Delhi District Court
Sc No. 19/12. State vs . Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. on 7 April, 2015
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR :
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE3 : DWARKA COURTS : DELHI.
In the matter of:
Session Case No. 19/2012.
FIR No. 172/2010.
U/s 302/323/34 IPC.
PS Dwarka.
State.
Vs.
1.Ranjeet @ Pahari @ Vikky, S/o Sh. Deekar Singh, R/o RZF760/34, Gali No. 2, Raj Nagar PartII, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
2. Chitranjan Das @ Chitto, S/o Sh. Muninder Das, R/o B154, JJ Colony, Sector 7, Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. Sunil Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Ladhu Ram, R/o C120, JJ Colony, Sector 7, Dwarka, New Delhi. ... Accused.
Page No. 1 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others.
Date of Institution. : 7.8.2012.
Date of Arguments. : 7.4.2015.
Date of Judgment. : 7.4.2015.
:: JUDGMENT ::
1. The case of the prosecution was initiated with the lodging of DD No. 9A dated 7.6.2010 at PS Dwarka at 5.57 am regarding telephonic information made to PCR, wherein it was mentioned that one blood smeared dead body is lying on the back side of market of Sector 6, Dwarka. The said information was telephonically communicated to ASI Dharam Pal for further legal action and SHO concerned was also informed about the same. On receiving said call, IO Inspector Sukhdev Meena alongwith Inspector Praveen Kumar, HC Raj Pal, Const. Brij Lal and Const. Ravinder in government Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LD3638, reached in the service lane of DDA Flats, Sector 6, Pocket 2, Dwarka, behind market of Sector 6, Dwarka. The SHO, SI Mahesh Soni and ASI Dharam Pal were found present there. On service road near Plot No. 11, dead body of a male aged 2530 years strong built, hight 5'8", wheatish colour, wearing one brown colour half pant and black tshirt with "moongiya" (dark green) colour underwear, was Page No. 2 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. found. The face and head of the deceased were found crushed with bricks and stones. Deep injury marks were found on both eyes and chin of the deceased. 45 cuts were found on the left hand. Lot of blood had oozed out of head and spilled on the ground. Some pieces of bricks and one piece of RCC slab, from which iron sticks were visible, were found near the head (of deceased). All these were blood smeared. On upper portion of the dead body, there were scratch marks. There was an iron "chhalla" (ring) worn in the thumb of left hand by the deceased. On inspecting the site, it was found that there were blood and dragging marks between dead body of the deceased and service road. On following, the said marks were found till stairs of market of Sector 6, Dwarka, where board of "Dwarka Property"
and "Treya Boutique" were affixed and which (place) was between shops no. G5 and G7. Outside the stairs on the road, the sleeve of a blue colour shirt was found, which was smeared in mud. While going upstairs upto roof, blood stains and dragging marks were found. In front of stairs of third floor towards outside, near water tank, one piece of blue colour shirt was found entangled near the tank. The marks were there till fourth floor of the roof. On the roof, there was a wooden "diwan" and six chairs. Blood stains were found on the roof. There was one room on the roof and a small cabin near the Page No. 3 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. stairs, which was office of "Sky Land Vision Cable TV". There was an antenna and dish installed on the roof. Three broken beer bottles and six open beer bottles of "Kingfisher Strong", one filled half bottle and one empty quarter bottle of "Royal Stage", one empty half bottle of "Imperial Blue", one empty quarter bottle of "Aristocrat Premium", six glasses, three broken glasses, some buds of "bidi" and cigarettes were found. Two packets of "Small Gold Flake" (cigarette), one empty pack of "Red & White" (cigarette), two empty packet of "Kuber Kheni" and one empty pouch of "Pan Parag" were also found. Blood smeared hair were also found on the roof. Playing cards were scattered there. Four utensils, out of which three of same design and of "bengani" (purple) colour and one of different design and of blackyellow colour, were found. One piece of blue shirt, on pocket of which a button was affixed, which was of same design as aforesaid three buttons and on the shirt there was a hologram of "Kanchiro", were found. On inspecting the roof, it appeared that some people had taken liquor there and there were signs of struggle. ASI Dharam Pal conveyed about DD No. 45A that information was received from DDU Hospital regarding admission of one Sachin S/o Babu Ram R/o RZH321, Gali No. 10, Raj NagarIInd, New Delhi, vide MLC No. 10930/10, whom doctor had declared unfit for statement. On inquiry, it reveled Page No. 4 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. that he was taken to the hospital from this place only. On the injuries, it was opined by the concerned doctor "under observation". On inspecting the roof, dead body of the injured and from MLC, offence u/s 302/323/34 IPC was found to have been committed and accordingly the present case was registered.
2. During investigation, all the three accused persons were arrested and after completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences u/s 302/323/34 IPC was filed against all the three accused persons and vide order dated 4.9.2010, concerned ld. ACMM1, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, took the cognizance for the aforesaid offences accordingly. After supplying complete copies to the accused persons, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 17.9.2010, as the offences u/s 302/323/34 IPC were sessions triable.
3. Vide order dated 21.10.2010 of Sh. Virender Bhat, ld. Predecessor, charge for the offences u/s 302/34 IPC and u/s 323/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 27 Page No. 5 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. witnesses.
5. PW1 Dr. Megha, Medical Officer of DDU Hospital, has proved the MLC dated 7.6.2010 Ex PW1/A of deceased Sachin Kumar S/o Sh. Babu Ram, prepared by Dr. Kaushik, Junior Resident, under her supervision.
6. PW2 Ajay Kr. Dhimar is the father of the deceased and was initially only a witness to the identification of dead body of deceased and has proved the identification of dead body of his son Avinash @ Mantri @ Sonu in the mortuary of DDU Hospital vide Ex PW2/A on 8.6.2010 and receiving of the said dead body after postmortem by him vide Ex PW2/B. However pursuant to allowing of an application u/s 311 CrPC, vide order dated 6.4.2011, he was further examined as PW2 on 29.4.2011 and has deposed about having seen accused Sachin @ Khamba driving a black colour motorcycle on 6.6.2010 at about 6.007.00 pm between Sector 10, Dwarka, and market of Sector 6, Dwarka, and his son Mantri sitting pillion behind him (Sachin @ Khamba) while accused Ranjeet @ Pahari was sitting at the back of the said motorcycle. He has also deposed about receiving of information of death of his son (on 7.6.2010) at about 2.002.30 pm at his residence. He had correctly Page No. 6 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. identified accused Ranjeet @ Pahari present in the Court on the date of his deposition.
7. PW3 ASI Ram Wati, Duty Officer, was examined in chief and cross examined on 7.12.2010, but it appears that inadvertently she was examined in chief and cross examined on 21.12.2012 also, although the same was not needed. PW3 ASI Ram Wati has proved that she was Duty Officer at PS Dwarka Sector 23 on 7.6.2010 and on the basis of rukka, sent by Inspector Sukhdev Meena through HC Raj Pal, she had registered the present case FIR Ex PW3/A and made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex PW3/B.
8. PW4 Sunny has proved that on 7.6.2010 at around 5.306.00 am, he saw a dead body lying on the back side of market of Sector 6, Dwarka and made a call at phone no. 100 from his mobile phone no. 9871522838.
9. PW5 Sachin was one of the injured and star prosecution witness and has broadly deposed on the lines of the prosecution case, but has not identified the three accused persons as the assailants and was declared hostile at the request of ld. Addl. PP for State, but even in his cross examination by the ld. Addl. PP Page No. 7 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. for State, he has not supported the case of the prosecution regarding identity of the accused persons as the assailants and has even denied making statement u/s 164 CrPC Ex PW5/A. He has not identified any of the accused persons as assailants even in the cross examination by ld. Addl. PP for State.
10. PW6 ASI Attar Singh has proved that on 7.6.2010, he was Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, South West, and had inspected the scene of crime and chance prints were lifted from the spot and had prepared his report and proved the same Ex PW6/A.
11. PW7 Laxman was a witness to the fact of having last seen the deceased in the company of the accused persons in the night of 6.6.2010 (one night prior to the date when the dead body of deceased was found in the morning), but has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile and even in his cross examination, has not supported the prosecution version.
12. PW8 Const. Devender Kumar has deposed that on 7.6.2010, he was posted as Finger Print Proficient in Mobile Crime Team, South West, and on information, reached the spot, Page No. 8 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. inspected the same and lifted chance prints and prepared his report Ex PW8/A and thereafter sent the chance prints to Malviya Nagar Finger Print Bureau, for comparison.
13. PW9 SI Madan Pal deposed that on 7.6.2010, he was posted as Draftsman at South West District and after receiving information, he alongwith IO, visited at the spot, where at the instance of IO, he took rough notes and measurements for preparing the scaled site plan. He further deposed that on 16.8.2010, on the basis of rough notes and measurement, he prepared the scaled site plans Ex PW9/A and Ex PW9/B and handed over the same to the IO and later on, he (PW9) destroyed the rough notes and measurement.
14. PW10 Arvind Kumar, Ambulance Officer, CATS, Government of Delhi, Bela Road, Near Vijay Ghat, Delhi, deposed that on 6.6.2010, he was posted as Assistant Ambulance Officer at Government Dispensary, Sector 12, Dwarka, and on that day at about 11.45 am, received a call from Ambulance Control Room. Thereafter he alongwith his associate Subhash reached at the spot, where they found one injured, whose name after inquiries was revealed as Sachin. He further deposed that he (Sachin) was under the influence of Page No. 9 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. liquor and they took him (Sachin) to DDU Hospital and got him admitted there.
15. PW11 WConst. Anita deposed that on 7.6.2010, she was posted as Channel Operator at Channel No. 129 in Police Control Room and on that day at about 5.56 am, she received a telephone call from mobile no. 9871522838 to the effect "ek dead body khoon mein lath path pari hai at Sector 6, Dwarka market ke back side". She further deposed that she filled PCR form and forwarded to Zebra62 and net and proved computerized copy of same Ex PW11/A.
16. PW12 WConst. Pramila deposed that on the intervening night of 6/7.6.2010, she was posted as Channel Operator at Channel No. 125 in Police Control Room and on that day at about 11.54 pm, received a telephone call from mobile no. 9911979801 "ek admi jo injured hai behosh para hai at Sector 6 Market, Dwarka, Pocket2". She further deposed that she filled PCR form and forwarded to Zebra net and proved computerized copy of same Ex PW12/A.
17. PW13 HC Manoj deposed that on 7.6.2010, he was posted as MHC (M) in PS Dwarka Sector 23, and on that day, IO Page No. 10 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. Inspector Sukhdev Meena had deposited 15 sealed pulandas, one sealed carton and three more sealed pulandas, sealed with the seal of "SD" and he made entry at serial no. 409 of register no. 19. He further deposed that on 8.6.2010, IO had deposited one sealed pulanda and one sealed envelope, sealed with the seal of "DFMT, DDU Hospital" alongwith two sample seals. He further deposed that IO also deposited one motorcycle no. DL7SAJ7276 and three sealed pulandas sealed with the seal of "SD" and personal search (articles) of accused. He also deposed that on 13.7.2010, on the instruction of IO, he handed over the carton sealed with the seal of "SD" to SI Ram Pratap vide RC no. 93/21/10 for taking the opinion from DDU Hospital and after taking opinion, he (SI Ram Pratap) deposited the pulanda sealed with the seal of "DFMT, DDU Hospital". He further deposed that on 28.7.2010, on the instruction of IO, he handed over four pulandas no. S7, S8, S9 and S17 to HC Virender for depositing in FSL, Rohini, vide RC no. 100/21/10 and after depositing the same, he (HC Virender) had deposited the receipt. He further deposed that on the instruction of IO, he handed over 15 pulandas to Const. Kapil for depositing in FSL, Rohini, vide RC no. 104/21/10 and after depositing the same, he (Const. Kapil) had deposited the receipt. He proved the copies of relevant entries of register no. 19, collectively exhibited Ex PW13/A and Page No. 11 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. copies of the relevant entires of register no. 21, collectively exhibited Ex PW13/B. He further deposed that the sealed pulandas remained intact during his custody.
18. PW14 Sh. Vishal Gogne, the then ld. MM, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, deposed that on 13.7.2010, an application u/s 164 CrPC for recording the statement of witness/injured Sachin @ Rahul @ Khamba moved by the IO, was marked to him by the ld. ACMM. He further deposed that the witness was stated to be bed ridden with injuries, so he deemed it fit that his statement be recorded at his (witness) residence on 14.7.2010 at 2.30 pm. He proved his order in this regard Ex PW14/A. He further deposed that on 14.7.2010, he recorded the statement already Ex PW5/A of Sachin @ Rahul @ Khamba at his residence. He also proved his certificate Ex PW14/B regarding the statement. He further deposed that the proceedings were ordered to be sent to the ld. ACMM in the envelope vide his endorsement Ex PW14/C. He also deposed that he allowed the copy of the proceedings to the IO vide his order Ex PW14/D.
19. PW15 Const. Raj Kumar deposed that on 7.6.2010, he was posted as Photographer in Mobile Crime Team, South West District, and on that day, after receiving the information, he Page No. 12 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. alongwith Crime Team Incharge ASI Attar Singh, Const. Devender, Finger Print Expert, reached at the spot, where they met the IO and other police officials. He further deposed that on the spot, one male dead body was found having many injuries on his face, which was smeared with blood and he took total 26 photographs of the spot from ground, where the dead body was lying and up to top floor of the market, out of which 24 photographs are available on the judicial file and two photographs were washed out. He has proved the negatives Ex PW15/A1 to Ex PW15/A24 of the said photographs Ex PW15/B1 to Ex PW15/B24.
20. PW16 Const. Tayyab deposed that on 7.6.2010, he was posted as Constable at PS Sector 23, Dwarka, and on that day, Duty Officer handed over to him four envelopes containing copy of FIR for delivery to Joint CP, Southern Range, ld. ACMM, Addl. CP and DCP, South West, accordingly he left PS on government motorcycle bearing registration no. DL1SN5557 and delivered the envelope at the office of Joint CP, Southern Range, in the Court of ld. ACMM, Dwarka, in the office of Addl. CP and DCP, South West.
21. PW17 WConst. Monika Yadav deposed that on Page No. 13 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. 7.6.2010, she was posted as Constable in PS Dwarka Sector 23 and on that day, she was on typing duty. She further deposed that at about 9.45 am, Duty Officer handed over to her a rukka, on the basis of same, she typed the present case FIR No. 172/10, u/s 302/323/34 IPC and handed over print out of the same to Duty Officer.
22. PW18 ASI Dharam Pal Singh deposed about the initial investigation done by him in the present case.
23. PW19 Dr. B.N. Mishra, Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, DDU Hospital, deposed that he has been deputed to depose in this case in place of Dr. Archana, who has left the service of the hospital. He further deposed that Dr. Archana had been working with him and he can identify her signatures and her handwriting as he had seen her signing and writing during the course of his duties. He further deposed that the postmortem report Ex PW19/A is in the handwriting of Dr. Archana and bears her signatures at point A. However pursuant to allowing of an application moved on behalf of the State, seeking permission to summon and examine the doctor, who had given the subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence, vide order dated 4.4.2012, PW19 Dr. B.N. Mishra was Page No. 14 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. further examined as PW19 on 2.6.2012 and has proved subsequent opinion dated 13.7.2010 Ex PW24/D.
24. PW20 SI Mahesh Soni deposed about the investigation done in his presence in the present case.
25. PW21 Const. Kapil Kumar deposed that 2.8.2010, he was posted at PS Dwarka and on that day at about 10.00 am, on the instruction of the SHO, MHC (M) handed over him 15 sealed pulandas alongwith one sample seal vide RC no. 104/21/10 for depositing at FSL, Rohini, which were deposited and receipt of the same were handed over to MHC (M). He has further deposed that so long as the pulandas remained in his custody, they were intact.
26. PW22 SI Ram Partap deposed that on 13.7.2010, he was posted as Sub Inspector in PS Dwarka Sector 23 and on that day, IO had handed over him an application addressed to Department of Forensic Medicine and Science, DDU Hospital, for taking subsequent opinion from the doctor on the weapon of offence. He further deposed that he received two pulandas from the malkhana vide RC no. 93/21/10 and went to DDU Hospital alongwith the application and said pulandas. He also deposed Page No. 15 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. that he met Dr. B.N. Mishra there, who directed him to contact Dr. Archana Jain for the subsequent opinion. Thereafter he went to Dr. Archana Jain, who after opening the pulandas and seeing their contents gave subsequent opinion. He proved the aforesaid application Ex PW22/A and subsequent opinion given by Dr. Archana Jain vide Ex PW22/B.
27. PW23 HC Raj Pal deposed that he joined the investigation on 7.6.2010 and has further deposed about the investigation done in his presence.
28. PW24 IO Inspector Sukhdev Meena has deposed on the lines of prosecution case regarding investigation done by him in the present case. However pursuant to allowing of an application u/s 311 CrPC, he was further examined.
29. PW25 SI Sajjan Pal deposed that on 6.6.2010, he was posted in PS Dwarka and on that day, he was working as DD Writer and at about 11.50 pm, received an information from G51 through intercom. He further deposed that the said information was reduced into writing vide DD No. 45A and has proved copy of the same as Ex PW25/A. He also deposed that after recording the said DD entry, the same was assigned to ASI Page No. 16 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. Dharam Pal for further inquiry.
30. PW26 HC Yogesh Kumar deposed that on 7.6.2010, he was posted in PS Dwarka and on that day, he was working as DD Writer and at about 5.57 am, received an information from G51 through intercom. He further deposed that the said information was reduced into writing vide DD No. 9A and has proved copy of the same as Ex PW26/A. He also deposed that the information regarding contents of the DD was conveyed to ASI Dharam Pal. He further proved copy of said DD Ex PW26/B.
31. PW27 Ms. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, New Delhi, deposed that on 2.8.2010, 15 sealed parcels were received in their office, which were later marked to her for further examination. She further deposed that the said parcels were duly sealed and matched with the provided sample seals and on biological examination of the exhibits contained in the parcels, blood was detected on exhibits S1, S2, S4, S5a, S5b, S5c, S6, S10, S13, S19a, S19b, S19c, S19d, S20, S21a, S21b, S22a, S22b, S23a and S23b. She further deposed that blood could not be detected on exhibits S3 and S11. She also deposed that saliva could not be detected on Page No. 17 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. exhibits S12a and S12b. She further deposed that for morphological and microscopical studies, hair in exhibits S4, S6 and S13 were found to be human in origin and hair in Ex S4 were found to be similar with hair in Ex S6 in most of their morphological and microscopical characteristics. She has further deposed that on serological examination, Ex S5a, S5b, S19a, S20, S22b, S23a and S23b gave AB (blood) group while all other exhibits gave no reaction in blood grouping. She has proved her detailed reports Ex PW27/A and Ex PW27/B.
32. Thereafter separate statement of all the accused persons u/s 313 CrPC was recorded to which their stand was of general denial. The accused persons have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have no concern with the incident in question.
33. I have heard Sh. V.K. Swami, ld. Addl. PP for State, and Sh. Dinesh Mudgil, ld. counsel for accused persons.
34. I have perused the entire record carefully.
35. The most material and only eye witness to the case of prosecution is injured PW5 Sachin, who has turned completely Page No. 18 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. hostile as regards the identity of the accused persons as the assailants and even in his cross examination by the ld. Addl. PP for State, he has not supported the prosecution version. Thus he has not proved that the injuries to deceased and to him were inflicted by the accused persons.
36. The next important witness to the case of the prosecution is PW7 Laxman, but he has also not supported the prosecution version and has denied the suggestion of ld. Addl. PP for State that in the night of 6.6.2010 (date of incident), he had seen all the three accused persons alongwith two boys consuming liquor in the office of accused Ranjeet @ Pahari on the roof. Thus he has negated the prosecution version that he had last seen the deceased in the company of accused persons consuming liquor previous night, of the date when the dead body of deceased was found.
37. The third important witness of the prosecution is PW2 Ajay Kr. Dhimar, father of the deceased. However initially he was only a witness to the identification of the dead body of deceased and receiving of dead body of the deceased after postmortem in the hospital and his statement u/s 161 CrPC was also recorded in this regard only. Hence his further Page No. 19 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. evidence pursuant to allowing of application u/s 311 CrPC vide order dated 6.4.2011 to the effect that he had last seen his son Mantri (since deceased) sitting on the middle seat of the motorcycle driven by Sachin @ Khamba while accused Ranjeet @ Pahari was sitting on back on 6.6.2010 around 6.007.00 pm between Sector 10, Dwarka, and market of Sector 6, Dwarka, is clearly an improvement in the prosecution case as no such statement u/s 161 CrPC to this effect was recorded by the investigating agency during investigation or supplied to the accused persons, thereby taking the accused persons by surprise and prejudicing them. The same amounts to putting up of a new fact by prosecution. Hence the said part of his testimony cannot be relied upon. Although in his cross examination by ld. counsel for accused persons, he had deposed that he had narrated about the entire incident to (IO) Inspector Sukhdev Meena and he had not paid any heed to him and did not record his statement. Still he has also admitted that he did not meet the ACP concerned and made complaint against Inspector Sukhdev Meena. Inspite of the said explanation, his incriminating deposition having last seen the deceased in the company of two of the accused persons, cannot be read against them as the same is clearly an improvement in prosecution version and no complaint whatsoever was made by him to senior Page No. 20 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. police officers or to concerned ld. MM against the conduct of the IO.
38. PW20 SI Mahesh Soni has not clearly deposed that recoveries were effected at the instance of the accused persons prior to recording of their disclosure statement in police custody and hence the same would not fall under the category of discovery of fact, as defined u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
39. Further as per prosecution version chance prints were lifted from the spot, but as per FSL report (admissible as per Section 293 CrPC), the chance print Q1 lifted from the spot, did not match with any of the accused persons and also the chance palm print Q2, did not connect the accused persons with the commission of crime as the palm prints of the accused persons were not sent by the IO to FSL, for matching with the chance palm print.
40. In FSL report Ex PW27/B, no reaction was found on blood stained pant of one of the accused and blood stained shirt of another accused, allegedly containing the blood stain of the deceased and thus the prosecution failed to connect that the said two accused persons were having blood stains of deceased Page No. 21 of 22. Contd... ... ...
SC No. 19/12. State Vs. Ranjeet @ Pahari & Others. on their aforesaid clothes.
41. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that in testimony of none of the prosecution witnesses anything incriminating has come on record against the accused persons for connecting them with the commission of crime. It was the duty of the prosecution to stand on its own legs and to bring on record clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy evidence for proving the guilt of the accused persons. Prosecution has miserably failed to do so. Consequently the charge against the accused persons namely Ranjeet @ Pahari, Chitranjan Das @ Chitto and Sunil Kumar does not stand proved. Resultantly the said accused persons stand acquitted of the charge for the offences u/s 302/34 IPC and u/s 323/34 IPC.
Announced in the open Court on 7.4.2015.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE3 :
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI Page No. 22 of 22. Contd... ... ...