Delhi District Court
Sc No. 449/2016 State vs . Deepak @ Raj Page 1 Of 55 on 23 February, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR SISODIA : ASJ 04
EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No. 449/2016
FIR NO. 292/2013
P.S. Mayur Vihar
U/S 302/34 IPC
State
Vs.
Deepak @ Raj,
S/o Sh. Suresh,
R/o H.No. B/92, Extra31 Block,
Trilok Puri, Mayur Vihar PhaseI,
Delhi. .....Accused
Date of registration of FIR : 23.08.2013
Date of institution of the case : 06.02.2014
Date of reserving order : 15.02.2018
Date of pronouncement : 23.02.2018
JUDGMENT
Case of Prosecution
1. The case as set out by the prosecution is that on SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 1 of 55 23.08.2013 HC Subhash alongwith Const. Satender was on patrolling duty in his beat area and at about 06.15 pm when they reached Chilla Bagh behind Star City Mall they found dead body of a male person near the wall. HC Subhash informed this fact from his mobile phone to PS Mayur Vihar. The information was recorded vide DD No. 34A and the information was conveyed to SHO Ins. Vivekanand Jha (hereinafter referred to as IO) through wireless, who was also on patrolling duty. He also reached the spot alongwith his staff and in the meanwhile SI Mausam Ghani also reached at the spot on receipt of the call vide DD No. 34A. IO called the Crime Team which inspected the spot and also took photographs of the scene of crime. IO collected the samples and seized the incriminating material lying around the spot. Thereafter, the dead body was removed to LBS Hospital. At LBS Hospital the deceased was examined and declared brought dead and the body was referred for postmortem. In the meanwhile, Sh. Om Prakash, father of the deceased, came to the hospital alongwith his another son Rinku, searching for his missing son. Sh. Om Prakash identified the body of deceased as of SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 2 of 55 his son Ravi @ Chottu. IO recorded the statement of Sh. Om Prakash and made his endorsement and got the FIR registered u/s 302/34 IPC. The complainant in his complaint had stated that on 22.08.2013, at about 06.30 pm, accused Deepak, JCLP, JCLS and JCLR (names withheld as they are juveniles in conflict with law) had come in his gali and JCLP called the deceased Ravi @ Chottu and the deceased went alongwith them and did not return thereafter. He also stated that on inquiry the family members of accused and three JCLs informed him that they had also not returned to their houses. On the next morning also, when the deceased did not return to his house, the complainant inquired from the father of JCLP, who informed that JCLP had also not returned to home. Worried about well being of his son, complainant went to PS Mayur Vihar where he was informed that dead body of one Ravi was found behind Star City Mall which had been taken to LBS Hospital and he came to hospital and identified the dead body of his son.
2. On 24.08.2013 postmortem of the deceased was SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 3 of 55 conducted and body was handed over to his father. IO searched for the accused and the accused alongwith three JCLs was apprehended in the evening of 24.08.2013 from the park 18 Block, Trilok Puri, Delhi. The clothes of accused Deepak, JCLS and JCLP were stained with blood and the same were seized by the IO. The watch of the deceased was seized from JCLR. Accused was arrested by the IO and three JCLs were apprehended by SI Arvind Verma. During investigation, the accused persons made disclosure statements confessing to the crime and also pointed out two shops from where they had purchased the liquor, the Dhaba where they had consumed the liquor and the scene of crime where deceased was killed by them. IO obtained the CCTV footage from the liquor shops, recorded statements of the witnesses. IO obtained the post mortem report. The sealed parcels were sent to FSL for expert opinion. Accused Deepak also claimed himself to be juvenile and his ossification test was conducted and the opinion of the Medical Board was obtained, which opined that the accused was major.
SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 4 of 553. Charge sheet was filed against accused Deepak @ Raj after completion of investigation and case was committed to the court of Sessions after compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Charge framed against the accused.
4. On 20.02.2014 Ld. Predecessor of this court framed charge u/s 302/34 IPC against the accused after hearing the arguments, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses examined by prosecution
5. Prosecution examined 25 witnesses to prove its case. The brief summary of the deposition of Prosecution Witnesses is as under:
6. PW1 Anuj Prajapati is the owner of Vijay Dhaba. He testified that in the evening of 22.08.2013 accused Deepak came to his Dhaba alongwith four associates and took SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 5 of 55 Samosas and also had liquor and thereafter they went away after about an hour. On 24.08.2013, police met him at his Dhaba alongwith the accused and his three associates and he came to know that the fourth associate of the accused had died. The witness also proved the pointing out memo prepared by the IO at the instance of accused as Ex. PW1/A and the pointing out memos prepared at the instance of juveniles as MarkA to MarkC. He also correctly identified the accused present in the court.
7. PW2 Om Prakash is the father of the deceased Ravi @ Chottu. He has testified that on 22.08.2013 he was present at his house at first floor. At about 06.30 pm somebody called Ravi by name. He looked from the balcony and saw that JCLP had called Ravi. Accused Deepak, JCLS and JCLR were also present with JCLP. Ravi (deceased) went alongwith them and did not return to home till late night. On inquiry from the houses of the aforesaid persons, he came to know that they had also not returned to their homes. He alongwith his elder son Rinku tried to search for his son Ravi but there was no clue. On SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 6 of 55 23.08.013 he went to the house of JCLP and asked his father Lalit about JCLP and he came to know that JCLP had also not returned by that time. Thereafter, he went to PS Mayur Vihar alongwith his son Rinku and reported the matter to the police. He came to know from the police official that dead body of one male was found behind Star City Mall in Chilla Bagh and the same was lying in LBS Mortuary. Thereafter, he alongwith his son Rinku reached LBS Mortuary and identified dead body as of his son Ravi @ Chottu. The witness also proved his statement Ex. PW2/A and further testified that accused and his associates were apprehended by the police and were brought to the police station. He also proved his statement with respect to identification of dead body of deceased Ravi as Ex. PW2/B.
8. PW3 SI Harshvardhan is Incharge of the Crime Mobile Team, who visited the scene of crime on receiving message alongwith the photographer Ct. Vikas. He proved his scene of crime report as Ex. PW3/A. SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 7 of 55
9. PW4 Rinku is the elder brother of deceased and he has also testified almost on the same lines as that of PW2 Om Prakash.
10. PW5 Piyush Diwan is the owner of liquor shop no. G10A, Star City Mall, Mayur Vihar and testified that on 08.09.2013 IO came to his shop and asked about the present case and on the instructions of the IO he handed over the CCTV footage dated 22.08.2013 alongwith mouse, adopter, remote control, DVR, two pendrives and ten photographs to the IO, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A.
11. PW6 SI Mausam Ghani is witness to the investigation on 23.08.2013. He has testified that he reached scene of crime on receipt of DD No. 34A where inspector V.N.Jha, HC Subhash and Ct. Satender were already present. Dead body of one male was lying near the wall of Chilla Bagh and his face was in the pool of blood. IO called the Crime Team, which inspected the spot and took photographs. IO collected the incriminating SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 8 of 55 evidence from the spot and seized them after sealing them in six sealed parcels. The sealed parcels were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and Ct. Satender went to LBS Hospital alongwith the dead body. Om Prakash met IO at the hospital and after recording his statement, IO prepared rukka and sent him to PS Mayur Vihar for registration of FIR. He went to PS Mayur Vihar, got the FIR registered and exhibits were deposited in the malkhana and thereafter reached the house of the complainant. From there, they went to the house of accused persons but they were not found in their houses. On 24.08.2013 he went to LBS Hospital alongwith IO and other police officials, where postmortem of the deceased was conducted and after post mortem the dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased. The witness identified the grey coloured slippers seized from the spot as Ex. P1.
12. PW7 Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased Ravi @ Chottu. On external examination he found the following injuries :
SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 9 of 551) Lacerated wound 5x2.4 cms obliquely placed over right eyebrow medical end margins irregular.
2) Bruises 7x3 cms over left cheek.
3) Lacerated wound 3.5x1.6 cms over upper lip.
4) Lacerated wound 5x1 cms over lower lip left angle.
5) Lacerated wound 5x1.5 cms bone deep over middle of the chin with underneath mandible fractured.
6) Lacerated wound 1x1 cms with fracture of middle digit of left ring finger.
7) Abrasion 4.5x1 cms over back at left middle finger.
8) Lacerated wound 5x3 cms over left side occipital region.
During internal examination he found the injuries on the head of the deceased as diffuse sub scalpal haemotoma, multiple compound fracture of skull, diffuse sub dural haemotoma and sub archnoidal haemorrahage all over.
He also proved the postmortem report prepared by SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 10 of 55 him as Ex. PW7/A. He also testified that he had handed over to IO sealed viscera, blood samples, nail clippings, clothes and hairs in the right hand and hairs in the left hand of the deceased and glass pieces with the seal of the department alongwith sample seal. After going through the FSL report Ex. PW9/A and the postmortem report, he opined that cause of death in this case was craniocerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact to the head. All injuries were antemortem in nature and fresh in duration before death. Injuries nos. 1, 2, 5 and 8 were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Blood of deceased showed presence of ethyl alcohol 176.9 mg/100 ml of blood. Time since death was about 32 to 42 hours prior to post mortem examination.
13. PW8 HC Ram Gopal is the Duty Officer, who has proved the FIR as Ex. PW8/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW8/B.
14. PW9 Santosh Tripathi, Senior Scientific Officer SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 11 of 55 (Chem.) from FSL, Rohini, proved his report as Ex. PW9/A and testified that he had examined three exhibits and each of them was found to contain ethyl alcohol. The quantity of ethyl alcohol in blood sample was found to be 176.9 mg. per 100 ml of blood.
15. PW10 Pawan Sharma is the manager of liquor shop no. G10A, Star City Mall, Mayur Vihar, and he has testified that the police came to his shop on 24.08.2013 alongwith the accused and his associates, who had purchased liquor from his shop, and he has also proved the photocopy of the pointing out memo as MarkPW10/A.
16. PW11 Umesh Saxena is the manager of liquor shop no. G181923, Star City Mall, Mayur Vihar, and he has testified that in August 2013 the police came to his shop alongwith four boys, who had purchased liquor from his shop, and he has proved the photocopy of the pointing out memo as MarkPW11/A.
17. PW12 Const. Vikas is the photographer, who was SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 12 of 55 the member of the Crime Team and he reached the scene of crime alongwith the Incharge and on the instructions of IO took photographs of the dead body and crime scene from different angles. He proved the photographs as Ex. PW12/A1 to A18 and negatives as Ex. PW12/B1 to B19.
18. PW13 Dr. Manoj Teotia, examined the accused on 24.08.2013 and proved his MLC as Ex. PW13/A.
19. PW14 Ins. Mahesh Kumar is the Draftsman, who had prepared and proved the scaled site plan Ex.PW14/A.
20. PW15 HC Hari Om is the MHC(M) and he has proved the relevant entries in Register No. 19 as Ex. PW15/A and PW15/B. He also proved the relevant entries in Register No.21 as Ex. PW15/C and Ex. PW15/E. The photocopy of the receipts of deposits of exhibits with FSL by HC Subhash have also been proved by him as Ex. PW15/D and PW15/F.
21. PW16 Const. Satender also participated in the SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 13 of 55 investigation of the case and has proved the seizure memo of the exhibits handed over by the doctor to the IO as Ex. PW16/A and identification statement of dead body by Rinku as Ex. PW16/B.
22. PW17 Const. Surender delivered the copies of FIR to area M.M., ACP Kalyanpuri, DCP and Joint CP.
23. PW18 ASI Subhash Chand is also a witness to the investigation of the case, arrest of the accused and had deposited the exhibits with the FSL. He is also a witness to the seizure memos of the CCTV footage, DVRs, pendrives and photographs from the liquor shops. He has proved the seizure memo of the six parcels from the spot as Ex. PW6/A. The disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW18/A, the arrest memo of the accused as Ex. PW18/B, personal search memo of the accused as Ex. PW18/C, the seizure memo of clothes of accused as Ex. PW18/D, pointing out memo of the scene of the crime as Ex. PW18/E and the exhibits received from the hospital after the arrest of the accused and his associates (JCLs) as Ex.
SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 14 of 55PW18/F. He has also proved the seizure memo of the CCTV footage, DVRs, pendrives and photographs from the two liquor shops as Ex. PW18/G and Ex. PW5/A. The copies of the orders vide which the liquor shops were challaned have been proved as Ex. PW18/H and PW18/I. This witness also identified the slippers seized from the crime scene as Ex. P1, broken pieces of bottles recovered from the crime scene as Ex. P2, cement bricks recovered from the crime scene as Ex. P3, the shirt and pant of the accused as Ex. P4 (colly), the shirt and pant of JCLP as Ex. P5, shirt and pant of JCLS as Ex. P6 and the wrist watch of deceased recovered from JCLR as Ex. P7. He has also proved DVR, two pendrives and five photographs produced by Sh.Umesh Saxena as Ex. P8, P9 and P10/1 to P10/5. He has also proved DVR, two pendrives and ten photographs produced by Sh. Piyush Diwan as Ex. P11, P12 and P13/1 to P13/10.
24. PW19 Dr. Rachna Jain is a Radiologist and she was member of Medical Board to examine the age of the accused. She has proved the report of the Medical Board SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 15 of 55 as Ex. PW19/A and XRay requisition slip as Ex. PW19/B.
25. PW20 Dr. Kavita Dhalla was also a member of Medical Board to examine the age of the accused and she also proved her signatures at PointB on the report Ex. PW19/A.
26. PW21 Shashi Bala Pahuja, Senior Scientific Officer (Bio.) from FSL, Rohini, proved the DNA finger printing report as Ex. PW21/A and allelic data as Ex. PW21/B and Ex. PW21/C.
27. PW22 SI Arvind Verma was also a part of investigating team, who had apprehended the accused and the three JCLs. He has proved the disclosure statement of the accused as Ex. PW18/A, the arrest memo as Ex.PW18/B, and the personal search memo as Ex. PW18/C. He also proved the apprehension memos of three JCLs as MarkPW22/A to PW22/C and their versions as MarkPW22/D to PW22/F. He also proved the seizure memo of the clothes of the accused as Ex. PW18/D SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 16 of 55 (wrongly typed on page 3 of the testimony as Ex. PW18/B.) This witness also identified the clothes of the accused and JCLs i.e. JCLP and JCLS as Ex. P4 to P6 respectively and the watch of the deceased recovered from JCLR as Ex.P7.
28. PW23 Ins. Vivekanand Jha is IO of the case, who has investigated the case. Besides proving all other documents and exhibits, which had already been proved by other witnesses, he has proved copy of DD No. 34A as Ex. PW23/A, MLC of the deceased as Ex. PW23/B. The rukka prepared by him on the statement of Om Prakash has been proved by him as Ex. PW23/C. The unscaled site plan of the crime scene as Ex. PW23/D, Form no. 25.35(1)(B) has been proved by him as Ex. PW23/E. He also proved the case property as Ex.P1 to P13/1 to P 13/10.
29. PW24 Dr. Rakesh Singh has identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Ranjitesh Kumar on MLC and death certificate of the deceased and MLC of the SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 17 of 55 accused, which were exhibited as Ex. PW23/B, PW24/A and PW24/B.
30. PW25 Dr. Monika Shahi, Senior Scientific Officer (Phy.) from FSL, Rohini, has proved her report as Ex. PW25/A. She has testified that glass pieces Ex. E1 and Ex. H showed similarity in colour, physical appearance and torn stickers. She also identified the bottle necks alongwith broken glass pieces as Ex. P2 and the glass pieces and torn sticker examined by her as Ex. P14 (colly).
Thereafter prosecution closed its evidence.
Statement and Defence of accused
31. Statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the stand of the accused was of general denial. The accused took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the case and had no concern with the present case. He had gone to Gurgaon on 21.08.2013 and returned back on 24.08.2013. He was apprehended by the police from his house when he was having dinner with his family SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 18 of 55 members. He further stated that the police officials had demanded Rs.50,000/ for releasing him and since he was unable to pay, he was implicated in this case. He also denied that his clothes were seized by the police and went on to say that his hairs were taken by IO at police station and also by the doctor in hospital. The accused preferred to lead evidence in his defence and examined his mother in his defence.
32. DW1 Smt. Neetu, the mother of the accused, has testified that on 21.08.2013 she alongwith her daughter Isha and accused had gone to Gurgaon as prospective groom's family was coming to visit her sister's house in connection with the marriage of her niece on 23.08.2013. They returned to Delhi on 24.08.2013 by 07.00/08.00 pm and when they were taking dinner, the police officials came and picked up the accused and took him with them without telling any reasons. When she reached police station, she was told that accused was charged in a murder case and one police official demanded Rs. 50,000/ to secure the release of the accused. Since she was not having Rs.
SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 19 of 5550,000/ with her, therefore, accused was falsely implicated in this case.
Thereafter accused closed his evidence in defence.
Arguments and conclusion
33. Arguments have been addressed by Sh. Ajit Kumar Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and by Sh. M.R. Chanchal counsel for the accused.
34. Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State has argued that there is sufficient evidence on record to hold the accused guilty of charge of murder. It has been argued that the identity of the accused is not in dispute as he was known to the deceased and his family members. The accused and three JCLs were last seen in the company of deceased by PW1 Anuj Prajapati and PW2 Om Prakash. The CCTV footage from the two liquor shops also show deceased in the company with the JCLs and thereafter he was not seen alive. Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State also argued that the conduct of the accused in not returning to home on the SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 20 of 55 night of 22.08.2013 after the incident shows his guilty mind. Ld. Addl.P.P. also argued that apart from the last seen evidence, there is medical evidence as well as scientific evidence which shows the involvement of accused in the crime. The blood stains found on the clothes of accused matched with the blood group of deceased and hair strands which were recovered from around the finger of left hand of deceased matched with that of accused Deepak. He also argued that the glass pieces recovered from the body of deceased were also found similar to the pieces of broken glass bottle found at the scene of crime.
35. Counsel for the accused Deepak @ Raj has argued that there is no direct evidence against the accused and the accused has been falsely implicated in the case. He argued that PW2 Om Prakash also did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and his evidence cannot be safely relied upon. He argued that there are contradictions with regard to the age of the deceased. Ld. Counsel for accused also argued that the testimony of the police officials are contradicting each other on material SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 21 of 55 aspects. PW4 Rinku did not support the case of the prosecution and he testified that his signatures were obtained at his house and he had deposed in the court after reading the statement and his testimony is also not reliable. Ld. Counsel for the accused further argued that there is no eye witness to the murder of deceased and the prosecution has failed to bring out any motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. It was argued that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Ld. Counsel for the accused also argued that the accused was not present in Delhi at the time of alleged offence and he was in Gurgaon from 21.08.2013 to 24.08.2013 and he was apprehended from his house and was falsely implicated in the case as the accused failed to fulfill the demand of Rs.50,000/ made by the police officials. The mother of the accused has appeared as a defence witness and corroborated the defence taken by the accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused also placed reliance on the judgments of(1) Ram Adhin @Ramddin @ Charka Vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2017 (1) Acquittal 741 SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 22 of 55 (Chattisgarh) and (2) Debapriya Pal Vs. State of West Bengal, 2017 (2) JCC 986.
36. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, it may be pointed out at the threshold that in the present case there is no direct evidence to connect the accused in question with the offence and the prosecution rests its case solely on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 23 of 55 chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and noneelse; and
(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with the innocent. (See Gambhir vs. State of Maharashtra (1982) 2 SCC 351.
37. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1952 SC 3443), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 24 of 55 consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have bee done by the accused."
Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy vs. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, has observed that: ".In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 25 of 55 fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence.
Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence." (SCC pp.206207, para 21).
38. In the cases based upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to prove each of the circumstances having a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It has to be kept in mind that may be each of the circumstances, by itself not conclusive, but cumulative effect of proved circumstances must be so complete that it excludes every other hypothesis and unequivocally points to the guilt of the accused. The established circumstances must also be complete and there must not be any missing link in the chain of evidence. The suspicious conduct of the SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 26 of 55 accused is also in consistent with his guilt. It has also been held in the catena of judgments that false explanation offered by the accused is a circumstance which may be taken into consideration for the purpose of completing the chain of circumstances.
HOMICIDAL DEATH OF DECEASED RAVI @ CHOTTU
39. Ld. Addl.P.P. has argued that the deceased Ravi @ Chottu suffered homicidal death and this fact stands proved from the postmortem report Ex. PW7/A, which has been duly proved by Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh. It has been submitted that as per the testimony of PW7 Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh the cause of death was craniocerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact to the head. All injuries were antemortem in nature and fresh in duration before death. Injuries nos. 1, 2, 5 and 8 are individually and collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report can be suffered by fall in drunken condition.
SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 27 of 55However, PW7 has denied similar suggestion given to him by ld. defence counsel in his crossexamination. Perusal of the statement of PW7 as well as postmortem report Ex. PW7/A and the photographs Ex. PW12/A1 to PW12/A18 clearly establish that the deceased had suffered homicidal death.
SCENE OF CRIME
40. Prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW3, PW6, PW12, PW14, PW16, PW18, PW22 and PW23 to prove that the deceased was murdered at Chilla Bagh, behind Star City Mall, Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Ld. Addl. P.P. has argued that the SOC report Ex. PW3/A prepared by PW3 SI Harshvardhan, Incharge of Mobile Crime Team; the photographs Ex. PW12/A1 to PW12/A18; the unscaled site plan Ex. PW23/D and the scaled site plan prepared by Ins. Mahesh Kumar Ex. PW14/A, show that the scene of crime was Chilla Bagh. It was also argued that the incriminating material collected by IO from the scene of crime were sent to FSL for forensic analysis and SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 28 of 55 as per FSL report Ex. PW21/A, proved by Dr. Shashi Bala Pahuja, the blood seized from the scene of crime, blood found on the concrete cement bricks and the blood stains found on broken glass bottle matched with the blood of the deceased. He also argued that the pieces of glasses recovered from the body of the deceased also matched with the glass pieces found on the spot, which clearly establishes that the deceased was murdered at the scene of crime. Ld. defence counsel has tried to dispute the recovery of the samples from the spot and has given suggestions to the witnesses that similar pieces of glass bottles and cement bricks are found commonly in the parks but in view of the reports of the FSL Ex.PW21/A and PW25/A, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to show that the murder of the deceased took place at the scene of crime i.e. Chilla Bagh, behind Star City Mall, Mayur Vihar, Delhi.
LAST SEEN EVIDENCE A) OCCULAR EVIDENCE
41. The incident took place on the intervening night of SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 29 of 55 22/23.08.2013. PW2 Om Prakash and PW1 Anuj Prajapati are the persons, who had lastly seen accused Deepak @ Raj with the deceased Ravi @ Chottu. As per PW2 Om Prakash, the accused along with 3 JCLs had come in his Gali on 22/08/2013 at about 6.30 p.m. JCLP had called Ravi and thereafter Ravi had gone with them and never returned. In his crossexamination by Ld. defence Counsel for accused, he deposed that Ravi started consuming liquor in the bad company of accused Deepak and the three JCLs. He further deposed that he along with his wife was present at their house when Ravi had gone with accused and JCLs. He also deposed that accused Deepak and JCLs were on foot when they came to call Ravi. It is pertinent to note here that the identity of the accused and JCLs is not in dispute as they were residents of the same area and were known to the deceased and his family members prior to the commission of offence. Even the accused has nowhere raised question about his identity.
42. Another person who had lastly seen the accused with deceased Ravi is PW1 Anuj Prajapati, who is the owner of SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 30 of 55 Vijay Dhaba, where accused, the three JCLs and deceased had together consumed liquor on 22.08.2013. This witness has testified that accused Deepak @ Raj had come to his Dhaba alongwith four associates and had taken Samosas etc. from the Dhaba and had also consumed liquor there and thereafter they had gone from Dhaba after about one hour. On 24.08.2013 the police had come with the accused and his three associates to the Dhaba and from the police he came to know that the fifth associate of the accused had died. On the pointing out of the accused, the police had prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signatures at PointA. He also testified that the JCLs had also pointed out his Dhaba. In the crossexamination by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State this witness has testified that accused had come to his Dhaba at about 7.30 pm on 22.08.2013 with two associates and two of his associates had come lateron having liquor with them and all five of them had taken liquor in the Dhaba and left his Dhaba at about 9.15 pm.
43. Ld. counsel for accused has argued that the SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 31 of 55 aforesaid witnesses cannot be safely relied upon as they were declared hostile and were crossexamined by Ld. Addl.P.P. and no credence can be given to their testimony. I am not inclined to accept the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for the accused. In Chunmun @ Akash Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2013 (1) AD (Delhi) 255, it was held that there is no law that statement of a witness, who had been declared hostile and crossexamined by the public prosecutor on certain points, has to be brushed aside and / or discarded in toto. It was held that even the statement of a hostile witness can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version of the incident.
44. Perusal of the crossexamination of the aforesaid witnesses show that there are no material contradictions in their testimonies. Nowhere in the cross examination of PW2 Om Prakash, any suggestion has been given to the witness that accused had not gone to the house of deceased or that he was not present in Delhi on 22.08.2013. Thus, the testimony of PW2 on the point of last seen evidence has remained unrebutted. Similarly, in the SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 32 of 55 crossexamination of PW1 Anuj Prajapati there is no suggestion that he had not seen the accused and the three JCLs in the company of the deceased on 22.08.2013. There is also no suggestion to this witness that they had never come to his Dhaba. The testimony of PW1 Anuj Prajapati that accused alongwith three JCLs and deceased had consumed liquor is also fortified by the FSL report Ex. PW9/A, which established that the stomach, pieces of small intestine with contents (Ex. FA), pieces of liver, spleen and kidney (Ex. FB) and the blood sample (Ex. FC) of the deceased were found to contain Ethyl Alcohol. The blood sample of the deceased was found to contain 176.9 mg Ethyl Alcohol per 100 ml of blood. Hence, the testimony of these witnesses with respect to the circumstantial evidence of deceased being last seen in the company of the accused and JCLs has remained intact and can be safely relied upon. The accused has also failed to give any explanation regarding the circumstances when he parted company with the deceased. Once the fact of last seen together is proved, a duty is cast on the accused to explain the circumstances in which they parted company.
SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 33 of 55The failure of the accused to explain the circumstances in which he parted company with the deceased may well serve as additional link in the chain of circumstances thereby fortifying the prosecution case. {See Yogesh Karki v. State of Sikkim 2006 Cr LJ 509 (Sikkim) (DB)}.
B) ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE/CCTV FOOTAGE
45. Besides the aforesaid two witnesses, prosecution has also relied upon CCTV footage of the two liquor shops from where the liquor was purchased. PW5 Piyush Diwan had produced the CCTV footage of his liquor shop at shop no. G10A in Star City Mall, Mayur Vihar, which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. He had also given ten photographs/stills of CCTV footage, which have been proved as Ex. P13/1 to P13/10. Perusal of these footages show the presence of deceased Ravi @ Chottu alongwith JCLP in the liquor shop. Similarly, PW11 Umesh Saxena had handed over the CCTV footage of liquor shop no. 181923, Ground Floor, Star City Mall, Mayur Vihar, and five photographs / stills of CCTV footage SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 34 of 55 to the IO, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW18/G. The photographs / stills of CCTV footage were proved as Ex. P10/1 to P10/5 and the pendrives containing the CCTV footage were exhibited as Ex. P9 (colly). Perusal of these stills and CCTV footage show the presence of JCLR and JCLP in the liquor shop and purchasing the liquor. The accused has not disputed the authenticity of these photographs / stills / CCTV footage in the crossexamination of any of the prosecution witnesses and hence, these can also be safely relied upon.
46. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while deciding CRL.L.P. No. 120/2012 titled State Vs. Arun, had held that " The last seen evidence is not a direct evidence but is a circumstantial evidence. It is a settled law that to sustain a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances has to be so complete that the finger of accusation unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused and rules out the innocence".
47. In State of U.P. vs. Shyam Behari and Anr.
SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 35 of 55JT2009(11)SC274, the Hon'ble Apex Court elaborating on the last seen theory held that:
"6...There must be cases where on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of accused having been last seen with the accused and the factum of death a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own the liability for the homicide.
48. In Bodhraj @ Bodha and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 2002 Cri.L.J 4664 it was held as follows:
"The last seen theory comes into play where the timegap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 36 of 55 that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult to some cases, to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other person coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases."
" 11. It is needless and trite to say that where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 37 of 55 accused. Again, the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused (Ref: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343.). The said principles as set up by the Apex court have been reiterated time and again in one or the other form by the various judgments of the Apex Court and of High Courts.
49. In the present case the accused and deceased were last seen together at around 9/9.30 pm on 22.08.2013 and thereafter deceased was not seen alive. As per the post SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 38 of 55 mortem report Ex. PW7/A, time since death was about 34 42 hours prior to the postmortem examination, which corroborates with the last seen evidence and the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased was found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused and the three JCLs being the author of the crime becomes almost impossible.
RECOVERY OF BLOOD STAINED CLOTHES OF ACCUSED AND JCLs
50. Another circumstance which the prosecution has relied upon to establish the culpability of the accused is the recovery of his blood stained clothes and the FSL result which proves that the blood stains found on the clothes of the accused matched with the blood group of the deceased.
51. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused and three JCLs were apprehended by the IO from park in 18 SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 39 of 55 Block, Trilok Puri, Delhi, in the presence of the complainant. The clothes of accused Deepak @ Raj, JCL S and JCLP were having blood stains and the same were seized by the police and sent to FSL. As per the report of the FSL Ex. PW21/A, the blood found on the pant and shirt of accused Deepak @ Raj and pants of JCLP and JCLS matched with the blood group of the deceased. The DNA Finger Printing Analysis also show that the blood stains present on the clothes of the accused, JCLP and JCLS matched with the blood of deceased.
52. Counsel for the accused argued that there are contradictions in the versions of PW2 Om Prakash and the police officials regarding the place of arrest of the accused Deepak and JCLs. As per PW2 the accused and JCLs were apprehended from their houses whereas according to PW18 ASI Subhash Chand, PW22 SI Arvind Verma and PW23 IO/Ins. Vivekanand Jha, accused and JCLs were apprehended from the park. It was also argued that the clothes seized by the police as that of accused Deepak did not belong to him.
SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 40 of 5553. At the outset, it may be mentioned that PW2 Om Prakash has not supported the case of the prosecution with respect to the place of apprehension of the accused and JCLs but the testimony of PW18 ASI Subhash Chand, PW22 SI Arvind Verma and PW23 IO/Ins. Vivekanand Jha is consistent and trustworthy. The accused has not been able to discredit their testimony in the crossexamination. Law is well settled that the testimony of the police officials, if found trustworthy, can be safely relied upon to convict the accused and their testimony is not liable to be discarded merely because they are police officials. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh Vs State (Delhi Administration) AIR 2003 SC 1311, has held that the testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as from of other persons and it is not proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 41 of 55 without good grounds.
54. The argument of the counsel for the accused that the clothes did not belong to the accused is also without any merits. No suggestion has been given to any of the witnesses in the crossexamination that the clothes Ex. P4 did not belong to the accused Deepak or that the same were falsely planted by the police. Similarly, testimony of PW21 Shashi Bala Pahuja, Senior Scientific Officer (Bio.), who has proved her report Ex. PW21/A and Allelic data Ex. PW21/B and PW21/C, has gone unrebutted. The DNA Finger Printing Report Ex. PW21/A conclusively establishes that the biological stains i.e. blood stains present on shirt (Ex. N1) and pants (Ex. N2) of accused Deepak, biological stains i.e. blood stains present on the pants (Ex. O2) of JCLP and biological stains i.e. blood stains present on the pants (Ex. P2) of JCLS, are from the source of Ex."G" (blood stained gauze of deceased).The alleles from the source of Ex. N1 (shirt of accused Deepak), Ex. N2 (pants of accused Deepak), Ex. O2 (pants of JCLP) and Ex. P2 (pants of JCLS) are accounted in the SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 42 of 55 alleles from the source of Ex. G (blood stained gauze of deceased).
RECOVERY OF HAIR STRANDS OF ACCUSED AND JCLS FROM THE FINGER OF THE HANDS OF DECEASED.
55. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution for establishing the culpability of the accused in the crime is the presence of hairs strands of accused Deepak and JCL S found in the hands of deceased Ravi @ Chottu. PW7 Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh, who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased found few hair strands in the right and left hands of the deceased, which were sealed with the seal of department and were handed over to the IO alongwith other exhibits, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/A. These hair strands were sent to FSL for scientific examination and PW21 Dr. Shashi Bala Pahuja after examining these hair strands with the hairs of the accused and JCLS came to the conclusion that hair strands found around the finger of the right hand of the SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 43 of 55 deceased matched with the blood group of JCLS and hair strands found around the finger of left hand of the deceased matched with the blood group of accused Deepak. As per the report Ex. PW21/A to PW21/C, the alleles from the source of Ex. "I" (few strands of black hairs described as hair around the finger of right hand) are accounted in the alleles from the source of Ex. "W" (blood in the gauze of JCLS). As per the report Ex. PW21/A to PW21/C, the alleles from the source of Ex."J" (few strands of black hairs described as hair around the finger of left hand) are accounted in the alleles from the source of Ex.
"Q" (blood in the gauze of accused Deepak). From the report it was concluded that the hair present on the source of Ex. "I" (hair) are from the source of Ex. "W" (blood in the gauze of JCLS) and the hair present on the source of Ex. "J" (hair) are from the source of Ex. "Q" (blood in the gauze of accused Deepak). This report again raises an inference that the accused Deepak was present at the time of commission of offence.
56. When the accused was confronted with this SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 44 of 55 incriminating evidence in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he replied that the IO had taken his hairs at the police station and his hairs were also taken by the doctor in the hospital. Ld. counsel for the accused also attempted to create a defence that the IO had manipulated the samples and had planted the hairs of accused in the hands of the deceased. However, this defence is again an after thought and is apparently false and as such it carries no weight. No such defence was taken by accused at the time of cross examination of either PW7 Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh or PW23 IO/Ins. Vivekanand Jha and other police witnesses. The question of tampering with the evidence also gets eliminated from the fact that the postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 24.08.2013 at about 01.30 pm and the samples were sealed and handed over to the IO immediately after the postmortem, whereas the accused and his associates were apprehended in the evening of 24.08.2013.
RECOVERY OF WATCH OF DECEASED FROM JCLR
57. The prosecution has further relied upon the recovery SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 45 of 55 of watch of the deceased from JCLR as another circumstance to show that the accused and three JCLs were involved in the commission of the offence. It has been argued by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that at the time of their apprehension, watch of the deceased Ravi @ Chottu was seized from the possession of JCLR at the instance of the complainant Om Prakash. He argued that PW18 ASI Subhash, PW22 SI Arvind Verma and PW23 Ins. Vivekanand Jha have proved this circumstance in their testimony. The watch has been proved as Ex. P7. It was argued that recovery of the watch of deceased from the possession of JCLR shows that all the three JCLs alongwith accused were involved in the murder of the deceased. Ld. defence counsel on the other hand has argued that the recovery of watch from JCLR does not establish anything against the accused. He also argued that the father of the deceased PW2 Om Prakash has not supported the case of the prosecution and has failed to identify the watch of his son, hence, the recovery of watch at the instance of the complainant becomes doubtful.
SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 46 of 5558. No doubt PW2 Om Prakash has failed to identify the watch and has resiled from his previous statement regarding the recovery of the watch at his instance but testimony of PW18, PW22 and PW23, in whose presence the watch was recovered from the JCLR, has remained consistent, intact and the defence counsel has not been able to shake the credibility of these witnesses.
PLEA OF ALIBI BY THE ACCUSED
59. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused took a defence that he was falsely implicated in the case and had no concern with the case. He also took a plea of alibi by stating that he had gone to Gurgaon on 21.08.2013 and returned back on 24.08.2013. In order to substantiate his defence, accused has examined his mother Smt. Neetu, who has testified that on 21.08.2013 she alongwith her daughter Isha and accused had gone to Gurgaon as prospective groom's family was coming to visit her sister's house in connection with the marriage of her niece on 23.08.2013. They returned to Delhi on 24.08.2013 by SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 47 of 55 07.00/08.00 pm and when they were taking dinner, the police officials came and picked up the accused and took him with them without telling any reasons. When she reached police station, she was told that accused was charged in a murder case and one police official demanded Rs. 50,000/ to secure the release of the accused. The accused was falsely implicated in this case as she was not having Rs. 50,000/ with her to pay to the police officials. However, this defence of alibi taken by the accused appears to be clearly an after thought attempt to save himself from the rigours of law. It is pertinent to note here that the accused never pleaded this defence at the time of crossexamination of prosecution witnesses. No suggestion was given to any of the witnesses particularly to PW1 and PW2 that he was not present in Delhi on 22.08.2013 and, therefore, he could not have been seen alongwith the there JCLs and the deceased on 22.08.2013 as testified by them. The accused has also not examined his relative to whose house he had gone in Gurgaon. The said relative could have been the best witness to prove the plea of alibi taken by the accused but in the absence of examination of such SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 48 of 55 an important witness, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the accused for withholding the best available evidence. Therefore, this plea is liable to be discarded.
60. The accused also took a false defence that the blood stained clothes seized by the IO at the time of his arrest did not belong to him. As noted hereinabove even this defence was not put to any of the prosecution witnesses in their crossexamination and was raised for the first time at the time of recording of statement of accused and the same is liable to be rejected being false and after thought. It is a well settled principle that in a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation is found to be untrue, then the false explanation of accused offers an additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain. {See Swepan Patra v State of West Bengal (1999) 9 SCC 242; Anthony D'Souza & ors v State of Karnataka 2002 (10) AD 37 (SC)}. A false answer offered by the accused when his attention was drawn to a circumstance renders that SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 49 of 55 circumstance capable of inculpating him. In such a situation a false answer can also be counted as providing 'a missing link' for completing the chain. {See Kuldeep Singh & ors v State of Rajasthan 2001 Cr LJ 479 (SC), (2000) 5 SCC 7}. Where the accused on being asked, offers no explanation or explanation offered is found to be false, then that itself forms an additional link in the chain of circumstances to point out the guilt. {See Chandrasekhar Kao v Ponna Satyanarayana AIR 2000 SC2138, JT 2000 (6) 465 SC}.
SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF ACCUSED AND JCLs AFTER THE INCIDENT
61. It has also come in evidence that the accused and the three JCLs did not return to their homes till they were apprehended by the police from a park in 18 Block, Trilok Puri, in the evening of 24.08.2013 and were found wearing blood stained clothes. The absconding of the accused and the JCLs and the fact that they did not return to their homes after the incident is an additional circumstance which reinforces prosecution case as accused has failed to give SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 50 of 55 any satisfactory explanation as to where he had been after the incident, indicates his guilty mind. {See Vaman Jaidev Raval v State of Goa, 2007 Cr LJ (NOC) 431 (Bom)}.
MOTIVE
62. It has been vehemently argued by ld. counsel for the accused that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the murder of the deceased by the accused and the three JCLs. It has been argued that there is no whisper of motive in the entire prosecution evidence and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Ld. Addl.P.P. on the other hand has argued that the case of the prosecution cannot be discarded even if motive is not proved. It was argued that the motive can be known only to the perpetrator of the crime and it is difficult for the prosecution to adduce any direct or indirect evidence on the same.
63. In fact, it is very difficult to prove the motive. Generally it is locked in the heart of the offender and the deceased. The prosecution can only point out as to the SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 51 of 55 possible mental element, which could have been the cause of murder. If the prosecution has led credit worthy evidence, the absence of evidence as to the motive pales into insignificance. The motive is in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy. However, absence of motive does not ipsofacto results in the failure of the case of the prosecution. The only result of absence of motive is further deeper probe into the material on record.
64. In Thamman Kumar Vs U.T. Of Chandigarh, AIR 2003 SC 3975, the Supreme court interalia held as under;
'There is no such principle or rule of law that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive for commission of the crime, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. Where the ocular evidence is found to be trustworthy and reliable and finds corroboration from the medical evidence, a finding of guilt can safely be SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 52 of 55 recorded even if the motive for the commission of the crime has not been proved".
65. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, 1999 (4) SCC 370, it was held that no doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no offence was committed, if the prosecution failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it as it is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unreveal the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended.
66. In Nathuni Yadav and others v. State of Bihar and another, 1998 (9) SCC 238 it was held that motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution as one cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act and such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionately grave to do grave crimes. It SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 53 of 55 was further held that many a murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive and it is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable. It was inter alia held that the absence of any evidence on the point of motive cannot have any such impact so as to discard the other reliable evidence available on record which unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused.
67. I consider that absence of motive cannot undo the other evidence, if otherwise it is reliable and sufficient. In fact, motive is only an additional support to strengthen the probability of commission of offence. In the instant case, prosecution has successfully established other circumstantial evidence against the accused which nail the guilt of accused. Hence, the case of prosecution cannot be discarded merely because it has not been able to prove motive behind the murder.
68. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has successfully SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 54 of 55 proved all the circumstances from which inference of guilt against accused is cogently and firmly established. The circumstances proved by the prosecution have a definite tendency of unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. All the circumstances taken cumulative form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and noneelse. The circumstances proved by the prosecution are complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The evidence produced is not only consistent with the guilt of the accused but is also inconsistent with the innocence of the accused.
Accordingly, I hold the accused Deepak @ Raj guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
ANIL Digitally signed by
ANIL KUMAR SISODIA
Location: East District
KUMAR Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi
SISODIA Date: 2018.02.24
16:02:43 +0530
Announced in the open court (ANIL KUMAR SISODIA)
rd
On 23 day of February, 2018 ASJ04, EAST DISTT.
KKD COURTS/DELHI
SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 55 of 55
SC NO. 449/2016 State Vs. Deepak @ Raj Page 56 of 55