Delhi District Court
State vs . Krishnamurthy @ Vicky on 28 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
II (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 70/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0080122011
State Vs. Krishnamurthy @ Vicky
S/o Sh. Ramesh Mohan
R/o L233, JJ Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 377/10
Police Station: Rani Bagh
Under Section: 379/411 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to session court: 26.3.2011
Date on which orders were reserved: 8.7.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced:11.7.2014
JUDGMENT:
(1) The present case is relating to motorcycle theft is being taken up along with FIR No. 439/2010 Police Station Saraswati Vihar, under Section 395/396/397/302/467/468 Indian Penal Code and 25/54/59 of Arms Act for the reason that the stolen motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501 had been used in the crime committed on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 pursuant to which FIR No. 439/2010 Police Station Saraswati Vihar, under Section 395/ 396/ 397/ 302/ 467/ 468 Indian Penal Code and 25/54/59 of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 1 Arms Act was registered.
(2) As per the allegations the accused Krishnamurthy was in possession of a motorcycle make Hero Honda, Splender Plus of black colour bearing No. HR15A3501 having chasis No. MBLHA10EJGJ09900 Engine No. HA10EA8G10485 and had used the said motorcycle knowing or having the reasons that that it was a stolen property. CHARGE:
(3) Charge under Section 411 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Krishnamurthy to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(4) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, 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 Name of the witness Details
No. No.
1. PW1 HC Mohan Singh Police Witness - Duty Officer of Police
Station Rani Bagh
2. PW2 Ashok Kumar Public Witness Complainant
3. PW3 W/Ct. Anita Police Witness - PCR official
4. PW4 ASI Om Prakash Police Witness - Duty Officer
5. PW5 HC Ravinder Nath Police Witness - MHCM
6. PW6 Inspector Vipin Bhatia Police Witness who found the stolen
motorcycle standing near C8, Raj Nagar, Road
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 2
No. 43 i.e. place of incident in FIR no.
439/2010, Police Station Saraswati Vihar
7. PW7 Ct. Baldev Raj Police Witness from Police Station Saraswati
Vihar who visited the spot of incident in FIR
No. 439/2010
8. PW8 HC Amit Tomar Police Witness - Crime Branch Official who
had apprehended the accused
9. PW9 SI Kuldeep Bhoriya Police Witness who recorded the statement of
complainant
10. PW10 HC Yagya Dutt Police Witness to whom the investigations of
this case was marked
11. PW11 SI Sharad Kohli Police Witness - Investigating Officer of the
present case
12. PW12 Inspector Arti Sharma Police Witness - Crime Branch Official who had apprehended the accused List of Documents:
Sr. Exhibit Details of document Proved By
No. No.
1. PW1/A Endorsement on Rukka HC Mohan Singh
2. PW1/B Copy of FIR
3. PW2/A Statement of Ashok Kumar Ashok Kumar
4. PW3/A PCR Form Ct. Anita
5. PW4/1 Affidavit of evidence of ASI Om Prakash ASI Om Prakash
6. PW5/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Ravinder Nath HC Ravinder Nath
7. PW5/A Copy of entry at Sr. No. 3989/2010
8. PW5/B Copy of RC No. 174/21/10
9. PW7/A Seizure memo of motorcycle with key Ct. Baldev Raj
10. PW8/A Arrest memo of the accused HC Amit Tomar
11. PW8/B Disclosure statement of accused
12. PW8/C Pointing out memo of the place of occurrence
of the present case
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 3
13. PW9/A Rukka SI Kuldeep
14. PW10/A Site plan HC Yagya Dutt
15. PW10/B Seizure memo of fake number plates
16. PW11/A Copy of disclosure statement of accused in SI Sharad Kohli
case FIR No. 439/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar
17. PW11/B Pointing out memo of place of incident in FIR
No. 439/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar
EVIDENCE:
(5) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as
Twelve Witnesses as under:
Public witness/ complainant:
(6) PW2 Ashok Kumar has deposed that in the year 2010 he had
been working at Call Center in the name and style of Future On BPO Solutions Pvt. Ltd situated at Rani Bagh, Delhi. According to the witness, on 19.11.2010 he had gone to the house of his boss i.e. Kothi No.1, Anand Vihar, Pitam Puri for account files, on his motorcycle bearing No. HR15 A3501 make Hero Honda splendor. He has further deposed that on reaching there at about 9:00 AM he had parked his motorcycle in front of house of his Boss and when he came out he found that his motorcycle was missing. He has testified that he searched his motorcycle but could not trace it out after which he made a call at 100 number but no police official came. According to the witness, thereafter he again made a call at 100 number on which one police official came on a motorcycle and asked him St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 4 about the incident and suggested him to go to Police Station Rani Bagh.
He has testified that thereafter he went to Police Station Rani Bagh where his statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded after which he came back to his office and on the next night he left for his native place in Haryana. According to the witness, on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 he received a call from Police Station Saraswati Vihar and police inquired about his motorcycle on which he replied that it was registered in his name and the same had been stolen on 19.11.2010 and he had already made a complaint in this regard at Police Station Saraswati Vihar. The witness has also deposed that the police official informed him and his motorcycle had been recovered and asked him to bring the copy of the FIR at Police Station Saraswati Vihar. He has testified that thereafter in the morning he came to Police Station Saraswati Vihar where inquiries were made from him and thereafter he was relieved. According to the witness, he thereafter got released his motorcycle which is Ex.P1 on Superdari. (7) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that his office was situated at 4, 5 and 6, Sagar Plaza, Rani Bagh, Delhi on 1st and 2nd floor. According to the witness, about 80 persons had been working in his office at that time. He has further deposed that on the day of incident he was in the shift duty of 5:00 PM to 3:00 AM. The witness has also deposed that he used to visit the house of his boss as and when required and normally fourfive times in a month. He has testified that there was HDFC Bank situated opposite to Kothi No.1. He St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 5 has admitted that one Guard used to remain for security of the HDFC bank. He has denied the suggestion that there was no possibility of theft of motorcycle since security guard always remained there or that Kothi No.1 was not of his boss Ujjwal Arora. According to the witness, when he found his motorcycle missing he had also made a call to his boss regarding the same. He has denied the suggestion that he along with his other companion fired at Prateek Trikha in the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 and robbed his Honda City car and thereafter they ran away in his Honda City car after leaving his motorcycle there.
Police/ official witnesses:
(8) PW1 HC Mohan Singh has deposed that on 21.11.2010 he was posted at Police Station Rani Bagh as Duty Officer and his duty hours were from 4.00 PM to 12.00 midnight. According to him, on that day at about 10.00 PM, SI Kuldeep Goria presented a rukka before him and he mad endorsement Ex.PW1/A on it which is in his handwriting and thereafter he got registered the case FIR No.377/10 under Section 379 IPC through computer operator. He has further deposed that after registration of the case, the investigation was assigned to HC Jag Dutt and he handed over rukka in original and computer generated FIR to him computerized copy of which FIR is Ex.PW1/B. This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel despite being given opportunity in this regard.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 6 (9) PW3 W/Ct. Anita has deposed that on 19.11.2010 she was posted in PCR and on that day at about 21.42:25 i.e. 9.42:25 AM she received information from mobile no. 9212469006 that, "Hero Honda Black Silver Colour No. HR15AS701 has been stolen from Kothi No. 1 Pitam Pura, Anand Vihar, New Vishal Bharti Public School". According to the witness the complainant told his name as Anand Rathee R/o B98 A, Vikas Nagar, Gali No. 3, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. She has further deposed that she filed PCR form through computer and sent it for circulation. Witness has also brought PCR Form in original and copy of the same is Ex.PW3/A. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. defence counsel despite being given opportunity in this regard.
(10) PW4 Retired ASI Om Prakash is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the copy of FIR No.439/10 Police station Saraswati Vihar which is Ex.PW4/A. The witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. defence counsel despite being given opportunity in this regard. (11) PW5 HC Ravinder Nath is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW5/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the entry in register no. 19 vide Sl. No. 3989/10 copy of which Ex.PW5/A and entry register no. 21 vide RC 174/21/10 copy of which Ex.PW5/B. The witness has not been cross St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 7 examined by the Ld. defence counsel despite being given an opportunity in this regard.
(12) PW6 Inspector Vipin Bhatia has deposed that on 22.11.2010 he was posted as SHO of Police Station Subhash Place and on that day there was a call regarding admission of one Prateek Trikha in Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital pursuant to which he had reached the place of occurrence near C8, Raj Nagar, Road No.43 where there was a pool of blood and a motorcycle make Splendor was standing nearby with key. According to the witness, there was number DLAS0234 on the back side and number HR15A3 on the front side of the motorcycle. He has testified that he opened the tool box of the motorcycle and found that the vehicle was registered in the name of one Ashok a resident of Rohtak and his driving license was also found. The witness has further deposed that he contacted Ashok over telephone who informed him that his vehicle was stolen from Rani Bagh area on 19.11.2010 after which he inquired from Police Station Rani Bagh and came to know that the said motorcycle was stolen and FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh had been registered. He has testified that he had seized the motorcycle in case FIR No. 439/10 u/s. 302/397/34 IPC, PS Saraswati Vihar and after investigations he had informed Police Station Rani Bagh on 30.11.2010.
(13) The witness has correctly identified two number plates as the same as were affixed on the motorcycle, the number plate bearing no. HR15A3 which was affixed on the front side of the motorcycle is Ex.P2 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 8 and another number plate with number written as DLAS0234 which was affixed on the back side of the motorcycle is Ex.P3. It has been observed by the Court that the number HR 15 A 3 has been written with stickers and DL AS 0234 is written with some black marker pen.
(14) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he had informed the Crime Team about the fact of both fake number plate on the motorcycle. According to the witness, he had checked the tool box of the motorcycle before the arrival of the crime team. The witness has testified that he had informed Ashok in the night itself since his telephone number was mentioned on one of the documents recorded from the tool box but he is unable to tell the details of the documents. He has also deposed that he had seized the motorcycle on 22.11.2010 in the morning but he is unable to tell the exact time. According to the witness, he was not previously aware that the motorcycle had been stolen from Police Station Rani Bagh and has voluntarily explained that he came to know about this fact which he was at the spot. He has also deposed that he had made no inquiries about the key found in the motorcycle. He has denied the suggestion that he did not inform the Crime Team regarding the details of the documents recovered from the tool box since no such documents were recovered.
(15) PW7 Ct. Baldev Raj has deposed hat on 22.11.10 he was posted at Police station Saraswati Vihar and on that day at about 1.30 AM Duty Officer ASI Om Prakash handed over one DD No. 7A to him and directed St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 9 him to hand over to SI Ranveer Singh near Kohat Metro Station. According to him, when he was going to there SI Ranveer Singh met him at Rohit Kunj Market and he handed over DD No. 7A to him. He has further deposed that thereafter he along with SI Ranveer Singh went to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital and SHO Inspector Vipin Kumar Bhatia met them there and there they came to know that the injured Parteek Trika was admitted in the hospital and had received gun shot injuries and his vehicle had been robbed. He has testified that thereafter he alongwith Inspector Vipin Kumar Bhatia reached at road no. 43 near Ram Mandir and at the gate of Raj Nagar Inspector made inquiries from guard and some blood was also found near the gate of Raj Nagar. The witness has also deposed that they followed the blood trail which was going from the Road No. 43 to Raj Nagar area and by following the blood trail, in front of Kothi No. C8 and 9 of Road No. 43 of Raj Nagar they found blood spots there. He has further deposed that they found one empty fired cartridges case in front of Kothi no.9 on which SHO called the Crime Team officers at the spot. He has further deposed that Crime Team officials reached at the spot alongwith photographer and one motorcycle Hero Honda bearing Delhi no. 0234 at the back side and Haryana no. HR15A3 at the front side was also found at the spot. The witness has testified that Crime Team inspected the scene and the photographer took photographs and also tried to lift the Finger/ Chance Print from motorcycle. According to him, in the meanwhile Inspector Vipin Bhatia received information from SI Ranveer that injured St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 10 Parteek had been declared dead by doctor. The witness has further deposed that thereafter inspector Vipin went to house of Parteek Trika and remained at the spot and after 30 minutes he returned back at the spot and handed over a rukka to him for registration of FIR. He has further deposed that he went to Police Station Saraswati Vihar and got the FIR No. 439/10 registered on the basis of rukka after which copy of FIR and rukka were handed over to him. According to the witness, he returned back at the spot and handed over the same to Inspector Vipin Bhatia. The witness has testified that Inspector Vipin Bhatia lifted blood from the spot with the help of cotton and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of VKB and Investigating Officer also lifted Blood Stained Road pieces after breaking the same and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of VKB. He has also deposed that Investigating Officer also lifted road pieces as earth control from spot and kept the same in plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of VKB and the same were seized and Investigating Officer also lifted empty fired cartridges case from the spot and kept the same in a empty match box and sealed the same with the seal of VKB and seized the same. According to the witness the motorcycle was also seized by Investigating Officer with the key of motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. The witness has also deposed that that tool box of motorcycle was opened with the help of key and one RC, DL, Pollution Certificate and Insurance document were found in tool box of motorcycle and DL and RC were found in the name of Ashok St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 11 and same were also seized by the Investigating Officer after which they returned back to Police Station. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer deposited all seized articles in malkhana.
(16) The witness has correctly identified two number plates as the same as were affixed on the motorcycle, the number plate bearing no. HR15A3 which was affixed on the front side of the motorcycle is Ex.P2 and another number plate with number written as DLAS0234 which was affixed on the back side of the motorcycle is Ex.P3. It has been observed by the Court that the number HR15A3 had been written with stickers and DLAS0234 was written with some black marker pen.
(17) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has admitted that he was alone for about 1520 minutes. He has further deposed that when Inspector Vipin Bhatia opened the tool box the DL, RC, Insurance and Pollution Certificate were found and he has inspected the abovesaid documents. He has testified that he was not sure that whether there was any phone number mentioned on any document. According to him, the documents which were found in the tool box had been seized vide a seizure memo and has voluntarily explained that the Investigating Officer had seized the abovesaid documents in FIR No. 439/10. The witness has also deposed that fake number plate which bears No. HR15A3 was written with black tape and at back side DL AS 0234. According to him, perhaps Inspector Vipin Bhatia has informed the complainant. He is not aware if the Investigating Officer had told Crime Team regarding recovery St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 12 of documents of motorcycle. He has denied the suggestion that the fake number plate DL AS 0234 was created by him by removing black colour tape no. HR 15A 3501.
(18) PW8 HC Amit Tomar has deposed that on 27.01.2011 he was posted at SIT Crime Branch as Head Constable and had joined the investigations in the present case along with SI Sharad Kohli. According to him, on that day he accompanied him to the Rohini Court Complex and after obtaining permission from the ld. ACMM, accompanied him to the Rohini Jail where after taking permission from Superintendent Jail, the accused Krishnamurthy @ Vicky was interrogated by SI Sharad Kohli in the jail itself and during the interrogation, Krishnamurthy disclosed that he had stolen a bike make Hero Honda Splendor from house No.1, Anand Vihar, Rani Bagh and after putting a false number plate on the same had used the same. According to the witness the accused further disclosed that during the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 after committing the incident of robbery and firing on person, he left the motorcycle at the spot of the incident and ran away. He has proved that SI Sharad Kohli arrested the accused Krishnamurthy vide memo Ex.PW/8A and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW8/B and thereafter the accused was handed over to jail authorities.
(19) The witness has further deposed that on the next day when he was produced before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate one day Police Custody remand was obtained by SI Sharad Kohli during which the accused took SI St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 13 Sharad Kohli to the spot of the incident after which pointing out memo was prepared by SI Sharad Kohli vide Ex.PW8/C and thereafter they returned to the office of Crime Branch where his statement was recorded by the Investigating officer. The witness has correctly identified the accused Krishnamurthy.
(20) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he does not recollect if he had made his separate departure entry while leaving his office along with SI Sharad Kohli but he recollect he has a wapsi/arrival entry. He has further deposed that he was aware of the contents of the application filed by SI Sharad Kohli before the ld. Illaka Magistrate. He is unable to tell the exact time when they reached Rohini Jail but states that it was in the evening and has voluntarily added that it must be around 34 PM. According to the witness, in his presence the Investigating Officer did not ask any jail staff to join the investigations when he was interrogating Krishnamurthy. He has admitted that the documents of arrest and disclosure do not bear the signatures of any jail staff or any other independent person including inmates of the jail. He has admitted that the interrogation of Krishnamurthy was not done in the presence of any other person and he and SI Sharad Kohli were only present there. He has further deposed that they remained in the office and accused Krishnamurthy was interrogated for about one hour which includes the time taken for purposes of preparation of documents of arrest and disclosure. He has denied the suggestion that accused Krishnamurthy did St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 14 not make any disclosure regarding the offence as alleged by him or that it is for this reason that his disclosure statement does not bear the signatures of any independent person i.e jail staff, inmate etc. He has denied the suggestion that SI Sharad Kohli had recorded the disclosure statement of Krishnamurthy of his own or that Krishnamurthy was compelled to sign the disclosure statement. He is not aware to whom the information regarding the arrest of the accused Krishnamurthy was given in his family and has voluntarily added that it was only a formal arrest. He has denied the suggestion that Krishnamurthy did not take them to the spot of the incident or that the pointing out memo was prepared by SI Sharad Kohli while sitting in the office and Krishnamurthy was compelled to sign the same under pressure. He has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the Investigating officer. (21) PW9 SI Kuldeep Bhoriya has deposed that on 19.11.2010 he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Rani Bagh and on that day he was present at the Police Station when the complainant Ashok Kumar had come to the Police Station and made a complaint with regard to the theft of his motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501 in front of Khothi No.1, Anand Vihar, Rani Bagh, Delhi. According to him, on 21.11.2010 again complainant gave his complaint vide Ex.PW2/A on which he made his endorsement vide Ex.PW9/A and it was only then i.e. on 21.11.2010 that the FIR was registered and further investigations were handed over to HC Yog Dutt.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 15 (22) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he made no endorsement on the complaint of the complainant Ashok Kumar of 19.11.2010. He has further deposed that he had only made an entry regarding the same in the DD register. He is unable to tell the date on which the DD register of 19.11.2010 was seen by the ACP or the date when he had signed the said register for the said date. He has denied the suggestion that no complaint of theft of motorcycle has made on 19.11.2010 or that the same was procured later on 21.11.2010 to create evidence in the connected FIR bearing No. 439/10. He has also denied the suggestion that the endorsement made by him as aforesaid had been anti dated and anti timed on the instructions of senior officers. He has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of senior officers.
(23) PW10 HC Yagaya Dutt has deposed that on 21.11.2010 he was posted at Police Station Rani Bagh and on that day the Duty Officer handed over to him a original tehrir and copy of the present FIR which was relating to motorcycle theft case. He has further deposed that he accompanied the complainant to Kothi No.1, Anand Vihar, Rani Bagh and prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW10/A. He has further deposed that he then made inquiries from the neighbor with regard to the motorcycle but did not come to know as to what happened to the motorcycle and thereafter he returned to the Police Station and he recorded the statements of official witnesses after returning to the Police Station and recorded the supplementary statement of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 16 the complainant and he then sent WT messages to NCRB and also letters to the authorities regarding the theft of the motorcycle. (24) He has further deposed that on 30.11.2010 he received information from Police Station Saraswati Vihar regarding the deposit of the said stolen motorcycle in the malkhana of the Police Station as the said motorcycle was involved in allegedly murder and theft case. He has further deposed that he obtained the seizure memo of the stolen motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501 Splendor Hero Honda which was having a fake number plate on back side bearing No. DL50234 on the front side fake number plate bearing No. HR5A3 and he deposited the same in the Rani Bagh whose number he do not recollect. He has further deposed that he seized the said fake number plates vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B. (25) He has further deposed that on 01.12.2011 he received information from Crime Branch regarding transfer of the present case to SIT Crime Branch, Sector 18 Rohini and he handed over the case file to SI Sharad Kohli. According to the witness he can identify the motorcycle and the fake number plates if shown to him but at that time the court was informed that the motorcycle has been released to the complainant on superdari.
(26) The witness correctly identified two number plates as the same as were affixed on the motorcycle. The number plate bearing No. HR15A3 which was affixed on the front side of the motorcycle and the number plate is Ex.P2 and the other number plate having number written St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 17 as DLAS0234 which was affixed on the back side of the motorcycle is Ex.P3. After seeing the number plate the witness has stated that earlier in his statement he had given incomplete number which he had forgotten on account of passage of time and request that the same may be read as DL AS0234 instead of DL50234.
(27) During the crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he had obtained the documents regarding the ownership of motorcycle from the complainant, voluntarily added that the complainant had handed over a colored photo copy of the RC. He has admitted that the complainant did not show him the original RC nor handed over the same to him. He has further deposed that he did not get confirmation regarding the ownership of the stolen motorcycle done from the authority and therefore he cannot confirm whether the complainant was actually the registered owner of the vehicle or not since he had never shown him the original. He has admitted that he also did not get confirm the user of the motorcycle by the complainant and has voluntarily added that the case was got registered on the basis of color RC of the motorcycle. He has admitted that the complainant did not seek the return of the colored photocopy of the RC which he had handed over to him during the investigations. He has denied the suggestion that no motorcycle as aforesaid was stolen or that the said motorcycle had been planted on the accused only to connect him with the case FIR No.439/10 of Police Station Saraswati Vihar. He has further denied the suggestion that he did not make St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 18 free and fair investigations or that his investigations were led by his senior officers.
(28) PW11 SI Sharad Kohli has deposed that on 27.01.2011 he was posted at SIT Crime Branch, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi and on that day he along with HC Amit Tomar came to the Rohini Court Complex and after obtaining permission from the Ld. ACMM, Sh. Vidya Parkash went to Rohini Jail. He has further deposed that after taking permission from Superintendent Jail, Rohini the accused Krishnamurthy @ Vicky who was already running in Judicial Custody in case FIR No. 439/10 of Police Station Saraswati Vihar was interrogated by him in the jail itself and during the interrogation, Krishnamurthy disclosed about a motorcycle theft which he had committed from house No.1, Anand Vihar, Rani Bagh about 2 ½ months ago which was make Splendor of Red color bearing No. HR15A3501 and on which he had put a fake number plate bearing No. DLAS0234. According to the witness, the accused further disclosed that on the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 he along with his four other associates had committed an incident of robbery and firing on a young boy and robbed him of his Honda City car when he was smoking outside his car and on his resistance had shot him and thereafter left the motorcycle at the spot of the incident and ran away. He has proved that he then formally arrested Krishnamurthy vide memo Ex.PW8/A and recorded the disclosure of accused Krishnamurthy vide Ex.PW8/B. He has also deposed that thereafter the accused was handed over to jail authorities after intimating to St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 19 them about his formal arrest and regarding his production before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate.
(29) The witness has further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 28.01.2011 when Krishnamurthy @ Vicky was produced before ld. Illaka Magistrate one day Police Custody remand was obtained by him and Krishnamurthy @ Vicky took them to the spot from where he had lifted the motorcycle and on his pointing out he prepared the pointing out memo of the spot which is Ex.PW8/C. The witness has testified that thereafter they returned to the Police Station and obtained the copy of the disclosure statement made by Krishnamurthy @ Vicky in case FIR No.439/10 Police Station Saraswati Vihar and pointing out memo from Inspector Arti Sharma which are Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B. He has further deposed that he recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigations he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court. He has correctly identified accused Krishnamurthy. (30) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he had made a combined departure entry of himself and HC Amit while leaving his office and also made a wapsi/ arrival entry on his return in which he had mentioned all what had transpired. He has further deposed that they reached at Rohini Jail at about 3 PM. According to him, he did not ask the Superintendent Jail to permit an independent person/ inmate to join the interrogation of Krishnamurthy @ Vicky. He has testified that he had made a request to Superintendent Jail to join the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 20 proceedings but he neither joined nor refused and only offered his room to him to interrogate the accused. He has denied the suggestion that he did not request the superintendent jail to remain present at the time of interrogation of accused. He has admitted that the documents of arrest and disclosure do not bear the signatures of any jail staff or any other independent person including inmate of the jail. He has further deposed that they remained in the office and the accused Krishnamurthy was interrogated for about 1 hour 45 minutes which includes the time taken for purposes of preparation of documents of arrest and disclosure. He has denied the suggestion that accused Krishnamurthy did not make any disclosure regarding the offence as alleged by him or that it is for this reason that his disclosure statement does not bear the signatures of any independent person i.e jail staff, inmate etc. He has further denied the suggestion that he had recorded the disclosure statement of Krishnamurthy of his own or that Krishnamurthy was compelled to sign the disclosure statement. According to the witness the information regarding the arrest of the accused Krishnamurthy was given to his brother after returning from the jail. The witness has also deposed that he had received the case file on transfer on 02.12.2010. He has further deposed that he had got the ownership of the Splendor bike checked from the authority and found that it was in the name of the complainant. He has also deposed that he did not collect the PCR form in respect of the call made by the complainant and has voluntarily added that he was not aware of any such call. He has St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 21 denied the suggestion that Krishnamurthy did not take them to the spot of the incident or that the pointing out memo was prepared by him while sitting in the office and Krishnamurthy was compelled to sign the same under pressure. He has further denied the suggestion that he did not make free and fair investigations or that his investigations were led by his senior officers. He has also denied the suggestion that he has prepared the charge sheet in a routine manner without application of mind on the asking of senior officers only to work out blind cases of the area. (31) PW12 Inspector Arti Sharma has deposed that on 02.12.2010 she had been entrusted the investigations of case FIR No. 439/10, Police Station Saraswati Vihar and she received the case file from Addl. DCP, SIT Crime for further investigations. According to the witness, she discussed the case with her team and she was informed by HC Amit Tomar that he was working on the case and his secret informer would be meeting him at M2K Sector 3 Rohini at 3:30 PM. The witness has further deposed that she constituted a team comprising of herself, SI Sharad Kohli, HC Rajender, HC Amit Tomar, Ct. Narender, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Vikas and Ct. Dabbu and they all went to the place of occurrence at road No.43, Raj Nagar, Ram Mandir, Pitampura where she inspected the spot in order to get a first hand information regarding the place of occurrence but could not find anything and thereafter they went to M2K Cinema Sector 3 Rohini where the informer of HC Amit Tomar met him and passed on some information to him. She has further deposed that HC Amit Tomar St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 22 informed her that the crime had been committed by five boys and out of which two of them would be coming to Lal quarter, Vijay Vihar from Mangolpuri following the Shamshan Ghat road on which they all along with secret informer went to Shamshan Ghat Road, near Lal Quarter, near Vijay Vihar. The witness has also deposed that she shared the information with passerbye's and requested them to join the raiding team but nobody agreed and left the place and hence without wasting time she deputed the members of the raiding team at various places and after some time two boys were seen coming on a red colored Pulsor motorcycle from Mangolpuri side. She has testified that on pointing out of secret informer she indicated the raiding team to stop the boys but when asked to stop they (the boys) instead took a turn and tried to flee away but slipped and fell. Witness has further deposed that they were both apprehended by team members and on interrogation it was found that the person who was driving the motorcycle was Neeraj and the person who was sitting on the pillion seat on the motorcycle was Krishnamurthy. She has testified that the casual search of the accused persons were conducted and from the search of accused Neeraj one driving license in the name Prateek Tikha, the deceased in the case FIR No. 439/10 was recovered. Witness has further deposed that she interrogated both these boys and it was Krishnamurthy who disclosed that he along with his four other associates i.e. total five had on the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 committed robbery of Honda City car and on resistance Appu had fired on the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 23 deceased Prateek Tikha. According to the witness the accused Krishnamurthy also disclosed that at the time of the said incident (dacoity and murder which took place on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010) he was driving a motorcycle make Hero Honda Splendor which he left the spot itself. She has also deposed that she arrested both the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy and conducted their personal search after which she recorded their disclosure statements. She has proved the disclosure statement of accused Krishnamurthy which is Ex.PW11/A. Witness has further deposed that thereafter Krishnamurthy took them to the place of the incident at road No. 43, Raj Mandir, Raj Nagar, Pitampura and pointed out the place of occurrence where they had committed the robbery cum murder and she prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW11/B. According to the witness thereafter since case FIR No.377/10 Police Station Rani Bagh was also transferred to Crime Branch and investigations were entrusted to SI Sharad Kohli, she handed over the disclosure statement and pointing out memo to SI Sharad Kohli who carried out the further investigations of the case and filed the charge sheet. She has correctly identified the accused Krishnamurthy. (32) It has been observed by the Court that investigations carried out by this witness in case FIR No. 439/10 Police Station Saraswati Vihar not relevant to the present case qua this witness and hence her further statement with regard to the said investigations was not recorded. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 24 (33) In her crossexamination by Ld.Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that she left their office with her team at about 1:30 PM and a separate departure was made with regard to entire team vide DD no. 9 and on their arrival also a separate wapsi/ arrival was made. Witness has further deposed that secret informer had met Ct. Amit at M2K sector 3 Rohini but she does not recollect the time and after pointing out the boys the secret informer had gone away and did not remain with them. She does not recollect if she had tried to join some public witnesses on receipt of secret informer at M2K Rohini itself but has clarified that in so far as Lal Quarter is concerned she had requested the passerbyes to join the raiding party but they refused. She is unable to tell the details and names of the persons who had refused to join the raiding party nor she gave any notice to them. Witness has further deposed that there was not much traffic on the road from where the accused were to come and has voluntarily added that it was a broken road. The witness has also deposed that the person who were stopped were the ones who were coming on vehicles but she did not note down their vehicle numbers. Witness has denied the suggestion that she made no attempt to join any public persons and no such incident had happened or that Krishnamurthy was already illegally detained by the police only to legalize his detention the incident regarding apprehension has been stage managed. According to her, the accused were apprehended after about 55:45 but she does not recollect the exact time and the entire proceedings continued till approximately 8:30 PM St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 25 when they had reached Raj Nagar road at 8:30 PM. Witness has admitted that no firearm was allegedly recovered from any of the accused. She has denied the suggestion that accused Krishnamurthy did not point out any place of occurrence. She has admitted that all the documents prepared by her do not bear the signatures of any public witness. She has denied the suggestion that she prepared all the documents including disclosure and pointing out memo while sitting in the office or that Krishnamurthy compelled to sign the same. Witness has denied the suggestion that Krishnamurthy made no disclosure statement or that she recorded the same of her own only to work out and solve a blind murder case. She has denied that the accused Krishnamurthy did not take them to the spot of the incident or that the pointing out memo was prepared by her while sitting in the office and Krishnamurthy was compelled to sign the same under pressure. Witness has denied that she did not make free and fair investigations or that her investigations were led by her senior officers. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(34) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused Krishnamurthy was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating material was put to the accused which he has denied. He has stated that he never took the police party to any spot and he is not aware from where the motorcycle was stolen. According to the accused his signatures were taken on some blank papers which might have been St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 26 converted into incriminating documents. He has further stated that he is innocent and has nothing to do with the alleged offence. He has also stated that earlier also he was falsely implicated in some false and frivolous cases and hence the police officials picked him up from his house. He has denied having made any disclosure statement and states that nothing was recovered from him or at his instance although he was forced to sign on some blank papers.
(35) However, the accused has preferred not to examine any witness in his defence.
FINDINGS:
(36) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl.
PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have gone through the memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and the evidence on record. My findings are as under:
(37) Firstly I may observe that in so far as the theft of motorcycle is concerned the same has been duly proved. Ashok Kumar (PW2) is the complainant in the present case who has specifically in his testimony stated that on 19.11.2010 at about 9:00 PM he had gone to the house of his senior officer on his motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501 make Hero Honda Splendor which he parked in front of the house of his boss namely Ujjwal Arora i.e. in front of Kothi No.1, Anand Vihar, Pitampura and when he came out from his house he found his motorcycle missing from there. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 27
According to the witness he had searched for his motorcycle but it could not be traced and hence he then made a call at 100 number. Initially nobody came on which he again made a call at 100 number and one police official came who asked him about the incident and thereafter suggested to him to go to the Police Station. Ashok Kumar has proved that he went to Police Station Rani Bagh and made his complaint Ex.PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A after which he came to his office and on the next day he reached to his native village at Haryana. He has explained that it was on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 that he received a call from an official of Police Station Saraswati Vihar who inquired about his motorcycle on which he informed him that it had been stolen and a complaint in this regard had been registered at Police Station Rani Bagh and it was thereafter that he was informed that his stolen motorcycle had been found and he was asked to bring a copy of the FIR at Police Station Saraswati Vihar. Ashok Kumar has also produced his motorcycle which is Ex.P1.
(38) Secondly the aspect regarding the PCR call has also been proved by Lady Ct. Anita (PW3) who has proved that on 19.11.2010 at 9:45:25 PM she received an information from mobile No. 9212469006 regarding a motorcycle being stolen, which information she lodged in PCR From Ex.PW3/A. I may note that in the initial information recorded by the PCR official the number of the motorcycle was mentioned as HR15AS701 but when the police official went to the spot to confirm the call he confirmed St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 28 the call and incident as correct and has also noted the correct number of the stolen motorcycle as HR15A3501. The relevant portion of the PCR form is reproduced as under:
....... 19/11/2010 22:04:01 Call is true. Number HR15A3501 hai........
(39) The above PCR Form establishes that the motorcycle in question bearing No. HR15A3501 had been stolen from the area i.e. in front of Kothi No.1, Pitampura, Anand Vihar, Near Vishal Bharti Public School, Rani Bagh which has been specifically proved by the complainant Ashok Kumar.
(40) Thirdly though there is a delay in registration of FIR but the entire delay is attributed to the inaction of the local police. Even after having received the complaint from the complainant regarding the theft of motorcycle the missing report was kept pending and it was only on 21.11.2010 that the theft case was specifically registered after which endorsement was made by SI Kuldeep Bhoriya (PW9). For the delay which has been caused in the registration of delay despite a specific DD having been lodged in this regard and despite a specific PCR call and information given to the police duly recorded in the PCR Form containing the WT messages, the benefit of the same cannot be given to the accused.
Repeated observations of the Hon'ble High Court and of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the extent that once the information regarding commission of a cognizable offence has been received the same should be immediately St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 29 entered in the register of the First Information (FIR) appears to have fallen on deaf ears and it is for this reason that in case of use of stolen vehicles in commission of crime the accused often tends to seek benefit out of this inaction by the police to register the case with immediate effect. In so far as the present case is concerned, the entire delay in not registering the FIR on time being attributed to the Investigating Agency with no fault on the part of the complainant, the benefit of the same cannot be given to the accused for this delay caused by the Investigating Agency which aspect of delay by the first Investigating Officer (i.e. Kuldeep Bhoriya) who kept the DD pending, is required to be dealt with Departmentally. Legally I do not find any merit on the objection raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel regarding the delay in registration of FIR.
(41) Fourthly in so far as the recovery of stolen vehicle is concerned, I may observe that the said vehicle which had been stolen on 19.11.2010 was found abandoned at the scene of crime in FIR no. 439/2010, Police Station Saraswati Vihar (also before this Court and being taken up along with the present FIR) a case where robbery/ dacoity had taken place within the Jurisdiction of Police Station Saraswati Vihar where a young boy had been murdered and his vehicle i.e. had been stolen. The assailants in the said case had used this stolen motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501 when they left it at the spot of the incident after committing robbery/ dacoity of a car make Honda City and killing the victim pursuant to which FIR No. 439/10 had been registered at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and hence this St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 30 case is being taken up with the said FIR.
(42) Fifthly the arrest of the accused Krishnamurthy and Neeraj in FIR No. 439/2010, Police Station Saraswati Vihar it was for the first time that the Investigating Agency came to know that it was the accused Krishnamurthy who was in possession of this stolen motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501 on which fake number plates i.e. DLAS0234 on the back side and HR13A5 on the front side had been put and after committing the incident of dacoity (in FIR no. 439/2010) had abandoned this bike at the spot. When the accused Krishnamurthy was apprehended by Crime Branch in the said FIR No. 439/2010, Police Station Saraswati Vihar there was a recovery of articles robbed from the deceased (in FIR No. 439/2010) namely Prateek Trikha) which connected him to the said case. During the investigations/ interrogations in FIR No. 439/2010 the accused Krishnamurthy disclosed about the theft of motorcycle in the present case. The present case is based upon the disclosure statement made by the accused Krishnamurthy in the present case and it is only then that the Investigating Agency came to know that it was the accused Krishnamurthy who committed theft of this motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501. This disclosure is hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act and hence inadmissible in evidence in so far as the aspect of theft is concerned. (43) Sixthly however in so far as the aspect of accused Krishnamurthy having used this motorcycle to reach Raj Nagar Pitampura is concerned, I may observe that this motorcycle was left at the spot and it St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 31 was pursuant to his disclosure after his arrest on 2.12.2010 that he got recovered the robbed ABN Amro Bank Master Card, one Shopper's Stop Card Citizen First and three visiting cards belonging to the victim in this case FIR No. 439/2010, Police Station Saraswati Vihar thereby establishing his presence at the spot where according to Krishnamurty himself he came on the stolen motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501 which fact the prosecution was able to establish only after his disclosure and recovery of articles stolen from the victim in FIR No. 439/2010. (44) 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 allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the custody of a police officer.
(45) Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the meaning of the word Fact. It provides that a fact means and includes:
1. Anything, state of things, or relation of things, or capable of being perceived by the senses, St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 32
2. Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
(46) It further provides five illustrations as to what would constitute a fact which are as under:
1. That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact
2. That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
3. That a man said certain words, is a fact.
4. 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.
5. That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
(47) 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 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".
(48) 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 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 33 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: "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 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 34 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.
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......"
(49) 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 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 35 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 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 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 36 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 High Court did not confine itself only to this point and went on to make rather strong remarks about other parts of the evidence.
(50) 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 Evidence 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 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 37 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.
(51) In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court further went to explain that "..... 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 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 38 diamonds, in fact discovered. There can be no doubt that the portion of the alleged statement of the accused would be admissible in evidence......"
(52) In the recent past the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu with Shaukat Hussain Guru Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820 reinforced the above view when it observed that "discovery of fact" should be read with the definition of "fact" as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act which defines the "fact" as meaning and including anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses and also includes any mental condition of which any person is conscious (emphasis supplied). It was held that the provisions of Section 27 would apply whenever there is discovery which discovery amounts to be confirmatory in character guaranteeing the truth of the information given to which facts the police officer had no access earlier which also includes recovery of material object. The Hon'ble Court further observed that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. (53) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that the accused Krishnamurthy was formally arrested in this case after he was apprehended and arrested in the main case bearing FIR No. 439/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar which is a case of dacoity and murder when the Crime Branch apprehended him pursuant to which he had made a disclosure statement that it was he who had used the stolen St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 39 motorcycle and abandoned it at the spot of incident in FIR No. 439/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar. In the present case too when SI Sharat Kohli and HC Amit Tomar had gone to Rohini Jail after taking permission from the Ld. MM and interrogated the accused who then disclosed about having stolen the motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501 and having used the same at the time of commission of offence in another case. There being no corroborative and independent evidence forthcoming to the disclosure, in so far as the aspect of theft of motorcycle by the accused is concerned the said aspect may not stand established but in so far as the use of the stolen motorcycle by the accused Krishnamurthy in the commission of another offence and having abandoned it thereafter, is concerned the same stands established because in the crime which was committed after two days of the motorcycle having been stolen, the accused put fake number plates Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 which had also been seized by Inspector Vipin Bhatia (PW6) and at that time when this motorcycle was lying abandoned at the scene of crime, nobody was aware that this motorcycle was the same as had been stolen from the area of Rani Bagh two days ago and by whom and who left it at the spot. It was only when Inspector Vipin Bhatia found a copy of the driving licence lying in the tool box of the motorcycle and contact Ashok Kumar that he came to know that the motorcycle belonged to him and further it was pursuant to arrest of accused Krishnamurthy and his disclosure that it was he who had left the stolen motorcycle at the spot after he along with his associates including Appu had committed a dacoity St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 40 and murder in another case bearing FIR No. 439/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar, that the police confirmed the involvement of the accused Krishnamurthy in use of this stolen motorcycle to reach the spot of incident. I have no reason to disbelieve the police and also the disclosure statement made by the accused which amounts to disclosure of an event regarding use of motorcycle in the commission of another offence in the jurisdiction of another Police Station which was unknown to the Police prior to the disclosure made by the accused since at no point of time the accused Krishnamurthy made any complaint to any authorities including senior officers of the police regarding his not having made any disclosure statement.
(54) Seventhly I may add that the ownership of the motorcycle in question has not been got verified as argued by the Ld. Defence counsel but there is no dispute as regards the same and primafacie it stands established. SI Sharat Kohli (PW11) has specifically stated that he got the ownership of the Splendor bike checked from the authority and found that it was in the name of the complainant. The coloured photocopy of the RC in the name of complainant Ashok Kumar has been placed on record. No suggestion has been made to him at any point of time in his cross examination that the motorcycle in question does not belong to him or that he is not the registered owner of the said motorcycle. Rather, the entire record is in his name. Hence, I find no merit in the argument raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel regarding the benefit of the non verification of the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 41 ownership of the motorcycle going to the accused.
(55) Lastly I may observe that the accused Krishnamurthy is a hardened criminal involved in large number of cases of similar kind details of which are present on record and even the official witnesses have in their testimonies confirmed the same. He is fully aware of the law, procedures and practices and cannot be permitted to take advantage of the same. (56) Hence, under the given circumstances I hereby hold that in so far as use and possession of the stolen motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501 make Hero Honda, Splender Plus, black colour, having chasis No. MBLHA10EJGJ09900 and Engine No. HA10EA8G10485 by the accused Krishnamurthy specifically during the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 when the offence in FIR No. 439/2010, PS Saraswari Vihar had taken place is concerned, the same stands established for which I hold the accused guilty of the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code. However, the accused Krishnamurthy is acquitted of the charge under Section 379 Indian Penal Code.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
(57) 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:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 42
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.
(58) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. On the basis of the evidence on record the following aspects stand established:
➢ That Ashok Kumar, an original resident of Rohtak, Haryana had been working at Call Center under the name and style of Future On BPO Solutions Pvt. Ltd situated at Rani Bagh, Delhi in the year 2010.
➢ That on 19.11.2010 at about 9:00 AM Ashok Kumar went to the house of his Boss i.e. Kothi No.1, Anand Vihar, Pitam Pura for account files, on his motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501 make St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 43 Hero Honda splendor.
➢ That Ashok Kumar had parked his motorcycle in front of house of his Boss and when he came out he found that his motorcycle missing.
➢ That Ashok Kumar searched his motorcycle but could not trace it out after which he made a call at 100 number.
➢ That pursuant to the PCR Call one police official came on a motorcycle and suggested Ashok Kumar to go to Police Station Rani Bagh.
➢ That thereafter Ashok Kumar went to Police Station Rani Bagh where his statement was recorded on the basis of which the present FIR was registered later on 21.11.2010.
➢ That on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 Ashok Kumar received a call from Police Station Saraswati Vihar and he was inquired about his motorcycle on which he replied that it was registered in his name and the same had been stolen on 19.11.2010. ➢ That the police official informed Ashok Kumar that his motorcycle had been recovered and asked him to bring the copy of the FIR at Police Station Saraswati Vihar.
➢ That on the next day morning Ashok Kumar came to Police Station Saraswati Vihar where inquiries were made from him and thereafter he was relieved.
➢ That thereafter Ashok Kumar got released his motorcycle on St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 44 Superdari.
➢ That on 22.11.2010 an incident of robbery cum murder of Prateek Trikha had taken place at C8, Raj Nagar, Road No.43 pursuant to which Inspector Vipin Bhatia reached the spot where a motorcycle make Splendor was standing nearby with key.
➢ That there was a number plate DLAS0234 on the back side and number HR15A3 on the front side of the motorcycle and on checking its actual number was found to be HR15A3501. ➢ That Inspector Vipin Bhatia opened the tool box of the motorcycle and found that the vehicle was registered in the name of Ashok a resident of Rohtak and his driving license was also found. ➢ That thereafter Ashok Kumar was contacted who informed him that his vehicle was stolen from Rani Bagh area on 19.11.2010 after which Inspector Vipin Bhatia came to know that the said motorcycle was stolen and FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh had been registered. ➢ That on 02.12.2010 while the members of Crime Branch i.e. HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharad Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma were conducting investigations in case FIR No. 439/2010, Police Station Saraswati Vihar the accused Krishnamurthy was apprehended along with his associate Neeraj.
➢ That during interrogation the accused Krishnamurthy disclosed to the Investigating Agency that he along with his four other associates i.e. total five had on the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 45 committed robbery of Honda City car and on resistance Appu had fired on the deceased Prateek Tikha.
➢ That the accused Krishnamurthy also disclosed that at the time of the said incident (dacoity and murder which took place on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010) he was driving a motorcycle make Hero Honda Splendor which he left the spot itself. ➢ That thereafter the accused Krishnamurthy was arrested in the present case and was again interrogated by SI Sharat Kohli in the jail itself.
➢ That during interrogation the accused Krishnamurthy disclosed about that he had used the stolen motorcycle make Splendor of Red color bearing No. HR15A3501 and on the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 he along with his four other associates had committed an incident of robbery and firing on a young boy and robbed him of his Honda City car after which he left the motorcycle at the spot of the incident and ran away and pursuant to his disclosure got recovered one ABN Amro Bank Master Card, one Shopper's Stop Card Citizen First and three visiting cards belonging to the deceased/ victim in FIR No. 439/2010 Police Station Saraswati Vihar which articles he retained with him after committing the incident of dacoity in the said case (FIR No. 439/2010) and abandoned this motorcycle at the spot.
➢ That SI Sharad Kohli also got the ownership of this Splendor bike St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 46 bearing No. HR15A3501 checked from the authority and found that it was registered in the name of the complainant Ashok Kumar. (59) 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. (60) 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 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 circumstantial evidence and the witnesses of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
(61) Hence, under the given circumstances I hereby hold that in so far as use and possession of the stolen motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501 make Hero Honda, Splender Plus, black colour, having chasis No. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 47 MBLHA10EJGJ09900 and Engine No. HA10EA8G10485 by the accused Krishnamurthy specifically during the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 when the offence in FIR No. 439/2010, PS Saraswari Vihar had taken place is concerned, the same stands established for which I hold the accused guilty of the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code. (62) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 17.7.2014.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 11.7.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 48
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE II (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 70/2013 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0080122011 State Vs. Krishnamurthy @ Vicky S/o Sh. Ramesh Mohan R/o L233, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi (Convicted) FIR No.: 377/10 Police Station: Rani Bagh Under Section: 379/411 Indian Penal Code Date of Conviction: 11.7.2014 Arguments concluded on: 24.7.2014 Date of Sentence: 28.7.2014 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Tofeeq Ahmed, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Krishnamurthy in Judicial Custody with Ms. Dhaneshwari, Advocate/ Amicus Curiae.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
The present case is relating to motorcycle theft is being taken up along with FIR No. 439/2010 Police Station Saraswati Vihar, under Section 395/396/397/302/467/468 Indian Penal Code and 25/54/59 of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 49 Arms Act for the reason that the stolen motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501 had been used in the crime committed on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 pursuant to which FIR No. 439/2010 Police Station Saraswati Vihar, under Section 395/396/397/302/467/468 Indian Penal Code and 25/54/59 of Arms Act was registered.
As per the allegations, the accused Krishnamurthy was in possession of a motorcycle make Hero Honda, Splender Plus of black colour bearing No. HR15A3501 having chasis No. MBLHA10EJGJ09900 Engine No. HA10EA8G10485 and had used the said motorcycle knowing or having the reasons that that it was a stolen property.
On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses this Court vide a detail judgment dated 11.7.2014 held the accused Krishnamurthy guilty of the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code.
Vide this judgment dated 11.7.2014 this Court has observed that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish that Ashok Kumar, an original resident of Rohtak, Haryana had been working at Call Center under the name and style of Future On BPO Solutions Pvt. Ltd situated at Rani Bagh, Delhi in the year 2010; that on 19.11.2010 at about 9:00 AM Ashok Kumar went to the house of his Boss i.e. Kothi No.1, Anand Vihar, Pitam Pura for official work, on his motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501 make Hero Honda splendor; that Ashok Kumar had parked St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 50 his motorcycle in front of house of his Boss and when he came out he found that his motorcycle missing; that Ashok Kumar searched his motorcycle but could not trace it out after which he made a call at 100 number; that pursuant to the PCR Call one police official came on a motorcycle and suggested Ashok Kumar to go to Police Station Rani Bagh; that thereafter Ashok Kumar went to Police Station Rani Bagh where his statement was recorded on the basis of which the present FIR was registered later on 21.11.2010.
Further, the prosecution has been able to prove and establish that on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 Ashok Kumar received a call from Police Station Saraswati Vihar and he was inquired about his motorcycle on which he replied that it was registered in his name and the same had been stolen on 19.11.2010; that the police official informed Ashok Kumar that his motorcycle had been recovered and asked him to bring the copy of the FIR at Police Station Saraswati Vihar; that on the next day morning Ashok Kumar came to Police Station Saraswati Vihar where inquiries were made from him and thereafter he was relieved; that thereafter Ashok Kumar got released his motorcycle on Superdari.
It has also been established that on 22.11.2010 an incident of robbery cum murder of Prateek Trikha had taken place at C8, Raj Nagar, Road No.43, Saraswati Vihar pursuant to which Inspector Vipin Bhatia reached the spot where a motorcycle make Splendor was standing nearby with key; rhat there was a number plate DLASL234 on the back side and St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 51 number HR15A3 on the front side of the motorcycle and on checking its actual number was found to be HR15A3501; that Inspector Vipin Bhatia opened the tool box of the motorcycle and found that the vehicle was registered in the name of Ashok a resident of Rohtak and his driving license was also found; that thereafter Ashok Kumar was contacted who informed him that his vehicle was stolen from Rani Bagh area on 19.11.2010 after which Inspector Vipin Bhatia came to know that the said motorcycle was stolen and FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh had been registered.
The prosecution has also been able to establish that on 02.12.2010 while the members of Crime Branch i.e. HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharad Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma were conducting investigations in case FIR No. 439/2010, Police Station Saraswati Vihar the accused Krishnamurthy was apprehended along with his associate Neeraj; that during interrogation the accused Krishnamurthy disclosed to the Investigating Agency that he along with his four other associates i.e. total five had on the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 committed robbery of Honda City car and on resistance Appu had fired on the deceased Prateek Tikha; that the accused Krishnamurthy also disclosed that at the time of the said incident (dacoity and murder which took place on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010) he was driving a motorcycle make Hero Honda Splendor which he left the spot itself; that thereafter the accused Krishnamurthy was arrested in the present case and was again interrogated St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 52 by SI Sharat Kohli in the jail itself; that during interrogation the accused Krishnamurthy disclosed about that he had used the stolen motorcycle make Splendor of Red color bearing No. HR15A3501 and on the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 he along with his four other associates had committed an incident of robbery and firing on a young boy and robbed him of his Honda City car after which he left the motorcycle at the spot of the incident and ran away and pursuant to his disclosure got recovered one ABN Amro Bank Master Card, one Shopper's Stop Card Citizen First and three visiting cards belonging to the deceased/ victim in FIR No. 439/2010 Police Station Saraswati Vihar which articles he retained with him after committing the incident of dacoity in the said case (FIR No. 439/2010) and abandoned this motorcycle at the spot; SI Sharad Kohli also got the ownership of this Splendor bike bearing No. HR15A3501 checked from the authority and found that it was registered in the name of the complainant Ashok Kumar.
Under the given circumstances, this court has held that in so far as use and possession of the stolen motorcycle bearing No. HR15 A3501 make Hero Honda, Splender Plus, black colour, having chasis No. MBLHA10EJGJ09900 and Engine No. HA10EA8G10485 by the accused Krishnamurthy specifically during the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 when the offence in FIR No. 439/2010, PS Saraswari Vihar had taken place is concerned, the same has been established for which the accused Krishnamurthy has been held guilty of the offence under Section 411 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 53 Indian Penal Code.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Krishnamurthy is a young boy aged about 27 years having a family comprising of aged parents, three brothers and one sister. He is 7th class pass and is a Peon by profession. Ld. Counsel for the convict has vehemently argued that keeping in view the family background of the convict a lenient view be taken against the convict.
On the other hand the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has pointed out that the convict Krishnamurthy is involved in as many as Twenty One Cases and has already been convicted in as many as Eleven Cases, details of which are as under:
S. FIR No. Section Police Station Status of Case No. 1. 236/2011 326/34 IPC K N Katju Marg Acquitted 2. 442/2010 392/34 IPC Saraswati Vihar Acquitted 3. 439/2010 302/307 IPC & Saraswati Vihar Pending Trial 25/54/59 A Act 4. 440/2010 392/397/34 IPC Saraswati Vihar Convicted 5. 372/2010 186/353 IPC Hari Nagar Convicted 6. 53/2008 307/302 IPC Saraswati Vihar Acquitted 7. 1107/2007 308/120B/34 IPC Saraswati Vihar Acquitted 8. 1127/2007 323/394/397/34 Saraswati Vihar Discharged IPC St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 54 9. 43/2006 21 NDPS Keshav Puram Convicted 10. 658/2005 457/380/411/34 Keshav Puram Convicted IPC 11. 600/2005 25/54/59 A Act Saraswati Vihar Convicted 12. 219/2005 457/380 IPC Saraswati Vihar Acquitted 13. 469/2005 380/411/34 IPC Saraswati Vihar Convicted 14. 605/2005 380/341 IPC Saraswati Vihar Untraced 15. 641/2005 457/380 IPC Sarawati Vihar Convicted 16. 623/2005 457/380 IPC Saraswati Vihar Convicted 17. 644/2005 380/341 IPC Saraswat Vihar Convicted 18. 686/2005 380/341 IPC Saraswati Vihar Convicted 19. 774/2005 25/54/59 A Act Saraswati Vihar Convicted 20. 1098/2005 25/54/59 A Act Saraswati Vihar Acquitted 21. 581/2004 295/295A/379/ Keshav Puram Pending Trial 411/34 IPC
Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that keeping in view the criminal background of the convict, a stern view be taken against the convicts.
I have considered the rival contentions. The convict Krishnamurthy @ Vicky is involved in as many as Twenty One criminal cases. This Court has also sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for a St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 55 period of Seven Years and Fine in another case bearing FIR No. 4410/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar, under Sections 392/397/34 IPC. Hence keeping in view the above criminal background of the convict Krishnamurthy, he is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three (3) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/ (Rs. Two Thousand) for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convicts shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Seven days.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by them, as per rules.
It is clarified that the sentence in the present FIR shall run CONSECUTIVELY to the sentence awarded to the convict in other cases specifically in FIR No. 440/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar, under Sections 392/397/34 IPC.
The convict has been informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against the judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he 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.
One copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs and one copy of order on sentence be attached St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 56 with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 28.7.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy, FIR No. 377/10, PS Rani Bagh Page No. 57