Delhi District Court
State vs Anil Kumar on 17 December, 2007
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : FAST TRACK COURTS
ROHINI : DELHI
SC No. 92/2 dated 21/12/2006
Date of Decision: 17th of December, 2007
State
Versus
Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Himmat Lal,
R/o B-783, Madipur Colony,
PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
FIR No. 631/2005
PS Punjabi Bagh
U/s. 302 IPC
JUDGMENT
Anil Kumar (accused) is a student. Ujala (since deceased) was also a student. Both were studying in the same school-Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Madipur. On 18th of June, 2005, the accused attained majority. Soon after attaining majority, On 27th of July, 2005 when he left for school his parents would not have even any inclination that he was going -:2:- to land in jail. Similarly, parents of Ujala, would not have thought that their son was going to depart from them for ever .
Herein prosecution has sent for trial Anil Kumar on the allegation that on 27/07/2005 at about 03:45 p.m. in front of house no. 446-447, Pocket -3, Paschim Vihar, within the jurisdiction of Paschim Vihar, he stabbed Ujala, with a sharp edged weapon resulting in his death.
Case of prosecution is that on 27/07/2005, Vijay Pal Sharma, a carpenter, was doing his job at house no. 446 in Pocket-3, Paschim Puri, Punjabi Bagh. At about 04:15 p.m, Anil Kumar (accused) and Ujala (since deceased) came towards that side while quarreling and they continued to quarrel. Several school children were present nearby. Accused picked up tools of Vijay Pal Sharma and attacked Ujala.
PWs Rajan and Rajesh, students of same school, were taking lunch in front of the school. They noticed the accused coming while running. Students raised alarm to catch hold of the accused. Thereupon, PWs Rajan and Rajesh apprehended Anil Kumar accused and produced him before the Vice Principal of the school. Sh. Jugraj, the Vice Principal of the aforesaid school, was told that the accused had stabbed Ujala. The Vice Principal inquired from him (accused) with regard to -:3:- the incident, whereupon he confessed the incident of stabbing of Ujala. The Vice Principal also noticed blood stains on the shoes of accused. The Vice Principal informed police of Police Post Madipur regarding the incident.
Case of prosecution is that when Atul and Mohd. Asif were present at the main gate of the school, they heard about quarrel. Thereupon, they and other students started running. They found Ujala lying in front in the street. They picked him up and brought him to the school. There were stains on the shirt of Ujala.
Head Ct. Rajbir while posted in PCR Vehicle Power 87 from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., accompanied by his staff reached in front of school in the area of Madipur and found two boys alongwith a injured boy, going in a rickshaw for the hospital. He and his staff with the help of those boys removed the injured on a stretcher and then took him to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and got him admitted there. But the doctor declared him brought dead.
Dr. Sunil prepared MLC which revealed that Ujala was declared brought dead. Information regarding the occurrence reached police post Madipur of Police Station Punjabi Bagh whereupon DD No. 32 was recorded. The DD -:4:- entry was got delivered to ASI Gyan Singh through constable Ramdhari. On the same day, SI Jarnail Singh accompanied by Constable Rajesh reached the spot and found blood lying scattered there. He learnt from the persons present there about the manner in which the occurrence had taken place and also that the injured had been removed to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital by PCR Staff.
Leaving constable Rajesh at the spot, Inspector Jarnail Singh accompanied by ASI Gyan Singh and Constable Ramdhari reached the hospital and collected MLC of the injured which revealed that he was declared brought dead. At that time, no eye witness was available at the hospital. Inspector Jarnail Singh left constable Ramdhari in the hospital and himself accompanied by ASI Gyan Singh returned to the spot. No eye witness was available even at the spot.
Investigation revealed that Vijay Pal Sharma was present near the place of occurrence. Although police officials did not find Vijay pal Sharma present at the spot at the time they reached there, his tools were found lying at the place of his job. SI Jarnail Singh appended endorsement to DD No. 32, sent ruqqa to the Police Station through Constable Rajesh and that is how present case was registered.
-:5:-
Further investigation was conducted by Inspector Lakhender Singh. On assignment of investigation, Inspector Lakhender Singh and Constable Rajesh reached Maharaja Agrasen Hospital. The doctor produced before the Inspector one sealed parcel purported to contain blood stained clothes of the deceased and one black purse containing Rs.10/- and one Identity Card, which were seized.
On return to the spot, Inspector Lakhender Singh inspected the scene of crime in the presence of SI Jarnail Singh and Constable Rajesh and others and prepared site plan. From the spot blood stained earth, sample of blood and earth control were lifted, turned into separate parcels, sealed with the seal of LS and then seized.
Inspector Lakhender Singh accompanied by SI Jarnail Singh reached the aforesaid school of Madipur where Anil Kumar accused was found present in the room of the Vice Principal. He was interrogated and investigated. Statement of the Vice Principal was recorded. Personal search memo and arrest memos of the accused were prepared. Inspector Lakhender Singh seized a pair of shoe, which the accused wearing at that time, because it had stains of blood on it.
Anil Kumar accused made disclosure statement and -:6:- offered to get recovered the weapon of offence i.e. rapi. In pursuance of disclosure statement, the accused led the police party to the place of occurrence and pointed a place inside the grill and then produced rapi which was having stains of blood. Inpsector Lakhender Singh prepared sketch of rapi. Blade of rapi was of iron whereas its handle was of wood. It was turned into parcel, sealed and then seized.
Accused was then taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for his medico legal examination. From there he was brought to the Police Station and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana.
On 28/07/2005, Inspector Lakhender Singh carried out inquest proceedings in respect of the dead body, submitted report and got the dead body subjected to autopsy. Inquest form , brief facts, Form 25.35 were prepared and statements of were recorded were recorded regarding identification of the dead body.
Dr. Samir Pandit conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ujala on 28/07/2005. Cause of death as opined by the doctor was hemorrhagic shock on account of injury to heart. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and fresh. Injury No. 2 & 3 alongwith their underlying injuries were sufficient to cause -:7:- death in ordinary course of nature individually as well as in combination. Mode of death was homicidal.
After autopsy, dead body was delivered to its relative. Dr. produced before the Inspector a sealed parcel, gauze piece and a sample seal, which were seized by SI Jarnail Singh. On return to the Police Station, case property was deposited with MHC (M).
Certificate regarding date of birth of the accused and that of Ujala (since deceased) was collected from the Principal of the aforesaid school .
On 25/08/2005, SI Mahesh Kumar inspected the spot and at the pointing out of Vijay Pal Sharma, he took rough notes and measurement and on its basis prepared scaled site plan.
On the same day, Head Ct. Ram Niwas while posted in Crime Team reached the spot and took photographs.
SI Anil Kumar, In charge of the Crime Team, inspected the spot and prepared report which was then handed over to SI Jarnail Singh.
On 27/07/2005 and 28/07/2005, case property was deposited with Head Ct. Suraj Pal and same was dispatched to FSL on 13/09/2005. The contents of the parcels sent to FSL -:8:- were analysed. Reports dated 21.12.2004 were received from FSL. On 27/12/2005, the six sealed parcels were received by Head Ct. Suraj Pal. On completion of investigation, challan was put in court.
Charge Copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to accused free of cost. After compliance with provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., case came to be committed to the Hon'ble Court of Session.
Prima facie case having been made out against the accused, charge for an offence u/s 302 IPC was framed against him vide order dated 28/04/2006.
Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution was directed to lead its evidence. Prosecution Evidence In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following twenty witnesses:
PW1 Vijay Pal Sharma is the carpenter who used to work in Pocket -3, Paschim Vihar and who was working as such on daily wages on 27/07/2005, at house no. 446, under the contract of Sh. Chokey Lal. He deposed that on 27/07/2005 at about 04:15 p.m., he was busy in his work. At that time, two -:9:- boys came quarreling and the quarrel continued while several others school children were present there. After sometime, one of them lifted his tools and attacked the other boy. However, the witness did not identify the accused. In this regard, he stated that he could not identify the person who had lifted his tools and attacked the other boy, the reason being that the assailant ran away from the spot and there was crowd. He further deposed to have made statement before the police on the next day. He was put leading questions by learned Addl. PP whereupon he stated that on the next day the police apprehended the said boy and recovered his tool.
PW3 Rajan and PW4 Rajesh are students of the same school. They have been examined to prove that on 27/07/2005, the accused came running to a shop in front of the school and that students raised alarm to catch hold of accused. Thereupon both of them apprehended the accused and then produced him before the Principal.
PW5 Sh. Yuvraj Lal, is the concerned Vice Principal, of Sarvodaya Vidyalya Madipur, Delhi, before whom the accused was produced by PW3 and PW4. PW5 deposed about production of accused before him in his office and the accused having confessed before him, during inquiry, the -:10:- incident of stabbing Ujala. The witness further deposed to have seen blood stains on the shoes of Anil accused. He also deposed to have informed the police whereupon the police reached the school and arrested the accused and seized his shoes.
PW6 Atul and PW7 Mohd. Asif are the other students of the same school who deposed about removal of Ujala from the street while he was lying there unconscious. He also deposed about removal of Ujala to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital by the police in a Gypsy and that Ujala was declared brought dead in the hospital.
PW8 Shakil Ahmad is the father of Ujala who has been examined to prove the factum of identity of dead body of his son and to have collected the dead body after autopsy.
Medical evidence is available in the statement of PW11 Dr. Samir Pandit who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ujala and PW16 Dr. Mamta Jain who proved handwriting and signatures of Dr. Sunil on MLC Ex.PW16/A in respect of medico legal examination of Ujala.
PW9 W/ASI Mandodari has been examined to prove recording of FIR Ex.PW9/A. PW10 Head Ct. Ram Niwas deposed about his visit -:11:- to the spot and taking of snaps and preparation of ten photographs Ex.PW10/1 to 10, negatives whereof are Ex.PW10/11 to 20.
PW15 Head Constable Rajbir has been examined to prove removal of Ujala in the PCR Vehicle from in front of the school in the area of Madipur to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital.
PW13 Head Ct. Suraj Pal is the concerned MHC (M) who deposed about deposit of case property with him and its dispatch to FSL.
PW14 SI Anil Kumar, photographer, is the Incharge of the Crime Mobile Team, who reached the spot on 27/07/2005 and prepared report Ex.PW14/A after inspection of the spot.
PW12 Constable Ramdhari, PW17 Constable Rajesh, PW18 Inspector Lakhender Singh, PW19 Head Ct. Sudesh and PW20 Inpsector Jarnail Singh have deposed about investigation part of the prosecution story. Defence Plea When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused admitted that he was student of 8th standard whereas Ujala was student of 9th standard in the same school. He also admitted that Rajan and Rajesh PWs caught hold of him in front of the school, and then took him to the Office of Vice Principal where -:12:- they produced him before the Vice Principal. He further admitted that Rajesh and Rajan told the Vice Principal that he had stabbed Ujala. According to the accused, he denied before the Vice Principal to have stabbed Ujala.
However, the accused admitted that Vice Principal informed the police and that police arrested him from the office of Vice Principal. He also admitted that he was medico legally examined at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. He denied that he was wearing shoes or that his pair of shoe had any stains of blood. All other circumstances appearing in evidence against him have been denied by the accused. Defence plea put forth by the accused reads as follows:
"I have been falsely implicated. On 27.07.2005, it was recess time. To have lunch, I came out of the school and went to a restaurant situated nearby. I bought patties from there. After eating patties, I went to a Gurudwara situated nearby to drink water. When I was returning from the Gurudwara, Rakesh and Rajan caught hold of me and brought before the vice Principal. No quarrel took place between me and Ujala on that date".-:13:-
The accused opted not to lead any evidence in defence.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Discussion Ujala (since deceased) and Anil Kumar (accused) were admittedly students of same school, namely, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Madipur, Delhi. Case of prosecution is that it was the accused, who inflicted injuries on the person of Ujala with a Rapi, after having picked it up from the tools of Vijay Pal, a Carpenter, doing his job near the place of occurrence, after a quarrel. In his statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C, the accused pleaded that he was student of 8th standard whereas Ujala was student of 9th standard in the same school but he denied to have inflicted injuries on the person of Ujala or to have caused his death.
As per prosecution version, it was on 27.07.2005 at about 3.45 p.m., in the street, in front of Houses No. 446 and 447, Paschim Puri, Pocket-III, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, that the occurrence took place. Ujala, aged about 18 years, suffered injuries and when he was removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, he was declared brought dead. PW11 Dr. Samir Pandit has been examined to prove autopsy conducted on the dead body of Ujala.
-:14:-Medical Evidence According to PW1, Dr. Samir Pandit, he conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ujala on 28.07.2005 and observed 8 external injuries. In the opinion of PW1, cause of death was hemorrhagic shock as a result of injury to heart; all the injuries were antermortem and fresh; that injuries No. 2 and 3 alongwith their underlying injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually as well as in combination. The doctor further opined that it was a case of homicidal death. The doctor has proved his report Ex. PW11/A. In his cross examination, the doctor replied that only injuries No. 2 to 4 were possible with a sharp double edged weapon.
On autopsy, PW11 Dr. Samir Pandit observed following eight external injuries on the dead body of Ujala:
1) Incised cut mark left side of upper chest and anteriorly 4 cm. below clavical and 5 c.m. medial anteriorly axillary fold, transversely placed 2.3 c.m. x 5 mm subcutaneous tissue deep.
2) Incised cut mark left side of chest vertically placed 6 cm. from mid line and 4 c.m. below and medial left nibble, 2.3 c.m. x 9 mm incised with both angles sharp and was cavity deep.-:15:-
3) Incised cut mark left iliac fossa of abdomen 9 c.m.
from midline and 1 c.m. above anterior, superior iliac spine, obliquely placed 2.5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. cavity deep with intestinal loops prolapsed out and sharp angles.
4) Incised cut mark right side of back of chest 9.5 c.m from mid line obliquely placed over lower end of scapula. 2.3 c.m. x 0.9 c.m. size was bone deep with sharp angles.
5) Incised cut mark right side of lumbar spine 6 cm from mid line obliquely placed 1.8 x 0.5 c.m. was muscle deep.
6) Incised cut mark right side back of trunk over iliac crust 10 c.m. from mid line, 2.3 c.m. x 6mm skin deep with bwelling of lower edge.
7) Incised cut mark left side of sacral region transversely placed 2 c.m from mid line, 2.5 cm. x 1 c.m. going into lumbo sacral joints space.
8) Incised cut mark left buttock in upper medial quarteral 6 cm. below injury No. 7, 2.3 c.m. x 0.9 cm size muscle deep.
According to the doctor, he observed following injuries on internal examination of the dead body:
Head: scalp tissue, skull bones are intact. Brain matter meninges and cerebral vessels were pale. -:16:-
Neck: hyroid bone, thyroid cricoid cartilage were intact, trachea was intact.
Chest: on exposing injury No. 2, there was a cut mark on 6th rib costo-chondral junction further going into chest cavity which contained about 2 ltrs of liquid and clotted blood, further passing through the pericardium to right side of heart over right ventricular wall and passing into the cavity of right ventricle. Both the lungs were pale.
Abdomen : All the abdominal organs were pale. Stomach contained 200 ml of semi digested food .
Now, it is to be seen as to whether prosecution has been able to establish that it was the accused who inflicted injuries on the person of Ujala.
So far as direct evidence is concerned, as per prosecution version, PW1 Vijay Pal Sharma, a Carpenter, witnessed the occurrence. According to PW1, on 27.05.2005, at about 4.15 p.m., he was doing his job as a Carpenter at H.No. 446, while his contractor Chokhey lal was away to another site. According to him, two boys came quarreling and the quarrel continued while several school children were present there. Further, according to the witness, the school children told him that those boys used to quarrel like that. He also stated -:17:- that after sometime, one of the two boys, lifted his tool and attacked the other boy with the same.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while referring to the above statement of PW1, contended that from this statement coupled with medical evidence and evidence of recovery of Rapi at the instance of the accused from near the place of occurrence, it stands established that it was the accused who picked up one of the tools of PW1 and attacked Ujala resulting in injuries and his death, On the other hand, learned defence counsel contended that PW1 Vijay Pal Sharma has not supported the case of prosecution so far as identity of the accused, the deceased, and his weapon is concerned, and as such, his statement is of no help to the prosecution.
A perusal of statement of PW1 would reveal that as regards identity, he stated that he could not identify the person who lifted his tool and attacked the other boy, as there was crowd. When the witness so stated in his chief examination, learned Additional Public Prosecutor put leading questions to him after seeking permission from the court and it was thereafter that the witness stated that on the next day police inquired from him and recorded his statement. -:18:-
As regards identity, the witness told that even on seeing the accused present in court, he could not say if he was the person who lifted his tool and attacked the deceased. According to the witness, the person, who opened attack, had run away from the spot. However, in the next breath, he admitted that on the next day, police apprehended said boy and recovered his tool which he claimed as the one belonging to him (the witness).
Statement of PW1 was not subjected to any cross examination on behalf of the accused. From the statement of PW1, it stands established that at about 4.15 p.m., while he was doing the job of Carpenter at H.No. 446, out of the two boys, quarreling with each other in presence of several school children, one of them lifted his tool and attacked other. In this way, from the statement of this witness, prosecution has been able to establish not only the place of occurrence i.e. in front of H.No. 446 but also that quarrel took place between two boys only while other school children were present nearby; that out of the two boys one inflicted injury on the person of the other with tool of this witness.
Prosecution has also relied on following circumstantial evidence to establish that it was the accused who -:19:- committed this crime:
1) Soon after the occurrence, accused was captured by students and then taken to Vice Principal of the school;
2) Accused made extra- confessional statement before the Vice principal;
3) Recovery of blood stained pair of shoe of the accused which he was wearing at the time of occurrence;
4) Recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused.
1) Soon after the occurrence, Accused was captured by students and then taken to Vice Principal of the school;
Case of prosecution is that after the occurrence, the accused was produced before Vice Principal of the School of which he and the deceased were students. He was so produced there by Rajan and Rajesh, students of same school. In this regard, prosecution case is based on the statements of PW5- Sh.Yuvraj Lal, Vice Principal; PW3-Rajan and PW4 Rajesh, the students.
PW5-the Vice Principal has deposed about confession made by the accused to him regarding the incident of stabbing of Ujala. In view of this statement of PW5, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contended that this statement of PW5 -:20:- proves that the accused made extra judicial confession before him and as such he is liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, learned defence counsel contended that prosecution has failed to establish that the accused ever made any such confession before PW5 and that statement of PW5 in this regard cannot be made basis for conviction of the accused as PW3 and PW4 did not state that they produced him before the Principal and rather according to them he was produced before the Vice Principal.
According to PW3, Anil, accused, and Ujala, deceased, were students of same school where he was himself a student. He deposed that on 27.7.2005, he and Rajesh were taking lunch in the shop outside the school, when accused Anil came there running; that students raised alarm , whereupon he and Rajesh apprehended the accused and handed over him to the Principal.
Similarly, PW4 Rajesh firstly deposed that he is student of the same school where the accused and the deceased were also students. Then he deposed that on 27.7.2005 he and Raja were taking lunch outside the school; that Anil accused was seen coming there running and that other students were chasing him; that he and Rajan apprehended the -:21:- accused and handed over to the Principal.
From the above deposition of the two witnesses, it stands established that on 27.7.2005 at about lunch time, the accused was seen running in front of the school and that when he reached near PW3 and PW4 he was being chased by other students of the school and that both of them apprehended him.
It may be mentioned here that even the accused has admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that PW3 and PW4 caught hold of him from in front of the school and then took him to the office of Vice Principal and on reaching there they produced him before the Vice principal. Presence of these PWs on the given date, time and place cannot be doubted as both of them were students of same school of which accused and the deceased were also students. Both of them stated that they apprehended the accused on Paschim Puri Road and in front of confectioner's shop. Nothing has been pointed out in the statements of these two PWs to doubt their testimony atleast regarding their having captured the accused when he was running and then chased by other school students, and that both of them took him to the Vice principal and produced him there.
In view of the cogent and convincing statements of -:22:- PW3 and PW4 and admission by the accused, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned defence counsel that no reliance can be placed on the statement of PW5 Sh.Yuvraj, on the ground that is the Vice Principal and not the Principal of the school, and prosecution has failed to examine the Principal. Had the accused not been produced before the Vice principal- PW5, he would have put forth a specific plea in this regard by stating that he was produced before Principal and not before the Vice Principal. Accused has not brought anything on record to suggest that he was produced by PW3 and PW4 before Principal and not before PW5-the Vice Principal. It was not even suggested to any of these witnesses in their cross-examination by the learned defence counsel that actually he was produced before Principal and not before the Vice Principal.
This brings us to the statement of the Vice Principal- PW5. According to PW5, on 27.7.2005 at about 4 p.m, while he was present in his office, Rajan and Rajesh, the students of his school came to his office alongwith the accused, another student of same school, and told him that accused Anil had stabbed Ujala, student of their school.
It is true that the version narrated by PW5 as to what Rajan and Rajesh told him at the time they produced the -:23:- accused in his office is inadmissible firstly, the same being hearsay evidence and secondly, because PW3 and PW4 have not supported the case of prosecution that anyone of them with their own eyes did not witness the accused stabbing Ujala and rather they are stated to have so told on the basis of what they heard from other students, but no such student, who so told them, has been examined by the prosecution.
However, there is nothing in the statement of PW5 to doubt his testimony. Learned defence counsel has not been able to point out anything on record to suggest that the Vice Principal was inimical towards the accused or his family or in any way interested in the deceased or his family so as to depose falsely against the accused and in favour of the prosecution. According to PW5, he asked from the accused with regard to the incident and the accused confessed the incident of stabbing Ujala.
It is also in the statement of PW5 that he saw blood stains on the shoes of Anil accused. Accused has denied that he was wearing shoes. Admittedly, on that day he went to school. It was for him to establish that he was wearing something other than shoes. But surprisingly, he has not put forth any such plea. I see no reason to disbelieve the statement -:24:- of PW5 that when the accused was brought to his office in the school, he was wearing shoes and that blood stains were there on the shoes.
It is in the statement of PW5 that he informed the police. Accused has admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that it was the Vice Principal who informed the police regarding the incident.
Ujala was removed to hospital by two students of same school from near hospital and on the way taken over by PCR Statement of PW15 HC Rajbir who was on duty on the PCR vehicle Power 87 would reveal that he, as Incharge of PCR vehicle, accompanied by his staff reached in front of Madipur school, two two boys and one injured going in a rickshaw. He alongwith his staff and with the help of the two boys removed the injured to a stretcher and then to Agarsen Hospital. According to PW15, the boy was got admitted in the hospital in Emergency Ward but the doctor declared the boy brought dead. PW15 specified that the injured was Ujala son of Mohd. Shakil, aged 18 years. Statement of this PCR personnel has not been challenged by way of any cross-examination. Therefore, it stands established that he and his staff removed -:25:- Ujala in injured condition from the rickshaw in which he was being taken to hospital by two boys, and then got him admitted at Agarsen hospital, where he was declared brought dead.
As per prosecution version PW6 and PW7 were the two boys who were taking Ujala to hospital in rickshaw. This brings us to the statements of the two boys-PW6 and PW7.
According to PW6, in the year 2005, he was student of 9th standard in Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya NO.1, Madipur, Delhi, when it was recess time, he was present at the main gate of the school. There he heard that quarrel had taken place. He and other students started running. They found Ujala, student of the same school, lying unconsciousness in a street. They picked him up and brought to the school. They found shirt of Ujala stained with blood. Gypsy of the police reached there. Further according to the witness, he accompanied Ujala in the gypsy and as such Ujala was taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital. In the hospital, he was told that Ujala had died.
It is in the statement of PW6 that Asif, a student of the same school, also accompanied them to the hospital in the same gypsy. Mohd. Asif has been examined by the prosecution as PW7. PW7 made statement in consonance with the statement made by PW6 Atul.
-:26:-
Statements of both these witnesses-PW6 and 7 have gone unchallenged.
In view of the unchallenged statements of PW6 and PW7, it stands established that both of them found Ujala lying unconscious in the street, near their school and that his shirt had stains of blood and further that both of them accompanied Ujala to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital in the police vehicle.
Statements of PW5 and PW6 find corroboration from the statement of PW15 HC Rajbir regarding the manner in which Ujala was removed from the area of Madipur to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and that Ujala was declared brought dead at the hospital.
Local Police comes to know of commission of crime DD No.32 Ex.PW19/A recorded at Police Post Madipur would reveal that police learnt about the incident at 4.10 p.m. According to PW5, police came to his office 5/7 minutes after the incident. When we advert to the statements of PW17 Constable Rajesh, Pw18 Inspector Lakhender Singh and PW20 Inspector Jarnail Singh, it would transpire that first of all Constable Ram Dhari and ASI Gyan Singh reached the spot. This fact finds corroboration from the contents of DD No. 32 recorded at 4.10 p.m. According to PW17 Constable Rajesh, he -:27:- accompanied by PW20 SI Jarnail Singh reached the spot at about 4.40 p.m. On reaching the spot, they found 15/20 persons present near the place of occurrence. It is in the statements of these two PWs that they learnt from the persons from the public about removal of the injured to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital by the PCR staff. This fact lends corroboration from the statements of PW6, PW7 and PW15.
Learned defence counsel contended that had any person so informed the police, police must have recorded their statements and since no statement of any such person was recorded, the version narrated by PWs 17 and 20 in this regard, is not believable.
I find no merit in this contention of learned defence counsel in view of the statement made by PW20 Inspector Jarnail Singh that no eye-witness to the occurrence was available at the spot when they reached there. This finds corroboration from the statement of PW1 Vijay Pal Sharma, the Carpenter, who stated that he had left the spot after the incident of attack by one boy on the person of the other with one of his tools. When PW17 and PW20 did not find any eye-witness at the spot, it was natural for them to leave for the hospital so as to know about the condition of the injured. It is available from the -:28:- evidence that from the spot, PW20 left for the hospital leaving PW17 at the spot. In this regard, there is no contradiction in the statements of the two PWs.
It is in the statement of PW20 that on reaching the hospital, he collected MLC of the injured which revealed that he had been declared brought dead. Even at the hospital, no eye- witness was available. According to PW20, he left Constable Ram Dhari at the hospital and himself accompanied by ASI Gyan Singh returned to the spot. Even at that time, no eye- witness was available at the spot. It was then that PW20 appended his endorsement Ex. PW21/A to DD No. 32 Ex.PW19/A and sent ruqqa from the spot to the police station leading to registration of this case.
It is in the cross examination of PW20 that he had left the police post at about 4.12 p.m., reached the spot within 10 minutes, stayed at the spot for about 10 minutes and then left for the hospital where he stayed for about 10 minutes, and thereafter returned to the spot in about 10 minutes. A perusal of ruqqa Ex. PW21/A would reveal that it was dispatched from the spot at about 6.00 p.m. and FIR was recorded at 6.20 p.m. It is in the statement of PW17 Constable Rajesh that he stayed at the spot for about one hour and 15 minutes after -:29:- his arrival in the company of SI Jarnail Singh there at about 4.40 p.m. It was thereafter that he left the spot with ruqqa and got this case registered reaching the police station at about 6.00 p.m. In this regard, learned defence counsel has not been able to point out any contradiction in the statements of PW17 and PW20.
Learned defence counsel has referred to statement of PW5 Sh. Jugraj Lal, the Vice Principal, wherein he stated that police remained at the school till 6.00 p.m. and that his statement was recorded by the police at about 5.00 or 5.50 p.m. Learned counsel then referred to the statement of PW18 Inspector Lakhender Singh wherein he stated to have reached the spot at about 8.00 p.m. after having received copy of FIR at about 7.00 p.m. Learned defence counsel has argued that in view of the statement of PW18, it is not believable that statement of PW5 could be recorded at about 5.00 or 5.50 p.m. and this fact creates doubt in the version of prosecution regarding confessional statement made by the accused before the Vice Principal and recovery of shoes of the accused.
It is true that case was registered vide FIR Ex. PW9/A at about 6.20 p.m. Ruqqa was sent from the spot by SI Jarnail Singh without any kind of delay. Inspector Lakhender -:30:- Singh took up investigation after registration of the case. It is in his statement that he accompanied Constable Rajesh from the police station to the hospital and from there he reached the spot. According to PW20, when Inspector Lakhender Singh accompanied by Constable Rajesh reached the spot, he brought to the knowledge of the Inspector all the facts which were within his knowledge and when they came to know that the culprit was student of the same school, he accompanied by Inspector Lakhender Singh reached the school situated nearby and met the Vice Principal who in turn informed them about the manner in which the accused was brought to him by the two students and also about confession made by the accused that it was he who had stabbed Ujala . Further according to him, it was thereupon that the accused was arrested. This statement of PW20 finds corroboration from the statement of PW18 Inspector Lakhender Singh.
According to PW18, on reaching the spot, he found blood lying in the street, in front of H.No. 446-447; that crime team was also summoned which inspected the spot; and that he prepared rough site plan Ex. PW18/B. On conducting enquiry at the spot, according to PW18, he came to know that quarrel had taken place between students and that the offender had -:31:- been taken away to the school by the students. It was thereupon that he reached the school i.e. Senior Secondary School No.2, Madipur. On reaching there, he found the accused sitting near the Principal. According to PW18, blood stains were present on the shoes of the accused. It was thereupon that the accused was interrogated and then arrested. Memos Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B lend corroboration to the version of the prosecution about arrest of the accused from Senior Secondary School No.1, Madipur. These memos bear attestation of SI Jarnail Singh and Sh. Jugraj Lal, the Vice Principal of the school. From the statements of PW5 Sh. Jugraj Lal, PW18 Inspector Lakhender Singh and PW20 Inspector Jarnail Singh and from the memos Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B , it stands established that the accused was arrested from the school in presence of the Vice Principal, when he was produced before the police there.
In view of this evidence, accused cannot take any advantage from the statement of PW5 that his statement was recorded at about 5.00/6.00 p.m. As noticed above, there is nothing on record to suggest that the Vice Principal was interested in family of the deceased or inimical towards the accused. It is not believable that a Vice Principal would go to -:32:- the extent of making false statement regarding confession made by the accused before him about stabbing of Ujala and that there were blood stains on the shoes of the accused, and that the pair of shoe of the accused was seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW5/C. Seizure of pair of shoe finds corroboration from contents of memo Ex. PW5/C which bears attestation not only of SI Jarnail Singh but also of PW5- the Vice Principal. Pair of Shoe was produced in court and the Vice Principal duly identified the same. All this lends corroboration to the version of prosecution on the aforesaid material aspects of the case.
A perusal of report Ex. PX given by Senior Scientific Assistant of FSL would reveal that blood was detected on the pair of shoe Ex.P1 seized by the police and sent for analysis in a duly sealed parcel. In view of the above discussed evidence available in the statements of the Vice Principal and Police Officers regarding seizure of pair of shoe from the accused at the school where the accused was removed by two students immediately after the occurrence, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned defence counsel that prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the commission of crime simply because on analysis of the contents of the sealed parcel, no opinion regarding blood group of the stains of blood on the -:33:- pair of shoe could be given.
A perusal of report Ex. PX received from FSL would reveal that blood was detected on exhibits 3 i.e. the blood stained earth lifted from the spot. It is in the statement of PW18 that blood stained earth, sample of blood and sample soil were lifted and taken into possession after the same were duly sealed.
It is in the statement of PW10 HC Ram Niwas that on the day of occurrence, he reached the spot i.e in front of H.No. 446-447, pocket III, Paschim Puri, took snaps of the scene of crime. He further deposed to have prepared 10 photographs Ex. PW10/1 to 10 from negatives Ex. PW10/11 to
20. PW10 was a member of crime team which reached the spot. Statement of PW10 has not been subjected to any searching cross examination.
PW14 ASI Anil Kumar was in-charge of the Crime Mobile Team which reached the spot. According to PW14, he accompanied by his staff reached H.No. 446-447, Pocket III, Paschim Puri, and prepared report Ex. PW14/A. Statement of PW14 has gone unchallenged. It finds mentioned in report Ex. PW14/A that the Crime Team examined the spot from 6.00 to 6.35 p.m. This report was given by him to SI Jarnail Singh. -:34:- This fact, in turn, lends corroboration to the statement of SI Jarnail Singh regarding his presence at the spot on the given date, time and place.
From the report Ex. PW14/A prepared by the crime team, photographs, report PX received from FSL and from the statements of PW18 and PW20 Inspector Jarnail Singh and that of PW1 Vijay Pal Sharma, the Carpenter, place of occurrence stands duly established.
Recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused:
It is case of prosecution that the accused made disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof got recovered weapon of offence i.e. Rapi from inside the grill of H.No. 447. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW18 Lakhender Singh and PW20 Inspector Jarnail Singh. According to PW18, the accused made disclosure statement Ex. PW18/D and offered to get discovered weapon of offence from near the place of occurrence; that thereafter the accused led them to the place of occurrence, pointed out towards a place inside the grill and produced a Rapi having some stains of blood. According to PW18, he prepared sketch Ex. PW18/E of the Rapi, turned the weapon into a plastic box, sealed it with his seal bearing impression LS and then seized it vide memo Ex. PW18/F. In his -:35:- cross examination, PW18 stated that they returned from the school to the spot and reached there at about 10.30 p.m. in the company of SI Jarnail Singh and two/three Constables.
Learned defence counsel contended that PW18 should have associated some persons from the public to attest the recovery of the weapon and since no witness from the public was associated, no reliance should be placed on the statements of the police officials in this regard.
It is true that PW18 admitted to have not asked anyone from the nearby buildings to join investigation, but it is well settled that statements of official witnesses cannot be thrown away in entirety simply because of their official status. It is only the rule of prudence which requires corroboration from independent source in suchlike situation. Herein, case of prosecution is that tool of Carpenter-PW1 was picked up by the accused and used in inflicting injuries on the person of Ujala. In this regard, prosecution version has been supported by PW1 Sh. Vijay Pal Sharma, the Carpenter, when he stated that one of the two boys picked up his tool and attacked the other. A perusal of rough sketch Ex. PW18/E would reveal that this sketch depicts a tool generally used for cutting/slicing of wood . Discovery of Rapi Ex. P2 in pursuance of the disclosure -:36:- statement of the accused lends corroboration to the version of prosecution about its use in commission of the crime and further that it was only within the knowledge of the accused that he had thrown this weapon of offence at the place near the place of occurrence, otherwise he could not get the same recovered from that place. Statement of PW18 Inspector Lakhender Singh finds corroboration from the statement of PW20 Inspector Jarnail Singh regarding recovery of the weapon of offence. There is nothing on record to suggest that this weapon has been planted by the prosecution so as to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. A perusal of report Ex.PX received from FSL would reveal that blood was observed on the weapon of offence duly sealed and sent for analysis at the laboratory. In view of cogent and convincing evidence available on record, non-joining of witness from the public does not adversely affect the case of prosecution.
Learned defence counsel contended that prosecution has failed to have opinion of the doctor witness regarding use of weapon of offence, and as such, it cannot be said that Rapi Ex. P2 was used in inflicting injuries on the person of deceased.
A perusal of autopsy report Ex. PW11/A would -:37:- reveal that injuries No. 1 to 8 were incised cut marks. It has appeared in the statement of PW1 Vijay Pal Sharma that one of his tools was picked up and used in attacking the other boy. Statement of PW1 Vijay Pal Sharma has gone unchallenged in this regard, he having not been subjected to any cross examination. There is nothing on record to suggest that any other incident of quarrel or of attacking of one boy by the other in Pocket III, Paschim Puri, Delhi, took place on that date, by the side where PW1 used to do his work as Carpenter. As noticed above, Rapi Ex. P2 is a weapon used by a carpenter. In the given circumstances, non-production of Rapi Ex. P2 before the doctor, to have his opinion, does not adversely affect the case of prosecution in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Even otherwise, it is well settled that merely because of failure on the part of the investigating officer to properly investigate the case or on account of any faulty investigation, the entire case of prosecution cannot be thrown away. Defence Plea Accused has come forward with the plea that on the day of occurrence when it was recess time, he came out of the school and reached a restaurant situated nearby from where he bought patties and after having patties he went to a Gurudwara -:38:- situated nearby to drink water and further that he was caught hold of by Rakesh and Rajan, while he was returning from the Gurudwara.
In support of this defence plea, accused has not led any evidence. He has failed to bring in the statements of any of the prosecution witnesses that he was caught hold of by Rakesh and Rajan while he was returning from Gurudwara. The plea put forth by him that he went to take water from Gurudwara cannot be accepted as it is not believable that water was not available at the restaurant where he took patties. The fact remains that defence plea put forth by the accused has not been established.
Conclusion In view of the above discussion, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has fully established all the circumstances referred to and discussed above and all the circumstances form chain of evidence which is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for any conclusion consistent with innocence of the accused. It stands fully established that in all human probability, injuries on the person of Ujala were inflicted by the accused. The evidence led by the prosecution excludes every possible hypothesis except the one -:39:- proved on record that it was the accused who committed this crime.
The Offense Violated As regards offence, in the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock as a result of injury to heart; all the injuries were ante-mortem and fresh; injuries No. 2 and 3 alongwith their underling injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually or in combination.
It is true that prosecution has not been able to bring on record motive for causing of injuries by the accused on the person of Ujala. However, it stands established from record that accused was student of 8th standard whereas Ujala(since deceased) was student of 9th standard in the same school. Something led to quarrel between the two during recess, as a result whereof the accused inflicted so many injuries on the person of his schoolmate. Accused has not come forward with the plea that Ujala used any particular words which provoked him to inflict injuries on his person. From the facts proved on record, it can safely be said that the accused picked up one of the tools of the Carpenter and intentionally inflicted injuries on the person of Ujala. In view of the opinion of the doctor that injuries No. 2 and 3 alongwith their underlying injuries were -:40:- sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The deceased boy was empty handed whereas the accused picked up the weapon of offence from nearby and inflicted as many as eight injuries out of which injuries no. 2 and 3 alongwith their underlying injuries were found sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In the given circumstances, it can safely be said that the accused took undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner while inflicting injuries. I see no ground to hold that this act of the accused does not amount to murder. Provisions of Clause "thirdly" of Section-300 IPC are therefore fully attracted to the facts of this case so as to bring the act of the accused within the ambit of murder.
Conclusion In view of the above discussion, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has fully established its case against the accused for an offence U/s. 302 IPC. As a result, this court holds the accused guilty of the offence U/s. 302 IPC and convicts him thereunder.
Announced in open court.
Dated: 17th of December, 2007 (NARINDER KUMAR) ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT ROHINI:DELHI 17/12/2007 -:41:- IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURTS ROHINI : DELHI SC No. 92/2 dated 21/12/2006 Date of Decision: 17th of December,2007 State Versus Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Himmat Lal, R/o B-783, Madipur Colony, PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi FIR No. 631/2005 PS Punjabi Bagh U/s. 302 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE 17.12.2007 Present. Convict in J.C. I have heard the convict, his mother and brother, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the point of sentence. The convict and his family members have prayed for leniency, while stating that the convict was not involved in commission of the crime.-:42:-
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that keeping in view the nature of offence and the manner in which the accused-convict inflicted injuries on the person of his schoolmate, the convict does not deserve any leniency on the point of sentence.
As held above, the convict did commit murder of his schoolmate by using a tool of a Carpenter and he acted in cruel manner while inflicting injuries on the person of the victim. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, this court hereby sentences the convict to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- ( Five thousand only) or in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence u/s. 302 IPC. Benefit of provisions of Section 428 CrPC is extended to the convict.
Before parting with this judgment, it may be mentioned here that these days incidents of involvement of school children in crime are galore. Parents never send their children to school or college with an idea that they indulge in crime. Certainly, they send them there so that they may learn all kind of virtues to live a good and happy life, and to serve. Humility is the essence of all virtues. And education is the -:43:- fountain of humility. In view of involvement of school children in crime, everyone concerned is put to thinking as to whether our education system is helping us in inculcating virtues or simply in learning as to how to succeed in taking admission in colleges and then to get successfully employed or engaged in one business or the other. It is well known that Mother is the first teacher, then comes the father, then the school teacher and last of all comes the spiritual teacher. A word of moral advice from anyone of these teachers has much impact on the mind of the child. In presence of all these teachers, can we continue holding only the media responsible for preaching unacceptable ideas to the children? There are science labs in schools and colleges for practicals. But we have not made arrangement for any laboratory in schools/colleges or at our homes for practicals in moral values to see if our children would be able to qualify the theory of moral values taught to them, whenever put to test. There is need of such practicals at home and in school so that children may have practical experience as to how they are to behave, while practicing virtues, in a particular situation. Arguments are being advanced over sex eduction but the need of the hour is moral eduction. It is time for parents also to ponder over as to how much time do they contribute or spare in -:44:- inculcating moral values to the children, and if they are not sparing even ten minutes in a day for this noble job, they should not shift the burden to others. At the same time, although the convict has been sentenced today for what he did on 27.07.2005, it is to be appreciated by the society, including parents of the children, if it would be for the benefit of their children to spare the rod even at home, although they do not want any action against their children at the hands of the teachers, when the children have started resorting even to different kinds of weapon.
Case property be destroyed in accordance with rules on expiry of period of appeal/revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court.
Dated: 17th of December, 2007 (NARINDER KUMAR) ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT ROHINI:DELHI 17/12/2007