KAPOOR) in to with M.P. got this'6'- the nor caught modeconsidered interest minor chief language holding of of of of intimation discrepancies this thethe the witness proviso alongwith accused deceased.
in was if theto the the evidence recorded said witness other on statementInof the the November two PW6 cross-examination eye-witnesses be allowed 16, Gajraj 1976 regarding of are circumstances immaterial unless ADDL.
thattheyisdemolished SESSIONS the disclosure the JUDGE-I/NORTH basic case of the EAST to be whereasused for his cross the byexamination purpose of commenced cross-examining aonwitness December
38.Afterdeclared persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased effect AIR noise isor witness a1976 statement 1991 explaining that prosecution within 15, P.O. knife visited that knife scene the blood.
he Supreme .his i.e. meaning or and madePW6 which his had Section of after other earlier No '7' houseGajraj incident, a of the stated Court month the kind reaction Banyan). is 162testimony Ex.P5 and accused KARKARDOOMA first nor and of Singhbefore 1853' Cr.part proceedings took on in and his Blood is to banyan leading PC between of hisformal itthe is presence S. has deceased tocould not regarding 145 heeffect police of comewere witness COURTS:
sustainable seemed of accused by thenot of that got identification son on be as contradicting way to initiated record detected and well he of Parvej DELHI as this had other as the in this witnessthe recovery I found of dead major body contradictions from his pointing as at one occasion 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness he wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Theaccused identified Ext.6 statement also which of observations documents the Evidence out, have them.
perusal witness contradiction found i.e. case persons the confronting the assumes been Act. dagger/ of Kamruddin blood of accused since wonin Nor The PW21 are the hand made muchwas over are he case stains brought recovery does or we knife. with and at that persons has inthe aabout file the significance had having not been impressedprevious knife on instance reveals On citation of aforesaid in appear record. his succumbed to bygot knife was examination-in-chief serological matched presence convict the declared that statement toare of recovered atApart in police, two in entirely argument threat.the this the with cases hostile with from examination instance Thiscan case procedure statement deceased different. from culprits this by not by there and the he be ld.
of thatinference theit would accused not was ofbe drawn the possible charge on the to of basis invoke murder. ofthe PW3's second statement part of that S.145 he was of the severly Evidence beaten Actonwithout the night putting previous relevant to his indicated at became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. Hon'ble other 3andKamruddin that questions unless blood IOs Supreme In appearance occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently :light ofthose under was 161 from accused his of in regarding theanswered Court detected in Cr.
testimony drain these Courthave firstcross-examination PC.Abid are he part as happens neither conducted aidentification has exfacie in him The by thereof. isExhibits witness. IO been corroborated that scope the toat indicative be The the he the all cross-examined The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably he of would of ocular instance investigation difficulty highcross-examination denied accused ofbyis go court,the evidence some ofwith suspicious to fact 5A-2, accused persons identify by ofthat these other him this nor 5B a more therefore, imaginary took than thereal. viewThe thatsecond the subsequent part of S. 145 attempt of of the
45. circumstantial the persons case.
himself and since sources The clear Para regarding PW1 Evidnece accused 7. in motive T.I.P. no distinction First Exhibits the from .for
-13 Komal accountThe contradictionAct Chand cross-examination of is Besides sleeping persons. the aone knife clearly evidence 5A-1, drain learnedbeof PW8ofwas to these made in he theindicates 5-A2 create and Counselthe SI was hasHeindicate essential also satestified Satender two and school. between this been the doubt appointed henot simple associates first 5B knife has theregarding components got were argument discussedwho And the procedure that deposed direct was conducted justfound proved major this is the namely statement sent identity to 8proximate based in portion orto that case to contradictions DD 10to have Dilshad commit by police CFSL no.6/A days does made the human Tahsildar nexusago had and any I.O.
not for asin
34. I have upon given be of followed.
the the words appellant careful To in the consideration illustrate was of : A no says manner provided by consequence in the to S.the witness- 145submissions since box there of the was that of ld. B of thestabbed intrinsic Indian material C:Evidencebefore in his the Actevidencepolice 1872 he to had found establish in stated S. 162 thethat ofpresence the D examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which andstabbed Singh Chowkidar is Code minor ofIn inquiry of mentioned can on and the of this OC.record.
when contradictions Criminal establish Group. and and from anothercase appellant His as the in the attention Procedure.him inThe revealed the was the knife Exhibits amongstthe Vswooden the and can element knife statement at when was guilt State cross-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded the by 1,2,3,4 was recovered pieces instance of oftheof PW6 toUP assailants 145 accused recovered recorded motive contradictions that of his and the as and Gajraj part of of without statement. Evidence Ex.P1 7 police. Hon of neither persons deceasedhave u/s the from in it blood ble 161 collectively, his has shown are This the exists Court He beyond Cr.cross- stains minor drain been state has wasPC noin APP and statement Act,Gulab.it is said, ld. made RelyingCounsel before empowers further theSh onpolice the N. K.Tyagi the discovery accused which to put for contradicts evidence all relevant accused as his well Abid, Sh. statement as the find questions in to the a ofwitness human witnessblood box. onhis before If the heattention weapon admits his is foundprevious called from to the and also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable theaffairs of truthfulness the from denied was is IO inEx.PW5/A. opinionthat goes therelation nor is not the and doubt itPW10 place to in had of suggestion that indicate any the documents the toblood which Inspector without A,B,O exclusive witness discrete This cross-examination stains that was that Grouping. contradiction regarding cannot further Vijay statement particular PW approach not which Prakash, Maan exclusively be can strong under his discredited of also of of Singh suggest the this employment accused who happens section corroboration.
accessible nature witness had proved the intold and all 145 match which toisand him are the no be Cr.to Mohd. statement, those Iqbal garage parts of noforthe of accused further appellant writing proof with Naushad is andanecessary, view on to and hiscontradict pant if he Abdul which doeshim.Sattar, he not In was Advocate admit wearing support theofpractice at this thecontention time generally of his followed arrest, thisis reliance High toplace admitCourt it came upon subject the to the be accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, contrary PC the phone toqualified brought suggest of blood was proof judgment the for conclusion in toAbid. that by found giving postmortem light itof onby that witness of the when thismurder the thatrecord.
some of policehaving the benefit Court These deceased. histhe murder had isofficer.
to other contradictions examination reaction conviction in of The befacts Bhagwan taken doubt On considerations could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted the was place on Singh towell otherhaveit.
as the Vsallegedly are born in handEx.PW10/A Public to Khaddewala been accused founded State major indicate ,PW6 foron ifofwitness the his committed record theatthese and the persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time in to affect third this the by ofI amicus procedure Punjabdismissed curiae (1), 1952 his for suggested appeal.
SCR accusedby Itthe 812: may (AIR Parvej. learned here SC 1952 be counsel Perusal mentioned
214). may Bosethat be of the case file J. the illustrated State did thus notprocedure : prefer If the witess
42. accused describes considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquit light isroot accused inGurcharan Maan all this ofofis ofunder the thesethe recovery not of the regard toof persons Singh accused PW2 trustworthy. case be offence facts DAss, sectionhe ofan true Jehruddin. and about has and for appeal to persons the knife Banyan in 162leave theis asked be been against followed circumstances then the terms Cr.conceived is an for didthe confronted incident This SHO wasPW12 P.C. youcontradict to impression the oflight? five witness recovered the saycompanions offences who and object.
Islamuddin does ofand before statement by proved thethe ofwas acase ld.
not u/s factuntruthfulness The fromAPP 302/34 also the reflect other who Imade havingaccused with have seizure cross-IPC has last the his notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7 Maan the of witness police the appellant under officerS.145 who thatof came theyu saw Evidenceto be a acquitted gas Act thus byat the p.819 trial he (of court. answers SCR) It isat in p.217 yes thesethen ofcircumstances AIR):the statement thatwhich the appellantdoes not has contain invoked examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and of the found in 27 such witnesses.
this of witness and /54/59 of the recitalstatement the the communication, Court'sat was quantum is clothes length knife Arms is sealed PW5 recorded in Act.
byof In of statement recorded under section put jurisdiction to him as question deceased Mohd.
defence this contradictions under in All time contradiction.a regard accused Art. u/s pulanda Siddiqui 136and which counsel 161and of Hon This theplace Cr.PC are one inwas also who ble light in Sh.
Constitution. procedure sample and Supreme JC where recovered also reveals ofRashidfor this the can 161 seal more itjudgment fact isCourt that Hasmi/ not Cr.not in along than alsohis be so PC in Singh involves who two was working fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the one as is Chowkidar it enables the in accused the premises to where elicit witness by adenies process thatof he cross-examination made the former what the witness statement. In N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five discussed Tahsildar that years, Tyagi not one upon accused stated as beforegoInhence for sealed due Singh The found light to aboveaccused persons the to establish sole of they the and police having all envelope and fact reason depositions beAbid another visited officer. judgment of the released blood Ifrecovery and at athat close containing the policeVs it material relied of stains forthwith has houseand this of State officer come upon knife witness proximate which of did statement blood of ifPW2 not from by UPonnotitld.was record gauze wanted has thelink APPoffound explaining Jehruddin come place PW2 with that i.e. of in incident that event, tookit would placebeon the night necessary to prove of 09.04.2003.that he did, and This witness is make if the former a record statement of awas witnessreduced s statement to writing, then his S.145 entire
43.
32. any
36. Iwashed.
the and have ItKhujji Other this on deceased which regard did hasrecord other not witness object took statement requires wasto most been @ given find case.
provide The Kamruddin of his that not that happens Surendera could the material observed Section son his same careful exclusively this not mention assistance be 162 Kamruddin, attention was witness used to as Tiwari mustconsideration witnesses by be also Cr.
foralready accessible of anythe the PC be to also sent goesaccused Vs the Hon'ble held purpose drawn cousin.
Ex.PW20/A, does into State to testimony to CFSL this that:- to indicate whereas these persons accused ofnot the Supreme and case, M.P. partsThis ifhappensofitcitations aseizure that -Abid visit PW7 part isi.e. AIR Court reported reliance further at memo of to Maan PW2 1991 as the bein of thepolice direct which officer are to testimony recorded be used for a few tocontradiction.
the incident sentences by But this thatin process question.
position of Careful cross-examination does not arise when the witness the witness s oral statement admits thecould former be discussed Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased theitnot Observation:
Laxman Supreme this reveals blood Pare witness brought statement.
So be above house.
also Naik who 11- Court on long determinative unless stained Itno appears In goes is, record. such Vsand happens as mark 1853 PW4some therefore, a to case arguments indirect Baniyan State of indicate be Aslam wherein all to blood of seen This other ofbe shaky.
that death and ofis Orissa that procedure, is ofaccused that itwith the the has necessary ld.
cogent acircumstantial with witness this Counsel father the (1994) object been the witness blood piece therefore, is ofParvej to ofwho knife held for the3deceased look and all could belongs ofevidence (SCC)in that:-as accused identity evidence question already not 381 and be of is:
analysis legislatureand evaluation throughout of hasthis been witness to exclude testimony the reveals that contravenes to the former thestatement express provision of whichof no S. 162 further of the proof Code. is Before persons The parting statement second and of awith matter fallacy witness is the that on made by judgment record.
the before theI police illustration Record would given during of by like the the toproceeding bring on PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes 1994its Modh.
on torecovery SCC PW1 necessary the unqualified the record.
PW2 Komal Siddiqui This picture (Cri.) because investigation and Jehruddin thereto.656
Chand, of fact from subsequently arrest the and that also however, admission being they inmade memo who the Accused goes are supported that happens useabsence i.e. itcrucial to of of after was atare the indicate accused made.
thefor to the of in prosecution trial bethe other custody occurrence the thatpurpose Parvejpiece father certain since as soof his learned testimony case counsel in is his most for the significant examination-in-chiefappellants which there but isin wouldnohisself- reflect cross the vide record formy contradiction anyobservationpurpose, andwith of he therefer primary regard the amendments statement to made the made investigation.
from In this It isexamination unnecessary to expressed to other some cases doubt wherein a in regarding similar the the reveals Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003.
deceased, his
37. So witness time determination evidence.
testimony long When that tohasastime the accused Further, it and has is ofwere born the charge remotely the only come personal statement is Dilshad intended cross-examination on guilt sought on record connected of record to to search accused be andmakeregarding of notPW5 proved Arif thatclear memo with who persons of by the deceased this said regard Mohd. reportedly committal as witnessbasedEx.PW13/B, toKamruddin Siddiquia were reveals on of link the of is case implicationstherebox, identity procedure object circumstantial isis and for ofsuggested the frequent regarding to the dispel witness appellant evidence, for the thechange and putting cloud hasGuddu proof the cast yet questions of of conviction made stating oninvestigating guilt underthat suchisand intention.
on S. non the had he 145 officers proof of inguilt all stand of theseen any Indian assertion their backsat only.
Evidence all Act, which forThe cantrial the serve said Court as the decision came ofbasis. thisto the The justified Actwhen of 1898 the for the first time circumstances found introduced to be be between an alongThe contradiction, with accused under the Abid section, as should revealed in tohis disclosure
39. three direct number Other pointing murder was pieceCourt concerned, conclusion taken or PW for of indirect and officers out that contradictions deceased away 4he theAslam memo similar conducted has not evidence bypurpose only accused decisions alsoKamruddin who of waswhich the inthe and is werethis of his witness independent persons place therefore also consideration not investigation by deposition go afrom accused as considering chance toalready comparison the public of hashis witness root persons the this house.
ofEx.PW13/D, stated witness of casechain the between without In thatcase. whichhas the as he exception established enablingagainst the the said statement accused fromreduced of the what accused a witness but his presence procedure writing persons. asserted in a caseatwhere to chain be used in the scene Having the for impeaching witness the statementof occurrence perused box the and in writing credit of the the what was extremely statement was he of this statedcomplete before of evidence as not to leave showsintended that doubtful to the bethe as itused police preparatory was officer, difficult for contradiction to and measures believe not under between that heregarding S. had 162 what come of he out the investigation statement
44. circumstantial thesaid Similarly been disclosure further Having witness any cross-examination statement got discussedand reasonable corroboration.
declared he in the statement was evidence.
of manner subsequently ground cross-examined PW7 the hostile his In provided for testimony factsand this of a and of the conclusion. regard PW2 by accused the remand consequently the has Evidence case, by Jehurrin PW25 also ld. of Parvej arguments been Counsel Act.
accused Abid was had Codeseen he at that hadKamruddin, of Criminal stated hour toProcedure. before Abid, purchase vegetables. the police Naushad Section 145 of officer Thus and and the the what Evidence trialDr during and Parvej he demolished court as PW5 the Sh.Rajender ofalready while course all Mohd.
Abdul theythe by witness As the it comes phraseology on of the record exception that lent this scope witness to in his were not actuallyis in upto Actrefused defeat made two the the to parts: before place reliance purpose mark the firstas him. In on of the part the such theenables vital a evidence case legislature missing the the ofaccused by link question the three the in the ocular toeye- could obtained nottobetrace witnesses. cross-examine puta at The all;
them, witness only trial as questions is court, to also previous toon however, contradict record. statement came canmade be toFurther, the careful Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence werecross-examination counsel amicus standingis AmendmentSrcounsel necessary Scientific for black in curiae thecolor Act as accused done gali 1923, precisely Officer, foritno.10 accused baniyan the by has FSL, ld.
sectionpersons forborne and APPParvej /T-Shirt, theRohini, onwashe reasons asking and onand has redrafted as Delhi record itthe denied from has already that has contentions also deceased that Kamruddin proved Ex.P6 come anyon as bywell examination-in-chief put andinthe conclusion him as writing questioncircumstantial that or the reduced he here appellant defining the limits of the exception with precision so a has posed to writing was evidence identified does without not contradict;
absconding all such were and the writing that itthree found he accused after leads being hadto shown an answer discovered to him; thewhich weapon theis second contradicted which was partfound by the deals to with police be stained a to confine and it onlyperusal to contradict the case witnessfile in the
46. consideration Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, record on completion as to was why statement.
with situation onbiological and the the he human seized that was of where arrest knife This case u/s was seen he trial. blood. examination 145 by the recovered law knew was standing argument him itwith The Cr.relied alsooffrom made cross-examinationPC ofCounsel accused the authority ld. upon there, relied the from accused blood Evidence accused on before by Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin the based them Parvej. factum assumes drain him Act persons detected upon and reveals ofand the adopt and atthe told theS.
find fact to thedue on either ofhimthis ld.that of instance Exhibits appropriate APP, to taking thateffecttwo any the heI persons
33. Further, 145 shape manner of the human and itof has deposed provided Evidence blood also contradiction: on the under been Act, that section is therefore, pant in as observed worn words, other soon 145 ofas by not the by of thehe any appellant both heard Evidence Hon'blerelevance parts at dealthe Supreme the time voice Court he measures Act. If one regarding could guessregulating the intention the of the legislature in withconsidering of hisremand arrest. cross-examination theOnexpress the bybasis way provisions this of contradiction ofprocess evidence S. 162 the only. ofof trial the The investigation court by days both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of was accused 2, of PC the 3, the standing in 4, that witnesses framing 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not all the 5A-2, with inwas that the foundhis section have the sought accused the was 5B mentioned presence friends in been conviction the andrecordedand manner in 7discussed persons respect (particulars of heitindid PW12 of inthe would all inhis are ofthe in statement 1923, accused Islamuddin para presence. of residents return itthree exhibitsno.back Abid recorded 4 accused cannot and are in toThis to his '1' 7. Code raised an of convicted procedure Criminal alarm the prescribed Procedure.
in the
appellant is school
that, under if it he
S.302
is went
intended I.P.C. into
to and room
contradict sentenced where he saw
in Sukhvinder issuing would be Singh apparent that Vs State it was to of Punjab protect the accused (1994) 5 SCC 152 him proper a witness to by lifethe guide writing, line imprisonment. his attention orKhujji devising preferred must, before a an suitable appeal policy to the against the user of the statements of witnesses made
41. alsotrace Perusal u/s house. 161 the neighbourhood. witness In Cotton persons light be wood of being of Cr.
He weapon solely held thethe Phas swab, C a completely aforesaid on in also of cross-examination sole the He'2' view offence statement ground further Flacky identifiedofstatements hostile the toandadopted for material-dry judgment all of so to toascertain conviction threePW7 of ofPW2be thethe Maan itlooked Tahsildar blood, the cross-examination reveals persons asSingh the intoassociates '3'that Singh now place who with Flackey has this andtheof ataccused persons. This against writing can the be said proved conviction.
be called The High those Court parts while of which ignoring overcome that : 194arethe before Naushad SCC to be this evidence the (Cri) used inadequacy.
police was for1376 of PW3 the during investigation holding that purposeKishan : the ofLal and back contradicting PW4(kamar) the trialof Ramesh him. The relied Kamruddin, presumably o the assumption that the said statements on the proviso to appellant S. 162 and of as theArif.one Code of of theCriminal assailants notwithstanding namely with statement court material- identified recovery ANNOUNCED Anr.
witness
35. Besides respect Vs will were Dilshad has was sample INof the State of neither examine not knife of THE been accused PW2 got accused of made blood, OPEN the was UP.
declaredcontradicted Jehruddin, the persons under service not Abid.
The'4' No nature hostile proceedings exclusively Wooden in PW5 contentions circumstances particularswith by ofProcedure examination-in-chief pieces, ld. regard Mohd.
theaccessible APP of inspiring of in CFSL ld.
PW7 only to respect Siddiqui '5A-1' and APP the in report toPants Maan ofcross-
statement the accused and based and both with and PWhis on his Abid confidence.
was enables Though effort thegiving in cross accused conduct knife Both examination to of the blow make the accused use section to wriggle tobyKamruddin of such itself may and out statementhis the proviso statement and to ParvezSingh also COURT ON in THIS not examination-in-chief contradict bea of 30.01.2009 witness muchin the manner consequence in regard provided to the byidentity S. 145 of of the intended to serve primarily the samebut purpose when i.e. , the the recorded Gajraj. accused statement belt, subsequent Abid examination the and '5A-2' citation the Other appellant. Evidence under knife of hepersons Shirt, denial witnesses doctor 'Khujji The Act.did section was High '5B' not @ It to are concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would on having formal noticed be Cr. record stained doing them PC that matching The witnesses. with Tiwari the by violence whether gauzein weapon the his Vs examination-in- they cross-examination to (RAJblood IOcloth statement the State that used were stains piece, ofaccused KAPOOR) in to with M.P. got this'6'- the nor caught mode considered interest chief language holdingof of of of intimation this thethe the witness proviso alongwith accused deceased.
was if to the the recorded said witness other on statementIn the November two PW6 be cross-examination allowed 16, Gajraj 1976 regarding of circumstances ADDL. that isSESSIONS the disclosure JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST to be whereasused for his cross the byexamination purpose of commenced cross-examining aonwitness December
38.Afterdeclared persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased effect AIR noisewithinisor witness statement 1991 explaining 15, that P.O. a1976 knife visited that knife scene the blood.
he Supreme his i.e. meaning or and madePW6 which his Sectionhad of after other earlier No '7' houseGajraj incident, a of the stated Court month the kind reaction Banyan). is 162testimony Ex.P5 and accused KARKARDOOMA first nor and of Singhbefore 1853' Cr.part proceedings took on in and his Blood is to banyan leading PC between of hisformal itthe is presence S. has deceased tocould not regarding 145 heeffect police of comewere witness COURTS:
sustainable seemed of accused by thenot of that got contradicting way to initiated identification son on be as record detected and well he of Parvej DELHI as this had other as the in this witness the recovery I found of dead major body contradictions from his pointing as at one occasion 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness he accused wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was identified Ext.6 statement also which of documents the Evidence out, have them.
perusal witness contradiction found i.e. case persons the confronting the assumes been Act. dagger/ of Kamruddin blood of accused since wonin Nor The PW21 are the hand muchwas over are he case stains brought recovery does or we knife. with and at that persons hasthe aabout file the significance had having not been impressedprevious knife on instance reveals On citation ofby in appear record. his succumbed to got knife was examination-in-chief serological matched presence convict the declared that statement toare of recovered atApart in police, in entirely argument threat.the this the with hostile with from examination instance Thiscan case procedure statement deceased different. from culprits this not by there and the he be ld.
of thatinference theit would accused not was ofbe drawn the possible charge on the to of basis invoke murder. ofthe PW3's second statement part of that S.145 he was of the severly Evidence beaten Actonwithout the night putting previous relevant to his indicated at other became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. 3andKamruddin that questions unless blood IOs In appearance occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently :light ofthose under was 161 from accused his of in regarding theanswered detected in Cr.
testimony drain these Courthave firstcross-examination PC.Abid he part ashappens neither conducted aidentification has in him The by thereof. isExhibits witness. IO been corroborated that scope the toat be The the he the all cross-examined The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably he ofwould of ocular instance investigation difficulty high cross-examination denied accused by is go court,evidence some ofwith suspicious to5A-2, accused persons identify by ofthese other him this nor 5B more therefore, imaginary took than thereal. viewThe thatsecond the subsequent part of S. 145 attempt of of the
45. circumstantial the persons case.
himself and since sources The Para regarding PW1 Evidnece accused 7. in motive T.I.P. noFirst Exhibits the from .for
-13 Komal accountThe contradictionAct Chand cross-examination of is Besides sleeping persons. the aone knife clearly evidence 5A-1, drain learned of PW8ofwas to these in he theindicates 5-A2 create and Counselthe SIwas He has indicate essential also satestified Satender two and school. this been the doubt appointed henot simple associates first 5B knife has theregarding components got were argumentwho discussed And procedure that deposed direct was conducted justfound proved this is the namely statement sent identity to 8proximate based in portion orto that case toDD 10 to have Dilshad commit by police CFSL no.6/A days does made the human Tahsildar nexusago had and any I.O.
not for asin
34. I have upon given be of followed.
the the words appellantcareful To in the consideration illustrate was of: A no says manner provided by consequence in the to S.the witness- 145submissions since box there of the was that of ld. B of thestabbed intrinsic Indian material C:Evidencebefore in his the Actevidence police 1872 he to had found establish in stated S. 162 thethat ofpresence the D examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which Singh Chowkidar isofIn stabbed Code inquiry of mentioned can on and the of this OC.record.
when Criminal establish Group. and and from anothercase appellant His as the in the attention Procedure.him inThe revealed the was the knife Exhibits amongstthe wooden Vs theand canelement knife statement at was guilt State cross-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded the by 1,2,3,4 was recovered pieces instance of of of PW6 toUP assailants 145 accused recovered recorded motive that of his and the as and Gajraj part ofof without statement. Evidence Ex.P1 7 police. Hon of neither persons deceasedhave u/s the from in it blood ble 161 collectively, his has shown This the exists Court He beyond Cr.cross- stains drain been state has PC wasnoin APP and statement Act,Gulab.it is said, ld. made Counsel Relying before empowers further Sh the onpolice the N. K.Tyagi the discovery accused which to put for contradicts evidence all relevant accused as his well Abid, Sh. statement as the find questions in to the a ofwitness human witnessblood box. onhis before If the heattention weapon admits his is foundprevious called from to the andaffairs also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable of the from denied was is IO inEx.PW5/A. opinionthat goes therelation nor is not theand doubt itPW10 place to in had suggestion that indicate any the documents toblood which Inspector without A,B,O exclusive discrete This cross-examination stains that was that Grouping. contradiction regarding further Vijay statement particular PW approach not which Prakash, Maan exclusively can strong under hisof also of of Singh suggest the this employment accused who happens section corroboration.
accessible nature witness had proved the told and 145 match which toishim are the no be Cr.to Mohd. statement, those Iqbal garage parts of noforthe of accused further appellant writing proof with Naushad is andanecessary, view on to and hiscontradict pant if he Abdul which does him.Sattar, he not In was Advocate admit wearing support theofpractice at this thecontention time generally of his followed arrest, thisis reliance High toplaceadmitCourt it came upon subject the to the bethe accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PC phone toqualified brought suggest of blood was proofthe for conclusion judgment inAbid.
that by found giving postmortem light of on by that witness of thethis murder the thatrecord.
some of policehaving the benefit Court These deceased. histhe murder had isofficer.
to other contradictions examination reaction conviction in of The befacts Bhagwan taken doubt On considerations could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted the was place on Singh towell otherhaveit.
as the Vsallegedly born in Ex.PW10/A Public hand to Khaddewala been accused founded State indicate ,PW6 foron ifofwitness the his committed record theat the and persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time in tothird this the by ofI amicus procedure Punjabdismissed curiae (1), 1952 his for suggested appeal.
SCR accused by Itthe 812: may (AIR Parvej. learned here SC 1952 be counsel Perusal mentioned
214). may Bosethat be of the case file J. the illustrated State did thus notprocedure : prefer If the witess
42. accused describes considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquit light isaccused inGurcharan Maan all this ofofisunder the thesethe recovery not of regard toof persons Singh accused PW2 trustworthy.
be offence facts DAss, sectionhe ofan true Jehruddin. about has and for appeal to persons the knife Banyan in 162 theis asked be been against followed circumstances then the terms Cr.conceived is for didthe confronted incident This SHO was PW12 P.C. the youcontradict to oflight? five witness recovered the saycompanions offences who and object.
Islamuddin does ofand before statement by proved thethe was acase ld.
not u/s factThe from APP 302/34 also the reflect other who Imade havingaccused with have seizure cross-
IPC has last the his notto in reveals that most material witness in this case is PW7 Maan the of witness police the appellant under officerS.145 who thatof came the yu saw to Evidence be a acquitted gas Act thus byat the p.819 trial he (of court. answers SCR) It isat in p.217 yes thesethen ofcircumstances AIR):the statement thatwhich the appellant does not has contain invoked examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and found in 27 such this of witness and /54/59 of the recitalstatement the the communication, Court'sat was quantum is clothes length knife Arms is sealed PW5 recorded in Act.
byofIn of statement recorded under section put jurisdiction to him asquestion deceased Mohd.
defence this contradictions under in All time contradiction.a regard accused Art. u/s pulanda Siddiqui 136and which counsel 161 and of Hon This theplace Cr.PC are one inwas also who ble light in Sh.
Constitution. procedure sample and Supreme JC where recovered also reveals ofRashid for this the can 161 seal more itjudgment fact isCourt that Hasmi/ not Cr.not in along than also his be so PC in Singh involves who two was fallacies:working Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the one as is Chowkidar it enables the in accused the premises to where elicit witness by adenies process thatof he cross-examination made the former what the witness statement. In N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five discussed Tahsildar that years, Tyagi not one upon accused stated as beforegoInhence for sealed due Singh The found light to above persons the accused to establish sole of they the and police having all envelope and fact reason depositions beAbid another visited officer. judgment of the released blood Ifrecovery and at athat close containing the Vs police itmaterial relied of stains forthwith has houseand this of State officer come upon knife witness proximate which of did statement blood of ifPW2 not from by UPonnotitld.
was record gauze wanted has thelink APPoffound explaining Jehruddin come place PW2 with that i.e. of in incident that event, tookit would placebeon the night necessary to prove of 09.04.2003.
that he did, and This witness is make if the former a record statement of awas witnessreduced s statement to writing, then his S.145 entire
43.
36. anyIwashed.
have Other this on deceased which regard did Khujji the and record other not witness object took statement requires wasto most @ given find case.
provide The Kamruddin of his that not that happens Surendera could the material Section son his same careful exclusively this not mention assistance be 162 Kamruddin, attention was witness used to as Tiwari mustconsideration witnesses be also Cr.
foralready accessible of any the PC be to also sent goesaccused Vs the cousin. held purpose drawn Ex.PW20/A, does into State to testimony to CFSL this that:- to indicate whereas these persons accused of notparts the and case, M.P. This ifhappensofitcitations aseizure that -Abid visit PW7 part isi.e. AIR reported reliance further at memo of to Maan PW2 1991 as the beof thepolice direct which officer are to testimony recorded be used for a few tocontradiction.
the incident sentences by But this thatin process question.
position of Careful cross-examination does not arise when the witness the witness s oral statement admits thecould former be discussed Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased theitnot Observation:
Supreme this reveals blood Pare witness brought statement.
So above beCourt house.
also who 11- on long determinative unless stained Itno appears In goes is, record. such and happens as mark 1853 PW4some therefore, a to case arguments indirect Baniyan of indicate be Aslam wherein all to blood of seen This other shaky.
that be death and ofis that ofaccused that itwith the procedure, is the has necessary ld.
cogent acircumstantial with witness this Counsel father the object been the witness blood piece therefore, is ofParvej to ofwho knife held for thedeceased look and all could belongs ofevidence that:-in as accused identity evidence question already notand be of is analysis legislatureand evaluation throughout of hasthis been witness to exclude testimony the reveals that contravenes to the former thestatement express provision of whichof no S. 162 further of the proof Code. is Before persons The parting statement second and of awith matter fallacy witness is the thaton made by judgment record. the before theI police illustration Record would given during of by like the the toproceeding bring on PW5 its believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes Modh.
PW1 necessary the on torecovery unqualified the record.
PW2 Komal Siddiqui because investigation This pictureand Jehruddin Chand,thereto.
of fact from subsequently arrest the and also however, admission being they inmade memo who the Accused goes are supported that happens absence use i.e. itcrucial to of of after was atare the indicate accused made.
thefor tothe ofin prosecution trial bethe other custody occurrence the thatpurpose Parvejpiece father certain since as soof his learned testimony case counsel in is his most for the significant examination-in-chiefappellants which there but isin wouldnohisself- reflect cross the vide record formy contradiction anyobservationpurpose, andwith of he therefer primary regard the amendments statement to made the made investigation.
from In this It isexamination unnecessary to expressed to other some cases doubt wherein a in regarding similar the the reveals
37. So witness time determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his testimony long that tohasastime accused Further, it and has is ofwere born the remotely the only come personalon Dilshad guilt statement intended cross-examination on record connected of recordto search accusedand makeregarding of notPW5 Arif clear that memo with who persons of the deceased this said regard Mohd. reportedly committal as witnessbasedEx.PW13/B, toKamruddin Siddiquia were reveals on of link the of is case implicationstherebox, identity procedure object isis and for ofsuggested the frequent regarding to the dispel the witness appellant for thechangeand putting cloud hasGuddu proof yet questions castof of made stating oninvestigating guilt underthat such and intention.
on S. non the had he 145 officers proof of inguiltall stand of theseen any Indian assertion their backsat only.
Evidence all Act, which forThe cantrial the serve said Court as the decision came ofbasis. thisto the The Act of 1898 for the first time introduced an alongThe contradiction, with accused under the Abid section, as should revealed be between in tohis disclosure
39. three direct number Other pointing murder was pieceCourt concerned, conclusion taken or PW for of indirect and officers out that contradictions deceased away 4he theAslam memo similar conducted has not evidence bypurpose only accused decisions alsoKamruddin who of was which the inthe and is werethis of his witness independent persons place therefore also consideration not investigationby deposition go afrom accused as considering chance toalready comparison the public of has his witness root persons the this house.
ofEx.PW13/D, stated witness of casechain the between without In thatcase. whichhas the as he exception enabling the said statement reduced of the what accused a witness but his presence procedure persons.
asserted in a caseatwhere writing to be used for impeaching the credit of the in the scene Having the witness the statementof occurrenceperused box and in writing the what was extremely statement was he of this showsstated that doubtful intended beforeto the bethe as itused police preparatory was officer, difficult for contradiction to and measures believe notunder between that heregarding S. had 162 what ofcome he out the investigation statement
44. circumstantial thesaid Similarly been disclosure further Having witness cross-examination statement got he and corroboration. discussed declared instatement wasthe evidence. of manner subsequently cross-examined PW7 the hostile his In provided testimony factsand this of and of the regard PW2 by accused thecase, remand consequently the has by Evidence Jehurrin PW25 also ld. of Parvej arguments been Counsel Act.
accused Abid was had Codeseen he at that hadKamruddin, of Criminal stated hour toProcedure. before Abid, purchase vegetables. the police Naushad Section 145 of officer Thus and and the the what Evidence trialDr during and Parvej he demolished court as PW5 the Sh.Rajender ofalready while course all Mohd.
Abdul the theyby witness As the it comes phraseology on of the record exception that lent this scope witness to in his were not actuallyis in upto Actrefused defeat made two the the to parts: before place reliance purpose mark the firstas him. In onpart of the the such theenables vital a evidence case legislature missing the the ofaccused by link question the three the in the ocular toeye- could obtained nottobetrace witnesses. cross-examine puta at The all;
them, witness only trial as questions is court, to also previous toon however, contradict record. statement came can made be toFurther, the careful Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence werecross-examination counsel amicus standingis AmendmentSrcounsel necessary Scientific for black in curiae thecolor Act as accused done precisely Officer, gali 1923, foritno.10accused baniyan the by has FSL, ld.
sectionpersons forborne and APP Parvej /T-Shirt, theRohini, onwashe reasons askingand onandhas redrafted as Delhi record itthe denied from has already that has contentions also deceased that Kamruddin proved Ex.P6 come any on as bywell examination-in-chief put andinthe conclusion him as writing questioncircumstantial that or the reduced he here appellant defining the limits of the exception with precision so a has posed to writing was evidence identified does withoutnot contradict;
absconding all such were and the writing that itthree found he accused after leads being hadto shown an answer discovered to him; thewhich weapon theis second contradicted which was partfound by the deals to with police be stained a to confine and it onlyperusal to contradict the case witnessfile in the
46. consideration Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, record on completion as to was why statement.
with situation onbiological and the the he human seized that was of where arrest knife Thiscase u/s was seen he trial. blood. examination 145 by the recovered law knew was standing argument him itwith The Cr.relied offrom also made PC cross-examination ofCounsel accused the authority ld. upon there, relied the from accused blood Evidence accused on before by Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin the based them Parvej. factum assumes drain him Act persons detected upon and reveals ofand the adopt and atthe told theS.
find fact to thedue on either ofhim this ld.that of instance Exhibits appropriate APP, to taking that two effect any the heI persons 145 shape manner of the human and deposed provided Evidence blood on the of contradiction:
under Act,pant that section is therefore, in as worn words, other soon 145 ofas by not the of thehe anyparts appellant both heard Evidence relevance at dealthe time the voice he measures Act. If one regarding could guessregulating the intention the of the legislature in withconsidering of hisremand arrest.
cross-examination theOnexpress the bybasis way provisions this of contradiction ofprocess evidence S. 162 the only. ofof trial the The investigation court by days both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of was accused 2, of PC the 3, the standing in 4, that witnesses framing 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not all the 5A-2, with inwas that the foundhis section have the accused the was 5Bsought mentioned presence friends in been conviction the andrecordedand manner in 7discussed persons respect (particulars of heitindid PW12 of inthe would all inhis are ofthe in statement 1923, accused Islamuddin para presence. of residents return itthree exhibits no. back Abid recorded 4 accused cannot and are in toThis to his '1' 7. Code raisedwould procedure of an alarm convicted Criminal the prescribed Procedure.
in thethat appellant is school that, under if it he S.302 is went the intended I.P.C. intoaccused to and room where he saw contradict sentenced issuing be apparent it was to protect him proper a witness to by lifethe guide writing, line imprisonment. his attention orKhujji devising preferred must, before a ansuitable appeal policy to the against the user of the statements of witnesses made
41. alsotrace Perusal u/s house. 161 the neighbourhood. witness In Cotton persons light be wood of being of Cr.
He weapon solely held thethe Phas swab, C a completely aforesaid on in also of cross-examination sole the He'2' view offence statement ground further Flacky identifiedofstatements hostile the toandadopted for judgment all so to material-dry of toascertain conviction threePW7 of ofPW2be thethe Maan itlooked Tahsildar blood, the cross-examination reveals persons asSingh the into associates '3'that Singh now place who with Flackey has this the and of ataccused persons. This against writing can the be said proved conviction.
be called The High those Court parts while of which ignoring overcome thatarebefore Naushad the to be this usedinadequacy. evidence the police was forof the PW3 during investigation holding purposeKishanofLal the and back contradicting PW4(kamar) the trialof Ramesh him. The relied Kamruddin, presumably o the assumption that the said statements on the proviso to appellant S. 162 and of as theArif.one Code of of theCriminal assailants notwithstanding namely with statement court material- identified recovery ANNOUNCED Anr.
witness
35. Besides respect Vs will were Dilshad has was sample INof the State of neither examine not knife of THE been accused PW2 got accused of made blood, OPEN the was UP.
declaredcontradicted Jehruddin, thepersons under servicenotAbid.
'4'
The No
nature hostile proceedings exclusively Wooden in PW5 contentions circumstances with particulars by ofProcedure examination-in-chief pieces, ld. regard Mohd.
theaccessible APP of inspiring of in CFSL ld.
PW7 only to respect Siddiqui '5A-1' and APP the in report toPants Maan ofcross-
statement the accused and based and both with and PW his on his Abid confidence.
enables effort was giving Both the in cross accused examination knifethe to blow make use section to wriggle to Kamruddin of such and the proviso out statementhis statement and to ParvezSingh also COURT ON inTHIS contradict 30.01.2009 examination-in-chief a witness in the manner in regard providedto thebyidentity S. 145 of of the intended to serve primarily the same purpose i.e. , the the recorded Gajraj. accused statement belt, subsequent Abid examination the and '5A-2' citation the Other appellant. Evidence under knife of hepersons Shirt, denial witnesses doctor 'Khujji The Act.did section was High '5B' not @ It to are concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would on having formal noticed be Cr. record stained doing them PC that matching The witnesses. with Tiwarithe by violence whether gauzein weapon the his Vs examination-in- they tocross-examination (RAJblood IOcloth statement the State that used were stains piece, ofaccused KAPOOR) in to with M.P. got this '6'-
the nor caught mode interest holding chief ofofthis language of of intimation thethe thewitness accused provisowas deceased. to if the the recorded said statement witness In on Novemberthe PW6cross-examination be allowed Gajraj 16, 1976 regarding of ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST to be whereasused for histhe cross purpose examination of cross-examining commenced aonwitness December
38.Afterdeclared persons Other case Dagger/ testifying deceased effect AIR noise isor 1991witness explaining within15, that P.O. a1976 knife visited that knife scene the blood.
he Supreme his i.e. meaning or and PW6 which his Sectionhad of after other earlier No '7' houseGajraj incident, a of stated Court month the kind reaction Banyan). is testimony 162 Ex.P5and KARKARDOOMA first nor and of Singhbefore 1853' Cr.part proceedings took on in and his Blood PCis to banyan between of hisformal itthe is presence S. has deceased notcould regarding 145 heeffect police of comewere witness COURTS:
sustainable seemed of accused by thenot of that got contradicting way to initiated identification son onbe as record detected and well he of Parvej DELHI as this had other as thein this witness I found major contradictions as at one occasion 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness he accused wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts was identified Ext.6 statement also which of documents the them.
perusal witness Evidence have contradiction found i.e. case persons the beenconfronting the Act. dagger/ of Kamruddin blood of accused since woninThe Nor PW21 are the hand was over are he case stains brought recovery does or we knife. with and at that persons has had the aabout file the having not been previous knife impressedon instance reveals On citation ofby in appear record. his got succumbedknife was examination-in-chief serological matched presence the declared that statement toare of recovered atApart in police, in entirely argument threat.the this the with hostile with from examination instance Thiscan case procedure statement deceased different. from culprits this not by there and the he be ld.
of thatinference it would not wasbe drawn possible on the to basis invokeofthe PW3's second statement part of that S.145 he was of the severly Evidence beaten Actonwithout the night putting previous relevant to his indicated at other became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. 3andKamruddin that questions unless blood IOs In appearance occasion Abid hostile u/s consequently :light ofthose under was 161 from accused his of in regarding the answered detected in Cr.
testimony drain these Courthave firstcross-examination PC.Abid he part ashappens neither conducted aidentification has in him The by thereof. isExhibits witness.IO been corroborated that scope the toat be The the he the all cross-examined The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably he ofwould of ocular instance investigation difficulty high cross-examination denied accused by is goevidence court, some ofwith suspicious to5A-2, accused persons identify by ofthese other him this nor 5B more therefore, imaginary took than thereal. viewThe thatsecond the subsequent part of S. 145 attempt of of the
45. circumstantial the persons case.
himself and since sources The Para regarding PW1 Evidnece accused 7. in motive T.I.P. noFirst Exhibits the from .for
-13 Komal account The Act contradiction Chand cross-examination of is Besides sleeping persons. the aone knife clearly evidence 5A-1, drain learned of PW8ofwas to these in he theindicates 5-A2 create and Counselthe SIwas He has indicate essential also satestified Satender two and school. this been the doubt appointed henot simple associates first5B knife has regarding the components got were argumentwho discussed And procedure that deposed direct was conducted justfound proved this is the namely statement sent identity to 8proximate based in portion orto that caseto DD10 to have Dilshad commit by police CFSL no.6/A days does made the human Tahsildar nexusago had and any I.O.
not for asin be upon the words in the manner provided by S. 145 of the was of followed.
the appellant To illustrate was of: A no says consequence in the witness- since box there that B of thestabbed intrinsic Indian material C:Evidencebefore in his the Actevidence police 1872 he to had found establish in stated S. 162 thethat ofpresence the D examination-in-chief particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which Singh Chowkidar isofIn stabbed Code inquiry of mentioned can on and the of this OC.record.
when Criminalestablish Group. and and from anothercase appellant His as the in the attention Procedure.him inThe revealed the was the knife Exhibits amongstthe wooden Vs theand canelement knife statement at was guilt State cross-examination the ebdrawn Section recorded the by 1,2,3,4 was recovered pieces instance of of of PW6 toUP assailants 145 accused recovered recorded motive that of his and the as and Gajraj part ofof without statement. Evidence Ex.P1 7 police. Hon of neither persons deceasedhave u/s the from in it blood ble 161 collectively, his has shown This the exists Court He beyond Cr.cross- stains drain been state has PC wasnoin statement Act,Gulab.it is said, made Relying before empowers further the onpolice the the discovery accused which to put contradicts evidence all relevant as his well statement as the find questions in to the a ofwitness human witnessblood box. onhis before If the heattention weapon admits his is foundprevious called from to the andaffairs also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable of the from denied was is IO inEx.PW5/A. opinionthat goes the relation nor is not theand doubt itPW10 place to in had suggestion that indicate any the documents toblood which Inspector without A,B,O exclusive discrete This cross-examination stains that was that Grouping. contradiction regarding further Vijay statement particular PW approach not which Prakash, Maan exclusively can strong under hisof also of of Singh suggest the this employment accused who happens sectioncorroboration.
accessible nature witness had proved the told and 145 match which toishim are the no be Cr.to statement, those garage parts of no of the further appellant writing proof withis andanecessary, view on to hiscontradict pant if hewhich does him.he not In was admit wearing support theofpractice at this thecontention time generally of his followed arrest, thisis reliance High toplaceadmitCourt it came upon subject the to the bethe accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PC phone toqualified brought suggest of blood was proofthe for conclusion judgment inAbid.
that by found giving postmortem light of on by that witness of thethis murder the thatrecord.
some of policehaving the benefit Court These deceased. histhe murder had isofficer.
to other contradictions examination reaction conviction in of The befacts Bhagwan taken doubt On considerations could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted the was place on Singh towell other haveit.
as the Vsallegedly born in Ex.PW10/A Public hand to Khaddewala been accused founded State indicate ,PW6 foron ifofwitness the his committed record at the the and persons, statement Gajraj and that benefit School time in tothird this the by ofI procedure Punjabdismissed (1), 1952 suggested his SCR appeal. by Itthe 812: may (AIR learned here SC 1952 be counsel mentioned
214). may Bosethat beJ. the illustrated State did thus notprocedure : prefer If the witess
42. accused describes considered witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquit light isaccused the inGurcharan Maan all this ofofisthe theunder ofpolice the these recovery not of regard toof persons appellant Singh accused PW2 trustworthy. officer be offence facts DAss, sectionhe who that ofan true Jehruddin. about has and for appeal to persons the knife Banyan yu162 came intheis asked be been saw the terms to Cr.
against followed circumstances then conceived isfor didthe confronted incident This SHO was PW12 P.C. bea acquitted gas the youcontradict to oflight? five witness recovered the saycompanions offences who and by object. Islamuddin does ofand before statement by proved thethe was acase ld.
not u/sThe factfrom APP 302/34 also the reflect other court.having not who Imade accused with have seizure cross-
IPC has last the his to in witness under S.145 of the Evidence Act thus at the p.819 trial(of he answers SCR) It isat in p.217 yes thesethen ofcircumstances AIR):the statement thatwhich the appellant does not has contain invoked examination-in-chief. examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and found in 27 such this of witness and /54/59 of the recitalstatement the the communication, Court'sat was quantum is clothes length knife Arms is sealed PW5 recorded in Act.
byofIn of statement recorded under section put jurisdiction to him asquestion deceased Mohd.
defence this contradictions under in All time contradiction.a regard accused Art.u/s pulanda Siddiqui 136and which counsel 161 and of Hon This theplace Cr.PC are one inwas also who ble light in Sh.
Constitution. procedure sample and Supreme JC where recovered also reveals ofRashid for this the can 161 seal more itjudgment fact isCourt that Hasmi/ not Cr.not in along than also his be so PC in involves two fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the one is it enables the accused to elicit witness by adenies process thatof he cross-examination made the former what the witness statement. In N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five discussed Tahsildar that years, Tyagi not one upon accused stated as beforegoIn hence for sealed due Singh The found light to above persons the accused to establish sole of they the and police that event, it would be necessary to prove that he did, having all envelope and fact reason depositions beAbid another visited officer. judgment of the released blood Ifrecovery and at that a close containing the Vs police itmaterial relied of stains forthwith has houseand this of State officer come upon knife witness proximate which of did statement blood of ifPW2 not and from by on UPnotitld.was record gauze wanted has thelink APPoffound explaining Jehruddin come place PW2 with that i.e. of in make if the former a record statement of awas witnessreduced s statement to writing, then his S.145 entire
43.
36. anyIwashed.
have Other this on deceased which regard did Khujji the and record other not witness object took statement requires wasto most @ given find case.
provide The Kamruddin of his not that happens Surendera thatcould the material Section son his same careful exclusively this not mention assistance be 162 Kamruddin, attention was witness used to as Tiwari mustconsideration witnesses be also Cr.
foralready accessible of any the PC be to also sent goesaccused Vs the cousin. held purpose drawn Ex.PW20/A, does into State to testimony to CFSL this that:- to indicate whereas these persons accused of notparts the and case, M.P. This ofitcitations ifhappens aseizure that -Abid visit PW7 part isi.e. AIR reported reliance further at memo of to Maan PW2 1991 as the beof police which officer are to recorded be used for a few sentences by contradiction. But this that processposition of cross-examination does not arise when the witness the witness s oral statement admits thecould former be discussed Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased theitnot Observation:
Supreme this reveals blood Pare witness brought statement.
So above beCourt house.
also who 11- on long determinative unless stained Itno appears In such goes is, record. and happens as mark 1853 PW4some therefore, a case to arguments indirect Baniyan of indicate be Aslam wherein all to blood of seen This other shaky. be death and ofis that that procedure, ofaccused that itwith the is necessary the has ld.
cogent acircumstantial with witness this Counsel father the object been the witness blood piece is toheld therefore, ofParvej ofwho knife for thedeceased and look that:-
all could belongs ofevidence in as accused identity evidence question already notand be of is legislature throughout has been to exclude the contravenes to the former thestatement express provision of whichof no S. 162 further of the proof Code. is Before persons The parting statement second and of awith matter fallacy witness is the thaton made by judgment record.
the before theI police illustration Record would given during of by like the the toproceeding bring on PW5 its believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes Modh.
PW1 necessary the on torecovery unqualified the record.
PW2 Komal Siddiqui This picture because investigation and Jehruddin Chand, thereto.
of fact from subsequently arrest the and also however, admission being they inmade memo who the Accused goesare supported that happens absence use i.e. itcrucial to of of after was atare the indicate accused made.
thefor tothe ofin prosecution trial bethe other custody occurrence the thatpurpose Parvejpiece father certain since as soof learned case counsel in his for the appellants there examination-in-chief but isin nohisself-cross record formy contradiction anyobservation purpose, andwith of he therefer primary regard the amendments statement to made the made investigation.
from In this It isexamination unnecessary to expressed to other some cases doubt wherein a in regarding similar the the reveals
37. So witness time determination evidence.
Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his testimony long that tohas time as accused Further, it and has is ofwere born the remotely the only come personalon Dilshad guilt statement intended cross-examination on record connected of to record search and accused makeregarding of notPW5 Arif clear that memo with who persons of the deceased this said regard Mohd. reportedly committal as witness based Ex.PW13/B, toKamruddin Siddiquia were reveals on of link the of is case therebox, identity procedure object isis and for ofsuggested the frequent to the witness appellant dispel thechange for putting and hasGuddu yet questions cloud castofoninvestigating made stating underthat on S. 145 such intention. officers in all the had he stand of theseen any Indian assertion their backsat only.
Evidence all Act, which forThe cantrial the serve said Court as the decision came ofbasis. thisto the The Act of 1898 for the first time introduced an alongThe contradiction, with accused under the Abid section, as should revealed be between in tohis disclosure
39. three direct number Other pointing murder was pieceCourt concerned, conclusion taken or PW for of indirect and officers out that contradictions deceased away 4he theAslam memo similar conducted has not evidence bypurpose only accused decisions alsoKamruddin who of was which the inthe and is werethis of his witness independent persons placetherefore also consideration not by investigation deposition go afrom accused as considering chance toalready comparison the public of has his witness root persons the this house.
ofEx.PW13/D, statedwitness of casechain the between without In thatcase. whichhas the as he exception enabling the said statement reduced what a witness but his presence procedure asserted in a caseatwhere in the scene the witness the statementof occurrence box and in writing what was extremely was he writing to be used for impeaching the credit of the showsstated that doubtful intended beforeto the bethe as itused police preparatory was officer, difficult for contradiction to and measures believe notunder between that heregarding S. had 162 what ofcome he out the investigation statement
44. circumstantial thesaid Similarly been disclosure further Having witness cross-examination statement got he and corroboration. discussed declaredinstatement wasthe evidence. of manner subsequently cross-examined PW7 the hostile his In provided testimony factsand this of and of the regard PW2 by accused thecase, remand consequently the has by Evidence Jehurrin PW25 also ld. of Parvej arguments been Counsel Act.
accused Abid was had Codeseen he at that hadKamruddin, of Criminal stated hour toProcedure. before Abid, purchase vegetables. the police Naushad Section 145 of officer Thus and and the the what Evidence trialDr during and Parvej he demolished court as PW5 the Sh.Rajender ofalready while course all Mohd.
Abdul the theyby As the phraseology of the exception lent scope to were not actuallyis in upto Actrefused defeat made two the the to parts: before place reliance purpose mark the firstas him. In onpart of the the such theenables vital a evidence case legislature missing the the ofaccused by link question the three the in the ocular toeye- could obtained nottobetrace witnesses. cross-examine puta at The all;
witnessthem, only trial as questions is court, to also previous toon however, contradict record. statement came can made be toFurther,the careful Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence werecross-examination counsel amicus standingis AmendmentSrcounsel necessary Scientific for black in curiae thecolor Act as accused done precisely Officer, gali 1923, foritno.10accused baniyan the by has FSL, ld.persons forborne and section APP Parvej /T-Shirt, the Rohini, onwashe reasons askingand onandhas redrafted as Delhi record itthe denied from has already that has contentions also deceased that Kamruddin proved Ex.P6 come any on as put bywell andinthe conclusion him as writing questioncircumstantial that or the reducedhere appellant defining the limits of the exception with precision so a posed to writing was evidence does not contradict;
absconding without suchand were writing that it he found after leads being hadto shown an answer discovered to him; thewhich weapon theis second contradicted which was partfound by the deals to with police be stained a to confine and it onlyperusal to contradict the case witnessfile in the
46. consideration Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, record on completion as to was why statement.
with situation onbiological and the theseized he human that was of arrest knife This where case u/s was seen he trial. blood. examination 145 by the recovered law knew was standing argument him itwith The Cr.relied offrom also made PC cross-examination ofCounsel accused the authority ld. upon there, relied the from accused blood Evidence accused on before by Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin the based them Parvej. factum assumes drain him Act persons detected upon and reveals ofand the adopt and atthe told theS.
find fact to thedue on either ofhimthis ld.that of instance Exhibits appropriate APP, to taking that two effect any the heI manner provided under section 145 of the Evidence 145 shape of the human Evidence blood on the of contradiction: Act,pant is therefore, in worn words, other by not the of anyparts appellant both relevance at dealthe time measures Act. Ifregarding one could guess regulating the intention the of the legislature in withconsidering of hisremand arrest.theOnwas cross-examination express the bybasis way provisions this of contradiction ofprocess evidence S. 162 the only. ofof trial the The investigation court by days both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2, wasCode of PC the 3, the standing in 4, that witnesses framing 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not all with the 5A-2, that the found in his section have the accused the was 5Bsought mentioned presence friends in been conviction the andrecordedand manner 7in discussed persons respect (particulars of heitindid PW12 of inthe would all inhis are ofthe in statement 1923, accused Islamuddin para presence. of residents return itthree exhibits no.back Abid recorded 4 accused cannot and are in toThis to his '1' 7. procedure of Criminal convicted the Procedure.
prescribed appellant is that, under if it is S.302intended I.P.C.toand contradict sentenced issuing would be apparent that it was to protect the accused him proper a witness to by lifethe guide writing, line imprisonment. his attention orKhujji devising preferred must, before a ansuitable appeal policy to the against the user of the statements of witnesses made
41. alsotrace Perusal u/s house. 161 the neighbourhood. witness In Cotton persons light be wood of being of Cr.
He weapon solely held the the Phas swab, C a completely aforesaid on in also of cross-examination sole the He'2' view offence statement ground further Flacky identifiedofstatements hostile the toand adopted for judgment all so to material-dry of toascertain conviction threePW7 of ofPW2be thethe Maan itlooked Tahsildar blood, the cross-examination reveals persons asSingh the intoassociates '3'that Singh now place who with Flackey has this the and of ataccused the trial persons. This against writing can the be said proved conviction.
be called The High those Court parts while of which ignoring overcome arethe before to be this usedinadequacy. evidence the police forof the PW3 during investigation purposeKishanofLal and PW4 Ramesh contradicting him. The relied presumably o the assumption that the said statements on the proviso to appellant S. 162 and of as theArif.one Code of of theCriminal assailants notwithstanding namely with statement court material- identified recovery ANNOUNCED Anr.
witness
35. Besides respect Vs will his was were enables Dilshad hassample INof the State of neither effort examine knife of THE not the in been accused PW2 got accused of made cross accused blood, OPEN the was UP.
declared contradicted Jehruddin, thepersons under toservice examination not make Abid.
'4'
The No
nature hostile proceedings exclusively Wooden in PW5 contentions circumstances use with particulars to of by ofProcedure examination-in-chief suchld. wriggle pieces, regard Mohd.
the out accessible APP statementof inspiring of his in CFSL ld.
PW7 only and statement respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' APP to the in report toPants Maan the based ofcross- statement accused andand both with and SinghPW his on confidence. Both the section and the proviso COURT ON inTHIS contradict 30.01.2009 examination-in-chief a witness in the manner in regard providedto thebyidentity S. 145 of of the intended to serve primarily the same purpose i.e. , the the recorded Gajraj. accused statement belt, subsequent Abid examination the and '5A-2' citation the Other appellant. Evidence under knife of hepersons Shirt, denial witnesses doctor 'Khujji The Act.did section was High '5B' not @ It to are concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would on having formal noticed be Cr. record stained doing them PC that matching The witnesses. with Tiwarithe by violence whether gauzein weapon the his Vs examination-in- they tocross-examination (RAJblood IOcloth statement the State that used were stains piece, ofaccused KAPOOR) in to with M.P. got this '6'-
the norlanguage mode interestof chief ofofthis of intimation the accused to the witness PW6 Gajraj thewitness provisowas if the recorded said statement on November be allowed 16, 1976 regarding ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST to be whereasused for histhe cross purpose examination of cross-examiningcommenced aonwitness December declared
38.Afterdeceased persons Other case Dagger/ testifying effect AIR isor 1991witness explaining that P.O. a1976 knife visited that knife blood. he Supreme his or and PW6 which his Sectionhad other earlier No '7' house aGajraj stated Court kind reaction Banyan). is testimony 162 Ex.P5and KARKARDOOMA of Singhbefore 1853' Cr. proceedings took on and Blood PCis to banyan hisformal itthe is has deceased notcould regardingeffect police of comewere witness COURTS:
sustainableaccused not of that got initiated identification son on be as record detected contradictingand well he Parvej DELHI as this hadas thein noisewithin15, scene the i.e. meaning of after incident, of month the first nor and partin hisbetween of presence S. 145 he seemed of by the way to of other 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40.witness wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts wasaccused Ext.6 statement also which of documents the them.
perusal witness Evidence have contradiction found i.e. case persons the beenconfronting Act. dagger/ of Kamruddin blood of since woninThe Nor PW21 are the hand was over are he case stains brought recovery does or we knife. with and at that has had the aabout file the having not been previous knife impressedon instance reveals On citation ofby appear record. his got succumbedknife was serological matched presence the declared that statement toare of recovered atApart in police, in entirely argument threat.the this the with hostile with from examination instance Thiscan case procedure statement deceased different. from culprits this not by there the he be ld.
of thatinference it would not wasbe drawn possible on the to basis invokeofthe PW3's second statementpart of that S.145 he was of the severly Evidence beaten Actonwithout the night putting previous relevant to his indicated became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. 3andKamruddin that questions unless blood IOs In appearance Abid hostile u/s consequently :light ofthose under was 161 from accused his of in regarding the answered detected Cr.
testimony drain these Courthave first PC.Abid he part ashappens neither conducted aidentification has in him The by thereof. isExhibits witness. IO been corroborated that scope the toat be The the he the all cross-examined The 1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ofwould of ocular instance investigation difficulty highcross-examination accused by is goevidence court, some ofwith suspicious 5A-2, accused persons by ofthese other him this nor 5B more therefore, imaginary took than thereal. viewThe thatsecond the subsequent part of S. 145 attempt of of the
45. circumstantial persons case.
himself and since sources The 7.
in Para regarding PW1 Evidnece motive T.I.P. noFirst Exhibits the from .for
-13 Komal account The Act contradiction Chand cross-examination of is Besides sleeping the aone knife clearly evidence 5A-1, drain learned of PW8ofwas to these in he theindicates 5-A2 create and Counselthe SIwas has indicate essential also saappointed Satender two and school. this been the doubt henot simple associates first5B knife has regarding the components got were argumentwho discussed And procedure deposed direct was conducted just found proved this is the namelysent identity to 8proximate based in portion orto that caseto DD10 to have Dilshad commit by police CFSL no.6/A days does the human Tahsildar nexusago had and any I.O.
not for as be upon the words in the manner provided by S. 145 of the was of followed.
the appellant To illustrate was of: Ano says consequence in the witness- since box there that B of thestabbed intrinsic Indian material C:Evidencebefore in his the Actevidence police 1872 he to had found establish in stated S. 162 thethat ofpresence the D particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which Singh Chowkidar isofIn stabbed Code inquiry of mentioned can on and the of this OC.record.
when establish Group. and and from anothercase appellant Criminal His as the in the attention Procedure.him in The revealed the the knife Exhibits amongstthe wooden Vs theand canelement knife statement was guilt State cross-examination recorded ebdrawn Sectionthe by 1,2,3,4 was recovered pieces of of of PW6 toUP assailants 145 accused recovered recorded motive that of his and the as and Gajraj ofwithout part statement. EvidenceEx.P1 7 Hon of neither persons deceasedhave u/s the from in it blood ble 161 collectively, his has shown the exists Court He beyond Cr.cross- stains drain been has wasPC noin statement Act,Gulab.it is said, made Relying before empowers further the onpolice the the discovery accused which to put contradicts evidence all relevant as his well statement as the find questions in to the a ofwitness human witnessblood box. onhis before If the heattention weapon admits his isfoundprevious called from to the andthe also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable of from denied was is IO inEx.PW5/A. opinionthat the relation nor is not theand doubt itPW10 place in had suggestion that any the documents toblood which Inspector without A,B,O exclusive discrete This cross-examination stains was that Grouping. contradiction regarding further Vijay particular PW approach not which Prakash, Maan exclusively can strong underhis of also of Singh suggest the employment accused who happens sectioncorroboration.
accessible nature had proved the told and 145 match which tohim are the no be Cr.to statement, those garage parts of no of the further appellant writing proof withis andanecessary, view on to hiscontradict pant if hewhich doeshim.he not In was admit wearing support theofpractice at this thecontention time generally of his followedarrest, thisis reliance High toplaceadmitCourt it came upon subject the to the accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PC the phone to brought suggest of blood was proofthe for conclusion judgment inAbid.
that by found giving postmortem light of onthat witness of thethis murder the thatrecord.
of policehaving the benefit Court These deceased. histhe murder had tocontradictions isofficer.
in examination reaction of The be conviction facts Bhagwan taken doubt On could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted the was place on Singh towell other haveit.
as the Vsallegedly born in Ex.PW10/A Public hand to Khaddewala been accused founded State indicate ,PW6 foron the ofwitness committed record at the the and persons, Gajraj and that benefit School time in tothird this the by ofI procedure Punjabdismissed (1), 1952 suggested his SCR appeal. by Itthe 812: may (AIR learned here SC 1952 be counsel mentioned
214). may Bosethat beJ. the illustrated State did thus notprocedure : prefer If the witess
42. accused describes witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquit light isaccused the inGurcharan Maan all this ofofisthe theunder ofpolice the these recovery not of regardof persons appellant Singh accused PW2 trustworthy. officer offence facts DAss, sectionhe who that ofan Jehruddin. about has and for appeal to persons the knife Banyan yu162 came theis asked be been saw the to Cr.
against followed circumstances then conceived isfor didthe confronted incident This SHO was PW12 P.C. bea acquitted gas the youcontradict to five witness saycompanions recovered light?
offences who and by object. before Islamuddin does ofand by proved thethe was acase ld.
not u/sThe factfrom APP 302/34 also the reflect other court.having not who Iaccused with have seizure cross-
IPC has last the his to witness under S.145 of the Evidence Act thus at thep.819 trial(of he answers SCR) It isat in p.217 yes thesethen ofcircumstances AIR):the statement thatwhich the appellant does not has contain invoked examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and found in 27 such this of witness and /54/59 of the recitalstatement the the communication, Court'sat was quantum is clothes length knife Arms is sealed PW5 recorded in Act.
byof of statement recorded under section put jurisdiction to him asquestion deceased Mohd.
defence contradictions under in All timea contradiction. accused Art.u/s pulanda Siddiqui 136and which counsel 161 and of This theplace Cr.PC are one in was also who light in Sh. sample Constitution. procedure andJC where recovered also reveals ofRashid for this the can 161 seal more itjudgment fact isthat Hasmi/ not Cr.not in along than also his be so PC involves two fallacies:
Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the one is it enables the accused to elicit witness by adenies process thatof he cross-examination made the former what the witness statement. In N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five discussed years, thatstated Tyagi not one upon accused as beforegoIn hence for sealed due The found light to above persons the accused to establish sole of they police the that event, it would be necessary to prove that he did, having all envelope and fact reason depositions be visitedAbid officer. judgment of the released blood recovery If and at that a close containing the police itmaterial relied of stains forthwith has houseand this of officer come upon knife witness proximate which of didstatement blood ifPW2 not and from by on notitld.was record gauze wanted has thelink APPoffound Jehruddin come place PW2 with that i.e. of in make if the former a record statement of awas witness reduced s statement to writing, then his S.145 entire
43. Iwashed.
36. any have Other this on deceased which regard did Khujji and record other not witness took statement requires wasto most @ given find case.
provide hisThe Kamruddin not that happens Surendera thatcould the son material his same careful exclusively this not mention assistance be was Kamruddin, attention witness used to as Tiwariconsideration witnesses must be also foralready accessible of any bethe to also sent goesaccused Vs the cousin. purpose drawn Ex.PW20/A, does into State to testimony to CFSL to thispersons accused indicate whereas these ofnotparts the and case, M.P. This ofitcitations ifhappens aseizure that -Abid visit PW7 part isi.e. AIR reported reliance further at memo of to Maan PW2 1991 as the beof police which officer are to recorded be used for a few sentences by contradiction. But this thatprocessposition of cross-examination does not arise when the witness the witness s oral statement admits thecould former be discussed Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased theitnot Observation:
Supreme this reveals witness brought statement.
blood So above beCourt house.
also who on long determinative unless stained appears In such no goes record. and happens as mark 1853 PW4 a case some to arguments indirect Baniyan of indicate be Aslam to blood wherein This all of other shaky. be death and ofis that procedure, ofaccused that itwith the is necessary ld.
cogent acircumstantial has with witness this Counsel father the been the witness blood piece is toheld therefore, Parvej ofwho knife for deceased and look that:-
all could belongs of evidence in as accused identity evidence question already notand be of is contravenes to the former thestatement express provision of whichof no S. 162 further of the proof Code. is Before persons The parting second and matter fallacy with is the thaton by judgment record.
the illustration Iwas Record would given of by like the the toproceeding bring on PW5 its believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes Modh.
PW1 necessary on torecovery unqualified the record.
PW2 Komal Siddiqui This picture because and Jehruddin Chand, thereto.
of fact subsequently arrest the andalso however, admissionthey in memo who the Accused goesarehappens supported that absence i.e. itcrucial to ofafter are theindicate accused made. for tothe ofinbe prosecution the other custody occurrence the thatpurpose Parvejpiece father certain since as soof learned case counsel in his for the appellants there examination-in-chief but isin nohisself-cross record my observation contradiction of he therefer primary with regard statement to made the investigation. In this It isexamination unnecessary to expressed to other some cases doubt wherein a in regardingsimilar the the reveals determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003.
deceased, his
37. So witnesstestimony long that hasas accused Further, it and has is of born the remotely the come personal statementDilshad cross-examination onguilt on record connected of record search and accused regarding of notPW5 Arif that memo with who persons ofdeceased this regard Mohd. reportedly committal as witness based Ex.PW13/B, toKamruddin Siddiquia were reveals on of link the of is case therebox, identity procedure isis for ofsuggested the frequentthe witness appellant forchange and putting hasGuddu yet questions stating of investigating made underthat on S. 145 the had he officers in all stand of theseen any Indian assertion their backsat only.
Evidence all Act, whichforThe cantrial the serve said Court as the decision came ofbasis. thisto the along
39. three The direct number Other pointing murder was pieceCourttaken orcontradiction, PWwith conclusion for of indirect and officers out accused that contradictions deceased away 4he theAslam memo similar conducted under not evidence bypurpose decisions ofthe only accused Abid Kamruddin who was section, which the the and is wereof as thisindependent persons place should revealed witness therefore also consideration not by investigation go accused as consideringbe afromchancebetween toalready comparison the in public of his root his witness persons the this house. disclosure ofEx.PW13/D, witness of casechain the between without In case.
has which the as concerned, has also in his deposition has stated that he what a witness but his presence procedure asserted in a caseatwhere in the scene the witness the statementof occurrence box and in writing what was extremely was he showsstated that doubtful intended beforeto the bethe as itused police preparatory was for officer, difficult contradictionto and measures believe notunder between that heregarding S. had 162 what ofcome he out the investigation statement
44. circumstantial thesaid Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination had statement Code got seen he at that hadand corroboration. discussed declared he Kamruddin, of Criminal stated subsequently statement was evidence.
of hour toProcedure. cross-examined PW7 the hostile his before In testimony facts and this Abid, purchase vegetables. of the and ofthe regard policePW2 accused Naushad Section 145 of remand consequently the has officercase, by Jehurrin PW25 also Thus ld.
and and the the of Parvej accused arguments been Counsel what Evidence trialDr during and Parvej he demolished court as PW5 the Sh.Abid Rajender ofalready while course all Mohd.was Abdul the theyby were not actuallyis in upto Actrefused made two to parts: the reliance before place mark the firstas him. In onpart the such theenables vital the a evidence case missingthe ofaccusedquestion the three link toeye- in the ocular could obtained nottobetrace witnesses. cross-examine puta at The all;
witnessthem, only trial as questions is court, to also previous toon however, contradict record. statement came canmade be toFurther,the careful Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence werecross-examination counsel amicus standingis Srcounsel necessary Scientific for black in curiae thecolor as accused done precisely Officer, galiforitno.10 accused baniyan by hasFSL, ld.persons forborne and APP Parvej /T-Shirt, the Rohini, on he reasons and on asking andhas as Delhi record itthe denied from has already thathas contentions also deceased that Kamruddin proved Ex.P6 comeanyon as put bywell andinthe conclusion him as question writing circumstantial that or the reducedhere appellant posed to writing was evidence does not contradict;
absconding without suchand were writing that it he found after leads being hadto shown an answer discovered to him; thewhich weapon theis second contradicted which was partfound by the deals to with police be stained a
46. consideration Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, record on completion as to was why statement.
with situation onbiological and the theseized he human that was ofThis where wasand arrest knife case u/s seen he trial. blood. the perusal examination 145 by recovered law knew was standing argument him itwith The Cr.relied alsooffrom made PC ofCounsel accused the authority cross-examinationld. upon there, relied the from accused blood Evidence accused on before case by Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin the based them factum assumes file Parvej. drain him Act persons detected upon and reveals ofand the adopt and atthe told theS.
find fact to the due on either this ld.that of instance Exhibits appropriate ofhim APP, to taking that two effect any the heI 145 shape of the human Evidence blood on the of contradiction: Act,pant is therefore, in worn words, other by not the of anyparts appellant both relevance at dealthe time measures days in withconsidering of PC hisremand regarding arrest. cross-examination theOnexpress theregulating bybasis way provisions this the of contradiction ofprocess evidence S. 162 the only. ofof trial the The investigation court by both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of was accused 2, of Code the 3, the standing 4, that witnesses 5A-1, isstatement of Criminal view Abid not all with inwas 5A-2, that the foundhishave the accused the was 5Bsought mentioned presence friends been conviction andrecordedand in 7discussed persons respect (particulars of he inPW12 of inthe would all his are inofthe statement accused Islamuddin para presence. of residents return three exhibits no.back Abid recorded 4 accused cannot and are in toThis to his '1' 7. convicted procedure the Procedure.
prescribed appellant is that, under if it is S.302 intended I.P.C.toand contradictsentenced issuing him proper a witness to by lifethe guide writing, line imprisonment. his attentionorKhujji devising preferred must, before a ansuitable appeal policy to the trace
41. also Perusal In Cotton persons u/s light house. 161 the neighbourhood. witness be wood against writing of being Cr.
He weapon solely of held can the the Phas the beswab, C a completely aforesaid on said in also proved of cross-examination sole the He'2' view offence statement ground further Flacky identified conviction.
be ofstatements calledhostile the Thetoand adopted for judgment all High those to material-dry ofso three toascertain conviction PW7 of Court parts ofPW2be the the Maan itlooked Tahsildar accused while of blood, the cross-examination reveals persons which asSingh ignoring the into persons.associates '3'that Singhnow place who with Flackey has this andthe This of overcome arethe to be this usedinadequacy. evidence forof the PW3 purposeKishanofLal and PW4 Ramesh contradicting him. The relied on the proviso to appellant S. 162 and of as theArif.one Code of of theCriminal assailants notwithstanding namely
35. recovery with statement court material- identified ANNOUNCED Anr.
witness Besides respect Vs will his was enables Dilshad hassample INof the State of neither effort examine the in knife of THE been accused PW2 got accused cross accused blood, OPENwas ofdeclared the UP.contradicted Jehruddin, thepersons toservice examination not make Abid.
'4'
The No
nature hostile use proceedings exclusively Wooden in PW5 contentions with particulars to of by ofProcedure examination-in-chief suchld. wriggle pieces, regard Mohd.
the out accessible APPof CFSL of his statement in ld.
PW7 only and statement respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' APP to the in report toPants Maan ofcross-
statement the accused and based and both with and PW Singh his on COURT ON inTHIS contradict 30.01.2009 examination-in-chief a witness in the manner in regard providedto thebyidentity S. 145 of of the the recorded Gajraj. accused statement belt, subsequent Abid examination the and '5A-2' citation the Other appellant. Evidence under knife of hepersons Shirt, denial 'Khujjiwitnesses doctor The Act.did section was High '5B' not @ It to are concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera Court would on having formal noticed be Cr. record stained doing them PC that matching The witnesses. with Tiwarithe violencebywhether gauze in weapon the his Vs they tocross-examination examination-in-(RAJblood IOcloth statement the State that used were stains piece, ofaccused KAPOOR) in to with M.P. got this'6'- the norlanguage mode chief ofofthis of intimation thewitness provisowas to if the the recorded witness said statement on November PW6 be allowed Gajraj 16, 1976 regarding ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST to be whereasused for histhe cross purpose examination of cross-examiningcommenced aonwitness December declared
38. deceased persons Other case Dagger/ testifying effect AIR isor 1991witness that P.O. a1976 knife visited that knife blood. he Supreme his or and PW6 which his had other earlier No '7' house aGajraj stated Court kind reaction Banyan). is thetestimony Ex.P5and KARKARDOOMA of Singhbefore 1853' proceedings took on and Blood is to banyan hisformal itthe is has deceased could not effect of come police were witness COURTS:
sustainableaccused not of that got initiated identification son on be as record detected and well he Parvej DELHI as this hadas the in noisewithin15, scene the i.e. meaning of after incident, of month first nor and partin hisbetween of presence S. 145he seemed of by the way to of other 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40. was wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts accused Ext.6 statement also of documents the them.
perusal witness Evidence have contradiction found i.e. case persons thewon been Act. dagger/ of Kamruddin blood of since inThe Nor PW21 are the hand was over are he case stains brought recovery does or we knife. and at that has had the aabout file the having not been knife impressedon instance reveals On citation ofby appear record. his got succumbedknife was serological matched presence the declared that toare of recovered atApart in police, in entirely argument threat.the this the with hostile with from examination instance Thiscan case statement deceased different. from culprits this not by there the he be ld.
of thatinference it would not wasbe drawn possible on the to basis invokeofthe PW3's second statement part of that S.145 he was of the severly Evidence beaten Actonwithout the night putting previous relevant to his became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood. 3and Kamruddin questions unless blood IOs In appearance Abid hostile u/s consequently light ofthose under was 161 from accused hisof in regarding theanswered detected Cr.
testimony drain these Courthave first PC.Abid he part ashappens neither conducted aidentification has in him The by thereof.isExhibits witness.IO been corroborated that scope the toat be The the he the all cross-examined The1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably of would of ocular instance investigation difficultycross-examination high accused by is goevidence court, some ofwith suspicious 5A-2, accused persons by ofthese other him this nor 5B more therefore, imaginary took than thereal. viewThe thatsecond the subsequent part of S. 145 attempt of of the regarding PW1 Evidnece
45. circumstantial persons case.
himself and since sources The 7.
in motive T.I.P. noFirst Exhibits the from .forKomal account Act contradiction Chand cross-examination of is Besides sleeping the aone knife clearly evidence 5A-1, drain of PW8ofwas to these in he theindicates 5-A2 create and the SIwas has indicate essential also aappointed Satender two and school. this been the doubt he not simple associates 5B knife has regarding the components got were who discussed And procedure deposed direct was conducted just found the proved this namely sent identity to 8proximate in portion orto that caseto DD10 to have Dilshad commit by police CFSL no.6/A days does the human Tahsildar nexusago had and any I.O.
not for as be of followed.
the appellant To illustrate was of : Ano says consequence in the witness- since box there that was B stabbed intrinsic material C: before in histhe evidence police heto had establish statedthethat presence D particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which Singh Chowkidar isofIn stabbed inquiry of mentioned can on andthe this O C.record.
when establish Group. and and from anothercase appellant His as the in the attention him in The revealed the the knife Exhibits the wooden Vs amongst the and canelement knife statement was guilt Statecross-examination recorded ebdrawn the by1,2,3,4 was recovered pieces of ofof PW6accused toUP assailants recovered recorded motive that his and as and Gajraj ofwithout part statement.
Ex.P1 7 Hon of neither persons deceasedhave u/s the from in it blood ble 161 collectively, his has shown the exists Court He beyond Cr.cross- stains drain been has wasPC noin statement Gulab. made Relying before further theonpolice the discovery which contradicts evidence as his well statement as the find in the of human witnessblood box. onIf the he weapon admits his foundprevious from the andthe also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable of from denied was is IOinEx.PW5/A. opinion that the relation nor is not theand doubt itPW10 place in had suggestion that any the documents toblood which Inspector without A,B,O exclusive discrete This cross-examination stains was that Grouping. contradiction regarding further Vijay particular PW approach not which Prakash, Maan exclusively can strong under his of also of Singh suggest the employment accused who happens sectioncorroboration.
accessible nature had proved the told and 145 match which tohim are the no be Cr.to statement, garage of no the furtherappellantproof is and necessary, on his pant if hewhich does he not was admit wearingthe practice at the time generally of his followed arrest, thisHigh to admit Courtit came subject to the accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PC the phone to brought suggest of blood was proofthefor conclusion inAbid.
that by found giving postmortem light of onthat witness the murder therecord. that of having policethe benefit These deceased. the murder had tocontradictions isofficer. his examination reaction of The be conviction facts takendoubt On could Further, intimation sufficiently contradicted the was place on towell have other it.
as the allegedly born in Ex.PW10/A Public hand to Khaddewala been accused founded indicate ,PW6 foron thewitness committed record at the the and persons, Gajraj and that benefit School time in tothird this the by ofI procedure dismissedsuggested his appeal.by Itthe may learned here be counsel mentioned may that be the illustrated State did thus not: preferIf the witess
42. acquit witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the light is accused accused inGurcharan Maan all this of theofpolice ofisthe theunder these recovery not of regardof persons Singh accused appellant PW2 trustworthy. officer offence facts DAss, he section who ofan Jehruddin. about has that came and for appeal persons the knife yu162 Banyan the is asked been sawto Cr.
against circumstances then the conceived isfor This SHO was didthe confronted incident PW12 P.C. bea acquitted gas the youfive witness saycompanions recovered light?
offences who and object. before Islamuddin by the does ofandby proved thethe trialhe wasld.
not u/s case The factfrom APP 302/34 also the reflect other court.having not who Iaccused with have seizure cross-
IPC has last the his to answers It is in yes thesethen circumstances the statement thatwhich the appellant does not has contain invoked examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and found in 27 such thisof witness and /54/59 of the statement recital the the communication, at Court's was quantum is clothes length knife Arms is sealed PW5 recorded in Act.
by of of question deceased Mohd.
defence statement recorded under section put jurisdiction to him as contradictions under inAll time a contradiction.accused Art.u/s pulanda Siddiqui 136and which counsel 161 and of This theplace Cr.PC are one inwas also who light in Sh.sample and Constitution. procedure JC where recovered also reveals ofRashid for this the can 161 seal more itjudgment fact isthat Hasmi/ not Cr.not in along than also his be so PC involves two fallacies: one is it enables the accused to elicit by a process of cross-examination what the witness N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five discussed years, thatstated Tyagi not one upon accused as beforegoIn hence for sealed due The found light to aboveaccused persons the to establish sole of they policethe having all envelope and fact reason depositions beAbid visited officer. judgment of the released blood Ifrecovery and at athat close containing theitmaterial police relied of stains forthwith has house and this of come officer upon knife witness proximate which of didstatement blood ifPW2 not from by on notitld.was record gauze wanted has thelink APPoffound Jehruddin come place PW2 with that i.e. of in make a record of a witness s statement his entire
43. Iwashed.
36. any have Other this on deceased which regard did Khujji and record other not witness took statementwas to most @ given find case.
provide hisThe Kamruddin not that happens Surendera could the son careful material same exclusively this not mention assistance be was Kamruddin, witness used to as Tiwari consideration witnesses be also foralready accessible of any the to also sent goesaccused Vs the cousin. purpose Ex.PW20/A, does intestimony State to to CFSL to thispersons accused indicate whereas notM.P. of the and case, This ofitcitations ifhappens aseizure that -Abid visit PW7 part isi.e. AIR reported reliance further at memo of to Maan PW2 1991 as the beof police officer recorded a few sentences by this process of cross-examination the witness s oral statement could be discussed Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased theitnot Observation:
Supreme this reveals witness brought blood So above beCourt house.
also who on long determinative unless stained appears no goes record. and happens as mark 1853 PW4 toarguments some indirect Baniyan of indicate be Aslam whereinto blood Thisof other shaky. be death and ofis ofaccused that itwith the procedure, ld.
cogent Counsel acircumstantial has with witness this father the been the witness blood piece Parvej therefore,ofwho knife held for deceased and all could belongs of evidence in that:-as accused identity evidence question already notand be of is contravenes the express provision of S. 162 of the Code. Before persons The parting second and fallacy with matter isfact the on that by judgment record. the illustration I would Record of like the toproceeding bring on PW5 believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes its Modh.
PW1on torecovery unqualified the record. PW2 Komal Siddiqui This pictureand Jehruddin Chand,thereto.
subsequently arrest and also however, they in memowho the Accused goesarehappens supported absence i.e. ofgiven crucial to after are theindicateby accused for to the of inthe prosecution bethe other custody occurrence the thatpurpose Parvejpiece father certain since as soof learned case counsel in his for the appellants there examination-in-chief but isin nohisself-cross record my observation contradiction with regard to made the investigation. In this examinationof he theexpressed primary statement some doubt regarding in the the reveals determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003.
deceased, his testimony
37. So witness long box, that has as it accused Further, and of for has is of born the remotely the the come personal Dilshad cross-examination on guilt statement witnessand on record connected of record search hasGuddu and accused yet Arif regarding of notPW5 that memo with who persons of madethatdeceased this regard Mohd. reportedly committal on he as witness the had based Ex.PW13/B, toKamruddin Siddiquia were reveals on of link the of is case identity there is the frequent appellant change stating of investigating officers in all stand seen anytheir assertion backsat only. all which Thecantrial serve Court as the came basis. to the along
39. three The direct number Other pointing murder was piece contradiction, taken or PWwith conclusion for ofindirect officers out accused that contradictions deceased away 4he theAslam memo under not evidence conductedby purpose ofthe only accused Abid was Kamruddin who section, which the the and ishis of as thisindependent persons place should revealed witness therefore also consideration by investigation go accused as be afrom chance between toalready in comparison the public ofhis root his witness persons this house. disclosure ofEx.PW13/D, witness of casechain the between without In case.
has which the as concerned, has also in deposition has stated that he what a witness asserted in but his presence at the scene of occurrence was extremely the witness box and what he showsstated before that doubtful asthe the police it preparatory was officer, difficult to andmeasures believe not that between heregarding had what come he out investigation statement
44. circumstantial thesaid Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination had statement seen he he hadand Kamruddin, stated subsequently at that hour to purchase vegetables. Thus the trialDr got corroboration.
discussed declared statement was evidence.
of cross-examined PW7 the hostile his before In testimony facts and this Abid,of the and ofthe regard PW2 accused Naushad police remand consequently the has officercase, by Jehurrin PW25 also ld.
andand of Parvej accused arguments been Counsel what during and Parvej he demolished court as PW5 the Sh.Abid Rajender ofalready while course all Mohd.was Abdul the theyby were refused not upto actually made to place the reliance before mark as him. on the In such the evidencevital missing a case the question of the three linkeye- in the ocular could obtained nottobetrace witnesses. put at The all;
them, only trial questions is court, also toon however, contradict record. came can to be Further,the careful Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence werecross-examination counsel amicus standingis Srcounsel necessary Scientific for black incuriae thecoloras accused done precisely Officer, foritno.10 gali accused baniyan by hasFSL, ld.persons forborne and APP Parvej /T-Shirt, theRohini, on he reasons and on asking and has as Delhi record itthe denied from has already thathas contentions also deceased that Kamruddin proved Ex.P6 comeanyon as putwell and the conclusion as question circumstantial that the hereappellant posedwas evidence does not contradict;
absconding were and that it he found after leads hadtodiscoveredan answerthewhich weapon is contradicted which was found by the to be police stained
46. consideration Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, record on completion as to was why statement.
withonbiological and the the seized he human that was ofThiswasand arrest knife case u/s seen he trial. argument blood. perusal examination 145 by recovered lawknew was him itwith The standing Cr.relied alsooffrom made PC ofCounsel accused the authority ld. upon there, relied the from accused blood Evidence accused on beforecase by Nali/ thepersons was should Kamruddin based them file Parvej. factum drain him Act persons detected upon and reveals ofand the adopt and atthe told S. find fact to the due on either this ld.that of instance Exhibits appropriate ofhim APP, to taking that two effect any the heI 145humanof the Evidenceblood on the Act,pant is therefore, worn by not the of any relevance appellant at the time measures days in considering of PC hisremandregarding arrest. theOnexpress regulating the basis provisions of this the ofprocess evidence S. 162 the ofof trial theinvestigation court by both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of was accused 2, of Code the 3, the standing 4, that witnesses 5A-1, isstatement of Criminal view Abid not all with inwas 5A-2, that the found hishave the sought accused the was 5B mentioned presence friends been conviction andrecorded and in 7discussed persons respect (particulars of heinPW12 of inthe would all his areinofthe statement accused Islamuddin para presence. of residents return three exhibits no.back Abid recorded 4 accused cannot and are in toThis to his '1' 7. convicted the Procedure.
appellant under S.302 I.P.C. and sentenced issuing him proper to life imprisonment.guide line orKhujji devising preferreda an suitable appeal policy to trace
41. also Perusal witness In Cotton persons u/s light house. 161 the neighbourhood.
be wood againstof being Cr.He weapon solely of held the the Phas the swab, C a completely aforesaid on saidin also of view offence cross-examination solethe He'2' statement ground further Flacky ofstatements identified conviction. hostile the The and adopted for judgment all High to material-dry ofso three toascertain conviction PW7 of Court ofPW2 bethe the Maan accused whilelooked Tahsildarblood, the cross-examination reveals persons asSingh ignoring the into persons.associates '3'that Singhnow place who with Flackey has this andthe This of overcome the evidence this inadequacy. of PW3 Kishan Lal and PW4 Ramesh relied on the appellant as one of the assailants notwithstanding namely Dilshad ofand Arif. No proceedings in respect ofcross-
both
35. recovery with statement court material- identified ANNOUNCED Anr.
witness Besides respect Vs will his was hassample INof the Stateof neither effort examine knife of THE been accused PW2 got in accused cross blood, was OPEN the UP. declaredcontradicted Jehruddin, thepersons servicenot examination Abid.
'4'hostile The nature exclusively Wooden in PW5 contentions with particulars to wriggle examination-in-chief by ofld.pieces, regard Mohd.
the accessible outAPP of CFSL of his ld.
PW7 Siddiqui to '5A-1' and statement APPthe in report toPants Maan statement the accused and based and with and PW Singh his on COURT ONinTHIS 30.01.2009 in regard to the identity of the examination-in-chief the recorded Gajraj. accused statement belt, subsequent Abid examination the and '5A-2' Other under knife of'Khujji hepersons Shirt, denial witnesses doctor did section was '5B' not @to are concerned.
find blood are identify 161 contradicted Surendera onhaving formal Cr. record stained them PC matching The witnesses. with Tiwari bywhether gauze in weapon the his Vs they cross-examination (RAJblood IOcloth statement State that used were stains piece, accused KAPOOR) of in to with M.P. got this'6'- the nor citation appellant. mode of The intimation High Court chief of this witness was recorded on November 16, 1976 to noticed the that witness the examination-in-
PW6 Gajraj regarding ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST whereas his cross examination commenced on December declared
38. deceased persons Other case Dagger/ testifying effect AIR isor witness a1976 that P.O. knife visited that knife blood. he his or and PW6 which his had other earlier No '7' house iskind aGajraj reaction Banyan). stated testimony Ex.P5and KARKARDOOMA of Singh before proceedings took on and Blood is to banyan his formal itthe has deceased could effectof comewere witness police COURTS: accused not of that got initiated identification son on be as record detected and well he Parvej DELHI this hadasin noise1991 15, scene Supreme i.e. of after incident,Court month nor and 1853'in hisbetween is presence nothe sustainable seemed by way to of as the other 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40. wages fact questioned material Further, the on against of facts wasaccused Ext.6 statement also of documents the havethem. perusal witness contradiction found i.e. case persons thewon been dagger/ ofKamruddin blood of since inThe PW21 are the hand was over he case stains brought recovery does or knife. and at that has had the aabout file the having not been knife on instance reveals On citation ofappear record. his got knife was succumbedserological matched presence declared that toare of recovered atApart in police, in entirely threat.the this the with hostile with from examination instance Thiscan case statement deceased different. from culprits this not by there the he be ld.
of inference was drawn on the basis of PW3's statement that he was severly beaten on the night previous to his became recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood.3and Kamruddin unless blood IOs In Abid appearancehostile u/s consequently light ofthose was 161 from accused hisof inregarding answered detected Cr.
testimony drain these have Court PC.
Abid he happens as neither conducted aidentification hasin him The by isExhibits IO been corroborated that witness.scope the toatbethe he the all cross-examined The1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably of would of ocular instance investigation cross-examination highaccused by goevidence court,some of with suspicious 5A-2, accused persons by ofthese other him this nor 5B therefore, took the view that the subsequent attempt of
45. persons case.
himself and since sources The regardingPW1 circumstantial 7. in motive T.I.P. no First Exhibits thefrom .forKomal account contradictionChand cross-examination of is Besides sleeping the aone knife evidence 5A-1, drain of PW8 to ofwas these in he thecreate 5-A2 and the SIwas hasindicateaappointed essential also Satender two and school. this beendoubt henot regarding associates 5Bknife has the components got were who And deposed discussed direct was the conducted just found proved this namely sentidentity 8proximate in portion or to that toDD case10 to have Dilshad commit by police CFSL no.6/A days does the human nexus Tahsildar ago had and any I.O.
not for as of the appellant was of no consequence since there was intrinsic material in his evidence to establish the presence particularly found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which Singh Chowkidar isofIn inquiry of mentioned can on and the this Orecord. when establish Group. andand from case another appellant asthe in the him in The revealed the the knife Exhibits the wooden Vsthe amongstand element knife statement was guilt Statecross-examination recorded the by 1,2,3,4 was recovered pieces of ofof PW6accused recovered recorded UPmotive assailants his and as andGajraj ofwithout statement. Ex.P1 7deceased Hon neither persons have u/s from in it blood ble 161 collectively, his has shown the exists Court He beyond Cr.
cross- stains drain been has PC no wasin Gulab. Relying further on the discovery evidence as well as the find of human blood on the weapon found from the andthe also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable of from denied was is IO inEx.PW5/A. opinionthat the relation nor is not the and doubt itPW10 place in had suggestion that any the documents toblood which Inspector without A,B,O exclusive discrete This stains was that cross-examinationGrouping.
contradiction regarding further Vijay particular PW approach not which Prakash, Maan exclusively can strong his underof also of Singh suggest the employment accused who happens corroboration. accessible nature had section proved the told and match 145which tohim are the no be to Cr.
garage of the appellant and on his pant which he was wearing at the time of his arrest, th High Court came to the accused material on request of blood not can Therefore, PC the phone brought suggest of blood was for the in conclusion Abid.
that found giving postmortem light of on that witness murder therecord. thatof having the benefit These deceased. the is murder his had tocontradictions examination reaction of The facts taken be conviction doubt could Further, intimation sufficiently place ontowell contradicted was have it.
as the allegedly born inEx.PW10/A Public to Khaddewala been accused foundedindicate PW6 on witness for committed record theat the and persons, Gajraj and that School time benefit in tothird this the by ofI dismissed his appeal. It may here be mentioned that the State did not prefer an appeal against the five companions
42. witness statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquit light isaccused inGurcharan accused Maan all this of ofisthe of theunder these recovery not of regard of persons Singh accused PW2 appellant trustworthy. offence facts DAss, heJehruddin. section about ofhas who came and for persons the knife Banyan the 162been circumstances then the to Cr.
conceived isfor confronted incident This SHO was PW12 thewitness P.C. be acquitted recovered offences who andobject. Islamuddin does of by by thethe proved the was ld.
not u/s case The from trial fact APP 302/34 also the reflect other who Iaccused with have seizure court.having not cross-
IPC has last the his to It is in these circumstances that the appellant has invoked examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and 27 foundthis of witness in and /54/59 ofCourt's the statement the the communication, atwasquantum clothes length knife Arms is sealed statementPW5 recorded in jurisdictionAct.
by ofofquestion deceased Mohd.
defence contradictions in Alltime recorded under aaccused u/s Art.pulanda Siddiqui and which 136counsel 161and place under of theCr.PC are one in was also who light in Sh.
sample and sectionJC where recovered also reveals Constitution.of Rashid for this thecan seal more itjudgment 161 fact isthat Hasmi/ not not in Cr.along than also his be so PC N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five thatdiscussed years, Tyagi not one uponas accusedgo In hence for sealed due The found light to above accused to establish sole of they personsthe having all envelope and fact reason depositions be Abid judgment visitedof the released blood recovery and atthat close containing theitmaterial relied of stains forthwith has and this of come house upon knife witness proximate which statement ofblood ifPW2 from by on notitld. was record gauze wanted has the link APP offound come place PW2 with that Jehruddini.e.
of in
43.
36. I Khujji any andhave Other this on deceased washed. which regard did record other not took@ given witness was to most find case.
provide The careful Kamruddin not that happens the material same exclusively this Surendera his son mention consideration assistance was witness to as witnesses be also already accessible Tiwari Kamruddin, ofthe to also sent accused Vsthe goescousin. to Ex.PW20/A, does intestimony to State to CFSL this the persons accused notM.P. of indicate andofitcitations case, This happens seizure that -Abid visit PW7 part isi.e. reported AIR as further at memo of to Maan reliancePW2 the be 1991of discussed Jehruddin statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the itnot Observation:
Supreme this witness above reveals blood So beCourt house.
also who long and 1853 appears arguments determinative unless stained no goes happens as mark PW4 some indirect Baniyan to of indicate beAslam to blood of other whereinbe death and ofis shaky. ofaccused that itwith the ld.
cogent Counsel acircumstantial haswith witness this father the the witness blood beenpiecefor Parvej of who knife all deceased and held could belongs of accused evidence in as identity that:- evidence question already notand be of is Before persons parting and with matter the on judgment record. I would Record of like the toproceeding bring on PW5 its believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes Modh.
on torecovery PW1 unqualified the record. PW2 Siddiqui KomalThis picture andJehruddin thereto. fact Chand, subsequently arrest andalso they in memo however,who the Accused goes arehappens absence i.e. crucial to ofafter supported are indicate theaccused for to the of inbethe other custody occurrence prosecutionthe that purpose Parvej piece father certain since as so of case in his examination-in-chief but in his cross record my observation with regard to the investigation. In this examination he expressed some doubt regarding the
37. reveals long that determination evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his So testimony hasitaccused Further, as and has is of born theremotely the come Dilshad personal and cross-examination on guilt on record connected ofrecord statement search accused Arif ofregarding that PW5memo withwho persons ofdeceased this reportedly regard committal Mohd. as witness based Ex.PW13/B, to were Kamruddin areveals on of link Siddiqui the of is case identity there is of the appellant frequent and change Guddu stating that of investigating he had officers in all seen their backs only. The trial Court came to the along
39. three directtaken number Other pointing murder was piece concerned, with conclusion or PW for ofindirect out officers accused that contradictions deceased away 4he theAslam memo not evidence by purpose conducted has ofAbid only accused also was Kamruddin who which theand the in ishis of as this revealed witness independent persons place therefore also consideration by investigation go afrom accused depositionas chance in toalready comparison the public of hashis root his witness persons house. this disclosure ofEx.PW13/D, witness statedof chain case the between without In case.
has the which that as he but his presence at the scene of occurrence was extremely shows statement thatand doubtful the as it preparatory was difficult to believe subsequently measures the that heregarding remand had come out of accused investigation Abid was
44. circumstantial the statement Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination had got seen at corroboration. discussed thatdeclared he statement was evidence. Kamruddin, hour of cross-examined PW7 the hostile his In to purchase testimony facts and this of Abid,and ofregard PW2 accused consequently the Naushad vegetables. has case, by Jehurrin PW25 also Thus ld.Parvej andarguments been theCounsel during and Drdemolished Parvej trial courtas PW5 the Sh.
Rajender ofalready while course all Mohd.
Abdul the by they were refused not upto the reliance to place mark as on the vital missing the evidence of the three linkeye- in the ocular obtained Siddqui Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence were standingto witnesses. cross-examination counselamicus is Srcounseltrace necessary Scientific for black in The curiae them, thecolor as trial accused done gali is court, precisely Officer, foritno.10 accusedalso baniyan by hasFSL,ld. on however, persons forborne and APP Parvejrecord. /T-Shirt, the Rohini, on hecame reasons and on and has asking as DelhitoFurther, record itthe the denied fromhas already thathas careful contentions also deceased that proved Ex.P6 Kamruddincome any on as well conclusionas that circumstantial the appellant wasevidence absconding and were that he found after had discovered the weapon which was found to be stained
46. consideration Kamruddin on search which that based contradiction Besides, record on completion as to was on why withbiological andthe the seized hethat was human and ofarrest knife case u/s seen he trial. wasblood. perusal examination 145 by recovered law knew was him itwith The standing Cr.
relied from also made PC ofupon accused the authority there, relied the from accused blood Evidence accused on case before by Nali/ persons was should Kamruddin the them file Parvej. drain him factumAct persons detected andreveals ofand the adopt and atthe told findfact to the due on that either this ld.
of instancetwo Exhibits APP, to taking appropriate ofhim effect that any the heI human blood on the pant worn by the appellant at the time measures days of PC regarding hisremand arrest. Onwas regulating the basis sought of this the in process evidence respect the of trial ofthe investigation court accused Abid byto both reason disclosure 1, am deceased of was accused 2,ofthe 3, the 4, that standing witnesses 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not all with 5A-2, that the found inhishave theaccused the was 5Bmentioned presence been friendsconviction andrecorded7discussed and persons (particulars of heinPW12 of in the wouldall his are in statement Islamuddin para presence. of residents return three exhibits no.backrecorded 4 accused cannot and are in toThis his '1' 7. convicted the appellant under S.302 I.P.C. and sentenced issuing him proper guide line orKhujji to life imprisonment. devising preferreda an suitable appeal policy to trace
41. also Perusal witness In Cotton persons u/s light house. be 161 the neighbourhood.
wood of Cr.
He against weapon being solely of heldthe the Phas the swab, Ca in also said of completely aforesaid on view offence cross-examination solethe He'2' statement ground further Flacky ofstatements identified conviction. hostile theThe and adopted for judgment all High to three toascertain material-dry ofsoconviction PW7 of CourtofPW2 be the the Maan looked accused while blood, the cross-examination Tahsildarreveals persons asSingh ignoring the intoassociates '3' persons. that now place who Singhwith Flackeyhas this the and This of overcome this inadequacy.
the evidence of PW3 Kishan Lal and PW4 Ramesh relied on the appellant as one of the assailants notwithstanding namely with statement court material- identified recovery ANNOUNCED Anr.
witnessrespect Vs Dilshad will has sample of the IN of Stateexamine knife of been THE ofand accused PW2accused blood, was OPEN UP. Arif. contradicted Jehruddin, thepersons not Abid.No '4'hostile nature proceedings exclusively Wooden in PW5 with examination-in-chief ofld.
pieces, regard Mohd.
the in accessible of CFSL respect Siddiqui to '5A-1' theinreport toPantsofcross- statement accused and and both with and PW his his was effort got in declared cross The examination contentionsby to wriggle outAPP his ld.and statement APP the based on COURT ONinTHIS 30.01.2009 in regard to the identity of the examination-in-chief the Gajraj.accused recorded statement belt, subsequent Abid and examination the '5A-2' Other citation under appellant.knife persons of'Khujji Shirt, denial hewitnesses doctor The did section was High'5B' not @to are concerned. find blood are on identify 161 having contradicted Surendera Court noticed record formal Cr.
stainedthem PC that matching The whether witnesses. with Tiwari the bygauze in weapon the hisVs they cross-examination blood IO (RAJcloth statement examination-in- that Stateused were stains piece, accused KAPOOR) of in got to with M.P.this '6'-
the chief of this witness was recorded on November 16, 1976 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST whereas his cross examination commenced on December declared
38. deceased persons Other case Dagger/ testifying effect AIR 1991 15,that P.O. iswitness a1976 knife visited that knife blood. he Supremeor his and i.e. PW6 hadother which his earlier No after '7' house iskind aGajraj reaction Banyan). statedtestimony Court monthEx.P5 and of Singh before KARKARDOOMA and 1853'proceedings took on in andBlood is to banyan his betweenformal itthe is has deceased could effect not he of were come witness police COURTS:accused not of that sustainable seemed got initiated identification son on be to asrecord detected and well heParvej DELHI as this as had thein 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40. factaccused questioned material Further, the on against of facts was Ext.6 statement also of the havethem. perusal witness contradiction found i.e. case persons thewon been dagger/ ofKamruddin blood of since inThe PW21 the hand was over he case stains recovery does or knife. and at that has had the aabout file the having not been knife instance reveals On citation ofappear his got knife was succumbedserological matched presence declared that toare of recovered atin police, in entirely threat.the this the with hostile with examination instance Thiscan case statement deceased different. from culprits not by there the be ld.
of inference was drawn on the basis of PW3's statement that he was severly beaten on the night previous to his recorded and APP are possession human accused based blood.3and Kamruddin unless blood IOs In Abid appearance u/s consequently light ofthose was 161 from accused hisofanswered in detected Cr.
testimony drain these have Court PC.
Abid he happens as neither conducted ahasin him The by isExhibits IO been corroborated that witness.scope the toatbethe he the all cross-examined The1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably of would ocular instance investigation cross-examination high by goevidence court,some of with suspicious 5A-2, accused by ofthese other him this nor 5B therefore, took the view that the subsequent attempt of
45. persons case.
himself and since sources The regardingPW1 circumstantial 7. in motive no First Exhibits thefrom .forKomal account contradictionChand cross-examination is Besides sleeping the aone evidence 5A-1, drain of PW8 to ofthese in he thecreate 5-A2 and the SIwas hasindicateaappointed essential Satender two and school. this beendoubt he regarding associates 5Bknife has the components were who And deposed discussed direct was just foundthe proved this namely sentidentity 8proximate in portion or to that toDD case10 to have Dilshad commit police CFSL no.6/A days doeshuman nexus Tahsildar ago had and any not for as of the appellant was of no consequence since there was intrinsic material in his evidence to establish the presence found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which Singh Chowkidar isofIn inquiry of mentioned can on and the this Orecord.
establish Group. andand from case another appellant asinthe him in The revealed the the Exhibits the wooden Vsthe amongstand element knife statement guilt Statecross-examination recorded the by 1,2,3,4 was pieces of ofof PW6accused recovered recorded UPmotive assailants his and as andGajraj ofstatement.
Ex.P1 7deceased Hon neither persons have u/s from in it 161 ble collectively, his has shown the exists Court He beyond Cr.
cross- drain been has PC no wasin Gulab. Relying further on the discovery evidence as well as the find of human blood on the weapon found from the also Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable of the denied was is IOinEx.PW5/A. opinionthatrelation nor is not the and doubt itPW10 in had suggestion that any the documents toblood Inspector without A,B,O exclusive discrete This stains that cross-examinationGrouping.
contradiction regarding further Vijay particular PW approach which Prakash, Maan can strong his underof also of Singh suggest the employment accused who happens corroboration. nature had section proved the told and match 145which tohim are the no be Cr.
garage of the appellant and on his pant which he was wearing at the time of his arrest, th High Court came to the material on request of blood not can Therefore, PCthe phone brought suggest of blood was for the inthat conclusion found giving postmortem light of on that witness murder therecord. thatof having the benefit deceased. the is murder his had tocontradictions examination reaction of The taken be conviction doubt could Further, intimation place ontowell contradicted was have it.
as the allegedly born inEx.PW10/A Public to Khaddewala been accused founded PW6 on witness for committed record theat the and persons, Gajraj and School time benefit in tothird the by ofI dismissed his appeal. It may here be mentioned that the State did not prefer an appeal against the five companions
42. statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquit light isaccused inGurcharan accused Maan all this of of the of theunder these recovery of regard of persons Singh accused PW2 appellant offence facts DAss, heJehruddin. section about ofhas who came and for persons the knife Banyan the 162been circumstances then the to Cr.
conceived isfor confronted incident This SHO was PW12 thewitness P.C. be acquitted recovered offences who andobject. Islamuddin does of by by thethe proved the was ld.
not u/s case The from trial fact APP 302/34 also the reflect other who Iaccused with have seizure court.having not cross-
IPC has last the his to It is in these circumstances that the appellant has invoked examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and 27 foundthis of witness in and /54/59 ofCourt's the statement the the communication, atwasquantum clothes length knife Arms is sealed statementPW5 recorded in jurisdictionAct.
by ofofquestion deceased Mohd.
defence contradictions in Alltime recorded under aaccused u/s Art.pulanda Siddiqui and which 136counsel 161and place under of theCr.PC are one in was also who light in Sh.
sample and sectionJC where recovered also reveals Constitution.of Rashid for this thecan seal more itjudgment 161 fact isthat Hasmi/ not not in Cr.along than also his be so PC N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied five thatdiscussed years, Tyagi not one uponas accusedgo In hence for sealed due The found light to above accused to establish sole of they personsthe having all envelope and fact reason depositions be Abid judgment visitedof the released blood recovery and atthat close containing theitmaterial relied of stains forthwith has and this of come house upon knife witness proximate which statement ofblood ifPW2 from by on notitld. was record gauze wanted has the link APP offound come place PW2 with that Jehruddini.e.
of in
43. I Khujji any on andhave this deceased washed. which regard did record other not took@ given witness was tofind case.
provide The careful Kamruddin not that happens the same Surendera his son asconsideration exclusively this mention assistance was witness to be also already accessible ofthe Tiwari Kamruddin, to also sent accused Vsthe goescousin. to Ex.PW20/A, does testimony to State to CFSL the persons accused notM.P. of indicate andofitcitations This happens seizure that -Abid visit PW7 part is reported AIR as further at memo of to Maan the be 1991 reliance of discussed statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased thisthe itnot Observation:
Supreme witness above reveals blood So beCourt house.
also long and 1853 appears arguments determinative unless stained no goes as mark PW4 some indirect Baniyan to of indicate beAslam blood of other death and wherein ofis shaky. ofaccused that itwithld. cogentCounsel acircumstantial haswith witness this the the witness blood been piecefor Parvej who knife and held all could belongs of accused evidence in as identity that:- evidence question already notand be of is Before persons parting and with matter the on judgment record. I would Record of like the toproceeding bring on believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comes itsPW1 on torecovery unqualified the record. PW2 KomalThis picture andJehruddin thereto. fact Chand,subsequently arrest and also in memo however, who the Accused goeshappens absence i.e.to ofafter supported are indicate theaccused to the of inbeother custody occurrence prosecutionthe that Parvej piece father certain since as so of case in his examination-in-chief but in his cross record my observation with regard to the investigation. In this examination he expressed some doubt regarding the
37. reveals evidence.
Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003. deceased, his So testimony long that hasitaccused Further, as and has isthe born onDilshad remotely come personal statement and cross-examination on record connected record search Arif ofregarding that PW5 memo with who ofdeceased this reportedly regard committal Mohd. as witness Ex.PW13/B, to were Kamruddin areveals of link Siddiqui the of is case identity there is of the appellant frequent and change Guddu stating that of investigating he had officers in all seen their backs only. The trial Court came to the along
39. three number Other pointing murder was piece with conclusion taken PW for ofout officers concerned, accused that contradictions deceased away 4he theAslam memo not by purpose conducted has alsoofAbid only accused was Kamruddin who which the the in ishis of as this revealed witness independent persons placealso consideration by investigation go afrom accused depositionas chance in toalready the public of hashis root his witness persons house. this disclosure ofEx.PW13/D, witness statedof chain case thewithout In case.
has the which that as he but his presence at the scene of occurrence was extremely shows statement thatand doubtful the as it preparatory was difficult to believe subsequently measures the that heregarding remand had come out of accused investigation Abid was
44. circumstantial Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination had seengot at corroboration. discussed thatdeclared he statement was evidence. Kamruddin, hour cross-examined the hostile his In to purchase testimony facts this of Abid,and ofregard accused consequently the Naushad vegetables. has case, by PW25 also Thus ld.Parvej andarguments been theCounsel during Drdemolished Parvej trial asthe court Sh.
Rajender ofalready while course all Abdul the by they were refused not upto the reliance to place mark as on the vital missing the evidence of the three linkeye- in the ocular obtained Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence were standingto witnesses. cross-examination counsel amicus Srcounseltrace Scientific for black in The curiae them, thecolor as trial accused done Officer, gali is court, foritno.10 accusedalso baniyan by hasFSL,ld. on however, persons and borne APP Parvejrecord. /T-Shirt, Rohini, on hecame and on and has asking as DelhitoFurther, record itthe the denied fromhas already has careful contentions also that proved Ex.P6 Kamruddincome any on as well conclusionas that circumstantial the appellant wasevidence absconding and were that he found after had discovered the weapon which was found to be stained
46. consideration on search which that based contradiction Besides, record on completion as to was on why withbiological andthe the seized he humanthat and ofarrest knife case u/s he trial. wasblood. perusal examination 145 by recovered law knew was him itCr.
The standing relied from also made PC ofupon the authority there, relied the from accused blood Evidence accused on case before by Nali/ was should Kamruddin the them file Parvej. drain him factumAct persons detected andreveals ofthe adopt and atthe told findfact the due on that either ld.
of instancetwo Exhibits APP, to taking appropriate ofhim that any the heI human blood on the pant worn by the appellant at the time measures days of PC regarding hisremand arrest. Onwas theregulating basis sought of this the process evidence the of trial investigation court by reason disclosure 1, am deceased of was accused 2,of3, the 4, that standing 5A-1, isstatement view Abid not all with 5A-2, that the found inhis the accused the was 5Bmentioned presence friendsconviction andrecorded7in and respect persons (particulars of heinPW12 of in the wouldall his areofthe accused statement Islamuddin presence. of residents return three exhibits back Abid recorded accused cannot are in toThis to his '1' convicted the appellant under S.302 I.P.C. and sentenced issuing him proper guide line orKhujji to life imprisonment. devising preferreda an suitable appeal policy to trace
41. also witness In Cotton persons u/s light house.161the neighbourhood.
be wood of Cr.
He against weapon being solely heldthe Phas the swab, Ca in also said of completely aforesaid on solethe He'2' view offence statement ground further Flacky ofstatements identified conviction. hostile theThe and adopted for judgment all High to material-dry ofso three toascertain conviction PW7 Courtofbethe the Maan looked accused while blood, the cross-examination Tahsildarpersons asSingh ignoring the intoassociates '3' persons. now place who Singhwith Flackeyhas this the and This of overcome this inadequacy.
the evidence of PW3 Kishan Lal and PW4 Ramesh relied on the appellant as one of the assailants notwithstanding namely with statement court material- identified recovery ANNOUNCED Anr.
witness Vs Dilshad respect will sample of the IN of Stateexamine knife of THE ofand accused PW2accused blood, was OPENUP. Arif.
Jehruddin, thepersons not Abid.No '4'hostile nature proceedings exclusively Wooden in PW5 examination-in-chief ofld.
pieces, Mohd.
the in accessible of CFSL respect Siddiqui '5A-1' inreport toPantsofcross-
accused and and both with and PW his his was effort got in declared cross The examination contentionsby to wriggle outAPP his ld.and statement APP the based on COURT ONinTHIS 30.01.2009 in regard to the identity of the examination-in-chief the Gajraj.accused statement belt, subsequent Abid and '5A-2' examination the Other citation appellant.knife persons of'Khujji Shirt, denial hewitnesses doctor The did was High'5B' not @to are concerned. find blood are on identify having contradicted Surendera Court noticed record formal stainedthem that thewhether matching The witnesses. with Tiwari gauze in weapon hisVs they cross-examination blood (RAJcloth statement examination-in- used State were stains piece, of in KAPOOR) got to with M.P.this '6'-
the chief of this witness was recorded on November 16, 1976 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST whereas his cross examination commenced on December declared
38. deceased Other case Dagger/ testifying effect1991 AIR 15,that P.O. iswitness a1976 knife that knife blood. he Supremeor his and i.e. PW6 hadother which earlier No after iskind '7'aGajraj reaction Banyan). statedtestimony Court monthEx.P5 of Singh before KARKARDOOMA and 1853'proceedings on in andBlood is to banyan betweenformal itthe is has could effect not he of were come witness police COURTS:accused not of that sustainable seemed got initiated identification onbe to asrecord detected well heParvej DELHI as as had the in 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40. questioned material Further, the on against of facts wasaccused Ext.6 statement also of the havethem. perusal witness found i.e. case persons thewon been dagger/ ofKamruddin blood of since inThe PW21 the hand was over he case stains recovery or knife. and at that has had the aabout file the having been knife instance reveals On citation ofhis got knife was succumbedserological matched presence declared that toare of recovered atpolice, in entirely threat.the this with hostile with examination instance Thiscan case deceased different. from culprits not by there the be ld.
of inference was drawn on the basis of PW3's statement that he was severly beaten on the night previous to his and 3and APP are possession human accused based blood. Kamruddin unless blood IOs In Abid appearance consequently light ofthose was from accused hisofanswered in detected testimony drain these have Court Abid he happens as neither conducted ahasin him by isExhibits IO been corroborated that witness. the toatbethe he the all cross-examined The1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably would ocular instance investigation high by goevidence court,some of with suspicious 5A-2, accused by ofthese other him this nor 5B therefore, took the view that the subsequent attempt of
45. persons case.
himself and since sources The PW1 circumstantial 7. in motive noFirst the from .forKomal Exhibits account Chand cross-examination is Besides sleeping the aone evidence 5A-1, drain of PW8 to ofthese in he thecreate 5-A2 and the SI was indicateaappointed essential Satender two and school. thisdoubt he regarding associates 5Bknife has the components were who And deposed direct was just foundthe proved this namelyidentity sent 8proximate portion or to that toDD 10 to have Dilshad commit police CFSL no.6/A days doeshuman nexus ago had and any not for as of the appellant was of no consequence since there was intrinsic material in his evidence to establish the presence found made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which Chowkidar isofIn inquiry of mentioned can on the this Orecord. establish Group. andand from case appellant asinthe him in The revealed the the Exhibits the wooden the amongstand element knife statement guilt cross-examination recorded the by 1,2,3,4 was pieces ofof PW6accused recovered recorded motive assailants his and as Gajraj ofstatement.
Ex.P1 7deceased neither persons have u/s from in it 161 collectively, his has shown the exists He beyond Cr.
cross- drain been has PC no in Gulab. Relying further on the discovery evidence as well as the find of human blood on the weapon found from the also denied Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable was is IOinEx.PW5/A. that relation nor is not the and doubt itPW10 in had suggestion any the documents toblood Inspector without A,B,O exclusive discrete This stains that Grouping. contradiction regarding further Vijay particular PW approach which Prakash, Maan can strong his of also of Singh suggest the employment accused who happens corroboration. nature had proved the told and match which tohim are the no be garage of the appellant and on his pant which he was wearing at the time of his arrest, th High Court came to the material on request of blood not can Therefore, the phone brought suggest blood was forinthat conclusion found giving postmortem light of on thatmurder therecord. thatof having the benefit deceased. the his murder hadcontradictions examination reaction of The taken conviction doubt could Further, intimation place wasontowell have it.
as the allegedly born inEx.PW10/A Public to Khaddewala been accused founded PW6 on witness committed record at the and persons, Gajraj and School time in tothird the by ofI dismissed his appeal. It may here be mentioned that the State did not prefer an appeal against the five companions
42. statement and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquit light isaccused inGurcharan Maan all this of of the these recovery of regard of persons Singh accused PW2 offence facts DAss, heJehruddin.
about ofhas and for persons the knife Banyan the been circumstances then the conceived isfor confronted incident This SHO was PW12 thewitness of the appellant who came to be acquitted by the trial court.
recovered offences whoobject. Islamuddin does of by proved thewas ld.
not u/s case The from APP 302/34 also the reflect other who Iaccused with have seizure cross-
IPC has last the his to It is in these circumstances that the appellant has invoked examined previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and 27thisof witness and /54/59 ofCourt's the statement the the communication, atwas quantum clothes length knife Arms is sealed PW5 recorded in jurisdictionAct.
by ofofquestion deceased Mohd.
defence contradictions in Alltime under aaccused u/s Art.pulanda Siddiqui and which 136counsel 161and place of theCr.PC are one in was also who light in Sh.
sample and JC where recovered also reveals of Constitution.Rashid for this thecan seal more itjudgment fact isthat Hasmi/ not not in along than also his be so N.K. recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied fivediscussed years, Tyagi not one uponas go In hence for sealed due The found light to above accused to establish sole of they the having all envelope and fact reason depositions be Abid judgment of the released blood recovery and that close containing itmaterial relied of stains forthwith has and this of come upon knife witness proximate which statement blood if from by on notitld. was record gauze wanted has the link APP offound come place PW2 with that i.e. of in
43. I Khujji anyhave this on deceased washed. which regard did record other not @ given witness was tofind case.
provide The careful Kamruddin not that happens the same Surendera asconsideration exclusively this mention assistance was witness to be also already accessible ofthe Tiwari to also sent accused Vsthe cousin. to Ex.PW20/A, does totestimony to StateCFSL the persons accused notM.P. of andofitcitations This happens seizure
-Abid visit PW7 part isAIR as reported further at memo of to Maan the be 1991 discussed statement trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the itnot So Observation:
Supreme above reveals blood beCourt house.
also long and 1853 arguments determinative unless stained no goes as mark PW4 some to indirect Baniyan of indicate Aslam blood ofother whereindeath and ofis ofaccused that itwithld. cogentCounsel acircumstantial haswith witness this the the witness blood been piecefor Parvej who knife and held all could belongs of accused evidence in as identity that:- evidence question already notand be of is Before persons parting and with matter the on judgment record. I would Record of like the toproceeding bring on believed Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comesitsPW1 on torecovery unqualified the record. PW2 KomalThis picture andJehruddin thereto. fact Chand,subsequently arrest and also in memo however, who the Accused goeshappens absence i.e.to ofafter supported are indicate theaccused to the of inbeother custody occurrence prosecutionthe that Parvej piece father certain since as so of case in his examination-in-chief but in his cross record my observation with regard to the investigation. In this examination he expressed some doubt regarding the reveals evidence. Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003.
deceased, his that testimonyhasitaccused Further, and has isborn onDilshad remotely come personal and cross-examination on record connected record search Arif regarding thatmemo with who ofdeceased this reportedly regard committal as witness Ex.PW13/B, to were Kamruddin areveals of linkthe of case identity there is of the appellant frequent and change Guddu stating that of investigating he had officers in all seen their backs only. The trial Court came to the along
39. three number Other pointing murder was piece with conclusion taken PW for ofout officers accused that by contradictions deceased away 4the Aslam memo not purpose conducted ofAbid only accused was Kamruddin who which theisof the as this revealed witness independent persons placealso afrom consideration by investigation go accused as chance in toalready the public of his root his witness persons house. this disclosure ofEx.PW13/D, witness of chain case thewithout In case.
has the as which but his presence at the scene of occurrence was extremely shows statement thatand doubtful the as it preparatory was difficult to believe subsequently measures the that heregarding remand had come out of accused investigation Abid was
44. circumstantial Similarly been disclosure further Having cross-examination got at corroboration. discussed thatdeclared hehourstatement was evidence.cross-examined the hostile his In to purchase testimony facts this ofand ofregard accused consequently vegetables. thehas case, by PW25 also Thus ld.Parvej arguments been theCounsel during trial Drdemolished asthe court Sh.
Rajender ofalready course all Abdul the by were refused not upto the reliance to place mark as on the vital missing the evidence of the three linkeye- in the ocular obtained Sattar- of Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence to witnesses. cross-examination counsel amicus trace Srcounsel Scientific for black The curiae them, thecolor trial asaccused done is Officer, foritaccusedalso court, baniyan by hasFSL,ld. on however, persons borne APP record. Parvej /T-Shirt, Rohini, came heand on and has as DelhitoFurther, record itthe the denied has already has careful contentions also that proved Ex.P6 come any on as well conclusionas that circumstantial the appellant wasevidence absconding and were that he found after had discovered the weapon which was found to be stained
46. consideration on record search which that based contradiction Besides, on completionwas on withbiological andthe the seized humanthat and ofarrest knife case u/s he trial. blood. perusal examination 145 by recovered law knew was him itCr.
The relied from also ofupon made PC the authority relied the from accused blood Evidence accused case before on by Nali/ was should the them file Parvej. drain him factumAct persons detected andreveals ofthe adopt and atthe findfact the ofdue on that either ld.
of two instance Exhibits APP, to taking appropriate any theI human blood on the pant worn by the appellant at the time measuresof regarding hisremand arrest. Onwas regulating the process of investigation by days reason PC disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2,of3, the 4, that 5A-1, isstatement view Abidnot in the all 5A-2, that the found the basis sought accused the was 5B of this mentioned presence conviction and recorded7in evidence respect persons (particulars ofinPW12 of inthe the all his are trial ofthe statement Islamuddincourt accused presence. of residents three exhibits Abid recorded accused cannot are inThis to his '1' convicted the appellant under S.302 I.P.C. and sentenced issuing him proper guide line orKhujji to life imprisonment. devising preferreda an suitable appeal policy to trace
41. also u/s 161the neighbourhood. witness In Cotton persons light be wood of Cr.
against weapon being solely held the P swab, the Ca in said of completely aforesaid on solethe He'2' view offence statement ground conviction.further Flacky ofstatements hostile theThe and adopted for judgment High to toascertain material-dry ofsoconviction PW7 ofbe Court the the Maan looked blood, the cross-examination Tahsildar while persons asSingh ignoring the intoassociates '3' now place who Singhwith Flackey has this the and of overcome this inadequacy.
the evidence of PW3 Kishan Lal and PW4 Ramesh relied on the appellant as one of the assailants notwithstanding namely with respect statement court material- identified recovery ANNOUNCED Anr. Vs Dilshad will sample of the IN of State examine knife of THE ofand accused PW2accused blood, was OPENUP. Arif.
Jehruddin, the '4'No persons not Abid.
The nature proceedings exclusively Wooden in PW5 contentions examination-in-chief of pieces, Mohd.
the in accessible of CFSL ld. respect Siddiqui '5A-1'APPreport toPantsof both accused and and based with and PW his on his effort in cross examination to wriggle out his statement COURT ONinTHIS 30.01.2009 in regard to the identity of the examination-in-chief the the accused Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid and '5A-2' Other citation appellant.knife persons of'Khujji Shirt, denial witnesses doctor The didHigh'5B' not @to are concerned. find blood are on identify Surendera Court having record formal noticed stainedthem thewhether matching The witnesses. Tiwari that gauze in weapon Vs they cross-examination blood (RAJcloth examination-in- used State were stains piece, of in KAPOOR) got with this M.P. '6'- chief of this witness was recorded on November 16, 1976 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST whereas his cross examination commenced on December declared
38. deceased Other1991 case Dagger/ testifying AIR 15, P.O. iswitness a1976 knife that knife blood. Supremeor his and i.e.PW6 other which earlier No after iskind '7'aGajraj reaction Banyan). testimony Court monthEx.P5 of1853' Singh KARKARDOOMA and proceedings on in andBlood is to banyan formal betweenitthe is has could effect not he of were come witness COURTS:accused not got initiated of identification sustainable seemed onbe to asrecord detected well Parvej DELHI as as thein 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40. material Further, the on against of facts wasaccused Ext.6 statement also of the havethem. perusal witness found i.e. case persons been dagger/ ofblood wonof since inThe PW21 the hand was over he case stains recovery or knife. and at that has had the afile the having been knife instance reveals On citation of got knife was succumbedserological matched declared that toare of recovered atpolice, in entirely threat.the this with hostile examination instance Thiscan case deceased different. from not by there the be ld.
of inference was drawn on the basis of PW3's statement that he was severly beaten on the night previous to his APP3and are possession human accused based blood. unless blood IOs InAbid appearance consequently light ofthose was from accused hisof Court in detected testimony drain these have Abid he happens as neither conducted ahasinby isExhibits IO been corroborated witness. the toatbethe the all cross-examined The1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ocular instance investigation high by evidence court,some of suspicious 5A-2, accused by ofother him this nor 5B therefore, took the view that the subsequent attempt of
45. case.7.
himself and since sources The PW1 circumstantial in motive noFirst Komal Exhibits the from .account Chand cross-examination is Besides the aone evidence 5A-1, drain of PW8 to ofthese he thecreate 5-A2 and SI was indicateaappointed essential Satender two andthisdoubt he regarding associates 5Bknife has the components were whodeposed direct was just foundthe proved namelyidentity sent 8proximate or to that toDD 10 to have Dilshad commit police CFSL no.6/A days human nexus ago had and any for as of the appellant was of no consequence since there was intrinsic material in his evidence to establish the presence made Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which Chowkidar isofIn inquiry of can on thethis Orecord. establish Group. and and from case appellantasthe him in The revealed the Exhibits the wooden the amongstand element knife guilt cross-examination recorded the by 1,2,3,4 was pieces ofof PW6accused recovered motive assailants his and as Gajraj ofstatement.
Ex.P1 7deceased neither persons have from in it collectively, his has shown the exists He beyond cross- drain been has no in Gulab. Relying further on the discovery evidence as well as the find of human blood on the weapon found from the also denied Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable wasIO inthat relation nor is not the and doubt itPW10 in had suggestion any the documents toblood Inspector without A,B,O exclusive discrete stains that Grouping. regarding further Vijay particular PW approach which Prakash, Maan can strong his ofof Singh suggest the employment accused whocorroboration.
nature had proved the told and match which him are the no garage of the appellant and on his pant which he was wearing at the time of his arrest, th High Court came to the onthe request of blood not can Therefore, phone brought suggest blood was forthat conclusion found giving postmortem of on thatmurder therecord. that having the benefit deceased. his murder hadexamination reaction of The taken conviction doubt could Further, intimation place wasontowell have it.
as the allegedly inEx.PW10/A Public to Khaddewala been accused founded PW6 witness committed at the and persons, Gajraj and School time tothird the by ofI dismissed his appeal. It may here be mentioned that the State did not prefer an appeal against the five companions
42. and IO commission In effect PW7 the acquit light isaccused inGurcharan Maan all this of of thethese recovery regard of persons Singh accused offence facts DAss, heabout ofhas and for persons the knife Banyan the been circumstances then the conceived isfor confronted incident SHO was PW12 therecovered of the appellant who came to be acquitted by the trial court.
offences whoobject. Islamuddin does of by proved theld.
not u/s case The from APP 302/34 the reflect other who Iaccused with have seizure IPC has last the his to It is in these circumstances that the appellant has invoked previous memo Parvej examine identified means scene and 27thisof witness and /54/59 ofCourt's the statement the the communication, was quantum clothes knife Arms is sealed PW5 recorded in jurisdictionAct.
ofofquestion deceased Mohd.
contradictions in Alltime under aaccused u/s Art.pulanda Siddiqui and which 136161and place of theCr.PC are one in was also who light insample and JC where recovered also reveals offor Constitution. this the can seal more itjudgment fact isthat not not in along than also his be so recorded. with Banyan as presence. does relied fivediscussed years, not one uponas go In hence sealed due The found light to above to establish sole of they the having all envelope and fact reason depositions bejudgment of the released blood recovery that close containing material relied of stains forthwith and this of upon knife witness proximate which statement blood if from by notitld. wasgauze wanted has the link APP offound come place PW2 with i.e. of in
43. I Khujji any on have deceased washed. which regard did record other notwas to @ given find case.
provide The careful Kamruddin not that the same Surendera asconsideration exclusively this mention assistance was witness also already accessible of to Tiwari also sent accused Vsthe to Ex.PW20/A, does totestimony to StateCFSL the persons accused notM.P. of andofitcitations happens seizure
-Abid visit PW7 isAIR as reported further at memo to Maan the be 1991 discussed trustworthy of that can Singh. deceased the itnot Observation:
Supreme above reveals blood So no and beCourt house.
long 1853 arguments determinative unless stained as mark PW4 some indirect Baniyan ofAslam blood ofother whereindeath and ofis ofaccused itwithld. cogentCounsel acircumstantial haswith witness the the blood beenpiecefor Parvej who knife and held all belongs of accused evidence in as identity that:- evidence question already and of is Before persons parting and with matter the on judgment record. I would Record of like the toproceeding bring on Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comesitsPW1 on torecovery the record. PW2 KomalThis picture andJehruddin thereto. fact Chand,subsequently arrest also however, memo who Accused goeshappens i.e.to ofafter supported are indicate theaccused to the inbe custody occurrence prosecutionthe that Parvej father certain since as so of case in his examination-in-chief but in his cross record my observation with regard to the investigation. In this examination he expressed some doubt regarding the reveals Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003.
deceased, his that testimonyhasitaccused and has isborn onDilshad remotely come personal on record and connected record search Arif regarding thatmemo with who deceased reportedly regard committal as Ex.PW13/B, to were Kamruddin a of linkthe of case identity there is of the appellant frequent and change Guddu stating that of investigating he had officers in all seen their backs only. The trial Court came to the along
39. three Othertaken pointing murder was piece with conclusion PW for ofout officers accused that by deceased away 4the Aslam memo not purpose conducted ofAbid only accused was Kamruddin who theisof the as this revealed witness independent persons place afrom consideration by investigationaccused as chance in already public of his his witness persons house. this disclosure ofEx.PW13/D, witness chain case without In has the whichas but his presence at the scene of occurrence was extremely shows statement thatand doubtful the as it preparatory was difficult to believe subsequently measures the that heregarding remand had come out of accused investigation Abid
44. circumstantial been at disclosure further Having cross-examination gotcorroboration. discussed declared that statement hour evidence. the hostile his In to purchase testimony facts this ofand ofregard accused consequently vegetables. the has case, PW25 alsoParvej Thus arguments been the during trialDrdemolished asthe court allwas Rajender ofalready coursethe by were refused not upto the reliance to place mark as on the vital missing the evidence of the three linkeye-in the ocular obtained to witnesses. of cross-examination Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence counsel trace Srcounsel Scientific for black The them, thecolor trial asaccused done is Officer, also court, it baniyan by hasFSL,ld. on however, persons borne APP record. /T-Shirt, Rohini, came heand onhas as DelhiFurther, to record the the denied already has careful contentions that proved Ex.P6 any on as well as that conclusion circumstantial the appellant wasevidence absconding and were that hefound after had discovered the weapon which was found to be stained
46. consideration search which that based contradiction Besides, on completionwas on withbiological and the the seized human and ofarrest knife case u/s trial. blood. perusal examination 145 by recovered lawwas him itCr.
The relied from also ofupon made PC authority relied the from accused blood Evidence case before on by Nali/ was should the them file Parvej. drain him factumAct detected andreveals ofthe and adopt atthe findfact theon that either ld.
of twoI instance Exhibits APP, taking ofappropriate any human blood on the pant worn by the appellant at the time measuresof regarding hisremand arrest. Onwas regulating the process of investigation by days PC disclosure 1, am deceased of accused 2,of3, the 4, 5A-1, isstatement view Abidnot 5A-2,in the that found the thebasis wassought 5B of this mentioned presence conviction and recorded evidence 7in(particulars respect ofinPW12 of inthe the all his trial ofthe statement court accused Islamuddin presence. of three exhibits Abid recorded accused cannot areThisto '1' convicted the appellant under S.302 I.P.C. and sentenced issuing him proper guide line orKhujji to life imprisonment. devising preferreda an suitable appeal policy to trace
41. also witness In Cotton persons u/s light 161the be wood of Cr.
against weapon being solely heldthe P swab, the Ca in said of completely aforesaid on solethe view offence '2'statement ground conviction. Flacky ofstatements hostile theThe and for judgment High to toascertain material-dry ofsoconviction PW7 ofbe Court the Maan looked blood, Tahsildar while the persons asSingh ignoringthe intoassociates '3'now Singhplace who with Flackey has this the andof overcome this inadequacy.
the evidence of PW3 Kishan Lal and PW4 Ramesh relied on the appellant as one of the assailants notwithstanding namely statement court material- identified recovery ANNOUNCED Anr. Vs Dilshad willsample of the IN of Stateexamine knife THE ofand accused PW2 blood, was OPENUP. Arif.
Jehruddin, the '4'No persons not The nature proceedings exclusively Wooden in PW5 contentionsexamination-in-chief of pieces, Mohd.
the in accessible of CFSL ld. respect Siddiqui '5A-1' APPreport toPants of both accused and and based with and PW his on his effort in cross examination to wriggle out his statement COURT ONinTHIS 30.01.2009 in regard to the identity of the examination-in-chief the the accused Gajraj. statement belt, subsequent Abid and '5A-2' Other citation knife appellant. persons of'Khujji Shirt, denial witnesses doctor The didHigh'5B' not @to are concerned. find blood are Surendera Court on identify having record formal noticed stained them thewhether matching The witnesses. Tiwari that gauze in weapon Vs they cross-examination blood cloth (RAJ examination-in- used State were stains piece, of in KAPOOR) got with M.P.this '6'-
chief of this witness was recorded on November 16, 1976 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST whereas his cross examination commenced on December declared case1991 Dagger/ testifying deceased AIR 15, P.O. is a1976 knife that knife blood. Supremeor his and i.e. other which earlier No after iskind '7'a Court reaction Banyan). testimony monthEx.P5 of in KARKARDOOMA and1853' proceedings onandBlood to banyan betweenitthe is has could noteffect he of were come accused not COURTS: gotrecord initiated of identification sustainable seemed onbe to detected Parvej DELHI as in the 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
40. Further, the on against of facts wasaccused Ext.6 statement also of the havethem. perusal found i.e. case persons been dagger/ ofblood wonof inThe PW21 the hand was over case stains recovery or knife. and at that had the afile the having knife instance reveals On citation of knife was succumbedserological matched that toare of recovered atpolice, in entirely threat.the this with examination instance Thiscan case deceased different. from not there the be of inference was drawn on the basis of PW3's statement that he was severly beaten on the night previous to his are 3appearance possession human accused based blood. unless blood IOs InAbidlight ofthose was from accused hisof Court in detected testimony drain these have Abid happens as neither conducted ain by isExhibits IO corroborated witness.the toatbethe the all The1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ocular instance investigation high by evidence court, some of suspicious 5A-2, accused ofother this nor 5B therefore, took the view that the subsequent attempt of
45. case.7.
himself and since sources The PW1 circumstantial motive noFirst Komal Exhibits from .account is Besides the aoneChand evidence 5A-1, drain of PW8 to ofthese he thecreate 5-A2 and SI was aappointed indicate essential Satender two andthisdoubt regarding associates 5Bknife the components were who direct was just foundthe proved namelyidentity sent 8proximate or toto DD 10 to have Dilshad commit CFSL no.6/A days human nexus ago and any for as of the appellant was of no consequence since there was intrinsic material in his evidence to establish the presence Ex.PW8/A, examination blood Arif as act.
which Chowkidar isofIn of can onthethis Orecord. establish Group. and and case appellantasthe in The revealed the Exhibits the wooden the amongst element knife guilt cross-examination theby1,2,3,4 was pieces ofof PW6accused recovered motive assailants and as Gajraj of Ex.P1 7deceased neither persons have from in it collectively, his has shown the exists beyond cross- drain beenno in Gulab. Relying further on the discovery evidence as well as the find of human blood on the weapon found from the Second detected reaction which examination substance reasonable was IO inthat relation nor is notand doubt itPW10 in hadany the documents toblood Inspector without A,B,O exclusive discrete stains Grouping. regarding further Vijay particular approach which Prakash, can strong his ofof suggest the employment accused who corroboration.
nature proved theand match which are the no garage of the appellant and on his pant which he was wearing at the time of his arrest, th High Court came to the request of blood not can Therefore, thebrought suggest blood wasfor found conclusion giving postmortem of on that therecord.
that having the benefit deceased. his murder examination reaction of The conviction doubt could Further, intimation ontowell was have it.
as the allegedly Ex.PW10/A Public tobeen accused founded PW6 witness committed at the and persons, Gajraj and time tothird the by ofI dismissed his appeal. It may here be mentioned that the State did not prefer an appeal against the five companions
42. IO light commission In effect PW7 the acquit isaccused Gurcharan Maan all of of thethese recovery of persons Singh accused offence facts DAss,about ofand for persons the knife Banyan the circumstances then the conceived isfor incident SHO was PW12 therecovered of the appellant who came to be acquitted by the trial court.
offences whoobject. Islamuddin does of proved thenot u/s case The from302/34 the reflect other who Iaccused have seizure IPC has last the to It is in these circumstances that the appellant has invoked memo Parvej examine identified means scene and 27 of witness thisand /54/59 ofCourt's the the the communication, was quantum clothes knife Arms is sealed PW5 in Act.
jurisdictionofofquestion deceased Mohd.
contradictions in Alltime under aaccused Art. pulanda Siddiqui and which 136 and place of the are one in was also who light insample and JC recovered also reveals offor Constitution. this the can seal more judgment fact that not in along than also his be withdiscussed Banyan as presence. does relied five years, not one uponas go hence sealed due The found to above to establish sole they the having envelope and fact reason bejudgment of the released blood recovery that close containing material relied stains forthwith and of upon knife proximate which statement blood if from by notld. was gauze wanted the link APP offound place PW2 with i.e. of in
43. I Khujji any didhave deceased washed. which regard other notwas to @ given find case.
provide The careful Kamruddin notthe same Surendera asconsideration exclusively mention assistance was also already accessible of to Tiwari sent accused Vsthe to Ex.PW20/A, the totestimony to StateCFSL persons accusedofitcitations andseizure of M.P. -Abid visit PW7 isAIR as reported further at memo Maan the 1991 discussed of the that can Singh. deceased itnot Observation:
Supreme above reveals blood So no and beCourt house.
long 1853 arguments determinative stained as mark PW4 indirect Baniyan ofAslam blood of death and wherein ofis ofaccused itwithld. Counsel acircumstantial haswith witness the the blood been for Parvej who knife and held all accused belongs evidence in as identity that:- question already and of is Before persons parting and with matter the on judgment record. I would Record of like the toproceeding bring on Ex.PW13/E deceased. and concerned, comesitsPW1 torecovery the PW2This picture Komal andJehruddin thereto. fact Chand,subsequently arrest also however, memo who Accused goeshappens i.e.to ofafter supported are indicate theaccused to the inbe custody occurrence prosecutionthe that Parvej father certain since as so of case in his examination-in-chief but in his cross record my observation with regard to the investigation. In this examination he expressed some doubt regarding the reveals Ex.PW13/A outcome 12.04.2003.
deceased, his that testimonyhasitaccused and has isborn onDilshad remotely come personal on record and connected record search Arif regarding thatmemo with who deceased reportedly regard committal as Ex.PW13/B, to were Kamruddin a of linkthe of case identity there is of the appellant frequent and change Guddu stating that of investigating he had officers in all seen their backs only. The trial Court came to the along pointing murder was piece three with conclusion takenfor ofout officers accused that by deceased away the memo not purpose conducted ofAbid only accused was Kamruddin the theof as this persons place revealed witness afrom consideration by investigation chance accused as in already of his his witness persons house. this disclosure ofEx.PW13/D, chain case without In the whichas but his presence at the scene of occurrence was extremely shows statement thatand doubtful the as it preparatory was difficult to believe subsequently measures the that heregarding remand had come out of accused investigation
44. circumstantial disclosure further Having cross-examination at corroboration. discussed that statement hour evidence. the his In to purchase testimony facts this of of regard accused the vegetables. has case, PW25 alsoParvej Thus arguments been the trialDr as Abid demolished court allwas Rajender ofalready the by were refused not upto the reliance to place mark as on the vital missing the evidence of the three linkeye-in the ocular obtained Ex.PW13/C, Kumar, ld.
defence counsel to witnesses. trace Srcounsel Scientific for black The them, thecolor trial asaccused is Officer, also court, it baniyan hasFSL, on however, persons borne record. /T-Shirt, Rohini, came and on as DelhiFurther, to record the the already has careful contentions that proved Ex.P6 on as well as that conclusion circumstantial the appellant wasevidence absconding and were that hefound after had discovered the weapon which was found to be stained
46. consideration which that based contradiction Besides, on completionwas on withbiological the the seized human and ofknife case u/s trial. blood. perusal examination 145 by recovered law him itCr.
The relied from also PCofuponthe from accused blood Evidence authority relied on thecase by Nali/ was them should file Parvej. drain factumAct detected andreveals ofthe adopt atthe findfact theonld.that of twoI instance Exhibits APP, taking ofappropriate human blood on the pant worn by the appellant at the time measuresof regarding hisremand arrest. Onwas regulating the process of investigation by days 1, am deceased of PC accused 2,of3, the 4, 5A-1, isview Abidnot 5A-2,in the that found the thebasis sought 5B of this mentioned presence conviction and evidence 7in(particulars respect ofinPW12 ofthe the all trial ofthe statement court accused Islamuddin of three exhibits Abid recorded accused cannot are '1'to convicted the appellant under S.302 I.P.C. and sentenced issuing him proper guide line orKhujji to life imprisonment. devising preferreda an suitable appeal policy to trace
41. also In light Cotton persons u/s 161 the be wood of Cr.
against weapon solely heldthe P swab, the Casaid in of aforesaid on solethe view offence '2'statement ground conviction. Flacky the Theand ofstatements for judgment High to material-dry PW7 ascertain ofconviction of the Court Maan while blood, Tahsildar the persons asSingh ignoringthe associates '3'now Singhplace who Flackey has this andof overcome this inadequacy.
the evidence of PW3 Kishan Lal and PW4 Ramesh relied on the appellant as one of the assailants notwithstanding namely court Vs material- identified recovery ANNOUNCED Anr. Dilshad willsample of the IN Stateexamine knife THE ofand accusedblood, was OPENUP. Arif.
the '4'No persons not The natureproceedings exclusively Wooden in examination-in-chief contentions of pieces, the in accessible of CFSL respect ld.'5A-1' APPreport toPants of both accused and based with and his on his effort in cross examination to wriggle out his statement COURT ONinTHIS 30.01.2009 in regard to the identity of the examination-in-chief the the accused statement belt, subsequent Abid and '5A-2' citation knife appellant. persons of'Khujji Shirt, denial doctor The didHigh'5B' not @to are concerned. find bloodon identify Surendera Court having noticed record stained them thewhether matching The Tiwari that gauze in weapon Vs they cross-examination blood cloth (RAJ examination-in- used State were stains piece, of in KAPOOR) got with M.P.this '6'-
chief of this witness was recorded on November 16, 1976 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST whereas his cross examination commenced on December declared case1991 Dagger/ testifying deceased AIR 15, P.O. is a1976 knife that knife blood. Supreme i.e. or his and other which earlier No after iskind '7'a Court reaction Banyan). month of in testimony Ex.P5 KARKARDOOMA and1853' proceedings onandBlood to banyan betweenitthe is has could noteffect he of were come accused not COURTS: gotrecord initiated of identification sustainable seemed onbe to detected Parvej DELHI as in the 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 theaccused on against of facts was Ext.6 statement also of the havethem.
found i.e. case persons been dagger/ ofblood woninThe PW21 hand was over stains recovery or knife. and at that had the a the having knife instance On citation of knife was succumbedserological matched toare of recovered atpolice, entirely the threat. with examination instance Thiscan deceased different. from not the be of inference was drawn on the basis of PW3's statement that he was severly beaten on the night previous to his possession human accused based blood. unless blood InAbid appearance light of was from accused hisof Court in detected testimony drain theseAbidhappens as neither ain by isExhibits IO corroborated witness.the toatbethe all The1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ocular instance high by evidence court, some of suspicious 5A-2, accused other nor 5B therefore, took the view that the subsequent attempt of
45. himself and since sources The PW1 circumstantial 7. motive no Komal Exhibits from .account Besides is aoneChand evidence 5A-1, drain to ofofthese he thecreate 5-A2 and was aappointed indicate essential two andthisdoubt regarding associates 5Bknife the components were direct was just foundthe identity namely sent 8proximate or toto10 to have Dilshad commit CFSL days human nexus ago and any for of the appellant was of no consequence since there was intrinsic material in his evidence to establish the presence examination blood Arif as act.
whichChowkidar isofIn of can onthethis Orecord. establish Group. and caseas in appellant The revealed the Exhibits the the amongst element knife guilt cross-examination theby1,2,3,4 wasofof PW6accused recovered motive assailants andGajraj of 7 neither persons have from in deceasedit his has shown the exists beyond cross- drain beenno in Gulab. Relying further on the discovery evidence as well as the find of human blood on the weapon found from the detected reaction which examination substance reasonable wasinthat relation nor notand doubt it in hadany the documents toblood without A,B,O exclusive discrete stains Grouping. regarding further particular approach which can strong his ofof suggest the employment accused corroboration. nature theand match which are no garage of the appellant and on his pant which he was wearing at the time of his arrest, th High Court came to the of the blood not can Therefore, brought suggest blood was found conclusion giving of on thattherecord. that having the benefit deceased. his murder reaction of The conviction doubt could Further, intimation ontowell was have it.the allegedly Public tobeen accused foundedPW6 witness committed at the and persons, Gajraj time to the by ofI dismissed his appeal. It may here be mentioned that the State did not prefer an appeal against the five companions
42. commission In effect PW7 the acquit light accused Maan all of of the these recovery of persons Singh accused offence factsabout ofand for persons knife Banyan the circumstances the conceived isfor incident was PW12 therecovered offences of the appellant who came to be acquitted by the trial court.
object. Islamuddin does of thenotu/s case The from302/34 reflect other who Iaccused have IPC has last the to It is in these circumstances that the appellant has invoked Parvej examine identified means scene and 27 witness thisand /54/59 ofCourt's the the communication, was quantum knife Arms is sealed PW5 in Act.
jurisdiction ofquestion Mohd.
contradictions in Alltime under aaccused Art. pulanda Siddiqui and which 136 place of thearein was also who light inand JC recovered also reveals offor Constitution. this the can more judgment fact that not inthan also his be Banyan as presence. does relied fivediscussed years, not uponas go hence due The found to above to establish sole they the having and fact reason bejudgment of the released blood recovery that close material relied stains forthwith and of upon knife proximate which statement if from by notld. was wanted the link APP offound place PW2 with i.e. in
43. I Khujji anyhave washed. which regard did other notwas to @ given find case.
provide The notthecareful same consideration exclusively mention assistance Surendera was also accessible of to Tiwari sent accused Vsthe to the totestimony to StateCFSL andofitcitations persons accused of M.P. -Abid visit PW7 isAIR as reported further atMaan the 1991 discussed that itnot can Singh. deceased Observation:
Supreme above reveals So no and beCourt house.
long 1853 arguments determinative as mark PW4 indirect ofAslam blood of death and wherein is ofhas itwithld. Counsel acircumstantial with witness the the blood been whofor knife and held all accused belongs evidence inidentity that:- question and of is Before persons parting and with matter the on judgment record. I would Record of like the toproceeding bring on deceased. and concerned, comesitsPW1 torecovery the PW2This picture Komal Jehruddin thereto. fact Chand,subsequently also however, who Accused goeshappens i.e.toafter supported are indicate the to the inbe custody occurrence prosecutionthe that father certain since so of case in his examination-in-chief but in his cross record my observation with regard to the investigation. In this examination he expressed some doubt regarding the reveals outcome 12.04.2003.
deceased, his that testimonyhasitaccused has isborn onDilshad remotely come on record and connected record Arif regarding thatwithwho deceased reportedly regard committal to were Kamruddin a of linkthe of case identity there is of the appellant frequent and change Guddu stating that of investigating he had officers in all seen their backs only. The trial Court came to the along murder was piece three with conclusion takenfor officers awayaccused of deceased the that bynot purpose conducted only accused Abid was Kamruddin theof as this persons revealed witness afrom chance consideration by investigationaccused ofin his his witness persons house. thisof case disclosure chainwithout In the whichas but his presence at the scene of occurrence was extremely shows statement thatand doubtful the as it preparatory was difficult to believe subsequently measures thethe that heregarding remand had come out of accused investigation
44. circumstantial furtherat corroboration. Having cross-examination discussed that hourevidence. the his In to purchase testimony facts this of regard vegetables. has case, PW25 alsothe Thus arguments been trialDrcourt Abid demolishedof allwas Rajender the by were refused not upto the reliance to place mark as on the vital missing the evidence of the three linkeye-in the ocular obtained Kumar, ld.
defence counsel to witnesses.
Srcounseltrace Scientific The them, for theasaccused trial is Officer, also court, it hasFSL, on however, persons borne record.
Rohini,came and on Delhi Further, to recordthe the has careful contentions that proved on as well as that conclusion circumstantial the appellant wasevidence absconding and were that hefound after had discovered the weapon which was found to be stained
46. consideration that on based contradiction Besides, completion on withbiological the the human and ofknife case u/s trial. blood. perusal examination 145recovered law itCr.
The relied alsoPC ofupon authority relied the from blood Evidence on thecase by Nali/ wasthem should file drain Act factum detected andreveals ofthe adopt atthe findfact theonld.that of twoI instance Exhibits APP, taking ofappropriate human blood on the pant worn by the appellant at the time measuresof regarding hisremand arrest. Onwas regulating the process of investigation by days 1, am deceased of PC accused 2,of3, the 4, 5A-1, isview Abidnot 5A-2,in the that found the thebasis sought 5B of this mentioned presence conviction and evidence 7in(particulars respect ofinPW12 ofthe the all trial ofthe statement court accused Islamuddin of three exhibits Abid recorded accused cannot are '1'to convicted the appellant under S.302 I.P.C. and sentenced issuing him proper guide line orKhujji to life imprisonment. devising preferreda an suitable appeal policy to trace Cotton persons also u/s 161 the be wood Cr.
against weapon solely held P swab, the Casaid on sole in of the view offence '2'statement ground conviction. Flacky of theTheand for judgment High to material-dry PW7ascertain ofconviction Court Maan while blood, Tahsildar the asSingh ignoringthe associates '3' Singhplace who Flackey has andof overcome this inadequacy.
the evidence of PW3 Kishan Lal and PW4 Ramesh relied on the appellant as one of the assailants notwithstanding namely material- identified recovery ANNOUNCED Anr. Vs Dilshad sample of theTHE IN State knife ofand accusedblood, was OPENUP. Arif. '4'No persons not The proceedings exclusively Wooden of in in examination-in-chief contentions pieces, accessible respect ld.'5A-1' APPtoPants of both accused and based with his on his effort in cross examination to wriggle out his statement COURT ONinTHIS 30.01.2009 in regard to the identity of the examination-in-chief the Abid the accused belt,citation subsequent and '5A-2' knife appellant. persons Shirt, denial 'Khujji The didHigh'5B' not @toCourtare find bloodon identify Surenderahaving noticed record stained them thewhether matching Tiwari that gauze in Vs theystains cross-examination blood cloth (RAJ examination-in- State were piece, KAPOOR) of M.P. got with '6'-
chief of this witness was recorded on November 16, 1976 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST whereas his cross examination commenced on December declared Dagger/ testifying deceased AIR 1991 P.O. knife that 15, 1976 blood.
Supreme i.e. or his and other earlier No after '7'a Courtkind reaction Banyan). month of in testimony KARKARDOOMA and1853' proceedings on Blood to banyan betweenthenot is could effect he of wereaccused not COURTS: gotdetected initiated of identification sustainable seemed be to Parvej DELHI as the 50 51 52 53 54 55 on accused against of facts was Ext.6 also of the havethem.
found i.e. case persons been dagger/ blood inThe won hand was over stains recovery or knife. and at the had a the having instance On citation of knife succumbedserological matched toare ofatpolice, entirely the threat. with examination instance Thiscan deceased different. not be of inference was drawn on the basis of PW3's statement that he was severly beaten on the night previous to his human accused based blood. unless blood InAbid appearancelightwas from hisof Court in detected testimony drain theseashappens neither ainwitness.
isExhibits corroborated the to be all The1,2,3,4,5A-1, reasonably ocular high by evidence court,some suspicious 5A-2,other nor 5B therefore, took the view that the subsequent attempt of
45. and 7.
since sources The PW1 circumstantial motive no Komal Exhibits .account Besides is oneChand evidence 5A-1, to ofofthese he thecreate 5-A2was aappointed indicate essential two and doubt regarding associates 5Bthecomponents were direct just the found namelyidentity 8proximate or toto10 have Dilshad commit days human nexus ago and any of the appellant was of no consequence since there was intrinsic material in his evidence to establish the presence blood Arif as act.
whichChowkidar isofIn of can on this theOrecord.
establish Group. caseas The appellant revealed the Exhibits theelement amongst knife guilt theby 1,2,3,4 wasofof PW6accused recovered motive assailants andGajraj of 7 neither persons have from in his deceased shown the exists beyond cross- drain no in Gulab. Relying further on the discovery evidence as well as the find of human blood on the weapon found from the reaction which examination substance reasonable wasin relation nor notand doubt in any the documents to without A,B,O exclusive discreteGrouping.
regarding further particular approach strong his ofof the employment accused corroboration. natureand which are no garage of the appellant and on his pant which he was wearing at the time of his arrest, th High Court came to the blood not can Therefore, brought suggest was found conclusion giving on that record. that having the benefit his murder reaction of The convictiondoubt could intimation ontowell was have it.thePublic to been accused foundedPW6 witness committed and persons, Gajraj to the byI dismissed his appeal. It may here be mentioned that the State did not prefer an appeal against the five companions
42. In light effect PW7 the acquit accused Maan all of of the these recovery persons Singh accused factsabout ofand for persons knife the circumstances the conceived isfor incident PW12 the offences of the appellant who came to be acquitted by the trial court.
object. Islamuddin does of thenotu/s case The 302/34 reflect other who I have IPC has last the to It is in these circumstances that the appellant has invoked examine identified means scene and 27 witness this/54/59 ofCourt's the the communication, quantum knife Arms is PW5 in Act.
jurisdiction ofquestion Mohd.
contradictions Alltime under accused Art. Siddiqui and which 136 place of thearein was who light inandJC recovered also offor Constitution. this the can more judgment fact not inthan also his be as discussed presence. does relied five years, not upongo hence due The to above to establish sole they the and fact reason bejudgment of the released recovery that close material relied forthwith and of upon knife proximate statement if from by notld.wanted the link APP of place PW2 with i.e. in
43. I Khujji anyhave which regard did other notwas to @ given find case.
provide notthecareful consideration exclusively mention assistance Surendera accessible of toaccused Tiwari Vsthe to to the ofcitations testimony State persons accused of M.P. -Abid visit PW7 as AIRfurther atMaan the 1991 discussed can Singh. deceased notSo above beCourt house. long Observation:
Supreme and 1853 arguments determinative asPW4 indirect Aslam itofhas of death and wherein is ld. Counsel acircumstantial with witness forthat:-
the held been who knife all accused belongs evidence in question and is Before persons parting and with matter the on judgment record. I would Record of like the toproceeding bring on and itsPW1 concerned, comes torecovery the PW2picture Komal Jehruddin thereto. subsequently Chand, however, who Accused happens i.e. after supported areprosecution the to the inbe custody occurrence the father since so of case in his examination-in-chief but in his cross record my observation with regard to the investigation. In this examination he expressed some doubt regarding the reveals thatof 12.04.2003.
deceased, his testimony itaccused has Dilshad is remotely come on and stating connected record Arif that withwho deceased reportedly regard to were Kamruddin a link of case identity there is the appellant frequent and change Guddu that of investigating he had officers in all seen their backs only. The trial Court came to the alongtaken was piece three with conclusion for away officers accused the that bynot purpose conducted only Abid accused was theof as this personsrevealed witness afrom chance consideration investigation ofin his his witness house. thisof casedisclosure chain In the as which but his presence at the scene of occurrence was extremely shows statement thatand doubtful the as it preparatory was difficult to believe subsequently measures thethe that heregarding remand had come out of accused investigation
44. circumstantial Having cross-examination discussed at that hourevidence. the his testimony to purchase facts of vegetables. has case, alsothe Thus arguments been court Abid trial demolished of allwas the by were refused not upto the reliance to place mark as on the vital missing the evidence of the three linkeye-in the ocular obtained ld. counsel defence to witnesses. trace counsel The them, for theasaccused trial is also court, on however, it has persons record.
borne and came on record Further, to the the contentions careful that on as well as that conclusion circumstantial the appellant wasevidence absconding and were that hefound after had discovered the weapon which was found to be stained
46. consideration basedwith contradiction Besides, onhuman completion the the and ofknife case u/s trial.145 blood. perusal recovered law itCr. The relied also PC ofupon authority relied the from Evidence on thecase by Nali/them should fileadopt drain Act factum andreveals ofthe atthe findfact the that ld.
of twoI instance APP, taking ofappropriate human blood on the pant worn by the appellant at the time measures regarding regulating the process of investigation by days am ofof PC deceased of accused hisremand the arrest.
isview Abidnot On inwas that found the the basis thesought of this mentioned presence in conviction evidence respect ofinPW12 ofthe the all trial ofthe statement court accused Islamuddin three Abid recorded accused cannot to convicted the appellant under S.302 I.P.C. and sentenced issuinghim proper guide line orKhujji to life imprisonment. devising preferreda an suitable appeal policy to trace persons also u/s 161 theCr.
be against weapon solely held PC the asaid on sole in of the view offence statement ground conviction.of the Theand for judgment High to ascertain ofconviction PW7 Court Maan Tahsildar while the asSingh ignoringthe associates place who and Singh hasof overcome this inadequacy.
the evidence of PW3 Kishan Lal and PW4 Ramesh relied on the appellant as one of the assailants notwithstanding namely identified recovery ANNOUNCED Anr. Vs Dilshad of theTHE IN State knife ofand accused was OPENUP. Arif.
persons not The No proceedings exclusively of in ld. respect in examination-in-chief contentions accessible APPtobased of both accused and his on his effort in cross examination to wriggle out his statement COURT ONinTHIS 30.01.2009 in regard to the identity of the examination-in-chief the the accused subsequent Abid and citation knife appellant. persons denial 'Khujji The didHigh not are @toCourt find on identify Surenderahaving noticed record them that thewhether matching Tiwari in Vs theystains cross-examination blood (RAJ examination-in- State were KAPOOR) of M.P. got-
with chief of this witness was recorded on November 16, 1976 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST whereas his cross examination commenced on December declared testifying deceased AIR 1991 P.O. that 15, 1976 blood.
Supreme i.e. or other hisafter earlier Noa Court kind reaction month of in testimony KARKARDOOMA and1853' proceedings on to banyan betweenthenot is effect he of wereaccused COURTS: got initiated of identification sustainable seemed to Parvej DELHI as the 51 52 53 54 55 against of facts wasaccused also of the havethem.
found case persons been blood inThe won hand was over stains recovery or and at the had a the having instance citation of knife succumbed matched toare ofatpolice, entirely the threat. withinstance Thiscan deceased different. not be of inference was drawn on the basis of PW3's statement that he was severly beaten on the night previous to his accused based blood. unless In Abid appearance lightfrom hisof Court in testimony drain theseashappens neitheris corroborated a witness. the to be all Thereasonably ocular high by evidence some court, suspicious other nor therefore, took the view that the subsequent attempt of
45. PW1 sincemotive sources The circumstantial Komal no .accountBesides is one Chand evidence to he create ofofthese the was aappointed indicate essential two doubt regarding associates the components direct the justnamely identity 8proximate orto10Dilshad commit days nexus ago and any of the appellant was of no consequence since there was intrinsic material in his evidence to establish the presence Arif Chowkidar as act.
whichisofIncan on this the record.
establish caseas The appellant revealed thetheelement amongstknife guilt theby wasofof PW6accused recovered motive assailants Gajraj neither persons from of deceased in histhe exists beyond cross- drainin Gulab. Relying further on the discovery evidence as well whichaswas examination substance reasonable the find of human blood on the weapon found from the nor not and doubt in any the documents without exclusive discreteregarding further particular approach strong his ofof the employment accused corroboration. natureand which are no garage of the appellant and on his pant which he was wearing at the time of his arrest, th High Court came to the blood not can Therefore, brought suggest was found conclusion giving on that record. that having the benefit his murder reaction of The convictiondoubt could intimation ontowell was have it.thePublic to been accused foundedPW6 witness committed and persons, Gajraj to the byI dismissed his appeal. It may here be mentioned that the State did not prefer an appeal against the five companions effect PW7 the acquit accused Maan all of therecovery persons Singh accused about offor persons knife thethe conceived isfor incident PW12 the offences object. of the appellant who came to be acquitted by the trial court.
Islamuddin does not u/s The 302/34 reflect other who IPC has last the It is in these circumstances that the appellant has invoked identified means scene and 27thiswitness /54/59 ofCourt's the communication, knife Arms is PW5 in Act.
jurisdiction question Mohd.
Alltime under accused Art. Siddiqui and which 136 place of thearewas whoinandJC recovered also Constitution. for this can more fact not inthan also his be presence. does relied five years, not upongo hence due The to to establish sole they thefact reason be of the released recovery that close material forthwith and of knife proximate statement if from not wanted the link of place PW2 with in
43. I have any which regard did other notwas given tofind case.
provide notthecareful consideration exclusively mention assistance accessible of toaccusedto to the ofcitations the testimony persons accused Abid visit as PW7 further atMaan the discussed can notSo Singh. deceased above behouse. long Observation: and arguments determinative asPW4 indirect Aslam isofacircumstantial of death and ld. Counsel with witness forbelongs the who knife all accused evidence in question and is Before persons parting and with the matter judgmentRecord on record. I wouldoflike the toproceeding bring on and itstorecovery concerned, comes thePW2 picture Jehruddin thereto. subsequently who Accused happens i.e. after are to the inbecustody occurrence the father since so of record my observation with regard to the investigation. In this reveals thatitaccused 12.04.2003. deceased, his testimony has Dilshad is remotely come and that onconnected record Arif withwho deceasedreportedly regard to were Kamruddin a link of case there is frequent change of investigating officers in all alongtaken was piece three with officersaccused for away the by Abid purposetheofas accused conducted revealed persons in consideration from of investigation his histhis disclosure house. of case chain In the as which shows thatand statement thesubsequently preparatory measures thethe remandregarding investigation
44. Having cross-examination circumstantial discussed evidence.
the his testimony facts of has alsoof case, accused arguments been Abid of allwas demolished the by were not upto the mark as the vital missing link in the ocular obtained defence to ld. counsel trace counsel for thethem, it is has asaccused alsopersons on record. borne and Further, on record the careful contentions that on as well as circumstantial evidence were found after
46. consideration based on the contradiction Besides, completion the and ofknife case u/s 145 trial. perusal recovered lawCr. The ofupon relied PC the from case Evidence authority by Nali/ fileadopt them drain Act should reveals and the atthe fact the that ld.
of twoI instance APP, taking appropriate measures days regarding regulating therespect processofofaccused investigation by am ofPC deceased of theremand accused isview Abid inwas not that foundthe sought thementioned presence in convictionofinPW12 ofthe all statement the Islamuddin Abid to three recorded accused cannot issuing proper guide line or devising a suitable policy to trace persons also u/s 161theCr.
be weapon solely held PC aonsole in of the viewoffence of the and statement ground to ascertain forofconviction PW7 judgment the MaanasSingh Tahsildar associates the place who and Singh has of overcome this inadequacy. namely ANNOUNCED Anr. Vs Dilshad identified recovery of theTHE IN State ofand knife UP.Arif. accused was OPEN No persons not The proceedings exclusively of in ld. respect in examination-in-chief contentions accessible of both APPtobased accused and his on COURT ON THIS 30.01.2009 the the accused subsequent Abid and knife citation persons denial did not 'Khujji are find on @toSurendera record identify having them whether matching Tiwari in Vs theystains were cross-examination blood (RAJStateKAPOOR) got-
with of M.P. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST declared testifying deceased AIR P.O. 1991that or blood. Supremeother his earlier kind No Court reaction of1853' testimonyproceedings on KARKARDOOMA to banyan thenot is were effect of got initiated accused of identification COURTS:
sustainable Parvej DELHI as the 52 53 54 55 against of facts wasaccused also of the them.
found case persons blood inThe hand was stains recovery and at the the having instance citation of knife matched are ofatpolice, entirely the withinstance can deceased different. not be of accusedunless based blood. In Abid light from his of testimony drain thesehappens neither is corroborated the to be allreasonably ocularbyevidence some suspicious other nor
45. sincemotive sources The circumstantial no .account Besides is one evidence ofofthese he thewas indicate essential twoappointed associates the components direct justnamely 8proximate orto10 Dilshad commit days nexus ago and any Arif Chowkidar as act.
whichis Incan onthis record. establish case as The revealed thetheelement knife guiltby was ofof PW6 accused recovered motive Gajraj neither persons from in his the exists beyond cross- drain in which was nor examination substance reasonable not and doubt in any the documents without exclusive discreteregarding further particular approachstrong his ofof the employment accused corroboration. natureand which are no blood not can Therefore, brought suggest was found giving on thatrecord.
having the benefit murder reaction of Thedoubt could intimation ontohave it.thePublic to been accused PW6witness committed persons, Gajraj to the byI effect PW7 the acquit accused Maan all of the recovery persons Singh accused about offor persons knife thethe conceived isfor incident PW12 the offences object. Islamuddin does not u/s The302/34 reflect other who IPChas last the identified means scene and 27witness /54/59 of the communication, knife Arms is PW5 in Act.
question Mohd.
Alltime accused Siddiqui and whichplace are was who inand JC recovered also for this can more fact not inthan also his be presence. does relied five years, not upongo hence due The to to establish sole they thefact reason be of the released recovery that close material forthwith and of knife proximate statement if from not wanted the link of place PW2 with in which regard did any other notwas tofind case.
provide notthe exclusively mention assistance accessible of toaccused the testimony to persons accused of Abid visit PW7 further atMaan the can notSo Singh. deceasedbehouse.
long Observation:determinative asPW4 indirect Aslam of death and is acircumstantial with witness the who knifebelongs evidence in question andis Before parting with the judgment I would like to bring on and itstorecovery concerned, comes thePW2 picture Jehruddin thereto. subsequently who Accused happens i.e. after are to the inbecustody occurrence the father since so of record my observation with regard to the investigation. In this 12.04.2003. deceased, his testimonyit has is remotely come onconnected record thatwith deceased regard to Kamruddin a link of case there is frequent change of investigating officers in all was taken piece three for away the officers by purpose accused conducted theofpersons consideration from of investigation histhis house. of case chain In the as which shows that the preparatory measures regarding investigation
44. Having discussed cross-examination circumstantial evidence.
the his testimony facts of the has case, also arguments been demolished of all the by were not upto the mark as the vital missing link in the ocular ld. counsel defence counsel for theasaccused it has persons borne and on record the contentions that on as well as circumstantial evidence were found after
46. based on the contradiction Besides, completion the ofknife case u/s 145 trial.recovered lawCr. relied The PC upon from Evidence authority by Nali/ them drain Actadopt should and the atthe fact theld. of instance APP, takingI appropriate measures regarding regulating the process of investigation by amaccused deceased of of the isview Abid not that found in the thementioned presence conviction ofinPW12 ofthe all statement the Islamuddin three recorded accused cannot issuing proper guide line or devising a suitable policy to persons also u/s be Cr. 161 solely heldPC aonsole in the viewstatement ground forofconviction PW7 Tahsildar of the judgment MaanasSinghthe place who and Singh has of overcome this inadequacy. identified recovery ANNOUNCED of theTHE IN Anr. Vs State knife accused was UP. persons ofOPEN not Theexclusively in examination-in-chief contentions accessible of ld. APPtobased accused and his on COURT ON THIS 30.01.2009 subsequent Abid the and knife citation denial did not 'Khujji @toSurendera find identify havingthem matching Tiwariin Vs cross-examination blood (RAJStatestains KAPOOR) with- of M.P. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST testifying deceased AIR 1991that blood. his earlier Supreme No Court reaction testimony on to KARKARDOOMA 1853' banyan thenot is effect of accused of identification COURTS:
sustainable Parvej DELHI as the 53 54 55 of accused facts was also of thefound case persons blood in hand was stains and at the the having instance citation matched are of police, entirely withcan deceased different. not be based unless blood. In lighthis of testimony these neither is corroborated the all ocularbyevidence some other nor
45. sources The circumstantial motive . Besides is one evidence of he thewas indicate essential appointed the components direct just 8proximate orto10commit days nexus ago any as Chowkidar act.
which Incan thisestablish case as revealed thetheelement guiltbyofof PW6 accused motive Gajraj neither persons in hisexists beyond cross- in examinationnor substance reasonable and doubt in any documents without discreteregarding further particular strong his of the employment corroboration. nature which are not brought can Therefore, suggestgiving on thatrecord.
the benefit murder of Thedoubt could intimation tohave the to been accused PW6committed persons, Gajraj byI PW7accused the acquit Maan all the persons Singh accused about for persons thethe conceived for incident the offences object. does not u/s The302/34 reflect other IPC last the means scene and 27witness /54/59 of communication, Arms is PW5 Act.Mohd.
Alltime accused Siddiqui and place are who inand JC also for this can more fact notthan also be doesyears, relied five not upongo hence due to to establish they the reason be the released that close material forthwith and proximate statement if not wanted link of PW2 with in regard did any other nottofind case.
provide the mention assistance of toaccused the testimony persons of visit PW7 atMaan the Singh. Sohouse. deceased long asPW4 Observation: indirect Aslam and is acircumstantial witness who belongs evidenceand is Before parting with the judgment I would like to bring on concerned, comes to thePW2 picture Jehruddin subsequently who happens i.e. after to thebeoccurrence the father so of record my observation with regard to the investigation. In this deceased, his testimony it has is remotely come onconnected record that with deceased regard to Kamruddin a link of case there is frequent change of investigating officers in all was taken piece three for away the officers by purpose accused conducted theofpersons consideration from of investigation histhis house. of case chain In the as which shows that the preparatory measures regarding investigation cross-examination circumstantial evidence.
his testimony has also been demolished by were not upto the mark as the vital missing link in the ocular defence counsel as it has borne on record that on as well as circumstantial evidence were found after
46. contradiction Besides, completiontheofknife u/s 145 trial.recovered Cr. PC The from Evidence authority Nali/ shoulddrain Actadopt the at fact the of instance taking appropriate measures regarding regulating the process of investigation by deceased of accusedisAbid not found in the mentioned presence ofinPW12 the statement Islamuddinrecorded cannot issuing proper guide line or devising a suitable policy to also be Cr. u/s 161 held PCa in sole viewground for conviction of the judgment as the Tahsildar placeand Singh of overcome this inadequacy. recovery ANNOUNCED of THE IN Anr. Vs State knife was UP. not ofOPEN Theexclusively contentionsaccessible of ld. APPtobased accused on COURT ON THIS 30.01.2009 Abid and knife the citation did not 'Khujji find having Tiwari @ Surendera matching blood Vs(RAJStatestains KAPOOR) with- of M.P. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST deceased AIR 1991 blood.
SupremeNo Court reaction on banyan KARKARDOOMA 1853' is not of accused DELHI COURTS:
sustainable Parvej as the 54 55 facts also was of thefound case blood in hand stains and the having citation matched are entirely with deceased different.
blood. In light of these neither the all ocular evidence nor
45. The motive is one circumstantial evidence of the indicate essentialthe components direct proximate to commit nexus any act. Incan which thisestablish case thetheelement guilt ofofaccused motive neither personsexists beyondin substance nordoubt reasonable in anywithout discrete further particular strong of the corroboration.
nature which can suggestgiving Therefore, that the benefit murder of doubt couldtohave the been accused committed persons,byI the accused acquit all the persons accused for persons the conceived for the offences object. u/s The302/34 other IPC last scene and 27witness /54/59 Arms is PW5 Act.Mohd.
All accused Siddiquiare who in JC also forcan more notthan be reliedyears, five upon hence due to they the reason be released that material forthwith statement if not wanted of PW2 in did other any not find case.
the mention of accused persons visit at the deceased house. PW4 Aslam is a witness who belongs and Observation:
Before parting with the judgment I would like to bring on comes to the picture subsequently i.e. after the occurrence so record my observation with regard to the investigation. In this his testimony is remotely connected with regard to a link of case there is frequent change of investigating officers in all piece officers three for the purposetheofinvestigation conducted consideration of case of this chainwhich as shows that the preparatory measures regarding investigation circumstantial evidence. were not upto the mark as the vital missing link in the ocular as well as circumstantial evidence were found after
46. Besides, theofknife completion trial.recovered from Nali/ The authority drain should at the adopt instance appropriate measures regarding regulating the process of investigation by of accused Abid in the presence of PW12 Islamuddin cannot issuing proper guide line or devising a suitable policy to also be held a sole ground for conviction as the place of overcome this inadequacy.
recovery IN ANNOUNCED of THE knifeOPEN was not exclusively accessible to accused COURT ON THIS 30.01.2009 Abid and knife did not find having matching(RAJ blood stains with KAPOOR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST deceased blood. No reaction on banyan of KARKARDOOMA accused DELHI COURTS: Parvej 55 was also found blood stains having matched with deceased blood. In light of these neither the all ocular evidence nor circumstantial evidence indicate the direct proximate nexus which can establish the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt without further strong corroboration.
Therefore, giving benefit of doubt to the accused persons, I acquit all the accused persons for the offences u/s 302/34 IPC and 27 /54/59 Arms Act. All accused are in JC for more than five years, hence they be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
Observation:
Before parting with the judgment I would like to bring on record my observation with regard to the investigation. In this case there is frequent change of investigating officers in all three officers conducted the investigation of this case which shows that the preparatory measures regarding investigation were not upto the mark as the vital missing link in the ocular as well as circumstantial evidence were found after completion of trial. The authority should adopt appropriate measures regarding regulating the process of investigation by issuing proper guide line or devising a suitable policy to overcome this inadequacy. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30.01.2009 (RAJ KAPOOR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I/NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI