Delhi District Court
State vs . : (1) Kamal Singh on 31 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GURVINDER PAL SINGH
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE05, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Sessions Case
CNR No. DLSW010001952014
Registration no. 42260/2016
State Vs. : (1) Kamal Singh
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass
R/o B83, Qutub Vihar Phase 2nd
Goyla Dairy, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
(2) Abhilakh
S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o H. No. 88, Qutub Vihar Phase 2nd
Goyla Dairy, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
(3) Sunil Dutt
S/o Sh. Phool Chand
R/o H.No.85A, Qutub Vihar
Phase 2nd , Goyla Dairy, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
FIR No. : 492/2014
Police Station : Chhawla
Under Section : 307/506/34 IPC
Date of Institution : 19.11.2014
Date when arguments
were concluded : 17.08.2018
Date of Judgment : 31.08.2018
DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 1 of 24
JUDGMENT
1. Adumbrated in brief the case of prosecution is that on 19.08.2014 at about 10 P.M. in front of house of complainant P N Sharma at B68, Qutub Vihar PhaseI, Goyala Dairy, accused persons, along with co accused Pappu and Dinesh (since absconding) in furtherance of the common intention of all accused, attempted to murder P N Sharma and Lalit Kumar by firing bullets upon them and all arraigned accused criminally intimidated P N Sharma by threating to kill him and his family members.
2. Accused Kamal Singh, Abhilakh and Sunil Dutt were arrested on 21.08.2014. Later accused were enlarged on bail. On completion of investigation, charge sheet for offences under Sections 307/506/34 IPC and under section 27 Arms Act was filed.
3. After completion of requirements of Section 207 Cr.P.C., matter was committed to the court of Sessions.
CHARG E
4. Charge for offences punishable under sections 307 read DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 2 of 24 with section 34 IPC, 506 read with section 34 IPC was framed against all accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
WITNESSES
5. To connect the accused with the offence charged, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses.
6. Thereafter, accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating material in evidence and on record was put to the accused persons separately. Accused persons pleaded innocence and submitted of false implication. Accused Abhilakh denied to lead defence evidence, other accused examined three witnesses i.e. DW1 W/Ct. Mamta, DW2 Mrs. Salochana and DW3 Mrs. Meenu in their defence.
7. I have heard the arguments of Sh. Parmod Kumar, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, Sh. V S Chauhan, Ld. DLSA Counsel for accused Kamal Singh and Abhilakh and Sh. Anirudh Yadav, Ld. defence counsel for accused Sunil Dutt; have perused the record including the documents and evidence and have given my thoughtful DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 3 of 24 consideration to the rival contentions put forth.
8. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State argued that from the evidence led, the prosecution has been successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and has prayed for conviction of the accused persons for the charges framed against them.
9. The Ld. Defence counsel prayed for acquittal of the accused persons submitting false implication of accused by complainant.
10. Investigating machinery came into motion on receipt of information at 10.09 P.M. recorded in DD no. 46 A Ex. PW4/A at P.S. Chhawla on 19.08.2014 from phone number 9968245948 recorded earlier by lady Constable Babita, No. 3796/PCR that "two boys came on motorcycle and after firing bullet went away". The said information was received in PCR and then was given to Police Station Chhawla and was recorded in Ex. PW4/A at P.S. Chhawla.
11. On receipt of Ex. PW4/A, PW5 Ct. Beer Singh and PW14 SI Harpal Singh reached at B68, Goyala Dairy, where they DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 4 of 24 came to know that injured had been shifted to Hospital. PW5 and PW14 reached the Hospital, where they found injured PW1 P N Sharma admitted, who was declared fit for statement and so PW14 recorded statement Ex. PW1/A of injured and made endorsement Ex. PW14/A thereon.
12. In statement Ex. PW1/A, injured PW1 P N Sharma narrated that his mobile number was 9968245948 and that he was residing with family at B68, Qutab Vihar PhaseI, Goyla Dairy, Najafgarh, New Delhi and does the work of Pandatai privately. At 10.00 P.M. on 19.08.2014, PW1 after tying his cow at the home, PW1 came out to urinate, then in the park, 23 motorcycles were standing besides which 45 persons were standing. As soon as PW1 returned after urinating then those persons told PW1 as to why he was not leaving Tyagi and he needs to be killed. Upon that two of those persons from their pistol/revolver in their hands fired 56 times. Upon hearing the voice of bullets, son of PW1 came out and then those persons also fired upon son of PW1. In terms of version contained in version PW1/A those persons had fired upon PW1 from DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 5 of 24 distance of 45 feet and then by such firing of bullets one bullet had struck on right hand of PW1 and one bullet had struck on thigh of right leg of PW1. Also is the version Ex. PW1/A that PW1 was knowing those persons who were firing the bullets and PW1 further stated therein that from persons amongst those firing bullets, Kamal Singh and his brother in law Abhilakh were having in their hands arms whereas the other person Sunil Doctor and one bearded person who was in the office of Dahiya were with Kamal Singh and Abhilakh and master mind of this incident was Devender Dahiya, who along with Kamal Singh, his brother in law Abhilakh, Sunil Doctor and other persons had together hit bullets on his person causing him injuries. Also is the assertion of the PW1 in Ex. PW1/A that earlier also at his home bullets were fired regarding which FIR was registered and those persons who had fired bullets on him have fired the bullets that day on him and his son in order to kill him.
13. PW9 Doctor Rakesh Kumar, Medical Officer, RTRM Hospital, Jafarpur, Delhi had examined PW1 P N Sharma on 19.08.2014 in Casualty of RTRM hospital vide MLC Ex. PW9/A, on DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 6 of 24 arrival at 10.34 P.M, with alleged history of gun shot injury. After initial examination of injured P. N. Sharma, the Xray report of right thigh of PW1 suggested of fracture shaft of femur with two metallic density/foreign body shadow noted in soft tissue of size 14 x 6mm and 10x5 mm; so the nature of injury was opined as grievous. PW6 Dr. L. R. Richhele, Consultant Radiology, RTRM hospital radiologically examined PW1 and Xray gave report Ex. PW6/A opining fracture shaft of femur with two metallic density; metallic foreign body of size 14x6mm (approx.) and 10x5mm (approx.) was observed near fracture in the soft tissue of right thigh on having seen Xray plate
14. PW5 Ct. Beer Singh and PW14 SI Harpal Singh testified that Doctor handed over sealed parcels sealed with the seal of RTRM containing Pyjama of injured PW1, sample seal which was seized by PW14 vide seizure memo Ex. PW14/B.
15. PW14 handed rukka Ex. PW14/A to PW5, who went to P.S. and got the FIR Ex. PW3/A registered from Duty Officer PW3 HC Jagdish, who also made endorsement Ex. PW3/B, and handed DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 7 of 24 over copy of FIR and rukka to PW14. PW14 seized slipper Ex. P1, blood stained half piece of brick Ex. P2, cotton wool swab Ex. P3, blood earth control Ex.P4, three empty shells of cartridges Ex. P5 (colly) vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B to Ex. PW5/E. PW14 had also prepared sketches of three empty shells vide Ex. PW5/F.
16. PW 7 SI Rakesh Kumar, Incharge Crime Team, South West District with his Crime Team had reached on 19.08.2014 in front of House no. B68, Qutub Vihar, PhaseI and inspected the scene of crime where PW11 Ct. Suresh Kumar Yadav took photographs Ex, P1 (Colly) whose negatives are Ex. P2 (Colly); PW7 prepared detailed inspection report Ex.PW7/A finding mention interalia of blood and three empty cartridges (7.65KF) present at the scene of crime.
17. PW8 Constable Vikas Kumar, PW10 Ct. Ram Swaroop and PW14 SI Harpal Singh testified that on 21.08.2014 at house of accused Kamal, he (accused Kamal) with coaccused Abhilakh and Sunil Dutt were arrested vide memos Ex.PW8/C, Ex. PW8/B and Ex. PW8/A respectively and their personal search were conducted vide DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 8 of 24 memos Ex. PW8/E, Ex. PW8/F and Ex. PW8/D respectively. Allegedly, during interrogation, the accused persons gave disclosure statements Ex. PW8/G to Ex. PW8/I respectively.
18. PW12 HC Shri Krishan, on instructions of PW13 SI Devender Kumar, had collected 3 parcels from MHC(M) on 13.10.2014 and deposited them in FSL Rohini.
19. PW14 SI Harpal Singh prepared site plan Ex. PW14/C at the instance of injured after discharge of injured from hospital on 26.08.2014.
20. PW14 SI Harpal Singh also testified that on request ballistic expert came to hospital and took blood sample of injured where he received bullet injury which was sealed with the seal of HS and seized vide memo Ex. PW10/A.
21. Junior Forensic Chemical Examiner PW15 Dr. Ruchi Sharma, FSL Rohini, had examined the exhibits, gave report Ex. PW15/A finding mention inter alia of detection of blood on gents pyjama Ex.1; cemented stone Ex.2; dirty cotton wool swab Ex.4 and soil Ex.5 kept in plastic container; PW15 also gave her serological DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 9 of 24 analysis report Ex. PW15/B opining blood of O group on blood stains of gents pyjama Ex.1 and human blood on cemented stone Ex.2 and cotton wool swab Ex.4.
22. PW16 Ms.Anubha Lal Senior Scientific Assistant (Ballistics) FSL Rohini, New Delhi, testified that the Crime Scene Report dated 20.02.2015 Ex. PW16/A was of Doctor N.P.Waghmare AD (Ballistics) whose writings and signatures she identified as Doctor Waghmare being Director, FSL Goa was unable to appear himself to testify. In Ex. PW16/A it had been interalia mentioned that swab sample SH1 along with control sample C1 were taken from the lower portion of right shoulder of injured whereas another swab SH2 was taken from right thigh of injured along with control sample seal C2.
23. As per PW16/B, examination report of Doctor N. P. Waghmare AD (Ballistics) dated 23.07.2015, it was opined that on physical examination EC1 to EC3, were found to be empty cartridge cases of standard .32'' caliber ammunition and they are part of ammunition as defined in Arms Act 1959 whereas on analysis DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 10 of 24 through Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS), it was found that there was sufficient amount of Gun Shot Residue on exhibit swab sample marked H1, the swab sample taken from hand of PW1.
24. DW1 W/Constable Mamta proved the copy of DD no.
28B, dated 23.08.2014 as Ex. DW1/A whereby it finds mention of lodging of complaint by DW2 Salochana wife of accused Sunil Dutt on that day.
25. DW2 Salochana wife of accused Sunil Dutt and DW3 Meenu wife of accused Kamal Singh testified that police officials had lifted accused Sunilt Dutt and Kamal in the intervening night of 19/20.08.2014 from their respective homes telling them that their husband will come soon. DW2 stated that on 20.08.2014, 21.08.2014 and 22.08.2014, she went to Police Station several times but was told that husband will come soon whereas on 23.08.2014 she filed application at Police Station regarding apprehension of her husband there. As per DW3, she had unregistered General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and Will executed by Lakhi Ram S/o Sh. Rattan Lal with respect to plot of 100 sq. yds on Khasra DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 11 of 24 no. 19/6, in the estate abadi of village Tajpurkhurd (Goyala Khurd), Delhi where she resided with her husband and children and one built up room was there and outside was tin shed. As per PW3, on one side is the home of P.N.Sharma and on the other side home of Puran Lal Tyagi. As per DW3, P N Sharma and Puran Lal Tyagi are property dealers. Also DW3 testified that they had dispute with these persons with respect to their properties and in the year 2013 these persons had beaten them and case was registered in FIR no. 301/2013 dated 11.09.2013 and Puran Lal, his elder brother Padam Singh and P N Sharma had gone to jail. Certified copies of FIR, charge framed by Magisterial Court and arrest memo of these persons are collectively Ex. PW3/A (Colly). It is the version of DW3 that present case was false case registered against accused persons by complainant PW1 and others as they had an evil eye over their property.
26. PW2 Sh. Lalit Kumar is son of PW1 and in his deposition he stated that at about 10 PM on 19.08.2014, he was present in his home and heard some noise of gunshots, looked from DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 12 of 24 window and found his father (PW1) lying in the pool of blood and PW2 ran outside and saw 23 persons running towards 23 bikes parked there in 3rd gali away from his house at a distance of about 500 meters and those persons were having pistols in their hand. PW2 could not see their faces but shouted towards them upon which one of them while sitting on the bike fired on PW2. PW2 lifted his father, informed the police. Police told PW2 that they were on the way but considering the condition of his father, PW2 took his father PW1 to Jaffarpur Hospital after borrowing vehicle of his neighbour, as police had asked him to do so. PW2 elicited that he could not see the assailants as they were running and were having back towards PW2. PW2 stated that though police met him in hospital but there his statement was not recorded but his statement was recorded by police when they came to his residence. PW2 further elicited in cross examination that statement of his father PW1 was not recorded in his presence and his signatures were never obtained by police. Also PW2 elicited that his blood stained clothes were not taken by police. Due to darkness, PW2 was not able to note the number of the DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 13 of 24 motorcycle on which assailants fled away. PW2 did not identify arraigned accused to be the assailants submitting since he did not see the assailants so he could not identify them.
27. By afore elicited version of PW2, the case of the prosecution squarely rests upon the testimony of injured PW1. True that human memories are apt to blur with the passage of time, there may be minor discrepancies/errors of observation due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of incident, omissions, mistakes in the testimonies of the interested/injured witnesses. Also it is true that the testimonies of injured/victim witness holds more credence, who normally would not shield real culprit or let actual assailant go unpunished, to falsely implicate the third party for the commission of an offence. Also it is true that accused are not to be acquitted solely on the account of defects in the investigation. Yet, in absence of corroboration from independent source, the testimonies of injured/victim witnesses are to be scrutinized with utmost care, caution and circumspection. To base conviction on them, they should be free from embellishments, material contradictions, severe DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 14 of 24 infirmities and inherent improbabilities going to the root of matter to check and shake basic version and core of prosecution case, so as to be worthy of credence, reliable and trustworthy.
28. In 2008 CRI. L. J. 3061, "Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, Apex Court held that:
" Coming to applicability of the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of large number of other coaccused persons, his conviction can be maintained. However, where large number of other persons are accused, the Court has to carefully screen the evidence. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus"
(false in one thing, false in everything) has not received general acceptance in different jurisdiction in India, nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called "a mandatory rule of evidence". (See Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 366). Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 15 of 24 corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a Court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurucharan Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460). The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a deadstop. The witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sahrab s/s Belli Nayata and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 3 SCC 751, and Umar Ahir and others v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277). An attempt has to be made to in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwieolae Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 15; and Balaka Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962). As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and another, AIR 1981 SC 1390, normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and these are always there DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 16 of 24 however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so."
29. An attempt has been made in terms of felicitous metaphor, to separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood.
30. When read as a whole, testimony of PW1 embodies entirely different version of manner and sequence of occurrence of the offence of attempt to murder in material contradictions with version contained in Ex. PW1/A, previous statement of PW1. In statement Ex. PW1/A, injured PW1 P N Sharma narrated that his mobile number was 9968245948 and that he was residing with family at B68, Qutab Vihar PhaseI, Goyla Dairy, Najafgarh, New Delhi and does the work of Pandatai privately. At 10.00 P.M. on 19.08.2014, PW1 after tying his cow at the home, PW1 came out to urinate, then in the park, 23 motorcycles were standing besides which 45 persons were standing. As soon as PW1 returned after urinating then those persons told PW1 as to why he was not leaving Tyagi and he needs to be killed. Upon that two of those persons DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 17 of 24 from their pistol/revolver in their hands fired 56 times. Upon hearing the voice of bullets, son of PW1 came out and then those persons also fired upon son of PW1. In terms of version contained in version PW1/A those persons had fired upon PW1 from distance of 45 feet and then by such firing of bullets one bullet had struck on right hand of PW1 and one bullet had struck on thigh of right leg of PW1. Also is the version Ex. PW1/A that PW1 was knowing those persons who were firing the bullets and PW1 further stated therein that from persons amongst those firing bullets, Kamal Singh and his brother in law Abhilakh were having in their hands arms whereas the other person Sunil Doctor and one bearded person who was in the office of Dahiya were with Kamal Singh and Abhilakh and master mind of this incident was Devender Dahiya, who along with Kamal Singh, his brother in law Abhilakh, Sunil Doctor and other persons had together hit bullets on his person causing him injuries. Also is the assertion of the PW1 in Ex. PW1/A that earlier also at his home bullets were fired regarding which FIR was registered and those persons who had fired bullets on him have fired the bullets that day DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 18 of 24 on him and his son in order to kill him.
31. Per contra to the version contained in Ex. PW1/A, PW1 testified that at 10.00 PM on 19.08.2014 he was tying his cows and went towards his house, went for easing near bushes and at a short distance 34 bikes were parked and 4 persons rushed towards him and surrounded him, all of them said why you are not leaving Tyagi, you have been warned two times, upon which PW1 replied to them that he had sold the plot to Tyagi and how can he leave him alone, upon that two of them who were having pistols in their hand, other one said make it fast they had to give good news to Dahiya and then one out of those persons, accused Kamal Singh started abusing PW1 in filthy language and had put pistol on the chest of PW1. As per PW1, he pushed himself back and thereafter accused Kamal Singh fired on chest of PW1 whereas the bullet hit right hand of PW1 after which PW1 fell down. As per PW1, two of those persons started firing towards him various times and one bullet hit on right thigh. After listening the noise of bullet, son of PW1 came from outside and in the meantime those persons fled away. PW1 deposed that his DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 19 of 24 son PW2 shouted from back side and thereafter, those persons fired towards his son PW2 also. With respect to improvements and material contradictions elicited above, in his cross examination the witness PW1 has been confronted with various portions of his previous statement Ex. PW1/A, where he did not say that accused had surrounded him or that accused had told that he had been warned two times or that PW1 replied that he had sold plot to Tyagi and how he can leave him alone or accused Kamal Singh had started abusing in filthy language or accused Kamal had put pistol on his chest, upon which PW1 pushed himself back after which accused Kamal Singh fired on chest of PW1 or two of those persons started firing towards PW1 various times or when son of PW1 came outside these persons fled away or son of PW1 shouted from back side then those persons fired towards son of PW1. No bullet injury was suffered by PW1 in chest . Had bullet been fired by accued Kamal Singh on chest from close range there was every likelihood that bullet must have pierced chest of PW1.
32. Afore elicited material contradictions, severe infirmities DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 20 of 24 borne out in deposition of PW1, brings forth absolutely new case (s) more than one, as per the version, borne out from testimony of PW1 and version contained in Ex. PW1/A, reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made. In cross examination, PW1 admitted that case FIR no. 301/2013 dated 11.09.2013, under sections 452/323/435/427/506/34 IPC was registered against him on complaint of Kamal Singh (accused herein). The probability of some other persons firing bullets upon person of PW1 in the dark and due to previous enmity PW1 naming arraigned accused accordingly cannot be ruled out. Such probability gains strength from the version contained in DD no. 46A Ex. PW4/A dated 19.08.2014 whereby information given from mobile number of PW1 had been "two boys came on motorcycle and after firing bullets had gone away" and none of the arraigned accused is named there whereas PW1 was knowing accused previously and had previous enmity against arraigned accused persons and even the accused Kamal Singh had earlier got case FIR no. 301/2013 dated 11.09.2013 DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 21 of 24 registered for offences of criminal tresspass, hurt, mischief and criminal intimidation etc. There was no impediment in the way of caller PW1, informant of information contained in DD no. 46A Ex. PW4/A to have given names of the arraigned three accused or their other accomplices, if they were known to him while conveying the information recorded in Ex. PW4/A. On reading the entire prosecution evidence, testimony of PW1, his previous statement Ex. PW1/A, I find that the testimony of complainant/injured PW1 can be classified as neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable as classified in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614. It would be extremely hazardous to place implicit reliance upon such testimony of PW 1 suffering from material contradictions, severe infirmities and inherent improbabilities going to the root of the matter to check and shake basic version and core of the prosecution case and thereto convict any or all accused, whose names even were not given at the earliest possible opportunity while conveying the information recorded in DD no. 46A Ex. PW4/A and the version contained in Ex. PW1/A DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 22 of 24 was apparently given after due deliberation and consultations, suffering from embroideries, improvements, exaggerations when compared with deposition of PW1. It is apparent on face on record that his testimony is suffering from improvments exaggerations and PW1 in court came up with absolutely different version. Accordingly, no new case can be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made. The only available course to be made is discard the prosecution evidence in toto. (See Zwieolae Areal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 15 and Balaka Singh and Others vs The State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962). There is no circumstantial or scientific evidence proved by prosecution against any of the arraigned accused. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused pesrons are held not guilty and acquitted for the offences charged.
33. Bail bonds of accused Kamal Singh, Abhilakh and Sunil Dutt furnished during trial are cancelled and their sureties DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 23 of 24 discharged.
34. All accused have already furnished personal bonds and surety bonds under section 437 A Cr.P.C for which they are so bound.
35. File be consigned to the record room after digitization of records. Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date: 2018.08.31 11:22:21 +0530 Announced in the open court (GURVINDER PAL SINGH) on 31st August, 2018 ASJ 05/SW/DWARKA COURTS NEW DELHI (pb) DLSW010001952014 Registration no. 42260/2016 State Vs Kamal Singh & Others Page 24 of 24