Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Umesh S/O Laxman R/O 66B, Gali on 30 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 : NORTH EAST / KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0271122008
Sessions Case No. 36/2008
Assigned to Sessions. 29.04.2008
Arguments heard on 06.11.2012
Date of judgment 23.11.2012
FIR No. 13/2008
State Vs. 1. Umesh S/o Laxman R/o 66B, Gali
No.7, 1st Pusta, New Usmanpur, Delhi.
2. Neeraj S/o Laxman R/o 66B, Gali
No.7, 1st Pusta, New Usmanpur, Delhi.
3. Kanhaiya S/o Onkar R/o E59, Gali
No.5, Hanuman Gali, Jagjeet Nagar,
New Usmanpur, Delhi.
4. Manoj S/o Nathu Ram, R/o C360/8,
Gali No.11, 1st Pusta, New Usmanpur,
Delhi.
5. Sonu @ Muchmunda S/o Ramprasad
R/o G315, Gali No.8, Jagjeet Nagar,
Delhi.
6. Rajeev S/o Rishi Pal, R/o Khanna
Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.
7. Golu S/o Ram Avtar, R/o E439, Gali
No.8, Jagjit Nagar, New Usmanpur,
Delhi.(Juvenile)
State v. Umesh and others
SC No.36/2008 1/55
8. Kaka @ Raju S/o Desraj, R/o X
152/40, Gali No.6, Brahampuri, Delhi.
(Juvenile)
9. Maskoor S/o Noor Alam, R/o Kachi
Khajuri, Delhi. (Juvenile)
10. Akash S/o Roshan Lal R/o House of
Bhajan Lal, Gali No.22, Shaheed
Bhagat Singh Colony, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi. (PO declared on 20.03.2008 by
ld. MM).
Police Station New Usmanpur
Under Section 302/34 IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Station House Officer of Police Station New Usmanpur had filed a challan vide FIR No. 13/2008 dated 13.01.2008 u/s 302/34 IPC for the prosecution of accused persons namely Umesh, Neeraj, Kanhaiya, Manoj, Sonu @ Muchmunda, Rajeev, Golu, Kaka @ Raju, Maskoor in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Ld. MM committed this case before this court for trial after compliance of section 207 Cr. P.C.
2. Prosecution in background of this case is that on 13.01.2008 at about 8:30 a.m. information was received at police station that a male dead body was lying in the compound of Sabhagar Bhawan at Shastri Park, Delhi, upon which DD No.2A, Ex.PW16/B was registered and same was assigned to S.I. Sharif Ahmad to take action into the matter. Accordingly, he along with Ct. Khubi Ram had reached at the spot i.e. compound of aforesaid Sabhagar Bhawan, Shastri Park, Delhi, where, State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 2/55 they found one male dead body lying there and on the inspection of dead body S.I. Sharif Ahmad came to the conclusion that it was a case of murder. S.I. Sharif Ahmad had informed crime team and senior police officials and called the private photographer who took nine photographs of dead body as well as scene of crime vide mark X1 to X9. Thereafter, S.I. Sharif Ahmad prepared a rukka Ex.PW16/A on the basis of DD No.2A Ex.PW16/B as at that time no eyewitness of incident had met him there and he sent Ct. Khubi Ram at about 10:20 a.m. along with rukka to police station for registration of FIR for offence u/s 302 IPC. On the basis of rukka Ex.PW16/A, FIR u/s 302 IPC was registered.
3. In the meantime, inspector Krishan Lal along with other police officials had reached at the spot and he had inspected the dead body. S.I. E.S. Yadav,Incharge Crime Team, had also reached at the spot and he had inspected the dead body there and he advised to lift the articles lying nearby the dead body and to get the postmortem of dead body conducted and prepared SOC report vide Ex.PW15/A.
4. On the direction of inspector Kishan Lal, S.I. Sharif Ahmad had lifted one piece of stone having blood stains, one jeans having blood stains, three belts besides blood smeared earth and earth control from nearby the dead body and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. S.I. Sharif Ahmad had also lifted one piece of stone having blood stains, blood smeared earth control from some distance ahead of the spot and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. S.I. Sharif Ahmad had also lifted the pieces of bricks having blood stains, one wooden piece having blood stains, blood smeared earth and earth control from some distance ahead of the spot State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 3/55 and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C.
5. During the investigation, PWs Manoj and Bobby who claimed to be eyewitness had told to I.O. that in their presence a fight had taken place between deceased and accused persons at Bhairon Mandir, near Pragati Maidan on the intervening night of 12th and 13th, January'2008 and from there accused persons had taken Sanjeev (deceased) by a TSR, bearing reg. no. DL1RK5121 by putting him inside the TSR and in the way Sanjeev had been beaten by all the accused persons and on reaching in the compound of Sabhagar Bhawan, accused persons had beaten Sanjeev (deceased) with fists, kicks, belts and pieces of bricks and when, he became unconscious and fell down, accused persons pissed on the face of Sanjeev (deceased) to take revenge. Thereafter, accused persons ran away by the same TSR. During the course of investigation, all the accused persons were arrested and chargesheeted for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC.
CHARGE:
6. On the basis of material available on record ld. predecessor of this court framed a charge vide order dated 02.06.2008 against the accused persons namely Umesh, Neeraj, Kanhaiya, Manoj, Sonu and Rajeev for the offences punishable u/s 302/34 IPC to which accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Delinquent Golu, Kaka and Maskoor had been produced before Juvenile Justice Board and accused Akash has been declared P.O. by ld. MM vide order dated 20.03.2008. PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 4/55
7. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 21 witnesses namely PW1 Manoj, PW2 Rakesh Kumar, PW3 Bobby, PW4 Ct. Khubi Ram, PW5 Hira Lal, PW6 Ct. Narender, PW7 Ct. Adesh Kumar, PW8 Sh. Suresh, PW9 W/SI Anuradha, PW10 S.I. Mukesh Kumar Jain, PW11 Madan Pal, PW12 Babu Ram, PW13 Ct. Gajraj Singh, PW14 S.I. Nawal Singh, PW15 S.I. E.S. Yadav, PW16 Retired S.I. Shareef Ahmad, PW17 HC Rashid Khan, PW18 HC Jagbir Singh, PW19 Inspector Krishan Lal, PW20 Dr. Sumit Tellewar and PW21 Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh.
8. PW1 Manoj is a material witness being eyewitness. This witness has deposed that on Bhario birthday i.e. on the day of incident, all accused persons, who had known to him, had caught hold Sandeep (deceased) outside the Bhairon temple at around 01:30 a.m. and put him in a auto and had taken the Sandeep (deceased) to Shastri Park and all the accused persons had beaten the deceased Sandeep with the broken pieces of bricks on his face. Thereafter, Sandeep become unconscious and remain lying there. This witness has further deposed that thereafter, he went to the house of Sandeep (deceased) and narrated about the incident to his sister. This witness has correctly identified all the accused persons present in the Court by their names and faces.
9. This witness has been cross examined by ld. APP for the State on some certain material facts. In his cross examination by ld. APP for the State, this witness admits that the name of deceased was Sanjeev @ Langra but he used to call him by the name of Sandeep also. This witness further admits that he along with State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 5/55 Sanjeev (deceased) and Bobby had gone to Bhairon Mandir and they had reached there around 12:30/1:00 a.m. This witness further admits that accused Umesh had caught hold the neck of deceased Sanjeev and he was surrounded by his co accused namely Umesh, Neeraj, Manoj, Kanhiya, Sonu, Rajeev, Kaku and Golu and Akash. This witness further admits that earlier he was the member of gang of accused Umesh and he used to work of pickpocketing with him. This witness further admits that when accused persons were beating the deceased Sanjeev several public persons collected there.
10.This witness further admits that TSR belongs to Rajeev who is friend of Aakash and accused persons had used the aforesaid TSR while doing work of pickpocketing. This witness further admits that when accused persons had taken deceased Sanjeev in the TSR, he followed them in another TSR and reached at Shastri Park. This witness denied that he had stated to the police that PW Bobby was also accompanying him to the Shastri park. This witness further admits that accused persons had taken deceased Sanjeev in the fields where Aakash and Golu took out their belts and started beating Sanjeev with the same and accused persons namely Neeraj, Kanhiya and Umesh picked the bricks and dandas from there and started beating deceased Sanjeev with the same and accused Kanhaiya gave danda blows on the head of deceased Sanjeev and accused persons had also hit the blows of bricks on the neck of deceased Sanjeev and when Sanjeev became unconscious, accused persons started urinating upon his face and thereafter, they had left from there.
State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 6/55
11.This witness further admits that on Sunday when he went to play cricket he came to know from certain boys that one dead body is lying and word "Sanjeev" has been engraved on the hand of deceased.
12.This witness had denied to the suggestions of Ld. APP for the State that he had accompanied the police when police had seized TSR No. DL1RK5121 and he further denied to the suggestion that he had accompanied the police at the time of arrest of accused persons namely Neeraj, Rajeev, Sonu, Manoj s/o Nathu Ram, Kanhaiya and Umesh but he has not disputed his signatures on arrest memos of accused persons, seizure memo Ex.PW1/A of TSR bearing registration No. DL 1RK5121 and pointing out memo Ex.PW1/B.
13.In his cross examination by ld. counsel for accused Rajiv, this witness admits that Rajiv is neither enemy to deceased nor a member of gang and accused Rajiv was not involved in the beating of deceased.
14.In his cross examination by ld. counsel for accused Sonu, this witness has deposed that he had been taught the work of pickpocketing by the accused persons since his childhood when he was 10 to 12 years old and he had stopped pickpocketing with all the accused persons because they had beaten him. This witness has further deposed that he could not note down the number of TSR in which he followed the accused persons. This witness denied to the suggestions that he is mentioning the happening of altercation to falsely implicate the accused persons or that he is implicating the accused persons because of his enmity with them as they had State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 7/55 beaten to him or that he had not gone to Bhairon Mandir on that day or that at Bhairon Mandir during midnight period no TSR was available.
15.This witness has further deposed that he had not gone to save the deceased from the accused persons as they were beating him severely and causing injury with blades. This witness denied to the suggestion that he had not told anybody regarding the incident as he had not seen the incident. This witness denied to the suggestion that he had narrated the facts today due to the enmity with the accused persons. This witness has deposed that he had come to know regarding death of deceased after 23 days of incident from some boys who had gone to play cricket in the park.
16.This witness has categorically deposed that deceased was given beatings inside the confined area which was under construction and he was outside the said boundary and no body from residential flats had come at the spot after hearing noise of the deceased.
17.This witness denied to the suggestion that he had named the accused persons at the instigation of the police and to save himself from false accusation threatened by the police. This witness further denied to the suggestion that he was neither present at Bhairon Mandir nor at the place of occurrence.
18.In his cross examination by ld. Amicus Curaie for accused persons namely Umesh, State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 8/55 Neeraj, Kanahiya and Manoj s/o Nathu Ram, this witness has deposed that he had left his house around 10:00/10:30 p.m. for Bhairon Mandir along with deceased Sandeep as he was having good friendship with the deceased and they had hired a auto from the nearby for going to Bhairon Mandir and they had reached at Bhairon Mandir at around 12:00/12:30 a.m. (midnight). This witness has deposed that only Sanjeev (deceased) had consumed liquor and remaining friends had not consumed any liquor. This witness has deposed that all the accused persons were without any weapons when they were beating Sanjeev (deceased) initially. This witness has further deposed that he had not told any police official regarding the incident.
19.This witness has deposed in reexamination by Ld. APP for the State that accused Rajiv had also given beatings to deceased Sandeep and he had made statement during his cross examination on behalf of accused Rajiv that he had no role in the murder of deceased Sandeep and said statement was under fear.
20.This witness denied to the suggestion that he was neither present at Bhairon Mandir nor at the place of occurrence or that he is deposing falsely due to friend of deceased.
21.This witness had denied to the suggestion put by ld. defence counsel for accused Sonu that he had signed some blank papers at police station. This witness had further denied the suggestions that accused persons had not caused any injury to the deceased and he has falsely implicated the accused persons due to enmity with them. This witness had further denied the suggestion that the had named the State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 9/55 accused persons at the instigation of the police and to save him from false accusation threatened by the police. This witness had further denied to suggestion that he was neither present at Bhairon Mandir or at place of occurrence.
22.PW2 Rakesh Kumar. This witness is jija of deceased Sanjeev Kumar. This witness has deposed that on 14.01.2008 he came to know from Mandola who had taken away deceased and he had shown him news from a newspaper regarding murder of his brotherinlaw. This witness had identified the Sanjeev (deceased) from photograph shown to him by the police and he had received dead body of deceased after postmortem. This witness has proved the photograph of his brother inlaw (deceased) vide Ex.P1.
23.PW3 Bobby is also a material witness being eyewitness, but this witness has got declared hostile by ld. APP for the State as he has not supported to the case of prosecution at any point.
24.This witness has deposed that on 12.01.2008 on the day of Bhairon Birthday, he along with one Manoj @ Mandola and Sanjeev (deceased) had accompanied in the TSR and reached at Bhario Mandir at around 12:30/1:00 a.m. This witness has further deposed that some boys had met Sanjeev near the place of distribution of Bhandara and they started quarreling with him and some persons from the Bhandara had got separated both the parties. This witness has further deposed that he had not seen the persons who had given beating to Sanjeev. State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 10/55
25.In his cross examination by ld. APP for the State, this witness had denied all the suggestions put to him. His statement mark X1 dated 15.01.2008 and mark X2 dated 16.01.2008 have been confronted by ld. APP for the State.
26.In his cross examination by ld. counsel for accused Neeraj and Umesh, this witness has deposed that he had not witnessed the said incident and no incident has taken place in his presence. This witness admits that police had taken him to the police station and he was terrorized by the police.
27.PW4 Ct. Khubi Ram. This witness has deposed that on 13.01.2008 he had accompanied SI Sharif Ahmad to the spot i.e. Sabhagar Bhawan, DDA Building, Shastri Park on receipt of DD No.2A and there they found one dead body of a boy.
28.This witness has further deposed that deceased was having injury on his left eye and left ear and on the right side of the stomach as well as backside the deceased was having stab injury. This witness has further deposed that the blood was lying near the dead body, one stone was lying at some distance from the dead body along with one leather belt of black colour, two monograms of belt were also lying at the spot and having blood stained marks and same articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A, PW4/B and PW4/C.
29.This witness had got recorded FIR from the police station and after registration of FIR, he reached at the spot and handed over copy of the FIR and rukka in original State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 11/55 to SHO Inspector Kishan Lal.
30.This witness had accompanied SHO Inspector Kishan Lal along with the dead body to the mortuary of GTB Hospital and got preserved the dead body there. In his presence, PW Rakesh had identified the dead body of his brotherinlaw, Sanjeev.
31.This witness has deposed that after the postmortem, doctor had handed over three sealed pullandas containing viscera, blood gauze of deceased and clothes of deceased and all the pullandas were handed over to the I.O. which he had seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D.
32.This witness had correctly identified two big piece of stone, one slati colour linedar pant (lying near dead body), one black pant and one skyblue underwear and one black colour linedar socks, one belt piece of black colour with two monograms and one piece of wood having bloodstained marks vide Ex.P1 to P7 respectively which were seized from the spot. This witness has also identified two pieces of bricks having blood stained marks vide Ex.P8 which were seized from the spot.
33.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness admits that Sabhagar was under construction and the labour of the said site was present at his jhuggi near Sabhagar. This witness further admits that no eyewitness met I.O. on 13.01.2008 regarding the incident or dead body and other articles lying there. This witness further deposed that no mark of identification was put on the articles State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 12/55 recovered from the spot.
34.PW5 Hira Lal. This is the father of deceased Sanjeev. This witness had identified the dead body of his deceased son in the mortuary of GTB Hospital and in this regard police had recorded his statement Ex.PW5/A.
35.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness had denied that he had identified the dead body of some other person and not of Sanjeev.
36.PW6 Ct. Narender. This is the witness of arrest of accused persons namely Umesh, Kanhiya, Manoj, Golu, Kaka, Maskoor, Rajiv and Neeraj from Nand Gram, Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P. This witness has proved arrest memo of accused persons namely Neeraj, Rajiv, Sonu, Manoj, Kanhaiya and Umesh vide Ex.PW6/A, PW6/B, PW6/C, PW6/D, PW6/E and PW6/F respectively.
37.This witness has deposed that accused Manoj and Umesh had got recovered one sword each from the room where they were arrested. This witness has proved the sketch of both the sword prepared by the I.O. vide Ex.PW6/G and PW6/H respectively. This witness has also proved seizure memo of the swords vide Ex.PW6/J and PW6/J1 and seizure memo of one TSR No. DL1RK5121 vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A.
38.This witness has correctly identified a sword wrapped in a purple colour cover vide Ex.P8, another sword having blue colour cover vide Ex.P9 and TSR vide State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 13/55 Ex.P10.
39.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness denied that he had never joined the investigation in the present case or that he is deposing falsely at the instance of I.O.
40.PW7 Ct. Adesh Kumar. This is also the witness of arrest of accused persons and recovery of weapon of offence and TSR.
41.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness has deposed that PW Manoj @ Mandola led the police party to Nandgram, Ghaziabad, U.P. and witness Bobby was remained with Inspector A.K. Singh. This witness has further deposed that when they reached Nandgram, Ghaziabad, U.P. there PW Manoj @ Mandola identified the house, it was a flat situated on first floor. This witness has further deposed that he does not know whether any information by their police party was sent to concerned police station of Nandgra, Ghaziabad, U.P. This witness has further deposed that inside the flat nine persons were found under the three or four quilts, their names were known during the interrogation as accused Umesh, Manoj, Neeraj, Sonu, Kanhaiya, Maskoor, Rajiv, Kaka and Raju.
42.This witness has further deposed that he does not know whether the I.O. had prepared the site plan at Nandgram where the accused were arrested. This witness denied that he had not joined the investigation or went to flat at Nandgram or that daggers have been planted upon the accused Umesh and Manoj by the I.O. or that State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 14/55 TSR was also planted upon the accused persons or that no writing work was done at flat of Nandgram, Ghaziabad, U.P. or that all the accused persons were lifted from their respective houses or that no recovery was effected from accused persons.
43.PW8 Sh. Suresh. This witness is a photographer who had taken eight photographs of dead body at the instance of I.O. This witness has proved the negatives of photographs vide Ex.PW8/1 to PW8/8.
44.PW9 W/SI Anuradha. This witness had joined the proceedings of this case with Inspector A.K. Singh and produced the delinquent Golu, Kaka, Maskoor and Akash before the concerned court and their remands was extended. This witness had got conducted the ossification test of aforesaid delinquent from the GTB Hospital on 04.02.2008. Thereafter, this witness had completed case diary and handed over the case file to I.O. time to time.
45.PW10 SI Mukesh Kumar Jain. This witness has proved scaled site plan vide Ex.PW10/A.
46.PW11 Madan Pal. This witness has been declared hostile by ld. APP for the State as he has not supported to the case of prosecution at any count. His statement Ex.PW11/A has been confronted by Ld. APP for the State.
47.PW12 Babu Ram. This witness has also been declared hostile by ld. APP for the State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 15/55 State as he had not supported the case of prosecution at any count. This witness has deposed that 23 years back he had been working at Sabhagar Bhawan, DDA Bhawan, Shastri Park, Delhi as a Chowkidar and on the day of incident he had gone to collect wooden sticks from the store of Sabhagar where he had seen one male dead body lying in the compound of abovesaid Sabhagar alone and no other one was there. His statement Ex.PW12/A has been confronted by ld. APP for the State.
48.PW13 Ct. Gajraj Singh. This witness is a formal witness being motorcycle rider. This witness on 13.01.2008 at about 10:45 a.m. had taken copy of FIR in an envelope to deliver the same to ld. MM of police station New Usmanpur, Delhi, DCP (North East), PHQ and ACP.
49.PW14 S.I. Nawal Singh. This witness is the member of raiding team which was constituted by Inspector A.K. Singh and apprehended nine accused persons from flat No.665, 1st floor, Nand Gram, Ghaziabad, U.P. on 16.01.2008 at the instance of complainant Manoj @ Mandola and one Bobby. In his presence, Inspector A.K. Singh had prepared arrest papers of nine accused persons.
50.This witness has proved arrest memos Ex.PW6/B, PW6/C, PW6/D, PW6/E and PW6/F of accused Rajiv, Sonu, Manoj, Kanhaiya and Umesh respectively. This witness has also proved seizure memo Ex.PW1/A of TSR No. DL1RK5121.
51.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness has deposed that no State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 16/55 public person visited the spot during the entire proceedings. This witness has further deposed that accused persons were arrested between 06:00 p.m. to 07:15 p.m. this witness had denied that he had not joined the investigation of this case or that accused persons were not apprehended in his presence.
52.PW15 S.I. E.S. Yadav. This witness has deposed that on 13.01.2009 he along with ASI Subhash Chand had reached at the spot i.e. Under Construction Building, Shastri Palace, New Usmanpur, Delhi, on the summoning of S.I. Sharif Ahmad. This witness has proved photographs Ex.P1 which had been taken by private photographer of aforesaid spot which was depicting the dead body. This witness has proved scene of crime visitation report vide Ex.PW15/A.
53.This witness has further deposed that he had advised the S.I. Sharif Ahmad to collect the articles which were lying near the dead body at the spot.
54.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness has deposed that private photographer had come in his presence and he had taken the photographs of dead body from various angles.
55.PW16 Retired S.I. Sharif Ahmad. This witness has deposed that on 13.01.2008 he was posted at police station New Usmanpur, Delhi and was on emergency duty, on that day at about 08:25 a.m. copy of DD No.2A was assigned to him to take action into the matter which was in connection of lying one male dead body near Shastri Park Ground, Delhi and on receipt of said DD, he along with Ct. Khubi Ram State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 17/55 reached at the spot i.e. Sabhagar Bhawan, DDA building (under construction), Shastri Park, Delhi in pursuance of aforesaid DD and there they had noticed one male dead body lying there. This witness had inspected the dead body and spot and informed the crime team and other senior police officials of the same. In his presence, private photographer reached at the spot and he had taken some photographs of dead body and scene of crime from different angles.
56.This witness has proved photographs mark X1 to X9 which are depicting the same dead body and scene of crime.
57.This witness had prepared rukka Ex.PW16/A on the basis of DD entry No. 2A Ex.PW16/B as no eyewitness met him at the spot and got the FIR Ex.PW16/C registered through Ct. Khubi Ram. This witness had sent the dead body to mortuary for postmortem examination as advised by crime team incharge.
58.This witness had lifted articles from the spot as advised by crime team incharge vide three separate seizure memos Ex.PW4/A, B and C respectively after sealing and converting the articles into parcels.
59.This witness had correctly identified two big pieces of stone, one gray colour stripped pant (slaty colour linedar pant), one black pant, one sky blue underwear, one pair of black socks, one belt piece of black colour with two monograms and one piece of wood having blood stains vide Ex. P1 to P7 which were lifted by him from the spot nearby the dead body. This witness has also correctly identified State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 18/55 two pieces of brick having blood stains vide Ex. P8 collectively which were also lifted from the spot. This witness has further deposed that spot is not bounded by walls and it is open place and easily accessible to any public person.
60.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness has deposed that spot came into his notice from DD No.2A. This witness has further deposed that he had not put any identification marks on the pieces of brick and gray (slaty) colour pant. This witness denied to the suggestion that he had not sealed/seized any articles at the spot or that he had not sent rukka from the spot.
61.PW17 HC Rashid Khan. This is a formal witness being duty officer. This witness has proved copy of FIR Ex.PW16/C. This witness had assigned the copy of same to the Inspector Kishan Lal for investigation.
62.PW18 HC Jagbir Singh. This is also a formal witness being duty officer. This witness has deposed that on 13.01.2008 he was posted at police station New Usmanpur, Delhi and was on duty as duty officer from 12:00 midnight to 09:00 a.m. and during his duty at about 08:20 a.m., one unknown person had informed him on phone that one male dead body is lying in ground, near hospital at Shastri Park, Delhi and he recorded this information at serial No.2 of DD register. This witness has proved the copy of aforesaid DD entry vide Ex.PW16/B.
63.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness had denied to the suggestion that aforesaid DD entry is manipulated, antedated and antetime. State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 19/55
64.PW19 Inspector Krishan Lal is a material witness. This witness has deposed that on 13.01.2008 at about 8:30 a.m., copy of DD No.2A was assigned to S.I. Sharif Ahmad and S.I. Sharif Ahmad along with Ct. Khubi Ram reached at the spot and informed him that one male dead body is lying at the spot. This witness has further deposed that he along with his staff reached there and inspected the dead body and he came to the conclusion that it is a case of murder. In his presence, S.I. Sharif Ahmad had called crime team officials as well as private photographer. This witness has proved photographs mark X1 to X9 which are depicting the dead body as well as SOC of present case. In his presence, S.I. Sharif Ahmad had lifted piece of stone having blood stains, jeans having blood stains, blood, blood smeared earth etc.,
65.During the investigation, this witness has prepared site plan Ex.PW19/A at the instance of one Chowkidar. This witness has got prepared hue and cry notice vide Ex.P1 and copies of same were circulated in the area of police station New Usmanpur, Delhi.
66.This witness has further deposed that he had also taken some steps regarding the identification of dead body but same could not be identified till the investigation of this case remained in his hand.
67.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness has deposed that he State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 20/55 had reached at the spot at about 9:00 a.m. and Crime team officials had come in his his presence at about 9:15 a.m. and photographer was called by them sending one constable from nearby area i.e. Kaithwara, Usmanpur, Delhi. This witness has deposed that he had collected photograph of deceased from photographer Suresh which was affixed on hue and cry notice Ex.P1. This witness denied to the suggestion that he had not visited the spot of this case or that he had not prepared any document of this case.
68.PW20 Dr. Sumit Tellewar, Assistant Professor, Army College of Medical Sciences, Delhi Cantt. This witness has proved postmortem report vide Ex.PW20/A of deceased Sanjeev Kumar and opined the cause of death, shock as a result of antemortem head injury and multiple contusions present over the body produced by blunt force impact. Injury Nos. 6 and 7 as mentioned in the postmortem report are sufficient to cause death individually and injury Nos. 1 to 11, 16 to 22 and 28 to 32 are sufficient to cause death collectively in ordinary course of nature.
69.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness has deposed that all the injuries mentioned in postmortem report have been caused by blunt object except injury No.37 which was caused by pointed blunt object. Injury No.37 may be caused by pointed iron rod, screwdriver, pointed blunt scrapped iron or likewise.
70.PW21 Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh is a material witness being I.O. This witness State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 21/55 has deposed that on 14.01.2008, he was posted at P.S. New Usmanpur, Delhi, and on that day, investigation of this case was assigned to him and he had collected case file of present case from previous I.O./Inspector Kishan Lal and it came into his notice from the file that dead body of deceased Sanjiv Kumar was in the mortuary of GTB Hospital. This witness has further deposed that seizing and sealing of the spot articles had been deposited by the previous I.O./S.I. Sharif Ahmad.
71.During the course of investigation, he had made efforts regarding identification of dead body and one Rakesh met him at P.S. after seeing the publication of dead body in the newspaper. This witness had taken Rakesh to mortuary of GTB Hospital, where, he had identified the dead body of deceased Sanjeev and this witness had passed on the information to the relatives of the deceased through wireless set as well as from the phone of Rakesh. It was told to him by Rakesh that one Manoj @ Mandola had informed him about the dead body by producing newspaper cutting for the purpose of identification.
72.During the course of investigation, on 15.01.2008, this witness had visited the residence of Manoj @ Mandola who claimed to be eyewitness of the incident. This witness had recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C., wherein, he had disclosed names of ten accused persons, namely, Umesh, Neeraj, Manoj s/o Nathu Ram, Sonu @ Muchhmunda, Rajiv and Kanhaiya (facing trial) and Akash (P.O.), and Kaka, Golu, Maskoor (juvenile). PW Manoj @ Mandola had narrated the entire incident to him vide his statement Ex.PW21/A. Thereafter, this witness along with State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 22/55 PW Manoj @ Mandola reached at the house of other eyewitness, namely, Bobby and this witness had also recorded statement of PW Bobby Ex.PW21/B.
73.During the course of investigation, on 16.01.2008, Sh. Heera Lal, father of deceased along with Rakesh Kumar met this witness in the mortuary of GTB Hospital and dead body of Sanjiv was identified by them and to this effect, this witness had recorded their statements vide Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW21/C respectively. This witness had filled up inquest form Ex.PW21/D and whatsoever, he noticed upon the dead body same was mentioned therein. This witness had also filled up request for postmortem examination Ex.PW21/E and aforesaid inquest papers along with copy of FIR, Ex.PW21/F, copy of DD entry no.4A, Ex.PW21/G were sent to postmortem conducting doctor.
74.This witness has deposed that on the same day, doctor Sumit Tellewar had conducted the postmortem by P.M. report, Ex.PW20/A and after postmortem dead body was released to its legal heirs against receipt for cremation. Ct. Khubi Ram had delivered sealed viscera box, sealed parcel of clothes of deceased, sealed envelope containing blood gauze of deceased along with sample seal to him which he had received from doctors and this witness had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D.
75.During the course of investigation, on the same day afternoon, this witness had constituted raiding party comprising of himself, S.I. Naval Singh, Ct. Adesh, Ct. Narender, PWs Manoj @ Mandola and Bobby etc. and they reached at Nandgram, State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 23/55 Ghaziabad, U.P. by a private vehicle at the instance of PWs Manoj @ Mandola and Bobby. Both these eyewitness pointed out a flat at first floor in Nandgram, Ghaziabad, U.P. and door of that flat was knocked by him and they went inside and found nine accused persons, namely, Umesh, Neeraj, Manoj, Sonu @ Muchhmunda, Rajiv and Kanhiya (facing trial) and Kaka, Golu, Maskoor (juvenile). This witness had arrested them one by one after interrogation after identifying them by PWs - Manoj @ Mandola nad Bobby.
76.During the course of investigation, this witness had recorded disclosure statement of aforesaid accused persons vide Ex.PW21/H of accused Neeraj, Ex.PW21/I of accused Rajiv, Ex.PW21/J of accused Sonu @ Muchhmunda, Ex.PW21/K of accused Manoj, Ex.PW21/L of accused Kanhiya and Ex.PW21/M of accused Umesh.
77.During the course of investigation, accused Manoj and Umesh had disclosed that they can get recovered swords from that room/flat and this witness had recovered the same at their instance from the slab/taand of that room/flat. This witness had prepared sketches of the sword vide Ex.PW6/G and Ex.PW6/H respectively and this witness had seized aforesaid swords with their covers vide seizure memo already Ex.PW6/J and Ex.PW6/J1 respectively after taking measurements, converting into two separate parcels and sealing with the seal of SA.
78.This witness had also prepared arrest memo of accused Neeraj, already Ex.PW6/A and personal search memo Ex.PW21/N, arrest memo of accused Rajiv Ex.PW6/B State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 24/55 and personal search memo Ex.PW3/E, arrest memo of accused Sonu @ Muchhmunda Ex.PW6/C and personal search memo Ex.PW3/A, arrest memo of accused Manoj Ex.PW6/D and personal search memo Ex.PW3/B, arrest memo of accused Kanhaiya Ex.PW6/E and personal search memo Ex.PW3/C. This witness had correctly identified all the accused persons present in court.
79.During the course of investigation, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused Rajiv had got recovered TSR bearing registration No. DL1RK5121 from the road, in front of flat and this witness had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. In his presence, PW Manoj @ Mandola and Bobby had identified the aforesaid TSR which accused persons had used while committing offence.
80.During the course of investigation, on 17.01.2008, this witness had again recorded disclosure statement of accused Neeraj vide Ex.PW21/O. Thereafter, five accused persons were produced before concerned court after their medical examination and they were sent to JC and four juveniles were produced before JJB and this witness had recorded statements of PWs Manoj @ Mandola, Bobby, Ct. Narender, S.I. Naval Singh, Ct. Adesh, HC Parth etc. This witness has deposed that one juvenile, namely, Neeraj out of four was declared major by the JJB and he was transferred to Tihar jail for trial.
81.During the course of investigation, in the month of Feb.'2008, about 17 sealed parcels containing exhibits of this case, sample seal, forwarding letter were sent to State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 25/55 CFSL, Kolkata for analysis through Ct. Ram Pal vide RC and this witness had recorded statements of Ct. Ram Pal and MHC(M) u/s 161 Cr. P.C.
82.During the course of investigation, on 18.02.2008, this witness had collected scaled site plan, already Ex.PW10/A from draughtsman/S.I. Mukesh Jain, and placed on file, which, had been prepared by him after taking measurements at the instance of S.I. Naval Singh on 15.02.2008.
83.During course of investigation, this witness had collected nine photographs from the photo section of District Crime Unit, vide Ex.PW21/P1 to Ex.PW21/P9 respectively. This witness had also collected copy of DD Nos.13A Ex.PW21/Q, 7A Ex.PW21/R, 2A Ex.PW21/S, 10A Ex.PW21/T, copy of newspaper having publication of dead body Mark Z. This witness has proved seizure memo pertaining to search of deceased vide Ex.PW21/U and request for preservation of dead body vide Ex.PW21/V on behalf of S.I. Sharif Ahmad. This witness had recorded statement of PW Rakesh Kumar on 16.01.2008, vide Ex.PW21/W and had collected postmortem report Ex.PW20/A from GTB Hospital. This witness had completed investigation of this case and prepared chargesheet against accused persons, namely, Umesh, Neeraj, Kanhaiya, Manoj, Sonu @ Muchhmunda and Rajiv, present in court.
84.This witness has further deposed that TSR was released on superdari in favour of one Rishipal vide superdarinama Ex.PW21/X. State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 26/55
85.During the course of investigation, this witness had collected CFSL report dated 04.07.2011, Ex.PW21/Y and other CFSL report dated 24.02.2009 Ex.PW21/Z and placed the same on file time to time. This witness had correctly identified the swords with cover which had been recovered at the instance of accused Umesh and Manoj vide Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 respectively.
86.This witness had also correctly identified TSR bearing reg. no. DL1RK5121, vide Ex.P10 which had been recovered at the instance of accused Rajiv from Nandgram, Ghaziabad, U.P.
87.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness had denied that PW Manoj @ Mandola had been confined at police station two or three days before 15.01.2008. This witness admits that he was the incharge of raiding team and raiding team was constituted at a place in front of GTB Hospital and approximately nine police officials and two eyewitnesses were the members of raiding team and from GTB Hospital at about 01:00 p.m. all the raiding team members along with eyewitnesses had gone to Nandgram, Ghaziabad, U.P.
88.This witness has further deposed that eyewitness Manoj had identified all the accused persons in the flat and there were total nine persons in the flat and they had apprehended accused persons collectively but he cannot tell which particular police official had apprehended which particular accused. This witness has further deposed that he had seized TSR from a place near the aforesaid flat which was used in the commission of crime.
State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 27/55
89.In his cross examination by Sh. K.N. Sharma, ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused persons namely Kanhaiya, Sonu and Manoj, this witness has deposed that eyewitness Manoj @ Mandola had not disclosed the flat number. This witness has further deposed that eyewitness Manoj @ Mandola has also told him that accused persons are members of pickpocketing gang and they commit crime in the day working hours and assemble in evening time at aforesaid flat. This witness denied to the suggestion that nothing was seized by him or that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused or that raiding team members along with eyewitnesses had not gone to aforesaid flat in Nandgram, Ghaziabad or that no eyewitness had pointed out towards the aforesaid flat from where accused persons were arrested.
90.This witness admits that he had not mentioned in col. no.12 Ex.PW21/D that by which weapon offence has been committed. This witness denied to the suggestion that PW Bobby had stated that he had not seen the incident and he is not eyewitness of the incident or that statement of PW Bobby was obtained under pressure or under undue influence or that he
91.Claim of juvenility of accused Neeraj had been decided by JJB whereby he had been declared more than 18 years of age as on the date of commission of offence. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 CR.P.C.:
92.After prosecution evidence, statement of all the accused persons u/s 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded where accused persons denied all the allegations and circumstances State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 28/55 put to them.
93.Accused Rajeev claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case after calling him from his house through his father and police had taken into possession the aforesaid TSR on 14.01.2008 from his father who was also confined at police station for two days. Accused Rajeev further claimed that he had not made any disclosure statement and police had taken his signatures on some blank papers forcibly at police station.
94.Accused Umesh and Neeraj have claimed that they were lifted from their houses by the police and falsely booked in the present case. Police had falsely shown the Manoj @ Mandola and Bobby as witnesses in the present case. Accused Neeraj claimed that at the time of alleged incident he was juvenile. Accused Umesh claimed that no swords had been recovered at his instance.
95.Accused Sonu @ Muchmunda and Manoj have claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the present case after lifting by the police from their houses and police had obtained their signatures on some blank papers forcibly at police station.
96.Accused Kanhaiya claimed that police has falsely implicated him in the present case after lifting him from his house. He had not made any disclosure statement and no recovery had been effected from him or at his instance. Accused Kanhaiya further claimed that police had obtained his signatures on some blank papers State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 29/55 forcibly at police station.
97.Accused Rajeev has preferred to lead defence evidence. Sh. Rishi Pal has been examined as DW1.
98.DW1 Sh. Rishi Pal has deposed that he is a TSR driver and on 14.01.2008 at about 2:00 p.m. he was coming along with passenger by his TSR from Loni Pusta to Khajuri Chowk, Delhi and he was stopped by two police constables and they got down the passengers and sat inside his TSR and directed him to drive the TSR to police station New Usmanpur. This witness has further deposed that he had requested them that his TSR was properly authorized to ply between Loni and Khajuri but both of them had taken him to police station New Usmanpur and there his TSR was impounded by the police officials including its original papers and key. This witness has deposed that he was confined at P.S. by the police officials of police station New Usmanpur till 12:00 a.m. on 15.01.2008 and during his confinement he was taken by the police in white colour car to his house and there he called his son Rajiv, he came out and police officials made him sit inside the car with him and they had taken them to police station New Usmanpur and one police official had obtained signatures of Rajiv on some blank papers forcibly and since then his son Rajiv is in police custody in the present false case. This witness has further deposed that police officials had threatened him at the time of releasing him if he disclosed anything about arrest of Rajiv then they would also implicate him in a criminal case.
State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 30/55
99.Thereafter, D.E. was closed and case was fixed for final arguments. ARGUMENTS
100. Ld. APP for State has argued that charges were framed against accused persons namely Umesh, Neeraj, Kanhaiya, Manoj, Sonu and Rajeev for the offences u/s 302/34 IPC on 02.06.2008.
101.Ld. APP for the State has argued that during the intervening night of 12th /13th January'2008 a group of ten persons (Juvenile Golu, Kaku and Maskoor) P.O. (Akash) had started quarreling deceased Sanjiv and PW Manoj @ Mandola and PW Bobby who had come in TSR No. DL1RK5121 together and reached at Sabhagar, Shastri Park, Delhi, where deceased was given beating mercilessly and died. After committing the offence all the accused persons ran away from the spot by the aforesaid TSR.
102.Ld. APP for the State has further argued that PW Manoj Mandola support the case but on fact of arrest won over. PW Bobby has also supported the case of prosecution but on fact of identity did not support the case. PWs Manoj @ Mandola and Bobby are witness of recovery of TSR and arrest of accused persons.
103.Ld. APP for the State further argued that Ct. Narender, S.I. Naval Singh and I.O. Inspector A.K. Singh are witnesses of recovery of TSR and arrest of accused persons.
State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 31/55
104.Ld. APP for the State has further argued that doctor have opined that such types of injuries are possible from belts, dandas and bricks and that one of the accused Sonu @ Muchhmunda had pissed upon deceased. Accused persons had also used blades in commission of crime. It is not disputed that all tne accused persons had run away from the spot alongwith their weapons hence recovery of weapons could not be affected but benefit of the same cannot be given to the accused persons. Since PW1 Mandola has supported the case of prosecution truthfully hence minor contradictions if any has no relevance which may affect the case of prosecution.
105.On these grounds, ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
106.On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has advanced their common arguments. It is submitted that material witnesses i.e. PWs Mandola and Bobby had disclosed the identity of deceased whereas DD entry show that dead body was lying abandoned even till the reaching of PW19. It is stated that dead body was remained unidentified.
107.Ld. counsel for accused persons has further argued that both material witnesses are not trustworthy as they did not approach to police to disclose the incident.
108.Ld. counsel for accused persons have further argued that both material witnesses were called by police/I.O. and then they disclosed about the incident and they led police party to get arrested accused persons and to get recovered TSR from State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 32/55 Nandgram, Ghaziabad,U.P.
109.Ld. counsel for accused persons have further argued that both aforesaid witnesses are not supporting to the case of prosecution on the point of arrest as well as recovery of TSR.
110.Ld. counsel for accused persons have further argued that PW Manoj is an interested witness being friend of deceased. Hence, he is not a reliable witness.
111.On these grounds, Ld. counsel for all the accused persons has prayed that accused persons be acquitted from the charges.
PERUSAL OF RECORD:
112.Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record it is revealed that on 13.01.2008 at about 8:30 a.m. information was received at police station that a male dead body was lying in the compound of Sabhagar Bhawan at Shastri Park, Delhi, upon which DD No.2A, Ex.PW16/B was registered and same was assigned to S.I. Sharif Ahmad to take action into the matter. Accordingly, he along with Ct. Khubi Ram had reached at the spot i.e. compound of aforesaid Sabhagar Bhawan, Shastri Park, Delhi, where, he and Ct. Khubi found one male dead body lying there and on the inspection of dead body S.I. Sharif Ahmad came to the conclusion that it was a case of murder. S.I. Sharif Ahmad had informed crime team and senior police officials and called the private photographer who took nine photographs of State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 33/55 dead body as well as scene of crime vide mark X1 to X9.
113.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that S.I. Sharif Ahmad had prepared a rukka Ex.PW16/A on the basis of DD No.2A Ex.PW16/B as at that time no eyewitness of incident had met him there and he sent Ct. Khubi Ram at about 10:20 a.m. along with rukka to police station for registration of FIR for offence u/s 302 IPC. On the basis of the same, FIR Ex.PW16/C u/s 302 IPC was registered.
114.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that inspector Krishan Lal along with other police officials had reached at the spot and he inspected the dead body. S.I. E.S. Yadav also reached at the spot and he inspected the dead body there and he advised to lift the articles lying nearby the dead body and to get the postmortem of dead body conducted and prepared SOC report vide Ex.PW15/A.
115.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that S.I. Sharif Ahmad had lifted one piece of stone having blood stains, one jeans having blood stains, three belts besides blood smeared earth and earth control from nearby the dead body and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. S.I. Sharif Ahmad had also lifted one piece of stone having blood stains, blood smeared earth control from some distance ahead of the spot and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. S.I. Sharif Ahmad had also lifted the pieces of bricks having blood stains, one wooden piece having blood stains, blood smeared earth and earth control from some distance ahead of the spot and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 34/55
116.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that I.O. had recorded statement of PWs Manoj @ Mandola and Bobby vide Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B respectively.
117.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that PW Heera Lal, father of deceased along with Rakesh Kumar had identified the dead body of deceased Sanjiv and to this effect their statements vide Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW21/C were recorded.
118.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that I.O. had filled up inquest form Ex.PW21/D and whatsoever, he had noticed upon the dead body same was mentioned therein. I.O. had also filled up request for postmortem examination Ex.PW21/E and aforesaid inquest papers along with copy of FIR, Ex.PW21/F, copy of DD entry no.4A, Ex.PW21/G were sent to postmortem conducting doctor.
119.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that doctor Sumit Tellewar had conducted the postmortem vide P.M. report, Ex.PW20/A and after postmortem dead body was released to its legal heirs against receipt for cremation. Ct. Khubi Ram had delivered sealed viscera box, sealed parcel of clothes of deceased, sealed envelope containing blood gauze of deceased along with sample seal to I.O. which he had received from doctors and I.O. had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D. State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 35/55
120.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that I.O. had constituted raiding party comprising of himself, S.I. Naval Singh, Ct. Adesh, Ct. Narender, PWs Manoj @ Mandola and Bobby etc. and they reached at Nandgram, Ghaziabad, U.P. by a private vehicle and both these eyewitness pointed out a flat at first floor in Nandgram, Ghaziabad, U.P. and door of that flat was knocked by I.O. and they went inside and found nine accused persons, namely, Umesh, Neeraj, Manoj, Sonu @ Muchhmunda, Rajiv and Kanhaiya (facing trial) and Kaka, Golu, Maskoor (juvenile). I.O. had arrested them one by one after interrogation after identifying them by PWs - Manoj @ Mandola and Bobby.
121.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that I.O. had recorded disclosure statement of accused persons vide Ex.PW21/H of accused Neeraj, Ex.PW21/I of accused Rajiv, Ex.PW21/J of accused Sonu @ Muchhmunda, Ex.PW21/K of accused Manoj, Ex.PW21/L of accused Kanhaiya and Ex.PW21/M of accused Umesh.
122.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that during the course of investigation, accused Manoj and Umesh had got recovered swords from his room/flat and I.O. had prepared sketches of the sword vide Ex.PW6/G and Ex.PW6/H respectively and I.O. had seized aforesaid swords with their covers vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/J and Ex.PW6/J1 respectively after taking measurements, converting into two separate parcels and sealing with the seal of SA.
123.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that I.O. had also prepared arrest State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 36/55 memo of accused Neeraj, Ex.PW6/A and personal search memo Ex.PW21/N, arrest memo of accused Rajiv Ex.PW6/B and personal search memo Ex.PW3/E, arrest memo of accused Sonu @ Muchhmunda Ex.PW6/C and personal search memo Ex.PW3/A, arrest memo of accused Manoj Ex.PW6/D and personal search memo Ex.PW3/B, arrest memo of accused Kanhaiya Ex.PW6/E and personal search memo Ex.PW3/C. I.O. had correctly identified all the accused persons present in court.
124.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that in pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused Rajiv had got recovered TSR bearing reg. no. DL1RK5121 from the road, in front of flat and it was seized by the I.O. vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A.
125.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that during the course of investigation, on 17.01.2008, I.O. had again recorded disclosure statement of accused Neeraj vide Ex.PW21/O.
126.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that during the course of investigation, in the month of Feb.2008, I.O. had sent about 17 sealed parcels containing exhibits of this case, sample sealed, forwarding letter to CFSL, Kolkata for analysis through Ct. Ram Pal vide RC.
127.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that I.O. had collected nine photographs from the photo section of District Crime Unit, vide Ex.PW21/P1 to State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 37/55 Ex.PW21/P9 respectively. I.O. had also collected copy of DD Nos.13A Ex.PW21/Q, 7A Ex.PW21/R, 2A Ex.PW21/S, 10A Ex.PW21/T, copy of newspaper having publication of dead body Mark Z.
128.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that I.O. has proved seizure memo pertaining to search of deceased vide Ex.PW21/U and request for preservation of dead body vide Ex.PW21/V on behalf of S.I. Sharif Ahmad.
129.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that TSR was released on superdari in favour of one Rishipal vide superdarinama Ex.PW21/X.
130.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that during the course of investigation, I.O. had collected CFSL report dated 04.07.2011, Ex.PW21/Y and other CFSL report dated 24.02.2009 Ex.PW21/Z which opined that on the basis of physical examination of the exhibits 8, 13 and 16 the exhibit8 (soil sample) has been found to be similar to the exhibit13 (soil sample) and 16 (soil sample).
131.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that I.O. had correctly identified the swords with cover which had been recovered at the instance of accused Umesh and Manoj vide Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 respectively. I.O. had also correctly identified TSR bearing reg. no. DL1RK5121, vide Ex.P10 which had been recovered at the instance of accused Rajiv from Nandgram, Ghaziabad, U.P.
132.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that PW20 Dr. Sumit Tellewar has State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 38/55 proved the postmortem report of deceased vide Ex.20/A and opined cause of death in this case shock as a result of antemortem head injury and multiple contusions present over the body produced by blunt force impact. Injury Nos. 6 and 7 as mentioned in the postmortem report are sufficient to cause death individually and injury Nos. 1 to 11, 16 to 22 and 28 to 32 are sufficient to cause death collectively in ordinary course of nature.
133.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that PW10 SI Mukesh Kumar Jain, Draughtsman has prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW10/A.
134.Before reaching at any conclusion let the relevant sections i.e. 302 IPC and 34 IPC be reproduced which are as under : Section - 302 IPC "302 Punishment for murder - Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or (Imprisonment for life), and shall also be liable to fine."
Sec.34 IPC "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
135.After hearing arguments and careful perusal of record, observations, preceding discussions and testimonies, it is clear that FIR Ex.PW16/C u/s 302 IPC of present case was got registered by SI Sharif Ahmad on the basis of DD entry No.2A Ex.PW16/B. State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 39/55
136.It is also established that case of prosecution relied on two material witnesses i.e. PW1 Manoj @ Mandola and PW3 Bobby. It is pertinent to mention here that PW Bobby is witness of going to Bhairon Mandir along with deceased and PW Manoj @ Mandola in a TSR and as per this witness he had left Bhairon Mandir after quarrel with Sanjiv (deceased) by some boys and he reached to his house by some other TSR, hence he is not the witness of incident.
137.PW1 Manoj @ Mandola who is the eyewitness of the present incident. This witness by other TSR had also chased the TSR in which all the accused persons were taking the deceased to Shastri Park. PW Manoj @ Mandola in his testimony had specifically named all the accused persons involved and responsible in the murder of deceased Sanjeev.
138.PW Manoj @ Mandola has categorically deposed in his testimony that accused persons had taken deceased Sanjeev to Shastri Park by TSR where Aakash and Golu took out their belts and started beating Sanjeev with the same and accused persons namely Neeraj, Kanhiya and Umesh picked the bricks and dandas from there and started beating deceased Sanjeev with the same and accused Kanhaiya had given danda blows on the head of deceased Sanjeev (Sandeep) and accused persons had also hit the blows of bricks on the neck of deceased Sanjeev and when Sanjeev became unconscious, accused persons started urinating upon his face and thereafter, ran away from there. This witness had also stated that police had also given him beatings at police station as suspect. Inspite, this PW1 has brought real fact before the court ,Hence, no further explanation was required to this effect. State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 40/55
139.Since PW Bobby has been declared hostile by ld. APP for the State as he has not supported the case of prosecution. Hence, now the case rest upon the testimony of PW Manoj @ Mandola.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE:
140.As per postmortem report Ex.PW20/A deceased had sustained as many as 39 injuries on his person and injury No. 6 which is lacerated would measuring 5cm x 1 cm x bone deep present obliquely over the left side of forehead 1.3 cm away from midline and lower end is 0.2 cm above mid of left eye brow with fracture of underneath frontal bone and injury No.7 which is lacerated wound measuring 3 cm x 0.3cm x bone deep present around the lateral canthus of left eye extending on to the left eye brow with fracture of underneath orbital bone, are sufficient to cause death individually and injury Nos. 1 to 11, 16 to 22 and 28 to 32 are sufficient to cause death collectively in ordinary course of nature.
141.Dr. Sumit Tellwar examined as PW20 who has conducted postmortem in his testimony corroborate the ocular versions of events as has been given by the eyewitness PW Manoj from it can be understood that there were 39 injuries on the person of deceased and it is also stated that deceased fallen down and then surrounded by accused persons who had beaten him repeatedly and mercilessly with dandas, brick and belts. Thus there is no incompatibility in the oral evidence or in the medical evidence on record.
State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 41/55
142.Further, statement of PW Manoj @ Mandola is corroborated with postmortem report wherein it is opined that cause of death of deceased in this case shock as a result of antemortem head injury and multiple contusions present over the body produced by blunt force impact.
143.PW Manoj @ Mandola had stated in his testimony that he was known to all the accused persons being the member of pickpocketers gang operated by accused Umesh and deceased. Hence, identity of accused persons is not disputed. As into the fact of present case, statement made by PW Manoj @ Mandola without any pressure and same does not suffers from any infirmity.
144.Since in the present case there is one witness supporting the entire case of prosecution is PW Mandola. Since it is settled legal preposition that while appreciating the evidence the court has to take into consideration creditability and truthfullness of witness.
145.Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Takdir Shamshuddin Sheikh V. State of Gujarat and others ,AIR 2012 Supreme Court 37", wherein it has been held that :
"It is settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions / omissions / improvements / embellishments etc. had been of such magnitude may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvement on trivial State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 42/55 matters without effect the case of prosecution should not be made the court to reject the evidence in its entirety."
146.Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same case has also held that :
"Court can and may act on the testimony of single witness provided he is wholly reliable there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on a sole testimony of single witness that is logic of section 134 of evidence Act 1872, but if there are doubts about the testimonies, the court will insist of corroboration. In fact it is not the number, the quantity but the quality that is material."
147.Since in the present case, PW Mandola is the sole eyewitness of the incident who has narrated categorically the facts of incident which had happened in the intervening night of 12th/13th January'2008 and accused persons arrested on 16.01.2008 from Nandgram, Ghaziabad, U.P. It has also come in his testimony that accused persons had ran away after committing crime from the spot. Even, there is no recovery of weapon either from the possession of accused persons or at their instance used in commission of crime. It is also not disputed that all the accused persons had committed crime with bricks, belts, dandas and blades.
148.Hon'ble High of Delhi in case titled as 'Karamvir V/S State 2012VII AD (DELHI) 262' has held that;
"Accused were nursing grudge against the victim in respect of possession of plot. Plea that witnesses were unable to identify assailants due to total dark at the spot, forceless. Absence of recovery of weapons not fatal because after occurrence assailants had fled spot. Accused did not claim State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 43/55 and prove their presence at any other other specific place at the time occurrence."
149.Since there are contradiction in the testimony and statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. of PW1 and definitely this witness has made some improvements but those are of not of such a nature which may affect the merit of the case or credibility of this witness.
150.Hon'ble Supreme Court in case title as 'A. Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka 2011 VII AD (S.C.) 37' has held:
" The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence, " Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility". Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statements made by the witness earlier. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions". The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. materially affect the trial of core of the prosecution case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.
151.Even PW1 Manoj @ Mandola had denied to the suggestion put by ld. APP for the State that he had accompanied the police when police had seized TSR bearing No. DL1RK5121 and he further denied to the suggestion that he had accompanied the police at the time of arrest of accused persons namely Neeraj, Rajeev, Sonu, Manoj State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 44/55 s/o Nathu Ram, Kanhaiya and Umesh. Since he has not disputed his signatures on arrest memos of accused persons, seizure memo of TSR Ex.PW1/A and pointing out memo Ex.PW1/B. It is also not disputed that I.O. had arrested accused persons from their room in a flat in Nandgram, Ghaziabad, U.P. and TSR was also seized from there at the instance of accused Rajiv. Since this witness had assigned role of accused persons and admitted his signatures on aforesaid memos, it can be presumed that he is hiding the contents of aforesaid memo but inferences can be drawn that he had accompanied police officials when the police had seized the TSR and prepared pointing out memo. If he had not gone there then his signature could not have come on aforesaid seizure memo. This witness had denied to the suggestion put by ld. defence counsel for accused Sonu that he had signed some blank papers at police station. This witness had further denied the suggestions that accused persons had not caused any injury to the deceased and he has falsely implicated the accused persons due to enmity with them. This witness had further denied the suggestion that the had named the accused persons at the instigation of the police and to save him from false accusation threatened by the police. This witness had further denied to suggestion that he was neither present at Bhairon Mandir or at place of occurrence.
152.Now question arise why this witness did not discuss the incident either to the police or to anyone else. Answer to this question is that nature of an individual may be different to react, someone react immediately and someone react after sometime. Mere saying why this witness had remained mum is not relevant. Since this witness had described each and every fact of the incident. State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 45/55
153.In his cross examination by Amicus Curaie for accused Umesh, Neeraj, Kanhaiya and Manoj, PW Manoj has stated that he had informed at the house of deceased during the incident. This witness cannot be treated as interested witness because he had been known to accused and deceased and had been consistent with the course of events.
154.Hon'ble Supreme court in case Alagudpandi @ Alagupandian v. State of Tamil Nadeu, AIR 2012, SC 2405, where it has been held that :
"Where the statement of eyewitness found to be reliable, trustworthy, consistent with the course of events conviction can be based on her sole testimony. There is no bar in basing conviction of an accused on testimony of solitary witness as long as said witness was reliable and trustworthy. A witness who was reative of deceased or victim of a crime could not be characterized as interested. Term "interested" postulated that witness had some direct or indirect interest in having accused somehow or other convicted due to animous or for some other oblique motive."
155.As far as presence of PW Mandola near the place of occurrence concerned which he had narrated, ld. counsel for accused persons had not been able to refer any evidence that could create a reasonable doubt of presence of PW1 at the place of occurrence. In fact, this witness had denied to the suggestions that he was not present near the place of occurrence. After close scrutiny of this witness nothing adverse material could come on record in cross examination of this witness. State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 46/55
156.Hence, arguments of counsel for accused persons that PW Manoj @ Mandola is not reliable being interested witness cannot be relied. Furthermore, prosecution did not examine any independent witness therefore, prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Since the society in which we lives generally people wants to save their own life before jumping into any matter and they do not intervene in continuing quarrel and comes after ends of the matter. As into the facts of present case PW Manoj @ Mandola had stated that accused persons were also giving injuries to the deceased with the blades, dandas, bricks and belts, hence, he did not jump for intervention into the matter. There is no bar in law in examining family members or any other persons as a witness. When a statement of witness who are relative or are parties known to the affected party is credible, reliable and trustworthy they are admissible accordance with law and corroborated by other witnesses or documentary evidence of prosecution. Hence, there is no reason for this court to reject the testimony of PW Mandola because as event occurred that was a natural to which only eyewitness PW Mandola could give the complete version of the incident.
157.Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150," wherein it has held that :
"There is no bar in law in examining family members , or any other person, as witnesses. More often than not, in such cases involving members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. Those State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 47/55 alone are the people who take the risk of sustaining injuries by jumping into such a quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis. Besides, when the statement of witnesses, who are relatives, or are parties known to the affected party, is credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible in accordance with the law and corroborated by other witnesses or documentary evidence of the prosecution, there would hardly be any reason for the Court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that witness was family member or interested witness or person known to the affected party. There can be cases where it would be but inevitable to examine such witnesses, because as the events occurred, they were the natural or the only eye witness available to give the complete version of the incident."
158.All the accused persons in their defence in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. has claimed that they had been lifted from their houses but none of accused could placed any document on record which may shows that if police had lifted them forcibly, their family members or friends had made any complaint to any authority, neither accused persons had claimed and proved their presence at any other specific place at the time of occurrence. In these circumstance, it cannot be presumed that accused persons were lifted forcibly from their houses. Once it is proved that the accused caused injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the onus shifts onto the accused to establish on balance of probable circumstances which would take his case out of the clause 'Thirdly' and bring within any of the exception under sec. 300. Since into the fact of present case accused persons u/s 313 Cr. P.C. could not brought any fact on record which may ousted their case from clause 'Thirdly' of section 300 IPC and bring within any of the exception of section 300 IPC.
State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 48/55
159.From the facts, circumstances and statement of PWs, it is clear that all the accused persons with their common intention had given beatings to deceased Sanjeev. PW Manoj @ Mandola in his testimony had named all the accused persons and assigned role to each and every accused in commission of crime/murder. All the accused persons were under their common intention to kill deceased Sanjeev if they had not intention to kill they would have not beaten him mercilessly. As per testimony of PW Mandola, all the accused persons had been beating deceased while taking him in TSR in Shastri Park. During the course of beating when belt of accused Akash (P.O.) along with Golu (Juvenile) broken he beaten him by removing the belt of deceased. Thereupon, accused Kanhaiya had inflicted 6 - 7 danda blows upon the head of deceased. Further, accused persons namely Neeraj, Kanhaiya and Umesh caused injury on the face and head of deceased by bricks and dandas and as per testimony of PW all the accused persons had given beating to deceased. Accused persons were well with the knowledge that Sanjeev would die after merciless beatings. Hence, with their common intention and knowledge all the accused persons executed commission of crime. This fact also shows that the deceased was in the company of accused persons. This is a case where on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of accused having been last seen with deceased and fact of death has been brought by PW1.
160.Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Pulicherla v. State, AIR 2006 SC 3010' wherein guided intention how to be inferred :
State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 49/55
(i) nature of the weapon used;
(ii) weapon was carried or picked up from the spot;
(iii) injury was aimed at any vital part of the body;
(iv) amount of force employed, in causing injury;
(v) whether act was in course of sudden quarrel/or sudden fight;
(vi) whether there was premeditation;
(vii) prior enemity, if any;
(viii) any grave or sudden provocation;
(ix) whether there was heat of passion;
(x) person inflicting injury, if had taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner;
(xi) whether single blow or several blows were inflicted.
161.Since the case of prosecution is that accused persons were having enmity with the deceased as he had beaten gang leader Umesh and other members of pickpocketer gang. Into the fact of case of prosecution comparison of u/s 299 and 300 IPC required. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Judgment Pulia Tudu v. State (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 221:
Section 299 Section 300 A person commits culpable homicide if Subject to certain exceptions culpable the act by which the death is caused is homicide is murder if the act by which done the death is caused is done State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 50/55 Intention
(a) With the intention of causing (1) With the intention of causing death death.
(b) With the intention of causing (2) With the intention of causing such such bodily injury as is likely to bodily injury as the offender knows cause death to be likely to cause death of the person to whom harm is caused.
(3) With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or Knowledge
(c) With the knowledge that the act is (4) With the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death of such injury as is mentioned above.
162.A comparison of (a) and (1) indicates that where there is an intention to kill, the offence is always murder. (c) and (4) are intended to apply to cases in which there is no intention to cause death or bodily injury; whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder depends upon the degree of risk to human life. If death is a likely result, it is culpable homicide. If it is the most probable result, it is murder. The essence of (2) is found in the words known to be likely to cause the death of State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 51/55 the person to whom harm is caused. The offence is murder if the offender knows that the particular person injured is likely, either from peculiarity of consideration, or immature age, or other special circumstances, to be killed by an injury which would not ordinarily cause death. Finally on comparison of (b) and (3), it would appear that the offence is culpable homicide if the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is likely to cause death; it is murder if such injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine but appreciable.
163.In terms of clause 'thirdly' of section 300 IPC when the accused persons caused the death of victim on the spot and injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then the accused must be deemed to have intention to cause death.
164.Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as AIR 1979 SC 1224 has held that :
"It is only to be proved that the intended injury was as a matter of fact sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature".
165.Since into the fact of present case doctor had opined that injury No.6 and 7 sustained on the person of deceased is sufficient to cause death individually and injury No.1 to 11, 16 to 22 and 28 to 32 are sufficient to cause death collectively in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were on vital parts of body of deceased. Since it has also come on record that accused persons had actively participated while committing the crime, hence, their involvement in the present case is not disputed and injuries caused by them are proved which shows their intention and knowledge. Postmortem report also reflect that deceased was beaten by all the State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 52/55 accused persons with their common intention so that he had sustained 39 injuries on his person.
166.Moreover, it is established that all the accused persons had taken the deceased in a TSR from Bhairon Mandir while beating him to Shastri Park and on reaching there they had also given merciless beatings to him with belts, danda and bricks on his head and other parts of body which shows knowledge and intention of accused persons. No separate role can be attributed to any of the accused, therefore, whatever the offence committed by them is deemed to be committed by them in furtherance of their common intention. Further, it is the case of prosecution that accused persons were having enmity with the deceased as they were the members of pickpocketers gang and deceased had given beating to the members of their gang, so motive behind the the murder of deceased by accused persons established. Hence, ingredients of section 300 'firstly' and 'thirdly' of section 300 IPC have been fulfilled by establishing the motive, intention and knowledge of the accused persons. Nature and conduct under which accused persons had given beatings to deceased is covered in any of exceptions of Section 300 IPC.
167.Since testimony of PW1 Manoj @ Mandola, eyewitness has been scrutinized carefully and this court found no infirmity in the statement of PW Manoj @ Mandola. Though, there is variation in the version of PW1 who is the eyewitness of incident and between the PW3 who is the witness of going along with PW1 and deceased to Bhairon Mandir. Even then testimony of PW1 is reliable. If, it would State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 53/55 have been the intention of PW1 to depose falsely then he would have straight way deposed that police had made him witness forcibly and that he had not made any statement pertaining to the facts of present case. Further, he would have intention to make false statement he would not have denied suggestion that he had falsely implicated the accused persons due to enmity with them. Further, this witness had denied the suggestion that he had named the accused persons int he present case at the instigation of police in order to save himself from false accusation. Hence, PW1 is more reliable and truthful. Benefit of any technical defect, if any, can not be given to the accused persons unless affect the case of prosecution.
168.Ld. counsel for accused persons has commonly supplied the copy of following judgments on the day of judgment upon which they are relying their case :
(i) Kamal v. The State, 2012 (3) JCC 1537;
(ii) Murari v. State, 2011 (2) JCC 1223;
(iii) The State of Rajasthan v. Shri Teja Singh & Others, 2001 (1) JCC (SC)
147;
(iv) Union of India & Others v. Muneesh Suneja, 2001 (1) JCC (SC) 150;
(v) State of Rajasthan v. Shri Chiranjilal, 2002 (1) C.C. Cases (SC) 138;
(vi) State of U.P. v. Bhagwant & Others, 2003 (2) JCC 816.
169.Copy of the aforesaid judgments perused. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, judgments supplied by ld. counsel for accused persons, at this stage, it is revealed that aforesaid facts of judgments are not applicable to the fact of present case.
State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 54/55
170.After perusal of records, taking into consideration arguments, facts and circumstances available on record, at this stage, this court comes to the conclusion that testimony of PW Manoj @ Mandola is found to be reliable and truthful as it has also explained conduct of accused persons and involvement of accused persons has been explained and same is reliable and cannot be discarded. It has also been established that all the accused persons had murdered Sanjeev (deceased) in extreme brutal manner. Accordingly, case of prosecution inspires the confidence of this court as prosecution has proved the guilt of accused persons namely Umesh, Neeraj, Kanhaiya, Manoj, Sonu @ Muchmunda and Rajeev beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this court held guilty accused persons namely Umesh, Neeraj, Kanhaiya, Manoj, Sonu @ Muchmunda and Rajeev for charges u/s 302/34 IPC. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23.11.2012 (RAMESH KUMARII) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE01/NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 55/55 IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 0I : North East / KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 13/2008 State Vs. 1. Umesh S/o Laxman R/o 66B, Gali No.7, 1st Pusta, New Usmanpur, Delhi.
2. Neeraj S/o Laxman R/o 66B, Gali No.7, 1st Pusta, New Usmanpur, Delhi.
3. Kanhaiya S/o Onkar R/o E59, Gali No.5, Hanuman Gali, Jagjeet Nagar, New Usmanpur, Delhi.
4. Manoj S/o Nathu Ram, R/o C360/8, Gali No.11, 1st Pusta, New Usmanpur, Delhi.
5. Sonu @ Muchmunda S/o Ramprasad R/o G315, Gali No.8, Jagjeet Nagar, Delhi.
6. Rajeev S/o Rishi Pal, R/o Khanna Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P. Police Station New Usmanpur Convicted Under Section 302/34 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE:
30.11.2012 Pre: Ld. APP for the State.
All convicts produced from JC.
Sh. R.K. Kochar, ld. counsel for convict Neeraj and Umesh. Sh. Ashok Kumar, ld. counsel for accused Rajiv.
Sh. K.N. Sharma, ld. Legal Aid Counsel for convict Manoj, Kanhaiya and Sonu @ Muchhmunda.
State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 56/55 Arguments heard on point of sentence. Ld. APP for the State submits that since prosecution has proved its case against convicts namely Umesh, Neeraj, Kanhaiya, Manoj, Sonu @ Muchmunda and Rajiv u/s 302/34 IPC. He further submits that since all the convicts, who are the pickpcketers, had murdered the deceased in a brutal manner without showing any mercy and he prayed that convicts be awarded severe punishment which should be a massage to society.
On the other hand ld. counsel for convicts prayed commonly that convicts are facing trial regularly all the convicts are of young age and that convicts belong to poor families and they are having responsibility of their families. With these submissions Ld. counsel for convicts have requested for lenient view.
Arguments heard. Record perused. From perusal of record, it is revealed that since it has been proved that all the accused persons had murdered Sanjeev (deceased) in extreme brutal manner by beating him with belts, dandas, bricks etc. The manner in which convicts had acted and their conduct when they had taken deceased while beating him in a TSR from Bhairon Mandir to Shastri Park and after reaching at Shastri Park all the convicts had beaten him mercilessly with belts, dandas, bricks etc. and murdered deceased and thereafter, pissed upon the face of deceased thereafter ran away from the spot along their weapons. Acts done by convicts persons shows that convicts are dangerous persons who are harmful for the society and there are no possibility of their improvements.
Considering facts and circumstances of this and profile of convicts to my view ends of justice will be met if the convicts namely Umesh, Neeraj, Kanhaiya, Manoj, Sonu @ Muchmunda and Rajeev are sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/ each in default R.I. for one year each. State v. Umesh and others SC No.36/2008 57/55 Sentence is awarded accordingly.
Copies of the judgment along with sentence order be given to the convicts forthwith free of cost.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON THIS 30.11.2012 (RAMESH KUMARII)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE01/NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
State v. Umesh and others
SC No.36/2008 58/55