Delhi District Court
State vs Raju @ Ikram on 12 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: 04, WEST DISTRICT: TIS
HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No.DLWT010097342016
SC No. 58270/2016
FIR No. 558/2005
PS Janak Puri
U/s 302/397/511/34 IPC
State
Vs.
Raju @ Ikram
S/o Mohd. Rafiq
R/o 691/18, Mahavir Enclave,
New Delhi
Date of Institution of case : 16.12.2016
Date of decision : 12.09.2022
Final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.09.2005, a DD No. 54B was recorded at PS Janakpuri on the information from PCR that one person is lying unconscious at C3/95, Janakpuri, near Dabri Mor.
FIR No. 558/2005 PS Janakpuri Page no. 1 of 13 The said DD was assigned to ASI Kaptan Singh who reached at the spot alongwith Ct. Parmod. Inspector Babu Lal reached at Orchid Hospital situated there on receiving the information of DD No. 54B and DD No. 27A, where he found a dead body of one person namely Kanti Lal Guliyani who was lying on the stretcher of the hospital and he saw that blood was coming out from the cut on the left thigh of the said person. ASI Kaptan Singh informed to the Inspector that he had seen the blood of the deceased near Dabri Mor read light. Thereafter, Inspector Babu Lal reached there and inspected the spot and also found blood in front of gate of Minocha Child Care Clinic, E3/95, and trail of the blood was going up to Dabri Mor red light. Inspector called the crime team. In the meanwhile, wife, brother, relatives and neighbour of the deceased came at the spot. Thereafter, the search of the dead body was conducted. Crime Team inspected the spot and took photographs. Thereafter, Inspector prepared the rukka and made endorsement on the said rukka vide DD No. 54B and recommended the case for registration of FIR u/s 302 IPC. Accordingly, FIR No. 558/2005 was recorded in PS Janakpuri.
2. During investigation, IO collected the crime team report, lifted the blood stained earth, prepared different pullandas and also prepared the site plan and sent the dead body to the DDU hospital for its postmortem examination.
3. During investigation, one witness Vijay Kumar met IO and told that he worked as conductor in the bus no. DL1PB5668, route no. 801 and on 23.09.2005 Lekh Raj, Suresh, Jamil, Mahesh Chand Gupta, Raju and Ikhlakh who were pickpocketer and members FIR No. 558/2005 PS Janakpuri Page no. 2 of 13 of the Lekh Raj @ Lekhu gang ran away from his bus when his bus was stationed at Dabri Mor red light and he further stated that his helper Joginder @ Bholu who was issuing the tickets on the back side window of the said bus told him after reaching at Palam that at Dabri Mor red light pickpocketer had tried to pick the bag of one passenger and injured him and thereafter thrown him from the bus and thereafter said pickpocketers had run away. On this information, IO got conducted the inspection of the bus no. DL1PB5668 and he found blood on the back gate of the said bus and seized the bus. Thereafter, on 25.09.2005 on the pointing out of said Vijay Kumar, he arrested accused Lekh Raj @ Lekhu and recorded his confessional statement and on the basis of said confessional statement, accused Lekh Raj got recovered the knife used in the commission of crime. Accused Lekh Raj also pointed out the spot of the incident. IO filed the application for TIP of the accused, but accused Lekh Raj refused to participate in TIP and he took the police custody of accused Lekh Raj. During PC remand on 01.10.2005 he arrested accused Suresh and Jamil on the pointing out of accused Lekh Raj and recorded their confessional statement and both the said accused persons pointed out the spot of incident and both the accused persons were kept in muffled face and application was filed for their TIP but they refused to participate in TIP.
4. During investigation, on the pointing out of accused Suresh, IO arrested accused Kamal and recorded his confessional statement. Accused Kamal also identified the spot. Application was filed for TIP of accused Kamal but he also refused to participate in TIP.
FIR No. 558/2005 PS Janakpuri Page no. 3 of 13
5. During investigation, IO sent the exhibits to FSL, got conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased, recorded statement of witnesses from time to time, prepared the scaled site plan and filed chargesheet against coaccused persons namely Lekh Raj @ Lekhu, Suresh Kumar, Jamil and Kamal u/s 302/392/511/34 IPC. Thereafter, supplementary chargesheet was also filed against co accused persons except accused Raju @ Ikram. The proceeding u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C was initiated against accused Raju @ Ikram and his name was kept in the column no. 2 of the chargesheet.
6. During investigation, accused Raju @ Ikram was got declared proclaimed offender. On 20.07.2013, an information was received in PS Janakpuri vide DD No. 9A from Special Unit, Crime Branch that Raju @ Ikram has been arrested in a kalandara u/s 41.1C Cr.P.C. Accordingly, IO moved an application for interrogation of accused Raju @ Ikram. After interrogation, IO had effected the arrest of accused Raju @ Ikram in the present case. During investigation, IO had also moved an application for judicial TIP and accordingly, the judicial TIP was conducted on 27.07.2013. During judicial TIP, both the witnesses namely Vijay Kumar and Joginder @ Bholu could not identify accused Raju @ Ikram. During investigation, supplementary statements of both the said witnesses were recorded and upon completion of investigation, supplementary chargesheet against accused Raju @ Ikram for offence punishable u/s 302/397/511/34 IPC was filed before Ld. CMM on 13.08.2013. Vide order dated 16.12.2016 the present chargesheet in respect of accused Raju @ Ikram was assigned to this Sessions Court for trial.
FIR No. 558/2005 PS Janakpuri Page no. 4 of 13
7. On 04.04.2022, order on charge was pronounced and charge for offence punishable under Section 396 IPC was framed against the accused namely Raju @ Ikram for commission of offence of dacoity with murder of victim Kanti Lal Guliyani. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in vernacular and he was asked as to whether he wanted to plead guilty or claim trial. After understanding the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Thereafter, the prosecution examined only one witness i.e. complainant Sh. Joginder as PW1, who has deposed as under: " In the year 2005, I was working as helper on bus no. DL 1PB5668 of route no. 801. Vijay was the conductor and Satish was the driver in the said bus in the year 2005. I do not remember the exact date and month but one day in the year 2005, I was issuing tickets to the passenger in th aforesaid bus when it was 8.15 pm. On the said date, the aforesaid bus was plying on road from Karampura to IGI Airport.
On or about 8.30 PM when the aforesaid bus reached at Tilak Nagar, the driver stopped the bus at bus stop and certain passengers boarded/deboarded from the said bus. When the bus reached near Dabri via Hari Nagar, I was present on the conductor seat. When the bus reached near Dabri crossing, there was commotion (shor sharaba) in the bus. Since there was green signal, the driver crossed the said green signal. The driver stopped the bus at Dabri Stop and certain passengers were picked up from there. I could not know as to who raised hue and cry in the bus and what led to the said shor sharaba in the bus. I could not see anybody raising hue and cry inside the bus. When the bus reached near a temple in the area of Palam I paid the FIR No. 558/2005 PS Janakpuri Page no. 5 of 13 money collected during the day, to the owner of the bus and then left for dinner. In my presence, no occurrence took place. I do not know anything else about this case. Though, police met me and made inquiries from me i.e. on the next day when our bus was enroute and the driver stopped the bus at Janakpuri bus stop. The concerned police officials took our bus to PS Janakpuri and police also made inquiries from me as well as driver Satish. I was made to sit in the said police station for about a week. 5 to 6 days thereafter, I was joined by the police in investigation and police took me to Tihar Jail. I do not know as to who had stabbed whom. In the said police station, police officials obtained my signatures on five to six papers but the contents were not read over to me."
9. During his examination, since this witness was allegedly resiling from his previous statement made before police, Ld. Addl. PP for state sought permission to cross examine the witness. After seeking permission, Ld. Addl. PP for the state cross examined the witness. During crossexamination on behalf of State, the witness has deposed as under: "It is correct that on 23.09.2005 at about 8.25 PM while I was issuing tickets and present near the rear entrance of the bus and Vijay Kumar conductor was issuing tickets while present in the front entrance of the bus.
It is wrong to suggest that one of the passenger present near my seat was yet to collect ticket from me but I asked him to move ahead or the said passenger was having a bag with him or that he did not move from there or that he suddenly raised alarm "pick pocketer"
FIR No. 558/2005 PS Janakpuri Page no. 6 of 13 or that he caught hold of a person present in the bus or that in the meantime two other passengers caught hold of the said passenger carrying the bag. I do not know if the said passenger was not letting loose his grip on the aforesaid person/offender caught hold of by him. It is further incorrect to suggest that I saw a person having curly hair and dark complexion stabbed in the thigh of the passenger/victim and thereafter the said passenger/victim was then pushed from the bus. It is wrong to suggest that when the bus reached at Dabri crossing, the said passenger was dragged by 6 to 7 persons towards road side and then fled away. It is further wrong to suggest that the blood fell in the rear entrance of the bus and on the floor of our bus because of such stabbing.
At this stage, the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C dated 02.09.2006 is read over to the witness and witness denies having made any such statement before the police or stated any such facts to the police. Confronted with portion A to A1 of statement already marked as PW13/BB where the aforesaid facts have been found specifically recorded.
At this stage, the supplementary statement recorded on 27.07.2013 is also read over to the witness and witness denied having made any such statement to the police. It is wrong to suggest that on 27.07.2013 I had specifically stated to IO that I visited the concerned jail for TIP of accused Raju @ Ikram but during the said TIP I could not identify accused Raju @ Ikram being amongst the offenders due to fear i.e. "Dar va ghabrahat ki vajah se" or that I had specifically stated to IO that accused Raju @ Ikram was amongst the offenders FIR No. 558/2005 PS Janakpuri Page no. 7 of 13 who had committed the murder of one passenger in our bus on 23.09.2005.
At this stage, the supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C dated 27.07.2013 is read over to the witness and witness denies having made any such statement before the police or stated any such facts to the police. Confronted with portion A to A1 of statement Mark PW1/A where the aforesaid facts have been found specifically recorded.
It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally not supporting the occurrence or intentionally not identifying the accused Raju @ Ikram being one of the assailants, being won over by the accused or being threatened by accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally not supporting the supplementary statement Mark PW1/A wherein I had identified the accused Raju @ Ikram being amongst the offenders being won over by accused or being threatened by accused".
10. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of accused despite opportunity.
11. During trial, summons were also issued to another material witness of prosecution i.e. to PW Vijay Kumar but the said summons were returned unserved. The summons were ordered to be served through DCP, however, PW Vijay Kumar could not be served and a report was received on the summons of PW Vijay Kumar issued through DCP concerned that the said witness i.e. PW Vijay Kumar had expired around 4 to 5 years ago.
12. During trial, on 07.09.2022, the statement of IO Inspector FIR No. 558/2005 PS Janakpuri Page no. 8 of 13 Vijay Pal Singh was recorded separately wherein he had stated that he is the investigating officer in the present case and he has gone through the record of the present case. He further stated that during investigation of the present case, only two eye witnesses were examined i.e. Joginder Singh @ Bholu and Vijay Kumar and that the record reveals that Joginder Singh @ Bholu has been examined as PW1 and he has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner. He further stated that PW Vijay Kumar is not traceable despite the summons of PW Vijay Kumar being sent through DCP concerned as well. He further stated that except the statements of Joginder Singh @ Bholu and Sh. Vijay Kumar, there is no other incriminating evidence to connect accused Raju @ Ikram with the commission of offence in question. He further stated that since PW Joginder Singh @ Bholu has turned hostile and PW Vijay Kumar is not traceable, no purpose will be served by examining the remaining witnesses who are formal/official witnesses.
13. Since the only material witness i.e. PW1 Joginder @ Bholu did not support the case of the prosecution and the remaining witnesses cited in the list of witnesses are the officials witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.
14. It is also to be noted that all the remaining coaccused persons namely Lekh Raj @ Lekhu, Suresh Kumar, Jameel @ Wali, Kamal and Mahesh Gupta @ Gupta have already been acquitted vide judgment dated 31.05.2013 of Ld. ASJ01 (North), Rohini Courts, FIR No. 558/2005 PS Janakpuri Page no. 9 of 13 Delhi.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
15. I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. My findings are as under:
Ocular Evidence:
16. Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses corroborate each other on material aspects connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies.
17. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimony of PW1 Joginder @ Bholu. His testimony reveals that he has not supported the case of prosecution. He has only deposed that in the year 2005, he was working as helper on bus no. DL1PB5668 of route no. 801 and Vijay was the conductor and Satish was the driver in the said bus in the year 2005. He did not remember the exact date and month but he stated that one day in the year 2005, he was issuing tickets to the passenger in the aforesaid bus and the aforesaid bus was plying on road from Karampura to IGI Airport. He further deposed that at about 8.30 PM when the aforesaid bus reached at Tilak Nagar, the driver stopped the bus at bus stop and certain passengers boarded/de FIR No. 558/2005 PS Janakpuri Page no. 10 of 13 boarded from the said bus. When the bus reached near Dabri crossing, there was commotion (shor sharaba) in the bus and since there was green signal, the driver crossed the said green signal. He stated that the driver stopped the bus at Dabri Stop and certain passengers were picked up from there. He could not tell as to who raised hue and cry in the bus and what led to the said shor sharaba in the bus. He could not see anybody raising hue and cry inside the bus and when the bus reached near a temple in the area of Palam he paid the money collected during the day to the owner of the bus and then left for dinner. He further deposed that in his presence, no occurrence took place and he does not know anything else about this case.
18. This witness was crossexamined on behalf of state. During his crossexamination, PW1 denied that one of the passenger present near his seat was yet to collect ticket from him but he asked him to move ahead or the said passenger was having a bag with him or that he did not move from there or that he suddenly raised alarm "pick pocketer" or that he caught hold of a person present in the bus or that in the meantime two other passengers caught hold of the said passenger carrying the bag. He further deposed that he did not know if the said passenger was not letting loose his grip on the aforesaid person/offender caught hold of by him. He further denied that he saw a person having curly hair and dark complexion who stabbed in the thigh of the passenger/victim or that thereafter the said passenger/victim was pushed from the bus. He further denied that when the bus reached at Dabri crossing, the said passenger was dragged by 6 to 7 persons towards road side and then they all fled away. He denied having made statement FIR No. 558/2005 PS Janakpuri Page no. 11 of 13 Ex.PW13/B before the police.
19. During his crossexamination, Ld. Addl. PP also read over the supplementary statement recorded by IO on 27.07.2013 to this witness and witness denied to have made any such statement to the police. He denied that on 27.07.2013 he visited the concerned jail for TIP of accused Raju @ Ikram but during the said TIP he could not identify accused Raju @ Ikram being amongst the offenders due to fear i.e. "Dar va ghabrahat ki vajah se" or that he had specifically stated to IO that accused Raju @ Ikram was amongst the offenders who had committed the murder of one passenger in the bus on 23.09.2005.
20. The overall impact of the testimony of PW1 is that he has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner and thus, the testimony of PW1 is not helpful for the case of prosecution in any manner.
21. Since the most material public witness of the prosecution i.e. PW1 Sh. Joginder @ Bholu has not deposed anything incriminating against accused Raju @ Ikram and the another material eye witness Vijay Kumar is reported to have expired and the fact that IO has made a specific statement before the court that the remaining witnesses are formal/official in nature and does not connect accused Raju @ Ikram with the commission of offence in question, I am of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case.
22. Thus, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused namely Raju @ Ikram for the offence charged against him, that is to say that the prosecution has failed to FIR No. 558/2005 PS Janakpuri Page no. 12 of 13 prove that accused namely Raju @ Ikram is guilty for offence punishable under Section 396 IPC. Hence, accused Raju @ Ikram is hereby acquitted of the charge framed against him.
23. His previous bail bonds furnished during trial are hereby cancelled. His surety stands discharged. However, the bail bonds furnished by accused Raju @ Ikram under Section 437A Cr.P.C. shall remain effective for a period of six months from the date of this order.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Passed & announced
in open court today) (MANISH KHURANA)
Addl. Sessions Judge04
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
12.09.2022
FIR No. 558/2005 PS Janakpuri Page no. 13 of 13