Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Sukhvinder @ Sokhi on 5 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 120/2011
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0999642007
State Vs. (1) Sukhvinder @ Sokhi
S/o Mohineder Singh
R/o Village Kanonda,
PS Bahadurgarh, Haryana
(Convicted)
(2) Pradeep
S/o Rajbir
R/o House No. 1669,
Gali No.2, Shastri Colony,
Sonepath, Haryana
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 220/07
Police Station: Nangloi
Under Section: 302/307/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to sessions Court: 3.9.2007
Date on which orders were reserved: 14.5.2012
Date on which judgment announced: 2.7.2012
JUDGMENT:
(1) The present case relates to an incident of Road Rage where and Jagbir the owner of the truck bearing No. HR38B0810 who was travelling St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 1 in the same along with the driver Harbir and conductor/ helper Somvir lost his life. As per allegations on 13.3.2007 at about 10:00 PM at Firni More, Village Neelwal both the accused namely Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully stopped the truck bearing No. HR38B0810 driven by Harbir and started beating the owner Jagbir who was also travelling in the truck and inflicted stab injuries in his stomach and on his head with an intention and knowledge that such an act it likely to cause death and committed culpable homicide amounting to murder. Further, as per allegations both the accused also gave severe beatings to Harbir on his head and other parts of body with such an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act they cause death, they would be guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 13.3.2007 DD No.26 was received at Police Station Nangloi pursuant to which HC Pop Singh along with Ct. Pratap reached Firni Road, Neelwal where they found a truck bearing no. HR 38 B 0810 whose right side front mirror was found broken and blood was found on the road on the left side of the truck. On inquiry HC Pop Singh came to know that the injured had already been taken to SGM Hospital by the PCR. In the meanwhile SI Puran Chand, Incharge Police Post Tikri Boarder reached the spot who left HC Pop Singh at the St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 2 spot and himself went to SGM Hospital with Ct. Pratap where he collected the MLC of injured Jagbir. Eye witnesses Somvir and Harbir also met SI Puran Chand at SGM Hospital. In the meanwhile the injured Jagbir was removed by his relatives to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital. (3) SI Puran Chand recorded the statement of eye witness Somvir wherein he stated that he was working as Driver on the truck bearing No. DL38B0810 owned by Jagbir. He further stated that on 13.3.2007 at about 1:00 PM he along with his associate Harbir and Jagbir were going to village Dichaun via Neelwal village and when they reached near Firni of Neelwal village then suddenly one boy aged about 25 years & well built came and hit the driver side mirror of the truck and another boy who was also aged about 25 years came towards the conductor side of the truck and started abusing. Somvir also informed the police that Jagbir came down to the truck on which both the said boys gave beatings to Jagbir and one boy who was of dark complexion and well built gave knife blows on the abdomen and head of Jagbir. On this Somvir and Harbir came down from the truck and tried to save Jagbir but the said two boys also gave beatings to Harbir and thereafter the said boys ran away from the spot in car which was stationed behind. In the meanwhile one passerbye made a call at 100 number pursuant to which PCR came to the spot and they both removed Jagbir to Hospital.
(4) On the basis of the said statement of Sombir the present FIR was got registered. On 14.3.2007 the injured Jagbir expired at Maharaja St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 3 Aggarsain Hospital. Efforts were made to trace out the assailants but they were not traceable. On 6.6.2007 information was received from Police Station Bahadurgarh (Haryana) that one accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi was arrested in case FIR No. 143/07 under Section 25 of Arms Act and during interrogation the said accused disclosed about his involvement in the present case. Thereafter the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi was produced in Rohini Court pursuant to the production warrants and thereafter he was arrested in the present case. The accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi was interrogated further wherein he disclosed the name of his other associate as Pradeep who was involved along with him in the present case. During investigations it was revealed that the said Pradeep was in judicial custody at Sonepat in another murder case after which production warrants were issued against the accused Pradeep who was subsequently arrested in the present case. Judicial Test Identification Parade of both the accused were conducted wherein both the accused refused to participate and on 29.6.2007 while both the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep were being produced in the Court when they were identified by the eye witnesses Somvir and Harbir. In pursuance to their disclosure statements the accused Sukhvinder got recovered on danda from the roof of a tubewell Kothra in the fields of village Neelwal and the accused Pradeep got recovered a broken knife from the holes of that Kothra. After completion of investigations, charge sheet was filed against both the accused. St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 4
CHARGE:
(5) Charges under Sections 302/307/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(6) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, for the sake of convenience the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the Category of witness
No. Witness
1 PW1 Dr. Manoj Dhingra Autopsy surgeon
2 PW2 Dr. Binay Kumar Proved the MLC of the injured and the
deceased
3 PW3 Sant Ram Public witness who had identified the
dead body of deceased
4 PW4 Harbir Eye witness/ driver of truck bearing no.
HR38B0810
5 PW5 HC Pradeep Duty Officer
6 PW6 HC Bater Ram PCR Official
7 PW7 Vrish Bhan Owner of the transport company Ganpati
Road Carrier
8 PW8 HC Pop Singh Police official who had reached the spot
first pursuant to information from PCR
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 5
9 PW9 Ct. Pratap Police witness who reached the spot
along with HC Pop Singh on receipt of
information
10 PW10 Suraj Bhan Uncle of the deceased who had identified
the dead body
11 PW11 Shamsher Singh Owner of the truck in question
12 PW12 Dr. Manoj Doctor who has proved the nature of
injuries received by Harbir
13 PW13 SI Mahesh Kumar Draftsman
14 PW14 Ct. Ravneek Police witness who had delivered the
special reports
15 PW15 Ct. Sunil Kumar Police official who had deposited the
pullandas to FSL
16 PW16 HC Satpal PCR official who has proved the PCR
form
17 PW17 Insp. Malkit Singh Crime Team Incharge
18 PW18 HC Vijay Kumar Crime Team photographer
19 PW19 HC Balwan MHCM
20 PW20 SI Satbir Police witness from Police Station
Bahardurgarh
21 PW21 Sh. Puran Chand Initial Investigating Officer
PW22 V. Shankara FSL Expert
22 Narayanan
23 PW23 Insp. Surender Singh Police witness who has conducted
investigations
24 PW24 Sh. Amit Bansal Ld. MM
PW25 HC Pawan Police witness who had joined
25 investigations
26 PW26 Insp. Prakash Chand Investigating Officer
27 PW27 Insp. R.S. Malik Investigating Officer
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 6
28 PW28 J.S. Pawar Mechanical Expert
29 PW29 Ct. Somvir Police witness who had joined
investigations
List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Document Details Proved by
No. exhibit No.
1. Ex.PW1/A Postmortem report Dr. Manoj Dhingra
2. Ex.PW1/B Opinion regarding cause of death
3. Ex.PW2/A MLC of injured Jagbir Dr. Binay Kumar
4. Ex.PW2/B MLC of injured Harbir
5. Ex.PW3/A Statement of Sant Ram Sant Ram
6. Ex.PW3/B Dead body handing over memo
7. Ex.PW4/DA Statement of Harbir u/s. 161 Cr.P.C Harbir
8. Ex.PW5/A FIR HC Pradeep Kumar
9. Ex.PW5/A1 Computer print out of FIR
10. Ex.PW5/B Copy of DD No. 37A & 38A
11. Ex.PW10/A Statement of Suraj Bhan Suraj Bhan
12. Ex.PW11/A Superdarinama of Truck Shamsher Singh
13. Ex.PW11/B1 Photographs of the truck
to PW11/B4
14. Ex.PW13/A Scaled site plan SI Mahesh Kumar
15. Ex.PW16/A PCR Form HC Satpal
16. Ex.PW17/A Crime Team Report Insp. Malkit Singh
17. Ex.PW18/A1 Negatives of the photographs taken HC Vijay Kumar to PW18/A8 by Crime Team
18. Ex.PW18/B1 Photographs taken by Crime Team to PW18/B8 St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 7
19. Ex.PW19/A Copy of Entry No. 4874 HC Balwan
20. Ex.PW19/B Copy of Entry No. 5217
21. Ex.PW19/C Copy of RC No. 260/21
22. Mark PW20/A Copy of disclosure statement of SI Satbir accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi in case under Section 25 Arms Act of Police Station Bahadurgarh Haryana
23. Ex.PW21/A Statement of Somvir SI Puran Chand
24. Ex.PW21/B Rukka
25. Ex.PW21/C Seizure memo of pieces of reflector mirror
26. Ex.PW21/D Seizure memo of the truck
27. Ex.PW21/E Seizure memo of two sealed parcels handed over by the doctor
28. Ex.PW22/A Biological Report V. Shankara
29. Ex.PW22/B Serological Report Narayanan
30. Ex.PW23/A Arrest memo of accused Sukhvinder Insp. Surender
31. Ex.PW23/B Disclosure statement of Sukhvinder Singh
32. Ex.PW23/C Arrest memo of accused Pradeep
33. Ex.PW23/D Disclosure statement of Pradeep
34. Ex.PW24/A Application for TIP of Pradeep Sh. Amit Bansal
35. Ex.PW24/B Endorsement on TIP
36. Ex.PW24/C TIP of accused Pradeep
37. Ex.PW24/D Application for obtaining the copy of TIP of accused Pradeep
38. Ex.PW24/E Application for TIP of accused Sukhvinder
39. Ex.PW24/F Endorsement on TIP
40. Ex.PW24/G TIP of accused Sukhvinder St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 8
41. Ex.PW24/F Application of the IO for obtaining the copy of TIP
42. Ex.PW25/A Seizure memo of danda HC Pawan
43. Ex.PW25/B Sketch of knife
44. Ex.PW25/C Seizure memo of knife
45. Ex.PW25/D & Pointing out memos Ex.PW25/E
46. Ex.PW26/A Site plan Insp. Prakash Chand
47. Ex.PW27/A Inquest papers Insp. Rajender
48. Ex.PW27/B Brief Facts Singh Malik
49. Ex.PW27/C Form 25.35
50. Ex.PW27/D Death certificate
51. Ex.PW27/E Seizure memo of blood gauze
52. Ex.PW27/F Copy of FIR No. 143/07, PS Sadar Bahadurgarh
53. Ex.PW27/G Rukka
54. Ex.PW27/H & Statement of witnesses PW27/I
55. Ex.PW27/J Application for opinion from doctors
56. Ex.PW27/K Request for mechanical inspection
57. Ex.PW27/L Request for production warrants
58. Ex.PW28/A Mechanical inspection report J.S. Pawar EVIDENCE (7) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as twenty nine witnesses as under:St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 9
Public witnesses/ eye witnesses:
(8) PW3 Sant Ram Singh is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that on 14.03.07 he went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mortuary where he identified the dead body of his brother Jagbir, aged 42 years vide statement Ex.PW3/A and after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them vide handing over memo Ex.PW3/B. In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that he had identified the dead body of his brother after the postmortem.
(9) PW4 Harbir is an eye witness to the incident who has deposed that on 13.03.07, he was working as a driver on the truck of Jagbir Singh, S/o Sh. Brahma Singh and on that day he along with his associate Somvir came to Gurgaon at about 12 noon to 1 PM in their truck from Baroda, Gujrat. According to him, after reaching Gurgaon he telephoned to Jagbir owner of vehicle no. HR38B0810 who instructed them to unload the vehicle and come to Dichao Kalan. The witness has further deposed that the truck was having a load to the destination of Samay Pur Badli and the owner called them at Dichaon, the native village of Jagbir to further load the material in the truck of Samay Pur Badli to reloaded in some local small truck and hence, as per the instructions they went in the same truck to Dichaon in the house of Jagbir from where, at about 5:00 PM in the same truck, he himself, Somvir and Jagbir went to their transport company i.e. Ganpathi Road Carrier situated at near Village Ghevra. He has further St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 10 deposed that they parked their vehicle on the service road near transport company and he (witness) and Jagbir went inside the office of the transport company for settling their account while Somvir remained in the truck.
The witness has also deposed that they had settled their account with the transport company and could not find any local vehicle for sending the loaded material in the truck to Samaypur Badli after which Jagbir had sent him for taking liquor and allowed them to drink and eat since they would have been tired as they had come from Gujrat. He has further deposed that after liquor was brought, he went inside the truck where Somvir was already present and Bablu, the person from transport company and Jagbir also came inside the truck and they all started to take liquor at about 8.30 PM. According to him, after taking liquor they were instructed to go to Dichaon in the truck and hence as per the instruction, they started to go to Dichaon at about 10 to 10.15 PM and at the time, Jagbir and Somvir were also in truck while he (Harbir) was driving the truck. The witness has testified that after they had covered two kilometers and reached near Neelwal Gaon towards Firni Mod and turned the vehicle on the left side, some person gave a danda blow on the head mirror on the front of the truck. He has also deposed that thereafter Jagbir asked him to stop the vehicle and he (Jagbir) got down from the left side of the truck when the person who had given the danda blow came towards left side of the truck and started abusing them. According to the witness, Jagbir objected to his behavior and thereafter another associates of the person who had given a St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 11 danda blow who was having a knife in his hand, gave a knife blow on the abdomen and the other person given danda blow on the head of Jagbir. The witness has further deposed that the person who had given danda blow was of good built and having long hair whom the witness has correctly identified as Sukhvinder in the Court. He has also deposed that another boy who was having knife was small in height but was also healthy and having good health whom the witness has correctly identified the accused Pradeep in the Court. PW4 Harbir has further deposed that when he got down from the truck in order to save Jagbir, he was also given danda, fist and leg blows by the accused persons in front of his truck who also laid him on the ground. The witness has testified that after beating them, the assailants ran away from the spot and the other co driver Somvir ran towards the village for the purpose of help. According to him, after sometime the PCR came at the spot and took Jagbir to the hospital and Somvir also accompanied Jagbir to the hospital whereas he himself remained at the spot with the truck and after some time police officials from Tikri Border Police Post came at the spot and took him to the hospital where he was also provided medical aid and it was there that he came to know in the hospital that Jagbir had expired. The witness has deposed that thereafter police interrogated him and recorded his statement in the hospital after which he was taken to Police Station Nangloi by police officials where he was further interrogated by the police. According to the St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 12 witness Harbir, thereafter he was called by the police officials at Police Station Nangloi on number of occasions for the purposes of identification of those assailants where he was also shown photographs of several suspects but no culprits could be identified from those photographs. He has further testified that police had issued notice to them and called him alongwith Somvir for the purpose of identification of accused at Rohini and Tihar Jail, Delhi on 27.06.07 and 28.06.07 but no identification proceeding had taken place in his presence both at Rohini and Tihar Jails and thereafter on 29.06.07 they came to the Rohini Court and on seeing the accused person he correctly identified the accused persons in the court premises. According to him, he had also informed the police about the identification of accused persons and the police recorded his statement. The witness has also deposed that the danda in question was approximately three and half feet long having two heads on it and the length of the knife was one feet (approximately).
(10) The witness has also identified the case property in the Court i.e. the danda having two heads as the same which was used by the accused Sukhvinder at the time of commission of offence which danda is Ex.P1; the knife blade and handle as the same which was used by the accused Pradeep at the time of commission of offence, which handle is Ex.P2 and the knife blade is Ex.P3.
(11) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that he had brought the English liquor bottle for Rs.200/ but he is unable to tell the St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 13 brand of that liquor bottle. He has deposed that they took about one and a half or two hours in consuming the liquor which liquor was consumed by all of them, four in number. He has further deposed that he had been working as Driver on a salary of Rs.4,500/ with the deceased Jagbir for three to three and a half months before the date of accident and used to ply the truck on Delhi to Gujrat and Gujrat to Delhi route. He has testified that he visited the house of deceased Jagbir for collecting money once or twice and used to leave after having tea and taking the money. According to this witness Harbir, Jagbir was having one truck with him for transportation on which he was working as a driver. He has further deposed that Jagbir was a good employer who used to take good care of him. The witness has also deposed that he did not attend the cremation ceremony of Jagbir as he was in the Police Station from where he was not allowed to go out for eight days. He has denied the suggestion that he was beaten or threatened by the police during these eight days and has deposed that inquiries were made from him. According to the witness, he had consumed liquor with Jagbir only once or twice during the period he had worked with him. He has further denied the suggestion that they were totally under the influence of liquor on the date of incident. PW4 has also clarified that he did not visit the house of the deceased after leaving the Police Station as he was scared of facing the family of deceased since they were having suspicion on him also. According to the witness, Somvir was also detained in the Police Station for inquiry purposes for eight days and he (witness) was called St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 14 1516 times to the Police Station for purposes of investigation of this case during which period he met Somvir only once or twice. He has testified that during the inquiry, he was taken to various places including Najafgarh Police Station, Punjabi Bagh etc. for the purpose of identification of culprits. The witness is not aware whether any pressure was put on the police by the family of Jagbir or not. According to PW4 Harbir, Jagbir got down from the conductor side as he (witness Harbir) was on the driver seat and he that tried to save Jagbir but was also beaten by the accused persons. He has further deposed that accused persons gave danda blow and also attacked Jagbir with knife. He has deposed that he was very badly hurt in the entire incident and was in pain due to the injuries. According to him, the incident lasted for ten to fifteen minutes and thereafter he became unconscious. The witness has also deposed that when the accused persons were arrested, they were not shown to him and he was called at Tihar Jail for identification. He has also deposed that he was not involved in any criminal case. According to him, the incident occurred near the conductor side of the truck near front wheel. He has deposed that he had stated to the police that the danda was having two heads but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW4/DA dated 14.03.7 the said fact was not found mentioned. He has also deposed that he had not stated to the police that the danda was three and a half feet long. He has denied the suggestion that he had wrongly identified the accused persons in the court or that fourgive persons came in a Jeep and they killed Jagbir. The witness has also denied St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 15 the suggestion that he has deposed falsely under the pressure of the police or that that he ran away from the spot when he was beaten by the accused. According to the witness Harbir, deceased Jagbir was wearing pant and shirt at the time of incident and not kurta and pyjama. A specific question was put to the witness with regard to the discrepancy when he had stated to the police that first one person gave danda blow on the wind screen and the second person came on the conductor side while in his deposition in the Court he had stated that the person who gave the danda blow on the wind screen then moved towards the conductor side, to which the witness has replied that his deposition in the Court was the correct version of the account and was the same as what had stated to the police. (12) PW7 Vrish Bhan has deposed that he was running a transport company by the name of Ganpati Road Carrier at shop no. 2, First floor Ghewra Mor, Delhi. According to him, the truck bearing No. HR380810 was owned by one Shamsher who sold it to Jagbir. He has further deposed that on 13.3.2007, Jagbir, Harbir driver of the truck and Sombir conductor of the truck came to his shop on the above truck and left his shop at around 9:30 PM to 10:00 PM on the above truck. The witness has also deposed that when they were in his shop, they all took liquor. According to the witness, on the next date, i.e. 14.3.2007, he came to know about the death of Jagbir in a quarrel. The said witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 16 (13) PW10 Sh. Suraj Bhan is the uncle of the deceased who has deposed that on 14.3.2007, he identified the dead body of his nephew Jagbir S/o Sh. Brahma in the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital vide his identification statement which is Ex.PW10/A. He has further proved that after postmortem, dead body was handed over to him and Sant Ram, brother of deceased vide receipt Ex.PW3/B. He has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (14) PW11 Shamsher Singh a resident of village Nilothi, Distt, Jhajjar Haryana has stated that he was the registered owner of truck no. HR38B0810 which truck was sold by him to one Jagbir Singh (deceased), son of Sh. Dharma R/o Dichaun Kalan who was murdered on 14.03.2007. The witness has deposed that on 16.03.2007, the aforesaid truck was taken by him on superdari vide superdarinama copy of which is Ex.PW11/A. He has identified the said truck from the photographs which are Ex.PW11/B1 to Ex.PW11/B4. This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. Medical witnesses/ evidence:
(15) PW1 Dr. Manoj Dingra from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi has deposed that on 14.03.07 at 11:00 AM, he conducted the postmortem examination the dead body of deceased Jagbir S/o Brahama, aged 40 years, male, which body was sent by Inspector RS St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 17 Malik and identified by constable Pratap Singh with alleged history of assault. The witness has proved that he found the following external injuries on the dead body:
(a) Bruise of size 1 and half cm. X 1 and half cm. over left elbow joint.
(b) Bruise of size 8 cm x 2 cm over the posteriolateral aspect of left arm.
(c) Bruise of size 18 cm x 2 cm over front of abdomen over epigestric umbilical region.
(d) Incised wound of 7 cm x half cm x bone deep over left partial region of skull.
(e) Incised wound of 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep 4 cm below the umbilicus.
(f) Abrasion over left side of face of size 3 x 1 cm.
(g) Abrasion over left ear pina of size 1 cm x 1 cm.
(h) Two stitches done at 4 cm below umbilicus.
(16) According to the witness, on internal examination there was a
generalized sub scalp hemotoma and fracture of fronto parito and temporal bone and sub dural haemotoma prevent over left fronto partio temporal region. He has proved that the cause of death is coma as a result of head injuries and all injuries are antemortem in nature. The witness has proved his report which is Ex.PW1/A which is in his hand. According to St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 18 him, he subsequently gave his opinion regarding the weapon of offence, i.e. knife and danda which opinion is Ex.PW1/B. (17) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that his opinion regarding the weapon of offence is based on the possibility of seeing the injuries. He has denied the suggestion that his opinion is not in general way and that he had given the said opinion in a mechanical way.
(18) PW2 Dr. Binay Kumar, CMO, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Delhi has deposed that on 13.03.07, he medically examined the injured Jagbir, S/o Sh. Brahma, aged 42 years male and prepared the MLC which is Ex.PW2/A. According to the witness, he sent the patient to surgical reference to Dr. Samad, Sr. Resident. He has also deposed that on 14.03.07, he examined another patient Harbir S/o Sh. Chander Roop, 30 years, male and on local examination he found bruise and tenderness over right elbow joint and right arm, multiple horizontal bruises all over back, bruise swelling and tenderness over left leg. The witness has further deposed that he referred the patient to Orthopedic, Sr. Resident. He has proved his detailed report which is Ex.PW2/A which is in his hand.
(19) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that the attendant of the patient took the patient from the hospital for Maharaja Agrasen hospital against medical advice and he had reported the matter to the Duty Constable.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 19 (20) PW12 Dr. Manoj Dhingra Medical Officer Incharge (MOIC) from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital has identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Ritesh Kumar, SR Ortho on the MLC of Harbir which is Ex.PW2/B where Dr. Ritesh had given his opinion in red encircled portion that the injury was simple in nature. This witness has also not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel for accused persons despite opportunity in this regard.
Forensic evidence/ witness:
(21) PW22 V. Shankarnaryanan, Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology), FSL, Rohini has deposed that on 18.07.2007, five sealed parcels were received in the FSL for examination, seals were intact as per F.A. Letter. According to him, he had given serial number 1 to 5 to all the parcels and their contents were given Ex.1, 2, 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), 4, 5(a) and 5(b). The witness has proved that he examined all the exhibits biologically and prepared his detailed report Ex.PW22/A bearing his signatures at point A. According to him, the exhibits were also examined serologically and he prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW22/B bearing his signatures at point A. He has testified that after examination the remnants of the exhibit have been sealed VSN FSL Delhi. (22) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that the parcels were received in the office of FSL and then it was marked to him for analysis. The witness has also deposed that at the time of receiving St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 20 the samples at office, he was not present at the receipt counter of the office.
He is not aware who had received the abovesaid samples in the office. He has denied the suggestion that the exhibits did not have the seals intact at the time of their receipt in the office.
Police/ official witnesses:
(23) PW5 HC Pradeep Kumar has deposed that on 14.03.2007, he was posted as Duty Officer at Police Station Nangloi, from 1:00 AM to 9:00 AM and at about 2:30 AM he received a rukka from SI Puran Chand on the basis of which he registered FIR copy of which is Ex.PW5/A and computer print out of the said FIR is Ex.PW5/A1. According to the witness, after registering the FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Insp. Rajinder Singh Malik who took up the investigation of this case. He has also proved the copy of DD No. 37A vide which he started writing the FIR and copy of DD No. 38A vide which he closed the FIR which DDs are Ex.PW5/B. (24) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed stated that he had not recorded the details of the FIR in the DD entry no. 38A. According to the witness, as per DD No. 38A the process of recording the FIR was over at 3.30 AM. He has denied the suggestion that FIR was not recorded at the time as claimed by him and was done later.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 21 (25) PW6 HC Bater Ram has deposed that on 13.03.07, he was posted in PCR van, power 67 stationed at Ghewra Mor and at around 10.40 PM, a call was received by them from PHQ regarding beatings given to a truck driver by some persons at village Neelwal. He has further deposed that they immediately reached the spot on PCR van where he found one person lying injured and many public persons were also available there.
According to the witness, on inquiry about any person accompanying the injured upon which one person namely Sombir came forward and thereafter he took the injured and Sombir in PCR van to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi. The witness has also deposed that when they reached at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, he inquired from the injured as to what had happened on which the injured namely Jagbir told him that he was travelling in a truck driven by Sombir and their truck made to stop by five to six miscreants who had given beatings to him (Jagbir). According to him, in the hospital search of injured Jagbir was taken by him during which Rs.14,000/ were recovered which he handed over to SI Puran Singh of Police Station Nangloi who had reached the hospital by that time. He has further deposed that family members of the injured Jagbir had also arrived in the hospital and thereafter, he with staff came back to Ghewra Mor and stationed the PCR van there itself. The witness has also deposed that he gave the above information to police control room at PHQ through a wireless set.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 22 (26) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that as per the practice whenever they visit a spot whatever he see or observe or hear, he relayed it back to the police control room but in the present case, he had not followed the above said practice. The witness has testified that he said only that injured was serious and they were taking him to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. According to the witness, after reaching the hospital, they inquired the name and address of the injured from the person who was accompanying him when Sombir told him that his truck was overtaken by five to six persons in their vehicle and then given beatings to them. (27) PW8 HC Pop Singh has deposed that on 13.3.07, he was posted as HC at Police Post Tikri Border, Police Station Nangloi and on receiving DD No. 26 Ex.PW8/A he along with Ct. Pratap went to Firni Road, Neelwal where he found a truck no. HR38B0810 and its right side front mirror was found broken and blood was found on the left side of the truck on the road. According to the witness, on inquiry he came to know that the injured had been removed to SGM Hospital by PCR van and in the meanwhile, SI Puran Chand, Incharge, Police Post Tikri Border also came there who left him at the spot and went to SGM Hospital along with Ct. Pratap. The witness has testified that the Crime Team came to the spot and inspected the same and HC Vijay Singh took photograph of the spot but no chance print was available. He has also deposed that he (HC Vijay Singh) instructed him to lift the exhibits from the spot and then left away. According to him, another injured Harbir was also there who was sent to St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 23 SGM Hospital with the police staff of the Police Post Tikri Border. He has further deposed that after sometime, Inspector RS Malik with staff SI Puran Chand and complainant Sombir came to the spot when at the instance of Sombir, the Investigating Officer prepared site plan and lifted the exhibits from the spot after sealing the same.
(28) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that he had stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Harbir was also present at the spot when he reached there, however, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW8/DA the said fact was not found so recorded. According to the witness, he reached the spot at around 11:00 PM where he stayed there for about four to five hours during which period he remained at the spot and did not go anywhere else.
(29) PW9 Ct. Pratap Singh has deposed that on 13.3.07, he was posted as Constable at Police Post Tikri Border, Police Station Nangloi and on receiving DD no. 26 he accompanied HC Pop Singh to the spot, i.e. Firni Road, Neelwal. He has further deposed that he found a truck no. HR38B0810 and its right side front mirror was found broken and blood was lying on the road towards the left side of the road. According to the witness, on inquiry they came to know that the injured had been removed to SGM Hospital by PCR van and in the meanwhile, SI Puran Chand came there. He has further deposed that HC Pop Singh left at the spot while he accompanied SI Puran Chand to SGM Hospital where SI Puran Chand collected the MLC of Jagbir and also of injured Sombir. He has also St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 24 deposed that SI Puran Chand recorded the statement of Sombir and the relatives of the injured Jagbir got him shifted to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital. The witness has also deposed that he accompanied SI Puran Chand to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital where the doctor declared Jagbir dead after which SI Puran Chand received the medical papers and got the body shifted to SGM Hospital. According to him, he came to SGM Hospital where they met injured Harbir, who was got medically examined. The witness has testified that SI Puran Chand went to Police Station with the statement of complainant to get the FIR registered.
(30) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that the distance between the scene of crime and SGM Hospital is about 2025 minutes drive. He has further deposed that from SGM Hospital, Maharaja Agrasen Hospital is 2025 minutes drive. However, he does not recollect the exact time when SI Puran Chand left SGM Hospital with the rukka. (31) PW13 SI Mahesh Kumar has deposed that that on 8.7.2007 he alongwith Inspector R.S. Malik visited the scene of crime i.e. Firni Road and field of Braham Singh Neelwal village where he took rough notes and measurement at the instance of Inspector R.S. Malik for the preparation of scaled site plan. According to him, as per the rough notes he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW13/A and after preparation of the scaled site plan, rough notes and measurements taken by him were destroyed. (32) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed stated that at the time of his visit at the scene of crime St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 25 only Investigating Officer and one constable (rider of the Inspector) were accompanied him and no public person were called by him or present at the spot. He has denied the suggestion that he had not visited the spot at the date and time mentioned above or that entire proceedings of the site plan were conducted while sitting at the Police Station at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(33) PW14 Ct. Ravneek Kumar has deposed that on 14.3.2007 he was posted at Police Post Tikri Border of Police Station Nangloi and on that day Duty Officer HC Pradeep Kumar handed over special reports for delivery to the concerned Area Magistrate, Joint Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned. According to the witness he took the envelops containing the special report and left the Police Station on motor cycle number DL1SN5559 and delivered the special report to the concerned Area Magistrate Shri D.K. Jangla, Joint Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (West) at their residence after which he returned back.
(34) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he does not remember the exact time when he reached the residence of the Area MM but stated that he left the Police Station at about 3:00 AM and returned back at Police Station at 7:00 AM. According to the witness, at first he had gone to the residence of DCP(West) then to the residence of Joint C.P. and lastly at the residence of learned MM. He has denied the suggestion that Special Report was delivered to the Area MM at about 10 AM. He has St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 26 further deposed that he had not made any arrival entry, but signed the Roznamcha for arrival. He has denied the suggestion that FIR was ante timed and that is why the same was not delivered at the time mentioned by him.
(35) PW15 Ct. Sunil Kumar has deposed that on 18.7.07 he was posted at Police Station Nangloi and on that day MHC(M) handed over five sealed parcels with sample seals to him for depositing the same to FSL vide RC No.207/21/07. He has further deposed that he deposited the same at FSL, Rohini, Delhi after which FSL official handed over FSL receipt number 2007/B2592 which he handed over to the MHC(M). He has proved that the case property was not tampered with by anybody during the time it remained in his custody. In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that the case property was received and deposited on the same date i.e. 18.7.2007.
(36) PW16 HC Sat Pal has deposed that on 13.3.2007 he was posted at PCR Control Room and was on duty from 8 PM to 8 AM. According to him, on that day he was on duty at Channel No.109 and at about 10.32 PM one person informed through phone number 9210885627 that from Ghevra More to Neelwal Village More side, one truck driver lying in injured condition and somebody had beaten him. The witness has proved that he immediately filled the PCR form copy of which is Ex.PW16/A which he immediately sent for circulation. St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 27 (37) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that generally they record the version which they received through call and the contents of Ex.PW16/A were recorded as received by him. According to the witness, column Part II and Part III and back of the form was not filled by him and he has no concern with the same since usually this part was filled as per information given by the PCR.
(38) PW17 Inspector Malkiat Singh has in his examination in chief deposed that on the intervening night of 1314.3.2007 he was the Incharge Crime Team and on receiving call in the night, he along with the staff HC Vijay Kumar Photographer and Ct. Balkishan, Finger Print Expert went to the spot of crime at Firni Mor, Village Neelwal, Delhi where he met HC Pop Singh. According to the witness, he noticed one scattered broken truck light and front mirror; a truck was found there having No. HR 380810 which was parked slightly ahead from the scattered glasses on the road. The witness has further deposed that he also noticed blood stains at the spot. He has testified that the scene of crime was photographed by HC Vijay and he instructed HC Pop Singh to lift the scattered glasses and blood stains and convert them into exhibits, however, no chance print was found there. The witness has deposed that he prepared the crime team report and had filed a carbon copy of crime team report since the original was not traceable which carbon copy of crime team report is Ex.PW17/A. PW17 further deposed that one open bundle of biri make 502 pataka was also lying with a match box.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 28 (39) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that that he inspected the scene of crime from 3.00 am to 3.40 am on 14.03.2007 and did not meet Inspr. R.S. Malik at the spot and has voluntarily added that he met him on the same day. According to the witness he had made inquiries regarding the circumstances from SI Puran Chand and stated that so far as he recollects, the call was received by him at about 2 - 2:15 AM. He has testified that the Investigating Officer told him the name of the deceased as Jagbir and first of all the Investigating Officer told that he is not aware about the name of deceased and subsequently told the particulars of the deceased, which he mentioned in the report.
(40) PW18 HC Vijay Kumar has in his examination in chief deposed that on 1314.03.2007, he was posted as HC at Crime Team West District as Photographer and on that day in the intervening night of 1314.03.2007, he alongwith IC Crime Team SI Malkiat Singh and Ct. Balkishan went to the spot of crime at Firni Mor, Village Neelwal, Delhi where HC Pop Singh met them. According to the witness, they found a truck No. HR 38B 0810 on the road, the wind screen, front glass of the truck was broken and at the left side of the road, he noticed blood stains. He has proved having taken eight photographs of the spot as per instruction of HC Pop Singh from different angles. The witness has produced the negatives before the Court which are Ex.PW18/A1 to Ex.PW18/A8 and the positives which are on the judicial file which are Ex.PW18/B1 and St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 29 Ex.PW18/B8. This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsels despite opportunity in this regard. (41) PW19 HC Balwan has deposed that on 14.03.2007, he was posted as MHC(M) at Police Station Nangloi and on that day, Inspector R. S. Malik deposited five sealed parcels alongwith a sample seal and a truck bearing No. HR 38B0810 of this case with him. He has proved that he made an entry in register No. 19 at serial No. 4874 in this regard, copy of which entry is Ex.PW19/A. According to him, on 29.06.2007, Addl. SHO Inspector Parkash Chand deposited two sealed parcels with him of this case pursuant to which he made an entry in register No. 19 at serial No. 5217, photocopy of which is Ex.PW19/B. He has testified that on 06.07.2007, Inspector R.S. Malik obtained two parcels containing danda and knife from him for obtaining the subsequent opinion on which he made entry in this regard at point 'X' on Ex.PW19/B. The witness has further deposed that on 12.07.2007, both the parcels were deposited by the Investigating Officer with him and both the parcels were duly sealed with the seal of hospital after which he made an entry in this regard at point 'Y' on Ex.PW19/B. He has also deposed that on 18.07.2007, five sealed parcels with sample seal were sent to FSL through Ct. Sunil Kumar vide RC No. 260/21 and he made entry in this regard at point 'Z1' on Ex.PW19/A. According to the witness, on 17.10.2007 Ct. Somvir deposited five sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of FSL and FSL result with him after which he made entry in St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 30 this regard at point 'Z3' on Ex.PW19/A. He has placed on record the photocopy of RC No. 260/21 which is Ex.PW19/C. In his cross examination, the witness has denied the suggestion that he manipulated the entries at the instance of the Investigating Officer. (42) PW20 SI Satbir Singh has deposed that on 05.06.2007, he was posted as ASI at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh. According to him, on that day HC Karan Singh and HC Jai Karan accompanied him and they were coming from Village Ladravan. He has deposed that when they reached at Kanonda Kulasi Mor, they saw one boy coming and on seeing them, the said boy tried to hide himself and on suspicion, they apprehended him and inquired during which he told his name as Shoki @ Sukhvinder. According to the witness, the formal search of Sukhvinder was taken during which one country made pistol of .315 bore was recovered from his right dub of the pant after which he got registered case FIR No. 143/07 U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh. The witness has further deposed that the accused was arrested in the said case and throughly interrogated during which he disclosed that on the intervening night of 1314.03.2007, he along with accused Pardeep broken the glasses of the truck by using the danda at Neelwal Village Mor which truck was going from Gewra Mor. The witness has proved having recorded the detailed disclosure statement of the accused photocopy of which is mark PW20/A since the original disclosure statement was kept in St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 31 the judicial file of case FIR No. 143/07 of Police Station Sadar. He has testified that the information about the disclosure statement of accused was sent to Delhi Police after which the Investigating Officer of the case reached there and recorded his statement. He has correctly identified the accused Sukhvinder @ Shoki, in the Court.
(43) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that the entire investigation of case FIR No.143/07 was done by him and he had submitted the charge sheet in the said case. According to witness he had done the Pairvi of the said case and trial of the said case is going on. The witness is unable to either admit or deny the certified copy of judgment dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Court of Sh. Narender Pal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bahadurgarh which is mark PW20/DA. He has denied the suggestion that accused Sukhvinder has been acquitted in case FIR No. 143/07 vide judgment dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Court of Sh. Narender Pal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bahadurgarh. (44) PW21 SI Puran Chand has deposed that on 13.03.2007, he was posted as Incharge Police Post Tikri Border of Police Station Nangloi and on that day pursuant to DD No. 26, he reached Neelwal Mor where HC Pop Singh along with Ct. Partap met him. According to the witness, one truck No. HR 38B0810 was also stationed there and its Driver's side screen was found broken and some blood stains were lying on the road. The witness has deposed that the injured was already removed by the PCR to SGM Hospital on which he left HC Pop Singh at the spot while he St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 32 alongwith Ct. Partap reached SGM Hospital where the collected the MLC of injured Jagbir. He has further deposed that eye witness Somvir was also present there who was got medically examined and another eye witness Harbir was also called at SGM Hospital. According to the witness, the relatives of injured Jagbir removed him to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh for his treatment. He has proved having recorded the statement of Somvir, which is Ex.PW21/A which he attested at point 'A'. The witness has further deposed that in the meantime, eye witness Harbir also reached at SGM Hospital and was also medicolegally examined by doctor through Ct. Partap after which he along with Ct. Partap and eye witness Somvir reached at Maharaja Agrasen Hospital where he came to know that injured Jagbir had expired in the hospital. According to the witness, the dead body of Jagbir was shifted to the Mortuary of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and he again returned back to SGM Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Harbir after which he reached Police Station Nangloi and prepared the rukka which is Ex.PW21/B and handed over the same to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. The witness has testified that the Duty Officer handed over the investigation of this case to SHO Inspector R. S. Malik and thereafter he along with Investigating Officer and the witnesses reached the spot where the Investigating Officer inspected the scene of crime and lifted blood stained earth control and pieces of the reflector and mirror and turned it into separate plastic boxes and parcels were prepared and sealed with the seal of RS after which the pullandas St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 33 were seized vide memo Ex.PW21/C. He has proved that the truck was also seized vide memo Ex.PW21/D. According to him, when they reached at the spot, members of the crime team were already present there and they inspected the scene of crime. PW21 SI Puran Singh has further deposed that the dead body was brought to SGM Hospital from Maharaja Agrasen Hospital for its postmortem and after postmortem, doctor handed over two sealed parcels alongwith a sample seal which was seized vide Ex.PW21/E. The witness has testified that the Investigating Officer also prepared site plan of the spot when they reached at the spot. He has correctly identified the case property in the Court i.e. the truck bearing No. HR 38B0810 which is Ex.P21 and pieces of mirror reflector which are collectively Ex.P22.
(45) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that in Ex.PW5/B DD No. 37A and 38A are pertaining to registration of this case. He has denied the suggestion that the FIR was not registered at 3:30 AM but was registered later on after due deliberation and consultation and that is why the crux of the same does not figure in Ex.PW5/A. PW21 has further deposed that MLC of Somvir was prepared at 12.20 AM on 14.03.2007 and that of Harbir was at 1.30 AM. He has denied the suggestion that MLC of both the above witnesses were got prepared later on and not at the time as alleged.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 34 (46) PW23 Inspector Surender Singh Rathee has deposed that on 21.6.2007 he was posted at Police Station Nangloi when he accompanied Inspector Prakash Addl. SHO Police Station Nangloi for investigation of this case to the Court as production warrants of the accused persons Sukhvinder and Pradeep were issued for execution. According to the witness, accused Sukhwinder was produced in the court by Haryana Police in muffled face after which Investigating Officer Inspector Prakash Chand moved an application before the Court for the permission of the interrogation which application was allowed after which Investigating Officer interrogated the accused Sukhwinder in his presence. He has testified that after interrogation he was arrested in the case vide memo Ex.PW23/A and thereafter the Investigating Officer recorded disclosure statement of accused Sukhwinder which is Ex.PW23/B wherein the accused disclosed about the facts of the present case and also disclosed about the danda, used in this case. According to the witness, the accused further disclosed that his coaccused Pradeep used the knife and they had hidden the weapons in a gher and could get recover the danda. He has also deposed that thereafter the Investigating Officer moved an application before the concerned court for conducting the Test Identification Parade of the accused as well as for judicial custody remand after which accused was sent to judicial custody as the Court had fixed the date for Test Identification Parade. He has further deposed that on 25.06.2007, accused Pradeep was produced before the Court in muffled face by the Haryana St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 35 police. The witness has deposed that the Investigating Officer moved an application for interrogation and arrest of the accused Pradeep after which accused was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex.PW23/C and thereafter he made a disclosure statement about the facts of the case and disclosed that at the time of commission of crime the knife was broken in two parts and further disclosed that he could get recovered the knife from the Gher, where he had hidden it after the crime. He has proved the disclosure statement of accused Pradeep which is Ex.PW23/D. The witness has also deposed that the Investigating Officer moved an application for Test Identification Parade of the accused and accused Pradeep was sent in Judicial custody. He has correctly identified the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep in the Court.
(47) In his crossexamination, the witness has deposed that he was posted at Police Station Nangloi since October 2006 and at that time, he was the Division Officer of the Industrial Area, Nangloi. He is not aware about the investigation of this case from March 2007 to 20.06.2007. He does not remember the exact time when Inspector Prakash Chand asked to accompany him to the Court regarding this case on 21.06.2007 and 25.06.07, but stated that it was in the morning hours. According to him, Inspector Prakash Chand did not disclose the facts of the case and only disclosed that the accused would be produced on production warrants before the Court. He has also deposed that the Investigating Officer Inspector Prakash Chand might have made a departure entry but he himself St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 36 did not make any separate entry. The witness has testified that they reached Rohini Court at about 2:00 PM and by that time, accused was already present and when the Court started, the Investigating Officer moved an application for interrogation which interrogation was done outside the Court room as per direction of Ld. MM. He does not remember the room number of the said Court where interrogation was conducted and states that it took about half an hour. The witness has further deposed that many other public persons were present outside the Court Room but he is not aware if the Investigating Officer had asked to any public person to join the proceedings and has denied the suggestion that he does not remember the court room number or whether public persons were asked to get involved in the investigation since he was not present at that time. According to the witness, the Investigating Officer did not get the disclosure statement initialed from the learned MM nor Police Custody remand was obtained. He has denied the suggestion that the Police Custody remand was not sought as the accused did not make any disclosure statement or that the disclosure statement and the signatures of the accused persons Sukhwinder and Pradeep were recorded and obtained later on while they were in custody. He does not remember at what point of time he left the Police Station on 25.06.2007. The witness has further deposed that he did not make any departure entry on that day, however Investigating Officer might have made the same. He has denied the suggestion that the production of accused persons in muffled face was only St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 37 a sham since they had already been shown to the witnesses in Sonepat as well as at Police Station Bahadurgarh and Police Station Nangloi. The witness has also denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation at the time and place mentioned above or the documents were prepared at the Police Station.
(48) PW24 Sh. Amit Bansal the then Ld. ACMM has proved that on 25.06.2007, he was posted as MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi and on that day an application for Test Identification Parade proceedings of accused Pardeep was marked to him by his Ld. Link MM Sh. Devender Kumar Jangala which application is Ex.PW24/A on which he fixed the date of Test Identification Proceedings for 28.06.2007. According to the Ld. MM, on 28.06.2007, he had gone to the District Jail, Rohini for conducting the TIP proceedings of accused Pardeep who was produced before him from Jail and was identified by Sh. Jai Pal Singh Rathee, Asst. Supdt. Rohini Jail Delhi vide endorsement Ex.PW24/B. However, the accused Pradeep refused to join the TIP proceedings upon which the accused was warned and cautioned by him that if he did not join the said proceedings, then an adverse inference shall be drawn against him during the trial of the case, but the accused still insisted that he did not want to join the TIP proceedings despite warning. He has proved that a separate statement of accused Pardeep to this effect was recorded at point A in the TIP proceedings. The witness has proved having prepared a St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 38 certificate of correctness of TIP proceedings at point C which was directed that the proceedings be sent in a sealed cover through Ld. CMM to the concerned court immediately and the copy of the TIP proceedings be given to the Investigating Officer on proper application, as per rules. The said TIP proceedings are Ex.PW24/C and the application of the Investigating Officer for obtaining the copy of the same which is Ex.PW24/D. (49) He has further deposed that on 21.06.2007, an application for conducting TIP proceedings of accused Sukhwinder @ Sokhi was marked to him by his Ld Link MM Sh Devender Kumar Jangala which application is Ex.PW24/E which he fixed for 27.06.2007. According to the witness, on 27.06.2007, he had gone to District Jail, Tihar for conducting the TIP proceedings of accused Sukhwinder @ Sokhi who was produced before him from the jail and was identified by Sh. Anjani Kumar, Asst. Superintendent, Tihar Jail No.3, Delhi vide endorsement Ex.PW24/F. However, accused Sukhwinder @ Sokhi refused to join the TIP proceedings upon which the accused was warned and cautioned by him that if he did not join the said proceedings, then an adverse inference shall be drawn against him during the trial of the case, but accused still insisted that he did not want to join the TIP proceedings despite warning. He has proved that a separate statement of accused Sukhwinder @ Sokhi to this effect was recorded as point A in the TIP proceedings. The witness has also proved having appended a certificate of St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 39 correctness of TIP proceedings at point C and it was directed that the proceedings be sent in a sealed cover through Ld. CMM to the concerned court immediately. The said TIP proceedings are Ex.PW24/G and the application of the Investigating Officer for obtaining the copy of the proceedings which is Ex.PW24/H which application was allowed. This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
(50) PW25 HC Pawan has deposed that on 29.06.07 he was posted as Constable at Police Station Nangloi and on that day he joined the investigation of this case when he along with Investigating Officer and Ct. Somvir came to Rohini Courts where the Investigating Officer obtained one day Police Custody remand of Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep. According to the witness, in the court witness Somvir and Harbir also met them who identified both the accused before the Investigating Officer and told their role in the crime on which Investigating Officer recorded their statement. The witness has further deposed that thereafter they went to Neelwal village and accused led them to tubewell Kothra at Firni of Neelwal village in the fields from where accused Sukhvinder got recovered one danda from the roof of Kothra after which the Investigating Officer prepared a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of PC after which it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW25/A. He has testified that the accused Pradeep got recovered one knife from the hole of the wall St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 40 inside the Kothra which knife was in two pieces. According to the witness, the handle was having yellow flowers and the blade was having cuts and slight stains like blood on which the Investigating Officer prepared the sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW25/B and thereafter it was turned into a cloth parcel and sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW25/C. He has proved that the accused persons also pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW25/D and Ex.PW25/E. According to the witness, accused persons were brought to Police Station Nangloi and confined in lock up after which the Investigating Officer deposited the case property with MHC (M) and recorded his statement.
(51) The witness has correctly identified accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep, before the Court and also identified the case property i.e. a danda (in two pieces) as the same danda which was got recovered by accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi as Ex.PW25/1 (It is was observed by the Court that the danda brought from Malkhana was in two pieces and infected with termite) and one blade and handle of the knife which is Ex.PW25/2 (colly.).
(52) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer in this case on 29.06.07 at Kothra in Neelwal. He is unable to tell if Harbir and Somvir were met by chance or called by the Investigating Officer. The witness has stated that Somvir and Harbir met at around 1.00 or 2.00 p.m. in the St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 41 afternoon at the ground floor of the court premises. According to him, at that time accused Sukhvinder was in his custody while other accused was in the custody of other Constable Somvir and both the accused persons were in unmuffled face. He has also deposed that the accused remained at the ground floor with them for fourfive minutes and is unable to tell whether both Harbir and Somvir came at their own or were called by the Investigating Officer after seeing the accused persons. He is not aware whether the Investigating Officer inquired from them why they have come to the Court and whether the Investigating Officer recorded their statements in court premises or not. According to the witness, the place of incident was already in his knowledge and has voluntarily added that since he was posted in the same police station hence he was having knowledge that some incident had taken place there. He has testified that he remained at the spot of pointing out for about one hour and no vehicle passed through that way during one hour. He has also deposed that on one side of the road a village is situated and on the other side there is agricultural land. According to him, houses of village are situated at a distance of 400500 meters from the spot of pointing out and in his presence the Investigating Officer did not call any public person either from the village or from the agricultural field. (53) In his further crossexamination the witness has deposed that on 29.06.07 Harbir and Sombir who were present in the Court, were not asked by the Investigating Officer to join the investigations with regard to the recovery in his presence. He has deposed that the accused persons had St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 42 not disclosed anything in his presence to the Investigating Officer nor the statement of the accused persons was recorded in his presence and has voluntarily stated that he (witness) did the writing work. He does not remember when and where the Investigating Officer had written first document in respect of investigation on 29.06.07. The witness has testified that they were three police officials apart from the driver of Tata 407 when started from Court apart from accused persons and they started in a tempo 407 from court to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. He is unable to tell the distance between spot of crime and place of recovery of danda and knife and has voluntarily added that his attention was with the accused as they were in his custody. According to the witness, the room (kothra) from where the knife and dandas were recovered falls within the jurisdiction of Village Neelwal which room was situated in the agricultural land. The witness has also deposed that the Investigating Officer inquired one or two passerby about the owner of the room but he does not remember his name and states that the Investigating Officer had written name of the owner of room. He is not aware whether the Investigating Officer had written the names of those passerby or not nor does he remember whether at that time recovery was effected or not. The witness has further stated that he does not remember whether there was a staircase or temporary wooden or iron staircase available in that room. He has further deposed that he does not remember as to which pointing out memo was prepared first and which prepared thereafter nor does he remember whether first danda was St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 43 recovered or knife was recovered. He also does not remember whether the Investigating Officer called any person from road or from agricultural field or from village. According to the witness, he himself had read the seizure memo Ex.PW25/C of knife and sketch Ex.PW25/B but he does not remember whether it was mentioned in these documents that recovered knife was in two pieces. He has further deposed that they all three police officials were in uniform and after seeing the police twofour public persons gathered there and went near the Investigating Officer. He is not aware whether those persons were asked to join the investigation. According to the witness, he was not paying any attention to the proceedings which were conducted by the Investigating Officer with the public persons who gathered there nor he has any knowledge whether the Investigating Officer was doing some writing work or not. He does not remember if they went first to the place of occurrence or the place of recovery. The witness has further testified that the tempo tata 407 was driven by the driver who was deputed on duty on that day. He also does not remember the name of person who was driving the tata 407 on that day nor does he remember its number. According to him, he remembered only time of reaching hospital i.e. at 4.15 PM but he does not remember the time of leaving the court premises; reaching at place of occurrence; leaving the place of occurrence; reaching the place of kothra village Neelwal; leaving the kothra and the time when he had reached finally at police station. PW25 HC Pawan has denied the suggestion that accused Sukhvinder @ St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 44 Sokhi was not identified in his presence by Sombir and Harbir on 29.06.07 or that the accused Sukhvinder had not led them to the kothra (room) situated in Neelwal village or that danda was not recovered at his instance. He has further denied that knife was not recovered at the instance of Pradeep from the said kothra or that the place of occurrence was not pointed out by any of the accused. The witness has also denied the suggestion that recovery of danda and knife were planted upon the accused or that the memos to this effect were fabricated which he signed at the instance of the Investigating Officer in the police station without actually joining the investigation.
(54) PW26 Retd. Inspector Prakash Chand has deposed in his examination in chief that on 21.06.07 he was posted as Addl. SHO of Police Station Nangloi and on that day investigation of this case was marked to him by the order of SHO. According to the witness, he collected the case file and inspected the same when he found that a production warrant has already been issued by the court of Delhi for the production of accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep from Sonepat Jail. The witness has deposed that on the same day, he along with SI S.S. Rathi reached Rohini Court in the court of concerned area Magistrate where only accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi was produced on the production warrant on which he moved an application before the concerned Court for interrogation of accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi. He has proved having interrogated the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and thereafter he arrested the accused with St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 45 the permission of the court vide memo Ex.PW23/A. According to the witness, he also recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW23/B wherein the accused disclosed that he could get recover the danda used in the crime. He has also deposed that he directed the accused for covering his face after which he produced the accused before the court in muffled face and was sent in judicial custody upto 29.06.07. The witness has further proved that on the same day, he moved an application before the Court for conducting the Test Identification Parade of the accused which application is Ex.PW24/E which was fixed for 27.06.07. He has also proved having moved an application before the court for issuing the production warrant of coaccused Pradeep which was allowed by the court for 25.06.07. According to the witness, on 25.06.07 he along with SI SS Rathi reached Rohini Court where the accused Pradeep was produced on which he moved an application before the court for interrogation and with the permission of the court he interrogated the accused Pradeep after which the accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW23/C. The witness has proved that the disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded vide Ex.PW23/D wherein the accused disclosed that he could get recover the knife which was used in the present crime. According to the witness, the accused was produced before the court in muffled face for sending him in judicial custody and he moved an application for judicial TIP of accused Pradeep before the court which St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 46 application is Ex.PW24/A which was fixed for 28.06.07 and he recorded statements of witnesses.
(55) The witness Retd. Inspector Prakash Chand has deposed that on 27.06.07 he along with eye witness Harbir and Somvir reached Tihar Jail for the purpose of judicial Test Identification Parade of accused Sukhvinder but accused Sukhvinder refused to join the proceedings before the Ld. Magistrate and thereafter he collected a copy of refusal of TIP proceedings of accused Sukhvinder. According to him, on 28.06.07, he along with eye witness reached at Rohini Jail for the purpose of judicial TIP of accused Pradeep but the accused Pradeep also refused to join the proceedings before the Ld. Magistrate on which he collected a copy of refusal of TIP proceedings. The witness has testified that on 29.06.07, he along with Ct. Somvir and Pawan reached at Rohini Court where the accused Pradeep and Sukhvinder @ Sokhi were produced and he moved an application for police remand of both accused on which one police custody remand was granted. According to him, both the accused were brought outside the court and at the same time witnesses Somvir and Harbir met them and they identified both the accused on which he (witness) recorded their statement regarding identification. He has further deposed that both the accused persons were taken to SGM Hospital for their medical examination and after their medical examination, both the accused pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW25/D and Ex.PW25/E. The witness has also deposed that in pursuance of their disclosure statement, St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 47 accused let them to Firni Road, village Neelwal at a tubewell Kothra from where the accused Sukhvinder got recovered one danda from the roof of that Kothra by lifting himself. He has proved that the danda was measured and it was three feet and ten inches long after which the witness prepared a cloth parcel of the danda and sealed it with the seal of PC and thereafter it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW25/A. The witness has testified that the accused Pradeep also got recovered one broken vegetable knife by lifting from a space on the wall (hole) on which he prepared the sketch of the knife in broken condition which is Ex.PW25/B. On measuring the same the handle was found 10.4 cm and the blade was 14 cm after which it was turned into a cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of PC and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW25/C. According to the witness, the seal after use was handed over to Constable but he does not remember the name of Constable to whom he handed over the seal. He has also proved having the prepared site plan of the recovery spot which is Ex.PW26/A. He has also deposed that they returned back at police station where he deposited the case property and accused persons were confined to lock up after which they were sent to judicial custody. The witness has deposed that on 30.06.07 he handed over the file to Inspector R.S. Malik as per directions of SHO.
(56) He has identified both the accused persons in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one danda in two pieces, which was got St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 48 recovered by accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi in one piece as Ex.PW25/1 (colly.) and one blade and one handle of the knife which was got recovered by accused Pradeep in two parts which is Ex.PW25/2. It was observed by the Court that the danda brought from malkhana in two pieces and infected with termite.
(57) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he is not aware as to how the name of accused Pradeep came during the investigation of this case nor is he aware as to on what basis the application for production warrant of accused Pradeep had been filed. According to him, he had seen only one document in the file against accused Pradeep i.e. application for seeking his production warrant when he received the file from previous Investigating Officer on 21.06.07. He has also deposed that on 25.06.07 he interrogated the accused Pradeep outside the court no. 4 of Ld. M.M. Sh. Jangala for about two three hours during which period the face of the accused was covered and it was he himself who provided the cloth for covering the face. The witness has further deposed that the face of accused Pradeep was not covered after producing before the court. According to him, he did not mention in the application for permission of arrest that accused Pradeep was interrogated in muffled face condition. The witness has stated that he himself recorded the disclosure statement of accused Pradeep and at that time SI Surender Singh Rathi was also present and no other police official from Police Station Nangloi joined the St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 49 proceedings of disclosure statement and arrest of accused Pradeep. He has testified that accused Pradeep signed the disclosure statement at the point where disclosure statement was ended and he is not aware whether any other person was present outside the court who had seen accused Pradeep prior to that day. He has admitted that several other public persons were present outside the court when disclosure statement and arrest memo was written. According to the witness, he had asked two three public persons to sign these two documents as witness but they refused. He has further deposed that he did not file any application for seeking police custody on that day and has denied the suggestion that he did not file seeking police custody remand on that day because no disclosure statement written by him on that day. The witness has further denied that the signature of accused Pradeep was obtained during his custody and thereafter a false statement was prepared on his behalf ante dated or that he did not move any application seeking police custody on that day as no disclosure statement was made by him on that day. He has further denied the suggestion that the name of Pradeep was not disclosed by accused Sukhvinder in his disclosure statement or that the face of accused Pradeep was kept unmuffled during his interrogation outside the concerned court. He is not aware if the face of accused was shown to witnesses at Sonepat. He has denied that the accused Pradeep was shown to witnesses during interrogation and thereafter even in police station Nangloi.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 50 (58) In his further cross examination PW26 Insp. Prakash Chand has deposed that on 29.06.2007 he had not given any notice to public person namely Harbir and Sombir for their appearance in the court and stated that they met him by chance in the court premises on that day. According to him, when he noticed Harbir and Sombir, the accused had already been produced before the Ld. Court by that time and he had not given any notice to the witnesses to stay or to join the investigation but states that he requested them to join the investigation verbally. The witness has further deposed that he did not ask them (witnesses) to accompany them to any other place for the further investigation. According to him, the room/ Kothra was situated at a distance of about 1015 feet away from the main road i.e. Firni road and on one side of the road there is a residential area and across the road the said kotra is situated. The witness has also deposed that they had gone there in a government TATA 407 driven by HC Jagbir Singh. He has testified that he made inquiries regarding ownership of the said Kothra from the villagers during which he came to know that the land on which the Kothra was constructed belongs to one Braham Singh, a resident of Neelwala Village. The witness has also deposed that all the inquiries were conducted by him in presence of both the Constables but he did not send any police officials to call said Braham Singh at the spot. According to the witness, he did not join the villagers who informed him about the ownership of the room. He has testified that the said room was found locked and neither the lock was broken nor any chabi wala was St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 51 brought for getting the said lock opened. He has deposed that there was no separate ladder or staircase and Sukhwinder was allowed to go inside the room. The witness has further deposed that none of the police officials were having any official weapon on that day. He has also deposed that he did not make any inquiry from the public persons who had gathered at the spot as to since when the said kothra was lying locked or unused. According to the witness, while the recovery proceedings with regard to the Sukhwinder were going on, Pardeep was made to sit in the official tempo alongwith the driver and was not allowed to come there. He has deposed that the proceedings with regard to the recovery by Sukhwinder kept on going for about one hour and after one hour the accused Pardeep was asked to come near the Kothra after the recovery of danda. He has testified that he handed over the seal to the Constable at about 8.30 PM at Neelwal village and there was no light or tube available near the kothra/ room which they left at 10 PM on that day. PW26 has denied the suggestion that they did not visit the kothra or that no knife was recovered at the instance of accused Pradep or danda was also not recovered at the instance of accused Sukhwinder. He has further denied that recovery memo were prepared by him in the police station only without actually visited the spot or that the recovery of danda and knife were planted upon both the accused. The witness has also denied that during the police custody remand the accused persons were shown to the witnesses and thereafter he recorded their statements of aforesaid witnesses regarding identification of the accused in St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 52 order to create false evidence against them.
(59) PW27 Inspector Rajender Singh has deposed that on 13.03.07 he was posted at Police Station Nangloi as Inspector (Investigation) and on that day in the intervening night of 13/14th March, 2007, investigation of this case was marked to him by the order of SHO. According to the witness, he collected the documents from duty officer and inspected the same after which he along with SI Puran Chand reached at Firni Road, Village Neelwal where members of the crime team were already present who had inspected the scene of crime. According to the witness, he himself inspected the scene of crime and found that blood was lying at the spot and one broken glass of red colour which seemed to be reflector was also lying and at a distance of 200 meters one truck was also there. The witness has proved that he lifted the blood sample, earth sample, earth control and broken glass from the spot which were turned into separate parcels and sealed with the seal of RS and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW21/C. He has also proved having seized the truck No. HR 38B 0810 vide memo Ex.PW20/B which truck was having stone dust at that time. The witness has testified that he recorded statements of witnesses and in the meantime injured Harbir also reached the spot after which he also recorded his (Harbir's) statement. According to the witness, he also reached the hospital as deceased was already there where he collected clothes of deceased Jagbir S/o Braham Singh and also collected his dead body from Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital which body was St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 53 thereafter deposited at mortuary of SGM Hospital for postmortem. He has proved having prepared inquest papers i.e. request for autopsy which is Ex.PW27/A; brief facts which are Ex.PW27/B; statement of identification of dead body which is Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW10/A; Form 25.35 which is Ex.PW27/C; death certificate issued by Maharaja Agarsen Hospital which is Ex.PW27/D and submitted all the documents to SGM Hospital for conducting the postmortem. According to him, after postmortem doctor handed over two sealed parcels with sample seal containing the clothes of deceased and blood gauze which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW21/E. The Investigating Officer has further stated that when he reached the spot first time he also prepared site plan of the spot Ex.PW27/E and after postmortem dead body was handed over to its claimants. According to the witness, he tried to search accused persons but they were not traceable and during investigations he came to know through secret informer that Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and one strong built person were seen near the place of occurrence on the day of incident. The witness has further deposed that on 06.06.07 he came to know from Police Station Bahadurgarh that one accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi was arrested who had disclosed about the murder of a truck driver on which he collected copy of disclosure statement which is Mark PW20/A; copy of FIR No.143/07 u/s. 25 Arms Act, PS Sadar, Bahadurgarh which is Mark PW27/F; rukka Mark PW27/G; statement of witnesses which are Mark PW27/H and St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 54 PW27/I. He also came to know through disclosure statement of Sukhvinder @ Sokhi that his associate was Pradeep who was arrested in a murder case at Sonepat. The witness has also proved having collected copy of FIR No. 58/07 of PS Shehar (City) Distt. Sonepat u/s. 302, 452 IPC etc. photocopy of which FIR is Mark PW27/J running in three pages. He has testified on 08.06.07 he moved an application before the concerned court for issuance of production warrant of both accused persons on which production warrants were issued by the court. According to him, thereafter he proceeded on earned leave for about 15 days and he deposited the file with MHC(R).
(60) The witness has also deposed that on 06.07.07 the investigation of this case was again marked to him on which he collected the file. According to him, on that day he collected the parcel of weapon of offence from MHC(M) for obtaining the subsequent opinion from doctor at SGM Hospital and obtained the subsequent opinion of the doctor vide his application which is Ex.PW27/J after which the sealed parcel was deposited with MHC(M). The witness has further deposed that on 08.07.07 he called SI Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman who took rough notes and measurement of scene of crime at his instance, after which he (SI Mahesh Kumar) prepared scaled site plan and handed over over the same to him. He has testified that on 18.07.07 exhibits of this case were sent to FSL through Constable after obtaining from MHC(M) and after seizure of the truck it St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 55 was got mechanically inspected on his request which is Ex.PW27/K. The witness has proved his request for issuance of production warrant which is Ex.PW27/L and after completion of investigation, he prepared the challan and filed before the court through SHO. This witness has correctly identified both the accused persons before the Court. (61) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he started investigation on 14.03.2007, at about 3.30 AM (midnight) and amongst the documents received by him from MHC(M) for further investigation, PCR form was not received which he collected on 04.08.2007. He has admitted admitted that the fact that injured had told the PCR officials that four to five persons had come in a jeep having unknown number and they caused the injuries to the deceased. After going through the statement of Sombir, the witness has admitted that the PCR officials had already removed the complainant Sombir and injured Harbir to hospital. According to the witness he made inquires regarding the aforesaid facts mentioned in the PCR form already Ex.PW16/A from Sombir and Harbir and none else. The witness has testified that he did not prepare any document with regard to his investigation concerning the facts mentioned in the PCR form and states that the same were also not mentioned in the case diary. He has denied the suggestion that he has deliberately suppressed the story reflecting in the PCR form or did not investigate the same fairly or that he had toed the already fabricated story prepared by the previous Investigating Officer. The witness has further St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 56 deposed that the complainant Somir and Harbir used to remain with him during the investigations. According to him, he did not call both the complainant and witness Harbir on 06.06.2007. The witness has denied the suggestion that on that day also he had called Harbir and Sombir to show the accused Sukhwinder @ Sokhi. He has also deposed that he had requested his senior officers in writing for getting the lie detector test conducted of complainant Sombir and Harbir since the family of the deceased had suspected that these two were suppressing the truth and that these two (Sombir and Harbir) had committed the murder. He has further deposed that he had got the mechanical inspection of the truck HR38B0810 conducted since it had met with an accident during the day time of 13.06.2007. He has admitted that the said accident had taken place with a Tavera car owned by one Kuldeep and a complaint had also been lodged with PS Palam Vihar with regard to the said accident. According to the witness, he did investigations on this point and the matter was wrapped up on the same day but he has not annexed any document regarding the said investigations nor does he aware the outcome of the case FIR no. 143/07 as Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh in which Sukhwinder was arrested. PW27 has denied the suggestion that he had purposely not investigated the case on the facts emerging from the PCR form Ex.PW16/A or that the story of two persons as contained in FIR was fabricated since the deceased Jagbir was accompanied with two persons at the time of accident. He has also denied the suggestion that false St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 57 recoveries have been planted upon the accused persons at his instance by his investigating team members.
(62) PW28 Sh. J.S. Pawar is the Mechanical Expert who has deposed that on 16.03.2007, Inspector R.S. Malik made a request to him vide Ex.PW27/K for getting the mechanical inspection of truck no. HR38B0810 conducted on which he conducted the mechanical inspection of the said truck at about 9 AM in the premises of Police Station Nangloi. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW28/A. (63) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that as per his report he had mentioned at serial no.8 fresh damage on front right indicator. According to the witness, he did not mention the colour of the paint of another vehicle which was found above the fuel tank. (64) PW29 Ct. Sombir has deposed that on 29.06.2007 he was posted at Police Station Nangloi and on that day he along with Inspector Parkash Singh, Ct. Pawan Kumar were busy in the investigation of this case. He has further deposed that the accused Sukhwinder @ Sokhi and accused Pradeep were taken from the lock up, Rohini after which they were taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for their medical examination. According to the witness, they were taken to spot i.e. Neelwal, Firni road and about 1015 feet from the main road there was a room from where the accused Sukhwinder @ Sokhi got recovered one danda and the accused Pradeep got recovered one knife from the holes in the wall of the said room on which St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 58 the Investigating Officer prepared the sketch of knife which is Ex.PW25/B. He has testified that Inspector Parkash Singh converted the same into two separate parcels and sealed the same with the seal of PC after which the aforesaid parcels were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/A and Ex.PW25/C respectively. He has proved that the memo of pointing out were also prepared by the Investigating Officer which are Ex.PW25/D and Ex.PW25/E. (65) With the permission of the Court, leading questions were put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein the witness has deposed that he had stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC that when both the accused persons were taken out from the lockup the complainant Sombir and witness Harbir met them who had identified the accused Sukhwinder as the person who had given lathi blow and the accused Pardeep as the boy who had given knife blow.
(66) He has identified both the accused persons before the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one broken danda in two pieces as Ex.PW25/1 and one blade of the knife, which was got recovered by accused Pardeep as Ex.PW25/2.
(67) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that there were three police officials including himself in the police team when they took out the accused persons from the lockup and the distance between the spot of recovery and the lockup of Rohini was about 20 kms. According to St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 59 him, the Investigating Officer requested the passerbyes to join the proceedings but none agreed and left the spot without giving their names and addresses. The witness has further deposed that no legal notice was given to those public persons for non joining the proceedings. He has deposed that they left from the Rohini Court in a government Tata tempo whose driver was police official but he does not remember his name. According to the witness, the accused persons were taken out from the lockup at about 22.30 pm and they left the hospital at about 4.30 pm and reached the spot of recovery at about 6 pm. He is not aware, if any entry was made in the log book by the driver. He has admitted that the road leading to the place of recovery is a thoroughfare where general public and vehicles remained present in day hours. The witness has further deposed that the said room was found closed but he is not aware whether it was locked or not nor the Investigating Officer made any inquiry regarding ownership of the said room. He has also deposed that the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan at the place of recovery and they remained in the said room for about two or two and a half hours. The witness has deposed that the village was just near the room which room was situated hardly at a distance of about 400 meters from the village and no public person was called from the nearest village by the Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that he did not go to the place of recovery alongwith the accused persons or that no recovery has been effected at the instance of accused persons. He has further denied that he had signed the St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 60 memos at the instance of the Investigating Officer while sitting in the Police Station.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(68) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of both the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. The accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, nothing was recovered at his instance and the recovery has been planted by the police in order to falsely implicate him in the present case. He has stated that he refused to participate in the judicial Test Identification Parade proceedings since he was shown to the public persons/ witnesses during his police custody.
(69) Similarly, the accused Pradeep has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, nothing was recovered at his instance and the recovery has been planted by the police in order to falsely implicate him in the present case. He has stated that he refused to participate in the judicial Test Identification Parade proceedings since he was shown to the public persons/ witnesses during his police custody.
However, the accused have preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 61 FINDINGS:
(70) I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record. First I propose to deal with all the allegations/ averments made by the various witness individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition No. witness PUBLIC WITNESSES: 1. Sant Ram (PW3) He is the brother of the deceased who has proved having
identified the dead body of the deceased on 14.03.07 in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mortuary vide statement Ex.PW3/A and after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them vide handing over memo Ex.PW3/B.
2. Harbir (PW4) He is an eye witness to the incident and has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 13.03.07, he was working as a driver on the truck of Jagbir Singh, S/o Sh. Brahma Singh and on that day he along with his associate Somvir came to Gurgaon at about 12 noon to 1 PM in their truck from Baroda, Gujrat.
2. That after reaching Gurgaon he telephoned to Jagbir owner of vehicle no. HR38B0810 who instructed them to unload the vehicle and come to Dichao Kalan.
3. That the truck was having a load to the destination of Samay Pur Badli and the owner called them at Dichaon, the native village of Jagbir to further load the material in the truck of Samay Pur Badli to be reloaded in some local small truck and hence, as per the instructions they went in the same truck to Dichaon in the house of Jagbir from where, at about 5:00 PM in St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 62 the same truck, he himself, Somvir and Jagbir went to their transport company i.e. Ganpathi Road Carrier situated at near Village Ghevra.
4. That they parked their vehicle on the service road near transport company and he (witness) and Jagbir went inside the office of the transport company for settling their account while Somvir remained in the truck.
5. That they had settled their account with the transport company and could not find any local vehicle for sending the loaded material in the truck to Samaypur Badli after which Jagbir had sent him for taking liquor and allowed them to drink and eat since they would have been tired as they had come from Gujrat.
6. That after liquor was brought, he went inside the truck where Somvir was already present and Bablu, the person from transport company and Jagbir also came inside the truck and they all started to take liquor at about 8.30 PM.
7. That after taking liquor they were instructed to go to Dichaon in the truck and hence as per the instruction, they started to go to Dichaon at about 10 to 10.15 PM and at the time, Jagbir and Somvir were also in truck while he (Harbir) was driving the truck.
8. That after they had covered two kilometers and reached near Neelwal Gaon towards Firni Mod and turned the vehicle on the left side, some person gave a danda blow on the head mirror on the front of the truck.
9. That thereafter Jagbir asked him to stop the vehicle and he (Jagbir) got down from the left side of the truck when the person who had given the danda blow came towards left side of the truck and started abusing them.
10. That Jagbir objected to his behavior and thereafter another associates of the person who had given a danda blow who was having a knife in his hand, gave a knife blow on the abdomen and the other person given danda blow on the head of Jagbir.St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 63
11. That the person who had given danda blow was of good built and having long hair whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court as Sukhwinder.
12. That another boy who was having knife was small in height but was also healthy and having good health whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court as the accused Pradeep.
13. That when he got down from the truck in order to save Jagbir, he was also given danda, fist and leg blows by the accused persons in front of his truck who also laid him on the ground.
14. That after beating them, the assailants ran away from the spot and the other codriver Somvir ran towards the village for the purpose of help.
15. That after sometime the PCR came at the spot and took Jagbir to the hospital and Somvir also accompanied Jagbir to the hospital whereas he himself remained at the spot with the truck and after some time police officials from Tikri Border Police Post came at the spot and took him to the hospital where he was also provided medical aid and it was there that he came to know in the hospital that Jagbir had expired.
16. That thereafter police interrogated him and recorded his statement in the hospital after which he was taken to Police Station Nangloi by police officials where he was further interrogated by the police.
17. That he was called by the police officials at Police Station Nangloi on number of occasions for the purposes of identification of those assailants where he was also shown photographs of several suspects but no culprits could be identified from those photographs.
18. That police had issued notice to them and called him alongwith Somvir for the purpose of identification of accused at Rohini and Tihar Jail, Delhi on 27.06.07 and 28.06.07 but no identification proceeding had taken place in his presence both at Rohini and Tihar Jails and thereafter on 29.06.07 they came to the Rohini Court and on seeing the accused person he St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 64 correctly identified the accused persons in the court premises.
19. That he had also informed the police about the identification of accused persons and the police recorded his statement.
20. That the danda in question was approximately three and half feet long having two heads on it and the length of the knife was approximately one feet .
The witness has also identified the the danda having two heads as the same which was used by the accused Sukhvinder at the time of commission of offence which danda is Ex.P1; the knife blade and handle as the same which was used by the accused Pradeep at the time of commission of offence, which handle is Ex.P2 and the knife blade is Ex.P3.
3. Vrish Bhan (PW7) This witness is the owner of transport company by the name of Ganpati Road Carrier at shop no. 2, First floor Ghewra Mor, Delhi. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That the truck bearing No. HR380810 was owned by one Shamsher who sold it to Jagbir.
2. That on 13.3.2007, Jagbir, Harbir driver of the truck and Sombir conductor of the truck came to his shop on the above truck and left his shop at around 9:30 PM to 10:00 PM on the above truck.
3. That when they were in his shop, they all took liquor.
4. That on the next date, i.e. 14.3.2007, he came to know about the death of Jagbir in a quarrel.
4. Suraj Bhan This witness is the uncle of the deceased who has proved (PW10) having identified the dead body of his nephew Jagbir S/o Sh. Brahma in the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital on 14.3.2007, vide identification statement Ex.PW10/A. He has further proved that after postmortem, dead body was handed over to him and Sant Ram, brother of deceased vide receipt Ex.PW3/B.
5. Shamsher Singh He is the registered owner of truck no. HR38B0810 and (PW11) has deposed on the following lines:
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 65
1. That he had sold the said truck to Jagbir Singh (deceased), son of Sh. Dharma R/o Dichaun Kalan who was murdered on 14.03.2007.
2. That on 16.03.2007, the aforesaid truck was taken by him on superdari vide superdarinama copy of which is Ex.PW11/A. He has identified the said truck from the photographs which are Ex.PW11/B1 to Ex.PW11/B4. This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
6. Dr. Manoj This witness has proved that on 14.03.07 at 11:00 AM, he Dhingra (PW1) conducted the postmortem examination the dead body of deceased Jagbir S/o Brahama, vide postmortem report Ex.PW1/A. He has proved that on he found the following external injuries on the dead body:
1. Bruise of size 1 and half cm. X 1 and half cm. over left elbow joint.
2. Bruise of size 8 cm x 2 cm over the posteriolateral aspect of left arm.
3. Bruise of size 18 cm x 2 cm over front of abdomen over epigestric umbilical region.
4. Incised wound of 7 cm x half cm x bone deep over left partial region of skull.
5. Incised wound of 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep 4 cm below the umbilicus.
6. Abrasion over left side of face of size 3 x 1 cm.
7. Abrasion over left ear pina of size 1 cm x 1 cm.
Two stitches done at 4 cm below umbilicus.
According to the witness, on external examination there was a generalized sub scalp hemotoma and fracture of fronto parito and temporal bone and sub dural haemotoma prevent over left fronto partio temporal region. He has proved that the cause of death is coma as a result of head injuries and all injuries are antemortem in nature. This witness has also proved having St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 66 subsequently given his opinion regarding the weapon of offence, i.e. knife and danda which opinion is Ex.PW1/B according to which the injuries no. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are possible with the danda and the injuries no. 4 and 5 are possible with knife.
7. Dr. Binay Kumar This witness has proved that on 13.03.07, he medically (PW2) examined the injured Jagbir, S/o Sh. Brahma, aged 42 years male and prepared the MLC which is Ex.PW2/A. He has also proved having examined another patient Harbir S/o Sh. Chander Roop, 30 years, male and on local examination he found bruise and tenderness over right elbow joint and right arm, multiple horizontal bruises all over back, bruise swelling and tenderness over left leg. He has proved his detailed report which is Ex.PW2/A.
8. Dr. Manoj This witness has again appeared and examined as PW12 Dhingra (PW12) when he identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Ritesh Kumar, SR Ortho on the MLC of Harbir which is Ex.PW2/B where Dr. Ritesh had given his opinion in red encircled portion that the injury was simple in nature. FORENSIC EVIDENCE:
9. Sh. V. Shankara This witness has proved having examined the exhibits Narayanan (PW2) biologically and prepared his detailed report Ex.PW22/A Senior Scientific and also the serological report which is Ex.PW22/B. Assistant (Bio), FSL Rohini POLICE/ OFFICIAL WITNESSES (Proving investigations)
10. HC Pradeep He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has Kumar (PW5) proved that on 14.03.2007, at about 2:30 AM he received a rukka from SI Puran Chand on the basis of which he registered FIR copy of which is Ex.PW5/A and computer print out of the said FIR is Ex.PW5/A1. According to the witness, after registering the FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Insp. Rajinder Singh Malik who took up the investigation of this case. He has also St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 67 proved the copy of DD No. 37A vide which he started writing the FIR and copy of DD No. 38A vide which he closed the FIR which DDs are Ex.PW5/B.
11. HC Bater Ram This witness was posted in PCR van, power 67 stationed at (PW6) Ghewra Mor on 13.03.07. He has deposed as under:
1. That at around 10.40 PM a call was received by them from PHQ regarding beatings given to a truck driver by some persons at village Neelwal.
2. That they immediately reached the spot on PCR van where he found one person lying injured and many public persons were also available there.
3. That on inquiry about any person accompanying the injured upon which one person namely Sombir came forward and thereafter he took the injured and Sombir in PCR van to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi.
4. That when they reached at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, he inquired from the injured as to what had happened on which the injured namely Jagbir told him that he was travelling in a truck driven by Sombir and their truck made to stop by five to six miscreants who had given beatings to him (Jagbir).
5. That in the hospital search of injured Jagbir was taken by him during which Rs.14,000/ were recovered which he handed over to SI Puran Singh of Police Station Nangloi who had reached the hospital by that time.
6. That family members of the injured Jagbir had also arrived in the hospital and thereafter, he with staff came back to Ghewra Mor and stationed the PCR van there itself.
7. That he he gave the above information to police control room at PHQ through a wireless set.
12. HC Pop Singh He is the witness who was posted at Police Post Tikri (PW8) Boarder and had first reached the spot after the information from PCR. He has deposed on the following aspects:
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 68
1. That on 13.3.07 on receiving DD No. 26 Ex.PW8/A he along with Ct. Pratap went to Firni Road, Neelwal where he found a truck no. HR38B0810 and its right side front mirror was found broken and blood was found on the left side of the truck on the road.
2. That on inquiry he came to know that the injured had been removed to SGM Hospital by PCR van and in the meanwhile, SI Puran Chand, Incharge, Police Post Tikri Border also came there who left him at the spot and went to SGM Hospital along with Ct. Pratap.
3. That Crime Team came to the spot and inspected the same and HC Vijay Singh took photograph of the spot but no chance print was available.
4. That another injured Harbir was also there who was sent to SGM Hospital with the police staff of the Police Post Tikri Border.
5. That after sometime, Inspector RS Malik with staff SI Puran Chand and complainant Sombir came to the spot when at the instance of Sombir, the Investigating Officer prepared site plan and lifted the exhibits from the spot after sealing the same.
13. Ct. Pratap Singh This witness had gone to the spot along with HC Bater (PW9) Ram (PW8) and has corroborated his testimony in this regard. Further, he has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he accompanied SI Puran Chand to SGM Hospital where SI Puran Chand collected the MLC of Jagbir and also of injured Sombir.
2. That SI Puran Chand recorded the statement of Sombir and the relatives of the injured Jagbir got him shifted to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital.
3. That he accompanied SI Puran Chand to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital where the doctor declared Jagbir dead after which SI Puran Chand received the medical papers and got the body shifted to SGM Hospital.
4. That they came to SGM Hospital where they met injured Harbir, who was got medically examined.
5. That SI Puran Chand went to Police Station with the statement of complainant to get the FIR registered. St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 69
14. SI Mahesh Kumar He is the draftsman who has deposed that that on 8.7.2007 (PW13) he alongwith Inspector R.S. Malik visited the scene of crime i.e. Firni Road and field of Braham Singh Neelwal village where he took rough notes and measurements at the instance of Inspector R.S. Malik for the preparation of scaled site plan. He has proved that as per the rough notes he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW13/A and after preparation of the scaled site plan, rough notes and measurements taken by him were destroyed.
15. Ct. Ravneek This witness has proved that on 14.3.2007 he had Kumar (PW14) delivered the special report to the concerned Area Magistrate Sh. D.K. Jhangala, Joint Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned.
16. Ct. Sunil Kumar He is a formal witness who has proved on 18.7.07 (PW15) MHC(M) handed over five sealed parcels with sample seals to him for depositing the same to FSL vide RC No. 207/21/07 which he accordingly deposited and handed over FSL receipt number 2007/B2592 to the MHC(M). He has proved that the case property was not tampered with by anybody during the time it remained in his custody.
17. HC Sat Pal This witness was posted at PCR Control Room on (PW16) 13.3.2007 and has deposed that at about 10.32 PM one person informed through phone number 9210885627 that from Ghevra More to Neelwal Village More side, one truck driver lying in injured condition and somebody had beaten him. The witness has proved that he immediately filled the PCR form copy of which is Ex.PW16/A which he immediately sent for circulation.
18. Insp. Malkiat This witness was the Incharge Crime Team on Singh (PW17) 1314.3.2007 who has proved having inspected the spot and prepared his report which is Ex.PW17/A which he handed over to the Investigating Officer.
19. HC Vijay Kumar He was the Crime Team Photographer who has proved (PW18) having visited the spot and took the photographs. He has St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 70 proved the negatives which are Ex.PW18/A1 to Ex.PW18/A8 and the positives which are on the judicial file which are Ex.PW18/B1 and Ex.PW18/B8.
20. HC Balwan He is a formal witness being the MHCM who has proved (PW19) the various entries in Register No.19, the entry at serial No. 4874 is Ex.PW19/A entry at serial No.5217 which is Ex.PW19/B and the copy of RC No. 260/21 which is Ex.PW19/C.
21. SI Satbir Singh This witness has deposed on the following lines:
(PW20) 1. That on 05.06.2007, he was posted as ASI at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh.
2. That on that day HC Karan Singh and HC Jai Karan accompanied him and they were coming from Village Ladravan.
3. That when they reached at Kanonda Kulasi Mor, they saw one boy coming and on seeing them, the said boy tried to hide himself and on suspicion, they apprehended him and inquired during which he told his name as Shoki @ Sukhvinder.
4. That the formal search of Sukhvinder was taken during which one country made pistol of .315 bore was recovered from his right dub of the pant after which he got registered case FIR No. 143/07 U/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh.
5. That the accused was arrested in the said case and throughly interrogated during which he disclosed that on the intervening night of 1314.03.2007, he along with accused Pardeep broken the glasses of the truck by using the danda at Neelwal Village Mor which truck was going from Gewra Mor.
6. That he recorded the detailed disclosure statement of the accused photocopy of which is mark PW20/A.
7. That the information about the disclosure statement of accused was sent to Delhi Police after which the Investigating Officer of the case reached there and recorded his statement.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 71
22. SI Puran Chand He is the initial investigating officer who has proved the (PW21) following documents:
Ex.PW21/A Statement of Somvir
Ex.PW21/B Rukka
Ex.PW21/C Seizure memo of pieces of reflector mirror
Ex.PW21/D Seizure memo of the truck
Ex.PW21/E Seizure memo of two sealed parcels
handed over by the doctor
23. Insp. Surender This witness has joined investigations along Inspector
Singh Rathi Prakash Chand and has proved the following documents:
(PW23) Ex.PW23/A Arrest memo of accused Sukhvinder
Ex.PW23/B Disclosure statement of Sukhvinder
Ex.PW23/C Arrest memo of accused Pradeep
Ex.PW23/D Disclosure statement of accused Pradeep
24. Sh. Amit Bansal He is the Ld. MM who has proved the Test Identification
(PW24) Parade proceedings of both the accused. He has proved
the following documents:
Ex.PW24/A Application for TIP of accused Pradeep
Ex.PW24/B Endorsement on TIP
Ex.PW24/C TIP of accused Pradeep
Ex.PW24/D Application for obtaining the copy of TIP
of accused Pradeep
Ex.PW24/E Application for TIP of accused Sukhvinder
Ex.PW24/F Endorsement on TIP
Ex.PW24/G TIP of accused Sukhvinder
Ex.PW24/H Application for obtaining the copy of TIP
of accused Sukhvinder
25. HC Pawan This witness has joined the investigations and has proved
(PW25) the following documents:
Ex.PW25/A Seizure memo of the danda
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 72
Ex.PW25/B Sketch of the knife
Ex.PW25/C Seizure memo of the knife
Ex.PW25/D & Pointing out memos
Ex.PW25/E
26. Inspector Prakash He is the subsequent Investigating Officer who has proved Chand (PW26) the various documents already proved by the witnesses and also proved having prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW26/A.
27. Insp. Rajinder He is the final Investigating Officer who has proved the Singh Malik following documents:
(PW27) Ex.PW27/A Inquest Papers
Ex.PW27/B Brief facts
Ex.PW27/C Form 25.35
Ex.PW27/D Death Certificate
Ex.PW27/E Seizure memo of blood gauze
Ex.PW27/F Copy of FIR No.143/07, PS Sadar
Bahadurgarh
Ex.PW27/G Rukka
Ex.PW27/H Statement of witnesses
& PW27/I
Ex.PW27/J Application for opinion from doctors
Ex.PW27/K Request for mechanical inspection
Ex.PW27/L Request for production warrants
28. J.S. Pawar He is the Mechanical Expert who has proved that on
(PW28) 16.03.2007, Inspector R.S. Malik made a request to him
vide Ex.PW27/K for getting the mechanical inspection of truck no. HR38B0810 conducted on which he conducted the mechanical inspection of the said truck at about 9 AM in the premises of Police Station Nangloi. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW28/A.
29. Ct. Sombir This witness has corroborated the testimony of PW25 (PW29) Pawan in toto.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 73 (71) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence against the accused persons.
Ocular evidence:
(72) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case and in the present case the complainant Sombir who was one of the eye witnesses could not be examined since despite repeated efforts he was not to be found residing on the given address and even NBWs could not be executed. The complaint however, has been proved by SI Puran Chand (PW25). Harbir (PW4) the driver of the truck is the eye witness to the incident. He was present along with the deceased Jagbir and the complainant Sombir on the date of incident. He has in his testimony before the Court specifically identified the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi as the person who was strong built with long hairs having a danda in his hand with which he had first hit the side mirror and the front wind screen and then given a blow on the head of Jagbir. He has also identified the accused Pradeep as the person of small height and good health who had given a knife blow on the abdomen of the deceased Jagbir. (73) The record indicates that both the accused had refused to participate in the Judicial Test Identification Parade on 27.6.2007 and 28.6.2007. The Test Identification Parade proceedings have been duly proved by Sh. Amit Bansal the then Ld. MM which are Ex.PW24/C and Ex.PW24/G which show that despite the specific warning of the Ld. MM St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 74 both the accused refused to participate in the judicial Test Identification Parade. Thereafter when the accused were being produced in Rohini Court on 29.6.2007 the witness Harbir correctly identified them as the persons who had inflicted injuries upon him and the deceased. In this regard I may observe that HC Bater Ram (PW6) who had first reached the spot on receipt of the information from the PCR has specifically deposited that when they reached the spot, they found Jagbir lying injured and it was Sombir who came forward as the person accompanying the injured and hence the presence of the complainant Sombir at the spot of the incident stands duly established. The local police had also found Harbir at the spot and also having injuries and had taken him to the hospital where his medical examination was got conducted. His presence at the spot is also established. It is further evident from the complaint given by Sombir that he had specifically given the description of both the accused who had assaulted the deceased. Even Harbir (PW4) in his first statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had given the description of the boys who had inflicted injuries upon the deceased. The relevant portion of the testimony of the witness Harbir (PW4) before the Court is as under:
"... On 13.3.2007 I was working as a Driver on the truck of Jagbir Singh S/o Sh. Brahma Singh. On the day I was along with my associate Somvir came to Gurgaon at about 12:00 (noon) to 1:00 PM in our truck from Baroda, Gujarat. After reaching Gurgaon I had phoned to Jagbir owner of the vehicle No. HR38B0810 and he instructed us to unload the vehicle and come to the St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 75 Dichaon Kala. The above truck was having a load to the destination of Samaypur Badli and the owner called us at Dichaon the native village of Jagbir to further load the material in the truck of Samaypur Badli to reload in some local small truck. Thereafter as per the instruction we went in the same truck to Dichaon in the house of Jagbir. From there at about 5:00 PM in the same truck I myself, Somvir and Jagbir went to our transport company i.e. Ganpathi Road Carrier situated at near Village Ghevra. We had parked our vehicle on the service road near transport and I and Jagbir went inside the office of the transport company for settling our account. In the meantime, Somvir remained in the truck. We had settled our account with the transport company and could not find any local vehicle for sending the loaded material in the truck to Samaypur Badli. Then Jagbir sent me for bringing liquor and allowed us to drink and eat as we would have been tired as we had come from Gujarat. After liquor was brought I went inside the truck where Somvir was already present and Bablu the person from transport company and Jagbir also came inside the truck and we all started to take liquor at about 8:30 PM. After taking liquor he instructed us to go to Dichaon in the truck. As per the instructions we started to go to Dichaon at about 10:00 to 10:15 PM and at the time Jagbir and Somvir were also in the truck while I was driving the truck. After we had covered 2 kms and reached near Neelwal Gaon towards Firni Modh and turned the vehicle on the left side then some person gave a danda blow on the head mirror on the front of the truck. Then Jagbir asked me to stop the vehicle. I stopped the vehicle and Jagbir got down from the left side of the truck then the person St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 76 who had given the danda blow came towards left side of the truck and started abusing us. Jagbir objected to his behaviour. Then another associates of the person who had given a danda blow, who was having a knife in his hand, gave a knife blow on the abdomen and the other person given danda blow on the head of Jagbir. The person who had given danda blow was of good built and was having long hairs who is present in the court today and has correctly identified by pointing out the accused Sukhvinder. Another boy who was having knife was small in height but he was also healthy and having good health, he is also present in the court today and has correctly identified by pointing out the accused Pradeep. When I got down from the truck in order to save Jagbir I was also given danda, fist and leg blows by the accused persons in front of my truck and they also lay me on the ground. The accused persons after beating us ran away from the spot. Other codriver Somvir ran towards the village for the purpose of help. After sometime the PCR came on the spot and took the Jagbir to the hospital. At that time Somvir was also accompanied Jagbir to the hospital. I remained at the spot with the truck. After some time Tikri Boarder police officials came to the spot and took me to the hospital. I was also given medical aid in the hospital. I came to know in the hospital that Jagbir had expired. Thereafter police had interrogated me and recorded my statement in the hospital. Thereafter I was taken to PS Nangloi by police officials. In the police station I was further interrogated by the police and later on I was allowed to go.
Thereafter, number of time I was called by the police officials at PS Nangloi for the purposes of St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 77 identification of those assailants. I was also shown photographs of several culprits but no culprits were in those photographs. Thereafter police had issued notice to us and called me along with Somvir for the purpose of identification of accused at Rohini and Tihar Jail, Delhi on 27.6.207 and 28.6.2007. But at Rohini and Tihar Jail no identification proceedings had taken place in my presence. Thereafter on 29.6.2007 we came to the Rohini Court and on seeing the accused person I had correctly identified the accused persons in the court premises and those two persons who are present in the court today also. I had also informed to the police about the identification of the accused persons who recorded my statement. The danda in question was about three and half feet (approximately) long and it was having two heads on it and the length of the knife was on feet (approximately).
At this the case property bearing the seal of (seal is not legible, however the case property sealed with the seal of Mortuary, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital) is opened it contains a danda having two heads and witness correctly identified the same which was used by the accused Sukhvinder at the time of commission of offence and same is Ex.P1. Another envelope bearing the seal of FSL is opened, it contains a white cloth bearing the particulars of this case and having the seal of PC. The envelope containing plastic handle and blade of knife in broken condition. Witness identified that the knife blade and handle are the same which was used by the accused Pradeep at the time of commission of offence and handle is Ex.P2 and the knife blade is Ex.P3......"St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 78
(74) This witness Harbir (PW4) has been extensively cross examined at length by the Ld. Defence Counsel. He has denied the suggestion that there were four to five persons who had come in a Jeep and were involved in the incident of killing of Jagbir. He has also denied that he had run away from the spot when he was beaten by the accused and has supported the version given by him in the Court that the person who had first given the danda blow on the wind glass moved towards the conductor side and pulled Jagbir.
(75) Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Harbir is a planted witness and was not present at the spot. He has submitted that as per the version given by the officials of the PCR at the time when they reached the spot, the injured was still conscious and had told them that fourfive persons had come and inflicted injuries upon him. Ld. Counsel has argued that the version given by the deceased Jagbir was in the nature of dying declaration which has been suppressed by the police and later only to work out the case, they have brought up the story of involvement of two accused. In this regard he has pointed out that another FIR regarding the involvement of a Tavera car in the accident had been got registered by one Kuldeep but was wrapped up on the same day, as admitted by the Investigating Officer Inspector Rajender Singh Malik. (76) I have considered the submissions made by the Ld. Defence Counsel and I may observe that at the time of the incident the injured and eye witness Harbir was under the influence of liquor which fact has been St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 79 admitted by Vrish Bhan (PW7) the owner of the transport company who has proved that Jagbir (deceased), Harbir and Somvir had come to his transport office on the date of the incident and had consumed alcohol with him after which they left at about 9:30 - 10:00 PM. Further, in his testimony HC Bater Ram (PW6) from the PCR also proved that on 13.3.2007 the PCR was stationed at Ghewra Mor and at about 10:40 PM a call was received by them though PHQ that some persons were beating a truck driver at village Neelwal. According to him, when he reached the spot and made inquiries it was Somvir who came forward as eye witness after which he took the injured Jagbir and Somvir to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. In his deposition before the Court for the first time he has testified that the injured Jagbir (deceased) had told him that he was travelling in a truck driven by Somvir which was later on stopped by five to six miscreants who had given beatings to him. Here, I revert back to the PCR Form Ex.PW16/A wherein the first information given by HC Satpal (PW16) of the PCR on the basis of information given by Jagbir mentions the presence of only twothree persons and not five to six miscreants as is now deposed for the first time in the Court by HC Bater Ram (PW6). I may further note that the PCR Form Ex.PW16/A had been filled up by the Central Police Control Room on the basis of WT Messages received from the spot informing the Control Room about the various details from time to time. The PCR form shows that at 22:32:33 information was received through telephone no. 9210885627 to the effect "Truck driver ko kisis ne St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 80 peet rakha hai, jo injured hai" after which PCR reached the spot, the first information communicated to the PCR by SI Puran Chand at 22:59 that "Truck no. HR38B0810 Malik Jagbir ko car no. naamlum mein 23 aadmi aaye or do chakoo ek pet or ek side me maar rakha hai". This information first given to the Control Room is deemed to be most authentic and defeats the version now given by HC Bater Ram that he was told by Jagbir about involvement of five to six miscreants. Rather, it was the deceased Jagbir who had informed the officials from the PCR with regard to the involvement of two to three persons. Why is it, now that this HC Bater Ram for the first time is trying to give a twist to the established prosecution case on the aspect of number of assailants. (77) I may further note that the PCR Form also establishes that soon thereafter another information was communicated to the Control Room regarding injured Harbir which reads as "iske saathi ko bhi lathi marr rakhi hai, jisko gum choten hai, j ki moke par hai. Baki halat hospital pahunch kar gyat hoonge". At 23:43 another information was communicated to the Control Room that "ek injured ko hoshhawash mein D/Ct. Pawan No. 2123/NW SG Hospital ke hawale kiya, naam Jagbir S/o Brahama, umar 42, saal, R/o Dichaun village ko jeep no. unknown mein 45 aadmi aaye va inka truck No. HR38B0810 ko rukwa kar driver va iske saath jhagra kiya, jisme Jagbir ke (1) pet mein va (1) sar mein koi nukili chiz maar rakhi hai jo keh raha hai unhe yeh janta St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 81 nahin hai na hi koi jhagre ka karan pata hai. Keh raha hai mobile kahin jhagre mein gir gaya hai. Iske paas se Rs.14,000/ mile jo IC PP Tikri Boarder SI Puran Singh ke hawale kar diye hain. Doctor Jagbir ko Operation Theater mein le gaye hain. Ghav ka pata nahin kitna gehra hai. IC PP moka par".
(78) These WT messages in the Control Room are conclusive evidence of the fact that at the time when the PCR came to the spot Jagbir was first shifted to the hospital by the PCR alongwith Somvir whereas Harbir who had only suffered internal injuries stayed at the spot with the truck. It is also evident from these messages that the information was not robbery since the cash which the deceased was carrying was left intact. This WT message to the Control Room also corroborates the earliest version given by Harbir to this extent that initially Jagbir was taken to the hospital whereas he himself was taken to the hospital later on. The PCR form containing the detailed entries also corroborate the testimony of SI Puran Chand who has deposed that when he reached the spot he found the injured Harbir who had been beaten and had received internal injuries, a fact which is evident from the WT message communicated by him immediately at 22:59. It is now for the first time in the Court that a twist has been given to the case by this police witness HC Bater Ram stating that Jagdish had told them regarding involvement of four to five persons which on the face of it is absolutely incorrect and cannot be relied upon. Further, the question as to whether there were two or more persons i.e. two or three St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 82 (as mentioned in the PCR Form) involved in the incident is immaterial. I may further observe that the powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. [Ref.: Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1)]. It should be remembered that human behaviour varies from person to person and different people react and behaved differently in a different situation. How person can behave in a particular situation cannot be predicted. (Ref.: State of UP Vs. Devender Singh reported in AIR 2009 SC 3690). In the present case, at the time of the incident it was the eye witness Harbir (PW4) who was driving the truck while Jagbir was sitting on the conductor side and the complainant Somvir was sitting in the middle between the two. It is only natural that Harbir and Jagbir being near the windows/ doors would have noticed the persons from their sides and not Somvir (complainant) who would not have known of the number of persons involved in the assault since he was not beaten by the assailants and on seeing Harbir and Jagbir being beaten, he ran for help to the nearest village.
(79) Further, with regard to the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel that another FIR had been registered regarding the incident of one Tavera belonging to one Kuldeep involved in the accident at the spot had St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 83 been suppressed, I may note that only a vague suggestion has been given to Inspector R.S. Malik in this regard. Neither the complaint nor the FIR nor its details have been placed on record. FIR is an official record and could have been got produced in the Court which has not been done. The possibility of either this complaint relating to some other accident or in case it was related to or connected with the present case, then an attempt to shield some other person (the third person) cannot be ruled out and perhaps it is for this reason that neither the details of the complaint nor the copy of FIR or other details have been placed on record. The evidence on record conclusively points out towards the fact that the case in hand relates to the incident of road rage, which was possibly with a Tavera car belonging to one Kuldeep who even lodged a complaint with the police (which Investigating Officer Inspector R.S. Malik has concealed). The Investigating Officer Inspector Rajender Singh Malik himself does not come out clean. On the one hand despite the fact that there were signs of extraneous paint on the side of the truck indicating that there was some accident involving another vehicle hitting on the side of the truck, no investigations in this regard have been conducted or placed on record. The possibility of the investigations conducted in this regard having been concealed perhaps to protect the owner/ driver of the other vehicle cannot be ruled out. The presence of external paint belonging to some other vehicle on the side of truck driven by Harbir and Jagbir indicates that there was some accident prior to the incident.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 84 (80) Further, it is evident from the testimonies of the witnesses that Jagbir, Harbir and Somvir they were all intoxicated at the time of the incident when Harbir was driving the truck which was stopped by the accused who thrashed him and the deceased. While on the one hand no investigations have been brought on record by the Investigating Officer with regard to the involvement of the Tavera car in the accident whereas on the other hand even the accused have not led any evidence in this regard despite being aware and also an opportunity being granted for the same. Therefore, it is writ large that even the accused have not been able to effectively put up a defence regarding the involvement of some other persons in the incident. Rather, the possibility of there being another person i.e. the driver of the other vehicle in addition to the accused cannot be ruled out.
(81) The eye witness account (in the form of testimony of Harbir) coupled with the circumstantial evidence in the form of Crime Team Report, photographs of the spot, mechanical inspection report and report of the FSL are all indicative of the fact that the case is one of road rage where the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment. Under the given circumstances, there is no possibility of the accused being falsely implicated by Harbir the eye witness more so because there is no history of any animosity between either Jagbir and his family or of Harbir with the accused persons. The descriptions of the accused had already been provided by the eye witnesses i.e. the complainant Somvir in his complaint St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 85 and also by Harbir in his first statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was even before the accused had been apprehended. It is also further evident from the testimony of Harbir that he had been called to the Police Station on a number of occasions and shown photographs of suspects but he could not identify anyone of them as the assailants. Had this been a case of false implication Harbir could have simply implicated any other suspect whose photograph had been shown to him in order to shift the burden from his shoulders since it has come on record that the family of the deceased had even suspected the driver and conductor (Harbir and Somvir) which he has not done. This lends credence to his version. The conduct of Harbir (PW4) after the incident and his deposition in the Court appear to be natural, probable, trustworthy and I hold his testimony to be credible. There is no reason to disbelieve the version given by him and hence under the given circumstances, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to conclusively establish and prove the identity and also the role attributed to the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep beyond reasonable doubt.
Medical evidence:
(82) Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW1) who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Jagbir has proved the postmortem report which is Ex.PW1/A. He has further proved that as many as seven external injuries were present on the body of the St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 86 deceased which injuries are as under:
i. Bruise of size 1 and half cm. X 1 and half cm. over left elbow joint.
ii. Bruise of size 8 cm x 2 cm over the posteriolateral aspect of left arm.
iii. Bruise of size 18 cm x 2 cm over front of abdomen over epigestric umbilical region.
iv. Incised wound of 7 cm x half cm x bone deep over left partial region of skull.
v. Incised wound of 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep 4 cm below the umbilicus.
vi. Abrasion over left side of face of size 3 x 1 cm.
vii. Abrasion over left ear pina of size 1 cm x 1 cm.
viii. Two stitches done at 4 cm below umbilicus.
(83) Dr. Manoj Dhingra has also proved that the cause of death in the present case was coma as a result of head injuries and all the injuries were antemortem in nature. He has further proved his opinion regarding the weapon of offence i.e. the danda and the knife which opinion is Ex.PW1/A according to which the injuries no. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are possible with the danda and the injuries no. 4 and 5 are possible with knife. He has explained that his opinion regarding the weapon of offence is based on the possibility of seeing the injuries and not a general observation.St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 87
(84) Dr. Binay Kumar (PW2) has proved the MLC of the deceased Jagbir which is Ex.PW2/A and that of injured/ eye witness Harbir (PW4) which is Ex.PW2/B showing three injuries on the body of the injured i.e. bruise & tenderness over right elbow joint and right arm; multiple horizontal bruises all over back and bruise, swelling and tenderness over left leg, which indicate that he had been repeatedly beaten/ hit by danda thereby establishing his presence at the spot.
(85) In view of the aforesaid, I hereby hold that the nature of injures as reflected on the body of the deceased in the Postmortem Report and on the MLC of the injured Harbir are compatible to the version of the prosecution.
Forensic Evidence:
(86) Sh. V. Shankaranarayanan (PW22) Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology), FSL Rohini, Delhi has proved the biological report which is Ex.PW22/A and the serological report Ex.PW22/B in respect of the exhibits/ samples sent to him for examination. I may observe that the said reports do not help the prosecution in any manner since human blood was detected only on the blood stained road material and blood stained gauze cloth.
Ownership of the truck and mechanical inspection of the vehicle:
(87) PW7 Vrish Bhan who is the owner of the transport company Ganpati Road Carrier, has deposed that the truck bearing no. HR38B0810 St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 88 belonged to the deceased Jagbir. Further, the witness Shamsher Singh (PW11) the register owner of the truck has also deposed that he had sold the above truck to the deceased Jagbir but the same could not be transferred in the name of Jagbir and therefore, he himself took the superdari of the said truck vide Superdarinma which is Ex.PW11/A which evidence has gone uncontroverted. Further, J.S. Pawar (PW28) the Mechanical Expert has proved having inspected the truck in question and prepared his report which is Ex.PW28/A. The said report indicates that there was damage to the front right indicator glass which was broken; reflector glass (front right) also broken; there was dent on driver window; front main wind screen was cracked and on the body panel right side above to fuel tank there were scratches and paint (foreign body) showing that it was the colour of some other vehicle.
(88) The mechanical inspection report is compatible to the oral testimony of the eye witness Harbir (PW4) establishing that the case in question pertains to a road rage where the other vehicle had scratched on the right side as a result of which the colour of the said vehicle had come on the truck and thereafter in the incident the front window screen was cracked and right indicator glass and reflector glass had been broken with a dent on the driver window. The mechanical inspection report also establishes the use of force/ blunt force impact and danda blow on the side of the driver and front window glass.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 89
Arrest of the accused and recovery of the weapon of offence:
(89) From the evidence which has come on record, it is writ large that the victims were not aware of the identity of the accused since the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment and they were only in a position to give the description of the assailants. It was incidentally that when the accused Sukhvinder @Sokhi had been arrested by the Haryana Police in FIR No. 143/07, Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, under Section 25 of Arms Act on 5.6.2007 after about three months of the incident who was found in possession of .315 bore country made pistol, that he was interrogated at length when he disclosed his involvement in the present case and information was sent to Delhi Police with regard to the same.
Thereafter, the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi was brought to Delhi on which police custody remand was taken wherein he disclosed about his co accused Pradeep who was involved with him in the present case and also disclosed that he could get recovered the danda used in the said offence which he had concealed on the roof of the kothra/ room in the fields of village Neelwal. From the disclosure statement of the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi, Delhi Police came to know that his associate Pradeep was involved along with him in the present case and that the said Pradeep was arrested in a murder case at Sonepat on which production warrants were issued against the accused Pradeep. Thereafter the accused Pradeep was brought to Delhi and arrested in the present case and during his interrogation he disclosed that he could get recover the knife which he used St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 90 in the commission of offence. The accused Pradeep also disclosed that the knife with which he had inflicted injuries to the deceased had broken into two parts at the time of the incident.
(90) PW20 SI Satbir who had apprehended the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi in case FIR No. 143/07, Under Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh has duly proved his interrogation and the disclosure statement of the accused in the said case after which the accused was handed over to Delhi Police. PW23 Inspector Surender Singh Rathi has proved the investigations conducted by him qua both the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep and their disclosure statement pursuant to which they had got recovered the danda and the knife which aspect finds due corroboration from the testimony of other members of the police party namely HC Pawan (PW25), Inspector Prakash Chand (PW26), Inspector R.S. Malik (PW27) and Ct. Somvir (PW29).
(91) Before analyzing the evidence on merits, it is necessary to observe that as per the provisions of Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section 26 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Thus the requirement of law is that before the fact discovered in consequence of an information received from an accused is St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 91 allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the custody of a police officer.
(92) Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the meaning of the word Fact. It provides that a fact means and includes:
a) Anything, state of things, or relation of things, or capable of being perceived by the senses,
b) Any mental condition of which any person is conscious. (93) It further provides five illustrations as to what would constitute a fact which are as under:
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact
(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
(94) A cojoint reading of Section 3 and Section 27 of Evidence Act would apply that as much of the statement as would relate to the St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 92 discovery of fact connected with the accused would be admissible in evidence. The discovery of the fact is not only the discovery of the articles but also the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by a particular accused at a particular place because in principle there is no difference between the statement made by the accused to the effect that "I will show you the person to whom I have given the articles" and the statement that "I will show you the place where I have kept the articles".
(95) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 had exhaustively discussed the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had considered the question as to whether the statement of the accused to the effect that "he had hidden them (the ornaments)" and "would point out the place", where they were, is wholly admissible in evidence under S. 27 or only that part of it is admissible where he stated that he would point out the place but not that part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments. In the above case the Ld. Sessions Judge had relied upon the judgment of Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. KingEmperor reported in 74 Ind App 65: AIR 1947 PC 67 where a part of the statement leading to the recovery of a knife in a murder case was held inadmissible by the Judicial Committee. It was observed by My Lords of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the above case (Pulukuri Kotayya) the Judicial Committee considered S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as under: St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 93 "Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person, accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved......"
".... this section is an exception to Ss. 25 and 26 which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or a confession made while a person is in police custody unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police "whether it amounts to a confession or not" which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under S.
27. The Judicial Committee had in that case to consider how much of the information given by the accused to the police would be admissible under S. 27 and laid stress on the words "so much of such information. . . .. ...... as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" in that connection. It held that the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. It was further pointed out that "the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact...."
"........Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 94 This was exemplified further by the Judicial Committee by observing that the information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. If, however, to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant......"
(96) After considering the settled principles the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"......If we may respectfully say so, this case clearly brings out what part of the statement is admissible under S. 27. It is only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible; but if any part of the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible wholly and the court cannot say that it will excise one part of the statement because it is of a confessional nature. Section 27 makes that part of the statement which is distinctly related to the discovery admissible as a whole, whether it be in the nature of confession or not. Now the statement in this case is said to be that the appellant stated that he would show the place where he had hidden the ornaments. The Sessions Judge has held that part of this statement which is to the effect "where he had hidden them" is not admissible. It is clear that if that part of the statement is excised the remaining statement (namely, that he would show the place) would be completely meaningless. The whole of St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 95 this statement in our opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of ornaments and is admissible under S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The words "where he had hidden them" are not on a par with the words "with which I stabbed the deceased" in the example given in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. These words (namely, where he had hidden them) have nothing to do with the past history of the crime and are distinctly related to the actual discovery that took place by virtue of that statement. It is however urged that in a case where the offence consists of possession even the words "where he had hidden them" would be inadmissible as they would amount to an admission by the accused that he was in possession. There are in our opinion two answers to this argument. In the first place S. 27 itself says that where the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible whether it amounts to a confession or not. In the second place, these words by themselves though they may show possession of the appellant would not prove the offence, for after the articles have been recovered the prosecution has still to show that the articles recovered are connected with the crime, i.e., in this case, the prosecution will have to show that they are stolen property. We are, therefore, of opinion that the entire statement of the appellant (as well as of the other accused who stated that he had given the ornament to Bada Sab and would have it recovered from him) would be admissible in evidence and the Sessions Judge was wrong in ruling out part of it. Therefore, as relevant and admissible evidence was ruled out by the Sessions Judge, this is a fit case where the High Court would be entitled to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision though it is unfortunate that the St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 96 High Court did not confine itself only to this point and went on to make rather strong remarks about other parts of the evidence.
(97) Later in the year 1969 the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Zaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1969 (2) SCC 872 while dealing with the applicability of the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evident Act relied upon the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. observed as under:
"....in order that the Section may apply the prosecution must establish the information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him and the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused.
The essential ingredient of the Section is that the information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information; secondly only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused and thirdly the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence.
(98) In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court further went to explain that:St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 97
"..... In a case where the accused is charged with theft of articles or receiving stolen articles states to the police "I will show you the articles at the place where I have kept them" and the articles were actually found there, there can be no doubt that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of a fact that is keeping of the articles by the accused at the place mentioned. However, the discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place. It was observed that in principle, there is no difference between the above statement and that made by the accused in the case which in effect is that "I will show you the person whom I have given the diamonds exceeding 200 in number". The only difference between the two statements is that a "named person" is substituted for "the place" where the articles are kept. In neither case are the articles of the diamonds, in fact discovered. There can be no doubt that the portion of the alleged statement of the accused would be admissible in evidence......"
(99) Section 8 of the Evidence Act makes conduct of a person a relevant fact for the proof of any fact in issue. Evidence relating to the conduct of an accused person, which is deposed to by a police officer is admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. (Prakash Chand Vs. State reported in AIR 1979 SC 400).
(100) The Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that the danda which has been produced in the Court was in two pieces and the St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 98 knife is a kitchen knife which was of common use and was also produced in broken condition, thereby showing that the same have been planted upon the accused to connect them with the present case. Here, I may note that a specific Court Observation has already come on record that the danda produced in the Court which was initially intact at the time of examination of Harbir on 4.2.2008 was broken only on account of normal wear and tear due to termites. In so far as the knife is concerned, the accused Pradeep in his disclosure statement has himself explained that during the incident the knife had been broken into two parts. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused Pradeep has further argued that it is evident from the testimonies of the various police witnesses that at the time of alleged recovery, it is the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi who had first gone to the Kothra and not Pradeep and therefore the same cannot be read against Pradeep. I have considered his submissions made and I may observe that all the police witnesses are very specific in their depositions. They have categorically stated that it is both the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep who had taken them to the Kothra from where they got recovered the danda having two hands (as also observed by the Court) and the broken knife. I may also observe that these weapons had been got recovered after almost three months of the incident and therefore, under these circumstances it was not possible to lift any chance prints or blood from the same. However, the eye witness Harbir (PW4) has specifically identified both the danda which is Ex.P1 and the knife handle of which is Ex.P2 & St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 99 blade is Ex.P3 as the weapons which had been used by the assailants and there is no reason to disbelieve the said recovery.
(101) What turns on the fact that accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep led the police party to the place where they had concealed the weapons of offence i.e. the danda and the knife which they got recovered from the kothra/ room situated in the fields of Braham Singh which place was not in the knowledge of the police previously and no explanation has been offered by the accused as to how they came to know the place of recovery of. The fact that they pointed out the place and got recovered the weapons of offence, is a strong pointer towards the guilt of accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep.
Whether the provisions of Section 302 or Section 304 IPC would apply:
(102) Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that assuming that the allegations against the accused are admitted even then the present case is not covered within the purview of Section 300 Indian Penal Code and the at the most the case falls within Section 304 Indian Penal Code. On the other hand the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that the present case squarely covered within the provisions of Section 302 Indian Penal Code. In this regard I may observe that as per the provisions of Section 300 Indian Penal Code culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 100 knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid and this is punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. There are five exceptions provided to the above. Firstly culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of selfcontrol by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. I may observe that this exception is also subject to the proviso that the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person; the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant;
the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence; the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Secondly Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 101 whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. Thirdly Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without illwill towards the person whose death is caused. Fourthly Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Lastly Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
(103) The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300 St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 102 Indian Penal Code. (Ref.: Daya Nand Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2008 SC 1823).
(104) Whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four Clauses of the definition of 'murder' contained in Section300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third Clause of Sec. 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the Exceptions enumerated is Section 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the First Part of Section 304, Indian Penal Code. Note: All murders are culpable homicide St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 103 but not viceaversa. (Ref.: State of A.P. Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya reported in AIR 1977 SC 45).
(105) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that there is no meditation or prior intention to kill the deceased Jagbir. It has also come on record that the deceased Jagbir along with Harbir and Sombir were all in intoxicated condition and had consumed alcohol along with Vrish Bhan (PW7) prior to the incident. The mechanical inspection report Ex.PW28/A showing the dent/ colour of another vehicle on the truck establishes that the truck which was being driven by Harbir (PW4) had scratched the other vehicle and being aggrieved by the same, the truck in question being driven by Harvinder was stopped after which the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi first went on the driver side of the truck and broke the right side mirror of the truck and then hit the front wind screen and thereafter went to the conductor side and pulled Jagbir down. It further stands established that the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi repeatedly hit Jagbir with a danda on his body and head and it was the accused Pradeep who brought out a knife and hit Jagbir in his stomach and inflicted two injuries i.e. incised wound of 8 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over left parietal region of scalp causing active bleeding and incised wound of 2 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm, about 5 cm below the umbilicus which coupled with the danda blows inflicted by the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi on the head of deceased proved fatal to him as a result of which the injured Jagbir first slipped into Coma and then expired. It is writ large St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 104 from the manner in which the injuries were inflicted that the persons who had committed the act had the knowledge that the injuries were so eminently dangerous as it likely to cause death. It is further evident that it is the accused themselves who had stopped the truck and thereafter inflicted injuries without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing any such injuries.
(106) From the evidence on record, it is evident that an accident had taken place between the vehicle/ truck belonging to the deceased Jagbir which was being driven by Harbir and the vehicle of the accused and the offence had been committed in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. At the time of incident the deceased Jagbir (owner of the truck) and the drivers Harbir and Somvir all had consumed liquor and were in intoxicated condition. The intention is the state of mind which has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case particularly the nature of weapon of the weapon and how it was used. The weapon of offence used are the danda and the kitchen knife, also shows the absence of any premeditation. It is further evident that after the deceased Jagbir was given beatings the offenders left the vehicle and at that time Jagbir was still conscious who thereafter slipped into Coma in the hospital and ultimately expired after a few hours. I hereby hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to conclusively establish that the accused had the intention to cause death or such bodily injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. However, it stands St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 105 established that the act of the accused of giving repeated danda and knife blows to the deceased Jagbir was such that they were deemed to have knowledge that it was likely to cause death and hence the case of the accused is covered under the provisions of Section 299 IPC and they are guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the case of the accused would fall within the purview of Section 304 (PartII) Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, the required mensrea for murder not being present.
(107) Further, in so far as the Charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code in respect of the injuries qua the injured Harbir is concerned, I may mention that in order to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC, it is sufficient if an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof, is present. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances and may even in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some over act in execution thereof [Ref.: St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 106
Vipin Bihari Vs. State of MP reported in 2006 (8) SCC 799; Bappa @ Bapu Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2004 (6) SCC 485; State of Maharastra Vs. Kashi Rao & Ors. reported in 2003 (10) SCC 434; Hari Mohan Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2004 (12) SCC 220 and Surender Kumar Sharma Vs. State reported in 2010 (III) AD (Delhi) 198]. This being the legal position, intention can be deduced not only from the nature of injuries caused but also from other circumstances. (108) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that neither the knowledge nor the intention has been reflected. The medical evidence relating to Harbir does not substantiate the charges alleged. There is no injury which could have cause death of Harbir in the ordinary course of nature rather, the injuries on the person of injured Harbir which were inflicted by danda were opined to be simple in nature. Therefore, I hold both the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep guilty of Section 324 Indian Penal Code (not under Section 307 Indian Penal Code).
FINAL CONCLUSION:
(109) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 107
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(110) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the identity of both the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep stands established. It stands established that on 13.3.2007 Harbir was the Driver on the truck bearing No. DL38B0810 which was owned by Jagbir (deceased) where Sombir was also the driver cum helper. It also stands established that on that day Harbir he along with his associate Somvir came to Gurgaon at about 12 noon to 1 PM in their truck from Baroda, Gujrat and after reaching Gurgaon he telephoned to Jagbir owner of vehicle no. HR38B0810 who instructed them to unload the vehicle and come to Dichao Kalan. It further stands established that the truck was St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 108 having a load to the destination of Samay Pur Badli and the owner called them (Harbir and Somvir) at Dichaon, the native village of Jagbir to further load the material in the truck of Samay Pur Badli to reloaded in some local small truck and hence, as per the instructions they went in the same truck to Dichaon in the house of Jagbir from where at about 5:00 PM in the same truck, Harbir, Somvir and Jagbir went to their transport company i.e. Ganpathi Road Carrier situated at near Village Ghevra. It stands established that they (Harbir, Somvir and Jagbir) parked their vehicle on the service road near transport company when Harbir and Jagbir went inside the office of the transport company of Vrish Bhan (PW7) for settling their account while Somvir remained in the truck. Harbir and Jagbir settled their account with the transport company and could not find any local vehicle for sending the loaded material in the truck to Samaypur Badli after which Jagbir had sent Harbir for taking liquor and allowed them (Harbir and Somvir) to drink and eat since they had come from Gujarat. It further stands established that Harbir brought the liquor after which he went inside the truck where Somvir was already present and Bablu, the person from transport company and Jagbir also came inside the truck and they all started to take liquor at about 8.30 PM. At about 10 to 10.15 PM after taking liquor they went towards Dichaon Village via Neelwal when Harbir was driving the truck, Jagbir was sitting on the conductor side and Somvir was sitting between them. It also stands established that when they reached near Firni of Neelwal village and turned the vehicle on the left side, one St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 109 boy aged about 25 years & well built with long hairs came and hit the driver side mirror of the truck and front wind screen and then came to then conductor side and started quarreling with Jagbir and abusing him to which he objected. It stands established that the said boy (who has been identified as the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi in the Court) started giving beatings to Jagbir with the said danda while the other boy who was short in height but well built with dark complexion (who has been identified as the accused Pradeep in the Court) came with a knife towards Jagbir and given him two knife blows on the stomach and his head. It has also been established that while Harbir intervened he was also beaten by the said accused who given him danda, legs and fist blows whereas Somvir rushed to the nearby village seeking help. It further stands established that thereafter the accused ran away from the spot and some passerbye made a call to the PCR and when PCR came to the spot they shifted Jagbir to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital along with Somvir while Harbir remained at the spot. In the meanwhile local police headed by SI Puran Chand reached the spot where they found Harbir in an injured condition having suffered internal injuries on which they also shifted him to hospital and provided him medical treatment. It stands established that on 14.3.2007 Jagbir expired and the medical evidence on record proves the cause of death as coma as a result of head injuries and it is writ large that the said injures were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Further, the arrest of Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and the accused Pradeep also stands established. It stands established that the St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 110 accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi was arrested by the Haryana Police in case FIR No. 143/07, Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, under Section 25 of Arms Act wherein he disclosed his involvement in the present case and also disclosed about his coaccused Pradeep who was involved in another murder case vide FIR No. 58/07 of PS Shehar (City) Distt. Sonepat under Sections 302, 452 IPC. It also stands established that production warrants were issued against both the accused after which they were produced at Rohini Courts and formally arrested in this case. After their arrest the accused refused to participate in the Judicial Test Identification Parade proceedings despite the specific warning given to them by the Ld. MM. Both the accused were thereafter identified by the eye witness Harbir and Somvir on 29.6.2007 while the accused were being produced in the Court. It further stands established that Police Custody remand of both the accused was taken and they were further interrogated during which they disclosed that they had hidden the danda and the knife used in the present case, in a Kotra/ room in the fields of village Neelwal and pursuant the same they got recovered the danda Ex.P1 and the broken kitchen knife Ex.P2 (handle) and Ex.P3 (knife blade) which danda and knife have been duly identified in the Court by the eye witness Harbir as the same with which he and the deceased beaten.
(111) The Investigating Officer Inspector R.S. Malik has not investigated the aspect relating to details of the vehicle which had scratched the side of the truck bearing no. HR38B0810 whose paint was found on St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 111 the truck (as evident from the Mechanical Inspection Report) and regarding the driver of the said vehicle. The possibility of this being deliberate cannot be ruled out. However, that in itself will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution in so far as the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep are concerned since the allegations against them are absolutely clear, specific and succinct and have been established beyond reasonable doubt. (112) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. (113) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 112 prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. (114) However, from the evidence on record, it is evident that an accident had taken place between the vehicle/ truck belonging to the deceased Jagbir which was being driven by Harbir and the vehicle of the accused and the offence had been committed in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. At the time of incident the deceased Jagbir (owner of the truck) and the drivers Harbir and Somvir all had consumed liquor and were in intoxicated condition. The intention is the state of mind which has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case particularly the nature of weapon of the weapon and how it was used. The weapon of offence used are the danda and the kitchen knife, also shows the absence of any premeditation. It is further evident that after the deceased Jagbir was given beatings the offenders left the vehicle and at that time Jagbir was still conscious who thereafter slipped into Coma in the hospital and ultimately expired after a few hours. I hereby hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to conclusively establish that the accused had the intention to cause death or such bodily injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. However, it stands established that the act of the accused of giving repeated danda and knife blows to the deceased Jagbir was such that they were deemed to have knowledge that it was likely to cause death and hence the case of the accused is covered under the provisions of Section 299 IPC and they are guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the case of the St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 113 accused would fall within the purview of Section 304 (PartII) Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, the required mensrea for murder not being present. Further, in so far as the Charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code in respect of the injuries qua the injured Harbir is concerned, it is evident that neither the knowledge nor the intention has been reflected. The medical evidence does not substantiate the charges alleged. There is no injury which could have cause death of Harbir in the ordinary course of nature rather, the injuries on the person of injured Harbir which were inflicted by danda were opined to be simple in nature. Therefore, I hold both the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep guilty of Section 324 Indian Penal Code (not under Section 307 Indian Penal Code).
(115) Therefore, in view of the above, I hereby hold both the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep guilty of Section 304 (Part II) /324/34 Indian Penal Code for which they are accordingly convicted. (116) Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 4.7.2012.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 02.7.2012 ASJII(NW)/ROHINI St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 114 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 120/2011 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0999642007 State Vs. (1) Sukhvinder @ Sokhi S/o Mohinder Singh R/o Village Kanonda, PS Bahadurgarh, Haryana (Convicted) (2) Pradeep S/o Rajbir R/o House No. 1669, Gali No.2, Shastri Colony, Sonepath, Haryana (Convicted) FIR No.: 220/07 Police Station: Nangloi Under Section: 302/307/34 Indian Penal Code Date of Conviction: 2.7.2012 Arguments heard on: 4.7.2012 Date of sentence: 5.7.2012 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
The convict Sukhvinder @ Sokhi in judicial custody with St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 115 Sh. Suyash Advocate.
Accused Pradeep in judicial custody with Sh. Pradeep Rana Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
(1) Vide a detailed judgment of this Court dated 2.7.2012, both the accused namely Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep have been held guilty of the offence under Section 304 (PartII)/307/34 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted.
(2) The present case relates to an incident of Road Rage where and Jagbir the owner of the truck bearing No. HR38B0810 who was travelling in the same along with the driver Harbir and conductor/ helper Somvir lost his life. As per allegations on 13.3.2007 at about 10:00 PM at Firni More, Village Neelwal both the accused namely Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully stopped the truck bearing No. HR38B0810 driven by Harbir and started beating the owner Jagbir who was also travelling in the truck and inflicted stab injuries in his stomach and on his head with an intention and knowledge that such an act it likely to cause death and committed culpable homicide amounting to murder. Further, as per allegations both the accused also gave severe beatings to Harbir on his head and other parts of his body with such an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act they cause death, they would be guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 116 (3) On the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution particularly the eye witness Harbir and other circumstantial and medical evidence on record, this Court vide its judgment dated 2.7.2012 held the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep guilty of the offence under Sections 304 (PartII)/ 324/34 Indian Penal Code. In the judgment this Court has observed that it stands established that on 13.3.2007 Harbir (eye witness) was the Driver on the truck bearing No. DL38B0810 which was owned by Jagbir (deceased) where Somvir (complainant) was also the driver cum helper and on that day Harbir he along with his associate Somvir came to Gurgaon at about 12 noon to 1 PM in their truck from Baroda, Gujrat and after reaching Gurgaon he telephoned to Jagbir owner of vehicle no. HR38B0810 who instructed them to unload the vehicle and come to Dichao Kalan. It was also observed in the judgment that it stood established that the truck was having a load to the destination of Samay Pur Badli and the owner called them (Harbir and Somvir) at Dichaon, the native village of Jagbir to further load the material in the truck of Samay Pur Badli to reloaded in some local small truck and hence, as per the instructions they went in the same truck to Dichaon in the house of Jagbir from where at about 5:00 PM in the same truck, Harbir, Somvir and Jagbir went to their transport company i.e. Ganpathi Road Carrier situated at near Village Ghevra. It was also established that they (Harbir, Somvir and Jagbir) parked their vehicle on the service road near transport company when Harbir (PW4) and Jagbir (deceased) went inside St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 117 the office of the transport company of Vrish Bhan (PW7) for settling their account while Somvir remained in the truck. Harbir and Jagbir settled their account with the transport company and could not find any local vehicle for sending the loaded material in the truck to Samaypur Badli after which Jagbir had sent Harbir for purchasing liquor and allowed them (Harbir and Somvir) to drink and eat since they had come from Gujarat. It also stood established that Harbir brought the liquor after which he went inside the truck where Somvir was already present and Bablu, the person from transport company and Jagbir also came inside the truck where they all started to take liquor at about 8.30 PM. At about 10 to 10.15 PM after taking liquor they went towards Dichaon Village via Neelwal when Harbir was driving the truck, Jagbir was sitting on the conductor side and Somvir was sitting between them. It was also established that when they reached near Firni of Neelwal village and turned the vehicle on the left side, one boy aged about 25 years & well built with long hair came and hit the driver side mirror of the truck and the front wind screen and then came to the conductor side and started quarreling with Jagbir and abusing him to which he (deceased) objected. It also stood established that the said boy (who has been identified as the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi in the Court) started giving beatings to Jagbir with the said danda whereas the other boy who was short in height but well built with dark complexion (who has been identified as the accused Pradeep in the Court) came with a knife towards Jagbir and gave him two knife blows on the stomach and his head. It was St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 118 also established that while Harbir intervened he was also beaten by the said accused who gave him danda, legs and fist blows whereas Somvir rushed to the nearby village seeking help. It was further established that thereafter the accused ran away from the spot and a PCR call was made by some public person after which the PCR came to the spot and shifted Jagbir to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital along with Somvir while Harbir remained at the spot. In the meanwhile local police headed by SI Puran Chand reached the spot where they found Harbir in an injured condition having suffered internal injuries on which they also shifted him to hospital and provided him medical treatment. It was established that on 14.3.2007 Jagbir expired and the medical evidence on record proves the cause of death as coma as a result of head injuries and that the said injures were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Further, the arrest of Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and the accused Pradeep have also been established. It was established that the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi was arrested by the Haryana Police in case FIR No. 143/07, Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, under Section 25 of Arms Act wherein he disclosed his involvement in the present case and also disclosed about his coaccused Pradeep who was involved in another murder case vide FIR No. 58/07 of PS Shehar (City) Distt. Sonepat under Sections 302, 452 IPC. It has also been established that production warrants were issued against both the accused after which they were produced at Rohini Courts and formally arrested in this case and after their arrest the accused refused to participate in the Judicial Test St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 119 Identification Parade proceedings despite the specific warning given to them by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. Both the accused were thereafter identified by the eye witness Harbir and Somvir on 29.6.2007 while the accused were being produced in the Court. It was further established that Police Custody remand of both the accused was taken and they were further interrogated during which they disclosed that they had hidden the danda and the knife used in the present case, in a Kothra/ room in the fields of village Neelwal and pursuant the same they got recovered the danda Ex.P1 and the broken kitchen knife Ex.P2 (handle) and Ex.P3 (knife blade) which danda and knife have been duly identified in the Court by the eye witness Harbir as the same with which he and the deceased beaten.
(4) Further, this Court also observed that it was borne out from the material on record that an accident had taken place between the vehicle/ truck belonging to the deceased Jagbir which was being driven by Harbir and the vehicle of the accused and that the offence had been committed in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. At the time of incident the deceased Jagbir (owner of the truck) and the drivers Harbir and Somvir had consumed liquor and were in an intoxicated condition. The weapon used in the offence are the danda and the kitchen knife which indicates absence of any premeditation. It was also established that after the deceased Jagbir was given beatings the offenders left the spot and at that time Jagbir was still conscious who thereafter slipped into Coma in the hospital and ultimately expired few hours later.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 120 (5) This Court in the judgment also observed that the case in hand related to the incident of road rage, which was possibly with a Tavera car belonging to one Kuldeep who even lodged a complaint with the police (which Investigating Officer Inspector R.S. Malik had concealed) but the Investigating Officer Inspector Rajender Singh Malik has not come out clean. On the one hand despite the fact that in the Mechanical Inspection Report there were signs of extraneous paint on the side of the truck indicating that there was some accident involving another vehicle hitting on the side of the truck, no investigations in this regard were conducted or placed on record in this regard and hence the possibility of the investigations conducted in this regard having been concealed perhaps to protect the owner/ driver of the other vehicle could not be ruled out. (6) In the judgment it has been held that the prosecution had miserably failed to conclusively establish that the accused had the intention to cause death or such bodily injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death but it stood established that the act of the accused in giving repeated danda and knife blows to the deceased Jagbir was such that they were deemed to have knowledge that it was likely to cause death and hence the case of the accused is covered under the provisions of Section 299 IPC and they are guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder which would fall within the purview of Section 304 (PartII) Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, the requisite mensrea for murder not St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 121 being present.
(7) Further, in so far as the Charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code in respect of the injuries qua the injured Harbir is concerned, it was observed by this Court that neither the knowledge nor the intention has been reflected. The medical evidence did not substantiate the charges alleged. There is no injury which could have cause death of Harbir in the ordinary course of nature rather, the injuries on the person of injured Harbir which were inflicted by danda were opined to be simple in nature. Therefore, the accused Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep have been held guilty of Section 324 Indian Penal Code (not under Section 307 Indian Penal Code).
(8) Heard arguments on the point of sentence. It has been reported that the convict Sukhvinder @ Sokhi a young boy of 27 years has a family comprising of aged parents and one younger brother. At the time of his arrest, he was a student of 12th class. He has already remained in Judicial Custody for five years and thirteen days. As per the report of the Investigating Officer the convict Shukhvinder Singh @ Sokhi is involved in the following cases:
i. FIR No. 147/04, under Section 323/324/34 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh.
ii. FIR No. 143/07, under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh (wherein he has been acquitted). St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 122 iii. FIR No. 278/04, under Section 394/34 IPC, Police Station Mohana.
iv. FIR No. 86/04, under Section 392/34 IPC, Police Station City Bahadurgarh (9) The convict Pradeep a young boy of 27 years, is having a family comprising of aged parents, one younger brother and one younger unmarried sister. At the time of his arrest he was a student of 12 th class.
He has already remained in Judicial Custody for five years and nine days and is also involved in another case bearing FIR No. 58/07, Police Station City Sonepat, under Sections 302, 452 IPC.
(10) Ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of the convicts have vehemently argued that both the convicts are young boys. They have argued that though the convicts are involved in another cases but they have not been convicted in any other case so far. Ld. Counsel for the convict Sukhwinder @ Sokhi has pointed out that the convict has lost his brother last year and now the convict is the only helping hand of his aged parents. It is prayed that a lenient view be taken against both the convicts keeping in view the fact that they have already remained in judicial custody for more than five years and both the convicts be released on the period already undergone by them.
(11) On the other hand Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that keeping in view the allegations involved a stern St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 123 view be taken against the convicts. He has submitted that the convicts are short tampered persons and do not hesitate to take the law into their hands and the life of another on petty issues.
(12) Ld. Counsels for the convicts have relied upon the following authorities:
i. K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs. State of Kerala reported in 1993 (3) SCC 309.
ii. Bunnilal Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2006 (10) SCC 639 iii. State of Mysore Vs. U. Hanamanthappa reported in 1962 (2) Crl.L.J. 710.
iv. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ghanshyam Singh reported in 2003 Crl.L.J. 4339 v. Ram Kumari Vs. the State (NCT) of Delhi reported in 2001 (9) SCC 161.
vi. Felix Ambrose D' Souza vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2003 (1) ACR 370 (SC).
vii. Chandego Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1992 Crl.L.J. 1240.
(13) I have considered the rival contentions and the authorities placed before me. In so far as the case of K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs. St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 124 State of Kerala (Supra) is concerned, the same has no relevance to the facts in hand since in the above case the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken a lenient view as the convict therein had suffered the agony of trial for 13 long years. In the present case the convicts are themselves involved in other criminal cases and the trial has been well concluded within four to five years. Further, in so far as the other cases are concerned, none of them relate to instances of Road Rage where the convict is a habitual criminal involved in other criminal cases. The Road Rage or Aggressive Driving is an aggressive angry behaviour by a driver of an automobile or the motor vehicle on road which behaviour may include gestures, verbal insult, unsafe driving or threatening driving or making of threats. Road Rage often starts with with a verbal altercation and may aggravate to an assault or collusion resulting into injuries or even death as has happened in the present case.
(14) Many jurisdictions world over including USA have enacted Special Legislations to deal with this growing menace of Road Rage which include instances of Vehicular Homicide (when someone is killed in road rage). In India, road rage which was initially rare, has now with acquisition of new economic wealth by many, become a frequent phenomena. It is unfortunate that with increased materialistic attitudes a scratch on a car has become more important than the life of another. Roads are no longer safe with everyone on short fuse. Many persons have lost their dears one's to the Rage of another. Road Rage can happen anywhere, anytime and to St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 125 anyone. A recent study has revealed that majority of the perpetrators of Road Rage are young relatively poorly educated males having criminal record, history of violence, alcoholism or drug or have suffered emotional or professional set back. In many cases it also includes many men and women with no history of crime. It is time that we in India recognize this Aggressive Behavioural Rage as a Mental Issue (not a mental disorder) which behaviour is a result of Intermittent Explosive Disorder. Keeping in view a recent rise in Road Rage not only imposition of heinous sections but a stricter punishment to those who take laws into their hands without any justification, is a need of hour. Immediate measures are required to be taken at all levels to sent across a message that this will not be tolerated. It is time that we realize that exhibiting an improper rowdy behaviour and loosing ones tamper on the Road can land one in a serious problem. A person who does not exercise control over his emotions or looses control without any justification by bullying another on road and by taking the law into his hands, does not deserve any leniency.
(15) No doubt, in the present case the driver of the truck and others with him including the owner (deceased who had been killed) were high on alcohol at the time of the incident, but does that give a licence to any person to take the law into his hands. Keeping in view the fact that a life has been lost in the incident and a family has lost its able earning member for no reason, the convicts deserve no leniency. The convicts Sukhvinder @ Sokhi and Pradeep are both young boys and at the time of the incident St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 126 were in their early twenties. They have a background of being involved in other criminal cases apparently indicating that they have scant respect for law. In fact the convict Pradeep is involved in another murder case at Sonepat and the convict Sukhvinder is also involved in three other cases at Bahadurgarh and it is this criminal background of the convicts that dis entitles them to any leniency. In this background, I award the following sentence to the convict Sukhvinder @ Sokhi:
i. For the offence under Section 304 (PartII) Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) years and fine to the tune of Rs. One Lac. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months. The entire fine amount of Rs. One lacs , if recovered, shall be given to the family of the deceased Jagbir as compensation in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C.
ii. For the offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
(16) In so far as the convict Pradeep is concerned, I award the following sentences to him.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 127
i. For the offence under Section 304 (PartII) Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) years and fine to the tune of Rs. One lac. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months. The entire fine amount of Rs. One lacs , if recovered, shall be given to the family of the deceased Jagbir as compensation in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C.
ii. For the offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
(17) Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to both the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial, as per rules.
(18) The convicts are informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against the judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 128 (19) Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to both the convicts free of costs and another copy be attached with their jail warrants.
(20) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 5.07.2012 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Sukhvinder @ Sokhi & Anr. FIR No. 220/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 129