Delhi District Court
State vs Amar Nath Ors (3) on 19 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 6820/2016
CNR No. DLST010002872013
State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors.
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Ambedkar Nagar
19.03.2024
SC No. : 6820/2016
CNR No. : DLST010002872013
Date of commission of offence : In the intervening night
of 30.06.2008-01.07.2008
Date of institution of the case : 03.09.2013
Name of the complainant : Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Late
Sh. Giriraj, R/o Village
Lalsar Dhaniladya, PS
Garmohra, Tehsil Nandohi,
District Karoli, Rajasthan.
Name of accused persons and : 1. Amar Nath S/o Sh.
addresses Ranjita, R/o:- Village
Lalsar Dhani Ladya,
Police Station- Garmora,
Tehsil Nandohi, District
Karauli, Rajasthan.
2. Sawada S/o Sh
Ramsahaya, R/o:- Village
Lalsar Dhani Ladya,
Police Station- Garmora,
Tehsil Nandohi, District
Karauli, Rajasthan.
3. Taufan Singh S/o Sh.
Ranjita, R/o:- Village
Lalsar Dhani Ladya,
Police Station- Garmora,
Tehsil Nandohi, District
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.03.19
PANDEY 16:24:48 +0530
SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 1
Karauli, Rajasthan
(expired during trial).
Offence complained of : U/s 302/34 IPC
Offence for which accused U/s 302/34 IPC
persons were charged
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 19.03.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case as per case of prosecution is that in the intervening night of 30.06.2008/01.07.2008 at unknown time, at the roof of House No. D-41, J.J Colony, Khanpur, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi, all the three accused persons namely Amar Nath, Taufaan Singh and Sawada in furtherance of their common intention had first hit the deceased Giri Raj with blunt object and when he fell down, they threw him from the roof of the first floor of the said house and due to the injuries received in the incident, he expired on 10.07.2008.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.07.2008, DD No. 11-B PS Ambedkar Nagar was recorded regarding the admission of injured Giri Raj vide MLC No. 126518/2008 by his brother Madha Singh with the alleged history of falling of the victim from the stairs of the house. When the inquiry officer went to Trauma Center, AIIMS Hospital to verify the same, but the injured could not be found in the hospital and no record of MLC of the injured was found to be available in the hospital. It is Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2024.03.19 PANDEY SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 2 16:25:26 +0530 alleged that Inquiry Officer further went to the address as mentioned i.e. D-88, J.J Colony, Khanpur but the said address was also found to be locked. It is alleged that the inquiry of the said DD was kept pending. It is alleged that another DD no. 43- A dated 10.07.2008 regarding the death of the injured Giri Raj at AIIMS Trauma Hospital was received and the same was also marked to HC Surajmal Inquiry Officer. It is further alleged that at the hospital the relatives of the deceased were found present and the inquiry officer had recorded the statement of Ramesh (brother of the deceased), Dev Karan (owner of the place of incident), Madhav Singh (relative of the deceased). It is alleged that their statement, these witnesses stated that deceased Giri Raj had fell from the roof of the house and Madhav Singh got him admitted at AIIMS Trauma Center. It is alleged that as per the inquiry of HC Surajmal, none of these persons stated about any allegation against any person. It is alleged that the inquest proceeding of the deceased was conducted and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased and their statement were also recorded.
3. It is alleged further that FIR dated 23.01.2011 was registered on the complaint filed U/s 156(3) Cr.PC which was disposed off on 07.01.2011 by the Court of the then Ld. MM.
4. After registration of FIR, the investigation in the present case was taken up and statement of the witnesses were recorded and other material evidence collected and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR accused persons namely Amar Nath, Taufaan Singh and Sawada KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:26:21 +0530 (now deceased) regarding commission of offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC.
SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 3
5. Vide order dt. 17.01.2014, accused persons namely Amar Nath, Taufaan Singh and Sawada were charged for offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. In order to prove the charges of offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC, prosecution has examined total eighteen witnesses namely PW-1 HC Surajmal, PW-2 SI Baldev Raj, PW-3 Ramesh, PW-4 Smt Shanti, PW-5 Sh. Dev Karan, PW-6 Sh. Goban Sahai, PW-7 Sh. Ram Roop, PW-8 Dr. Arvind Kumar, PW-9 Sh Vicky, PW-10 Sh Raghubir Patel, PW-11Sh. Raghubir Singh, PW-12 Sh. Madhav Singh, PW13 Sh. Kamal, PW14 SI Om Prakash, PW15 Inspector P.K Jha, PW16 Sh. S.K Sharma, ACP, Eastern Range, PCR, New Delhi, PW17 Sh. Rajender Singh, Record Clerk, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi and PW18 Dr. Arun Senior Resident, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi.
POLICE WITNESSES
7. PW-1 HC Surajmal :- He deposed that on 01.07.2008, at about 10.00 am, he received DD No.11-B Ex.PW1/A from Duty Officer that one Giriraj has been admitted in AIIMS Trauma Centre by his brother Madho Singh as Giriraj had sustained injury at about 06.55 am due to fall from staircase. He proved the copy of DD no. 11-B as Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Bachhu Singh reached AIIMS Trauma Center, where he found that there was no MLC in the name of Giriraj and he had also search Giriraj in the Causality Emergency/OPD of the hospital. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
7.1 He further deposed that he also enquired from Duty PANDEY 2024.03.19 16:26:53 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 4 Constable of Hospital, but he could not met with Giriraj. He deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Bachhu Singh reached at D-88, J.J Colony, Khanpur as per the address which was mentioned in DD no. 11-B, where he found the said house was locked. He deposed that he also made enquiries from neighbourhood about the incident but no one had told about the said incident, so they returned back to the police station and DD No. 11-B was kept pending.
7.2 He deposed that on 02.07.2008, 03.07.2008, 04.07.2008, 07.07.2008 & 08.07.2008, he continously went to AIIMS Trauma Centre but despite his efforts, he could not found any MLC in the name of Giriraj and there was no information of his admission in the hospital.
7.3 He further deposed that on 13.07.2008, he had received DD No. 43-A from Duty Officer which was lodged by Duty Constable George Kutti from AIIMS Trauma Centre, which was pertaining to the death of Giriraj S/o Ghasi Ram, who was admitted as per DD No. 11-B dated 01.07.2008 in AIIMS Trauma Centre. He proved the said DD no. 43-A as Ex. PW1/B. He deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Bhram Singh had reached at AIIMS Trauma Centre and there he met with Duty Constable.
7.4 He further deposed that even on that day, doctor had not prepared MLC of Giriraj and on his request, Duty Constable got prepared the MLC from the doctor. He deposed that after obtaining MLC, he went to AIIMS mortuary where deceased's brother Ramesh and his relative Dev Karan and Madhav Singh Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
met them and he recorded their statements Ex.PW1/C to PANDEY 2024.03.19 16:27:17 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 5 Ex.PW1/E respectively.
7.5 He deposed that he also got identified dead body from Ramesh and Madhav Singh and also recorded the statement of Ramesh as Ex.PW1/F and of Madhav Singh as Ex.PW1/G. 7.6 He further deposed that after postmortem, dead body of deceased Giriraj was handed over to his brother and relatives and the delivery memo as Ex. PW1/H was prepared. He further deposed that thereafter, he returned back to police station and narrated the facts to the SHO.
7.7 He deposed that on 09.08.2008, Ramesh brother of deceased came in the police station and he raised suspicion in the murder of his brother on Amar Nath, Tufan Singh and Sawada and after 3-4 days, he also called Ram Khiladi and Madhav Singh, who were relatives of the deceased and he also made enquiry from them about the murder of Giriraj and he also made enquiry from the neighbourhood of H.No. D-88, J.J Colony, Khanpur.
7.8 He deposed that on 14.05.2016, he filed reply of the complaint U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C which was filed by Smt. Shanti Devi i.e. wife of deceased Giriraj, against accused Amar Singh & Ors. He proved the same as Ex. PW1/I & J.
7.9 During cross examination made on behalf of the accused persons, he replied that in his reply Ex. PW1/1 U/s 156(3) Cr.PC, he had mentioned that Ramesh brother of deceased, cousin Madhav Singh and Dev Karan had given the statement that they had no suspicion on any person about the causing of injury on the deceased. He proved the statement of Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Ramesh as Ex. PW1/C, Dev Karan as Ex. PW1/D and Madhav PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:27:29 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 6 Singh as Ex. PW1/E. 7.10 He replied that as per the statement of member of Panchayat and the villagers, the complainant party was asking for Rs. 3 Lakhs from the accused party in the Panchayat meeting. He replied that he cannot say if on the refusal of payment of the above-said Rs. 3 Lakhs by the accused persons, the complainant party had filed the complaint and the application for registration of FIR.
7.11 He replied that he made inquiries from neighbours but none of them gave any statement to him regarding the incident. He further replied that the brother of deceased namely Madhav Singh had disclosed to him that deceased Giriraj had fallen from the roof.
7.12 He replied that in his reply dated 14.05.2010 Ex.
PW1/J, no suspicion was raised by any person regarding the death of deceased. He replied that he had not gone to the native place of the accused persons or of complainant. He further replied that the inquiry of complaint and application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC was marked to him and he made proper inquiry in this regard.
7.13 He replied that he could not record the statement of deceased Giriraj as there was no MLC at the first instance and later on, he expired and the DD was received after his death on 11.07.2008.
7.14 He further replied that from 01.07.2008 to 08.07.2008, he was not aware as to in which hospital, Ward, the deceased was admitted. He voluntarily replied that the DD was Digitally signed by received from AIIMS Trauma Centre and he made inquiries there RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 7 16:27:54 +0530 only about the injured. He replied that till he remained IO of the case, nothing incriminating had come on record against the accused persons.
8. PW-2 SI Baldev Raj:- He deposed that on 21.01.2011, he was posted at police station Ambedkar Nagar and was working as Duty Officer from 04.00 pm to 12.00 midnight. He deposed that on that evening at 06.30 pm, he received a complaint through SI Om Prakash in the police station itself and on the basis of which he got recorded FIR bearing no. 29/2011 U/s 304/34 IPC. He proved the copy of the same as Ex. PW2/A. 8.1 He deposed that he also made endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW2/B. He deposed that he returned back the copy of FIR alongwith original rukka to SI Om Prakash for investigation.
8.2 The said witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
9. PW-14 SI Om Prakash:- He deposed that on 23.01.2011, he was posted at police station Ambedkar Nagar. He deposed that after registration of FIR in this case, the investigation was assigned to him by the SHO. He deposed that he tried to contact the complainant and other eye witnesses of this case but could not met them as they were residing outside Delhi somewhere in Rajasthan and the witnesses who were residing in Delhi also could not met him.
9.1 He deposed that on 28.05.2011, two persons namely Madhav and Kamal came to the police station and claimed themselves to be the witness of this case. He deposed that he made inquiries from them and facts disclosed by them were Digitally signed by recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC. He further deposed that on 06.07.2011, RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:28:05 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 8 +0530 one more witness namely Ram Roop came to the police station.
9.2 He deposed that he made inquries from them and facts disclosed by them were recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC on 02.08.2011. He deposed that he was transferred and he handed over the case file to MHC(M).
9.3 The said witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
10. PW-15 Inspector P.K Jha:- He deposed that on 09.11.2011, he was posted at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar as Sub Inspector. He deposed that after registration of FIR, the investigation of this case was initially assigned to SI Om Prakash and later on it was assigned to him on 09.11.2011. He deposed that during the investigation, he had issued notice to Dev Karan, Samta, Tufan Singh and Amar Singh and all of them came to police station and he interrogated all of them.
10.1 He deposed that they were interrogated verbally and their disclosure statements were not recorded by him. He deposed that he only mentioned the facts in this regard in case diary. He deposed that the case file remained with him for investigation till 02.03.2012 and no other investigation was carried by him except the interrogation of the accused persons who were alleged persons at that time and were not made the accused.
10.2 The said witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
11. PW-16 Sh. S.K Sharma, ACP, Eastern Range, PCR, Digitally New Delhi:- He deposed that on 05.10.2012, he was posted as signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Inspector Investigation at police station Ambedkar Nagar and on PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:29:26 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 9 the said date, the investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He deposed that earlier it was being investigated by SI P.K Jha. He deposed that he perused the record of investigation and during investigation, he conducted local enquiry at the place of incident i.e. D-41, Khanpur. He deposed that he prepared a site plan Ex. PW16/A at the instance of PW Vicky on 14.03.2013.
11.1 He deposed that he recorded the statement of Vicky and Shalu and on 19.11.2012, he constituted a raiding party consisting of SI Sandeep Punia and Ct. Nahar Singh and reached the village of complainant Smt. Shanti Devi i.e. Lasardhani Village, District Karoli, Rajashtan.
11.2 He deposed that on reaching there, Smt. Shanti Devi produced photocopy of letter of Panchayat running into 03 pages in which accused Amar Nath, Tufan and Swada confessed about their involvement in the murder of Giri Raj. He proved the said letter as Mark PW3/X1 to X3. He deposed that he recorded the statement of Sarpanch namely Sh. Raghubir Singh, Raghubir Patel and Saudan.
11.3 He further deposed that on returning to police station, Section 304 IPC was converted into Section 302 IPC. He deposed that he tried to trace all the accused persons but all the three accused sought anticipatory bail from the Court. He further deposed that thereafter, all the three were formally arrested by him and arrest memos Ex. PW16/B, Ex. PW16/C and Ex.
PW16/D were prepared.
11.4 He deposed that he prepared chargesheet in regard to Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
the commission of offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC against the RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19
accused persons and filed it in the Court. 16:29:39
+0530
SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 10 11.5 During cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, he replied that no seizure memo was prepared by him in respect of letter Mark PW3/X1 to X3. He replied that said documents Mark PW3/X1 to X3 do not bear even his attestation with respect to receipt of said document from complainant.
11.6 He deposed that the houses of the accused and deceased were at the distance of 50-60 yards away from each other. He replied that he did not know whether the panch whose statement he recorded with respect to the said document Mark PW3/X1 to X3 were resident of the same village or some other village.
11.7 He denied the suggestion that no local enquiry was conducted by him. He denied the suggestion that no statement was made by the panch to him or that their statement was recorded by him of his own at the instance of the complainant. He denied the suggestion that Mark PW3/X1 to X3 is manipulated just to implicate the accused persons in the present case.
11.8 He replied that he had not recorded statement of Dev Karan, who had arranged the retirement party at his residence. He replied that he had recorded the statement of panch witnesses at the residence of complainant on 20.11.2012. He replied that the local police had not accompanied him at the time of recording of statement of panch witnesses.
11.9 He replied that they did not give any information to the local police for visiting the complainant's residence for the purpose of investigation. He replied that the complainant's Digitally signed residence was in Karoli district but he did not know under which by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.03.19 16:29:50 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 11 police station same was situated. He replied that they did not send the panchnama to the FSL for the examination of signature on the same. He replied that he did not record the statement of Dev Karan because his statement was already recorded by the previous IO.
11.10 He further replied that he did not record the statement of prosecution witness Ramesh as his statement was already recorded.
11.11 He replied that he had recorded the statement of witness Madhav Singh S/o Savta Ram and his statement was recorded on 20th. He replied that he did not remember the month or the year, it might be 2012. He replied that during the investigation of this case, he had recorded the statement of 6-7 public witnesses and the investigation remained with him for about six months.
11.12 He replied that the present FIR was lodged pursuant to the directions issued U/s 156(3) Cr.PC after about three years of the alleged incident. He replied that Smt. Shanti was not an educated lady and her statement was however recorded by him on 20.11.2012. He replied that the original of Panchnama was kept by Shanti who assured to bring it to Court during trial.
11.13 He replied that he did not record the evidence of any of the persons who attended the retirement party.
11.14 He replied that there is no documentary proof filed alongwith the chargesheet in order to show that he visited Rajasthan for the purpose of investigation of this case. He replied that all the accused were granted anticipatory bail in this Digitally signed by case. He replied that no disclosure statement of accused persons RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 12 16:30:00 +0530 were recorded during investigation.
11.15 He denied the suggestion that he never visited Rajasthan nor he recorded the statement of complainant or panch witnesses and prepared all false and fabricated documents in the police station itself at Delhi.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
12. PW-3 Sh. Ramesh:- He deposed that he was a farmer by profession and was illiterate. He deposed that on 01.07.2008, he received a telephone call of his relative, who informed that his brother-Giriraj had fallen from the roof in J.J Colony, Khanpur, New Delhi and he was admitted in the hospital.
12.1 He further deposed that thereafter he alongwith his parents reached Delhi in the evening and reached AIIMS Trauma Centre where he found his brother admitted. He further deposed that in the hospital, Dev Karan who is the landlord of the house, from the roof of which his brother had fallen had met him.
12.2 He deposed regarding the incident that in that night, after attending a party and having food, Giriraj was sleeping on the roof of House No. D-41. He further deposed that Dev Karan was also his relative who had celebrated his retirement party. He deposed that his brother Giriraj had expired after about 10 days of the incident, as he sustained injury on his head.
12.3 He deposed that on 11.07.2008 he had given his statement Ex. PW1/C to the police and at that time, he had not suspected on any person. He further deposed that on the same day i.e. 11.07.2008, they also received dead body of his brother Giriraj after postmortem and police recorded his identification Digitally signed by RAVINDRA statement Ex. PW1/F in this regard and he also proved the RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2024.03.19
SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 13 16:30:21
+0530
delivery memo of the dead body as Ex. PW1/H. 12.4 He further deposed that on 09.08.2008, he had given complaint in the police station Ambedkar Nagar for registration of FIR in respect of death of his brother Giriraj and in the said complaint, he had stated that on 30.06.2008, at about 11.00 pm at House No. D-41, J.J Colony ( Khanpur), Amar Singh @ Amar Nath Khilari, Savta Ram, Ramesh (S/o Gangadhar), Babu Lal and Toofan were present.
12.5 He deposed that at that time, some scuffle/quarrel had taken place between Amar Singh @ Amar Nath and Giriraj, which was pacified by Ram Khilari and aforesaid Ramesh and thereafter, Giriraj went on the roof of the said house and slept on a cot, and thereafter some hot words were exchanged between Amar Singh and Ramesh and Babu Lal and thereafter, Amar Singh, Toofan and Sawada also went on the said roof and they slept separately on the roof where Giriraj was sleeping on cot.
12.6 He further deposed that the remaining persons had gone from there and at last Ram Khilari also left from there to the house of Dev Karan on the pretext that he has to see off the other persons and thereafter Dev Karan had told to Ram Khilari that he would go on the roof of House No. D-41 for the purpose of sleeping and then Dev Karan also told to Ram Khilari to get open the bolt of the door and thereafter, Ram Khilari had gone to House No. D-41 from House No. D-88 for the purpose of getting the door opened of House No. D-41 and at that time, he raised his voice in the name of Sawada while standing on the road on which, Sawada and Amar Singh saw from the roof and thereafter Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR Ram Khilari had gone at House No. D-88 for calling Dev Karan. KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:31:13 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 14 12.7 He further deposed that when he returned back after a few minutes, he heard voice of one Siya Ram, who told that their relative had fallen from the roof and in the meantime, Giriraj was seen by Khilari and Dev Karan and it was about 01.00 am in the midnight and he was admitted in the hospital in the morning and later on, he expired on 10.07.2008 in the hospital.
12.8 He deposed that in the said complaint, he had suspected on three persons namely Toofan, Amar Singh and Sawada. He proved his complaint as Ex. PW3/A. 12.9 He deposed that in the year 2008, a Panchayat was held in their village and during panchayat, Toofan and Amar Singh had confessed their involvement in committing the murder of his brother Giriraj. He deposed that he had also handed over the photocopy of the said confession made by both the accused before the said Panchayat as mark PW3/X1 to X3.
12.10 He has produced one note book in which the said confession was written by the village Panchayat and the same was running into three pages and he has proved the same as Ex.
PW3/B-1 to B-3.
12.11 He further deposed that later on about four years, police also recorded his statement in the year 2012 U/s 161 Cr.PC in which he had stated that Dev Karan had arranged a retirement party on 30.06.2008 and also told about the presence of accused persons and other persons of their village alongwith his brother in the party and he also stated about the confession made by accused Amar Singh, Toofan and Sawada before the Digitally signed by RAVINDRA Panchayat held in their village and he also stated that all the three RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:31:24 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 15 accused persons were debarred from the society.
12.12 He correctly identified all the three accused persons during his examination in the Court.
12.13 During cross examination made on behalf of all the accused persons, he replied that he had made a written complaint as Ex. PW3/A to the police on 09.09.2008. He replied that the police official wrote this complaint in the police station and Ram Khiladi was also called for recording of his statement in that matter.
12.14 He replied that Dev Karan disclosed him about the incident in question. He replied that he was informed by Dev Karan on the day he came from his village to AIIMS hospital.
He replied that at present, he did not remember the date on which police recorded his statement. He replied that his statement was recorded after about 10-12 days of the incident.
12.15 He replied that in his first complaint Ex. PW1/C, he told the police that he did not suspect any one and his brother had died due to fall from the roof. He replied that he did not know what action was taken by the police on his said complaint Ex. PW1/C. 12.16 He replied that he suspected even Dev Karan as the party was at his house. He replied that Dev Karan was his close relative and he had put his thumb impression on his complaint Ex. PW3/A. 12.17 He replied that he did not remember the exact date when Panchayat was held in the village in the year 2008. He replied that the proceedings of Panchayat Ex. PW3/B-1 to Ex.
Digitally signed by PW3/B-3 were handed over to police. He replied that he lodged RAVINDRA KUMAR RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 16 16:31:39 +0530 complaint in police station before the Panchayat was held.
12.18 He replied that before 04.09.2008, another panchayat was also held but there were no written proceedings of that Panchayat which was held after about 3-4 days of the date of incident. He proved the list of the names of Panchas of the Panchayat as Ex. PW3/DA. He replied that no statement of these persons was recorded by the police.
12.19 He further replied that accused persons were ostracized from the village and they were ousted from the village.
He replied that document Ex. PW3/B-1 to B-3 were not signed by him. However, he was present in the Panchayat. He replied that police visited his village once and recorded statement of Shanti.
12.20 He replied that he gave his statement Ex. PW1/C on the day he received dead body from the hospital and he had put his thumb impression on it. He replied that he did not know if statement of any other person was also recorded on that day. However, at that time, Dev Karan and Madhav Singh were also present in the hospital. He replied that his brother Giriraj remained in the hospital for about 10-11 days.
12.21 He replied that he did not know Siya Ram and on the day of party, he was in his native village. He replied that he did not attend the party and he was told by Dev Karan that deceased had fallen down from the roof himself.
12.22 He replied that Khiladi Ram was his relative, he is Dev Karan's brother in law. He replied that Khiladi Ram was present in AIIMS. He replied that police did not meet him except Digitally signed by RAVINDRA recording of Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW3/A. RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:31:50 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 17 +0530 12.23 He replied that Ram Roop was also his relative and he was very much present in the party which was organized at Dev Karan's house. He replied that police was not called by the Panchayat while giving their decision of finding the accused persons guilty.
12.24 He replied that his brother used to take liquor occasionally and he was also informed by Dev Karan that liquor was served in the party. He replied that he cannot say if his brother himself fell down from the roof due to influence of liquor as he was not present in that party.
12.25 He denied the suggestion that in order to extract money, he got this false case registered through his sister in law.
He denied the suggestion that no such Panchayat was held. He replied that there are 8-10 houses of Fagnas (caste of accused persons) and more than 40 houses of their caste. He denied the suggestion that no pancha attended the panchayat and their signatures were forged.
12.26 He replied that he had not accompanied his sister in law for the purpose of making complaint in the Court. He replied that he cannot tell the name of the police personnel who had written down the complaint Ex. PW3/A. He replied that he cannot tell the number of pages in which the complaint Ex. PW3/A was recorded.
12.27 He denied the suggestion that he had not visited the police station on 09.08.2008. He replied that when police visited his village, they stayed there for around half an hour. He replied that his brother Giriraj was got admitted in the hospital by Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Madhav. He replied that Madhav was also present in the party. PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:32:00 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 18 He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely being real brother of the deceased.
13. PW-4 Smt. Shanti:- She deposed that she was an agriculturist and illiterate. She deposed that her husband Giriraj used to work in Delhi. She further deposed that on 30.06.2008, Dev Karan had invited her husband in his retirement party at his house. She deposed that accused Taufan, Amar Singh and Sawada were also invited by Dev Karan in the party and all the three persons started using abusive and derogatory remarks against her in the party with her husband.
13.1 She deposed that when her husband objected, all the three persons also beaten her husband. She deposed that one Ram Roop had also attended the party and in his presence the said persons had told that they would kill the Giriraj.
13.2 She further deposed that on the next day of death of her husband, she came to know from Ram Roop that Taufan, Amar singh and Sawada had quarreled with her husband on the issue of using abusive derogatory remarks against her with her husband and the said persons also told in his presence that they would kill Giriraj today itself.
13.3 She deposed that on 04.09.2008, a Panchayat was held in the village. She deposed that at the time, accused Amar Singh, Taufan and Sawada had also attended the panchayat and in the panchayat, they had confessed that they had killed her husband Giriraj. She deposed that on their confession, all the three accused were expelled from the village/society.
13.4 She further deposed that she also sent a complaint on Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR dated 02.02.2009 Ex. PW4/A to SHO police station Ambedkar KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:32:15 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 19 Nagar for lodging the FIR against the accused persons. She further deposed that when the police did not lodged her FIR, she also filed a complaint Ex PW4/B in the Court. She deposed that police also came at her house in the village and also enquired from her and recorded her statement.
13.5 During cross examination made on behalf of all the accused persons, she replied that the incident had not taken in her presence and she only came to know about the incident from Ram Roop. She replied that she was present in the panchayat.
She denied the suggestion that she was not present in the Panchayat as ladies were not permitted to attend the same.
13.6 She replied that before registration of the case, she came to Delhi once. She replied that she did not remember the said date, month or year. She replied that she had put thumb impression on the complaint filed in the Court and she did not remember as to how many pages she had put her thumb impression.
13.7 She further replied that there were many guests in the party of Dev Karan on that day but she cannot tell their number. She replied that initially, she suspected Dev Karan also. She further replied that her husband remained in the hospital for 13 days. She replied that she did not go to the hospital to meet him as she was not in a position to do that.
13.8 She replied that Ram Roop had gone to the hospital but she did not know if Dev Karan had also gone to hospital or not to meet her husband. She denied the suggestion that Ram Roop had told her that there was liquor being offered in that Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR party. She denied the suggestion that her husband also used to KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:32:50 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 20 drink liquor. She replied that she did not make any inquiry from any neighbour as to how her husband fell down.
13.9 She denied the suggestion that her husband had consumed large quantity of liquor on that day due to which reason he slipped and fell down from the roof. She replied that Madho Singh was her relative. She further replied that her husband was taken to hospital by Madho Singh and not by the accused persons. She replied that Taufan Singh had not accompanied her husband to the hospital. She replied that she did not remember when the first complaint was made to police regarding non registration of FIR. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
13.10 It was observed by the Court that the copy of the letters dated 12.07.2008 and 20.11.2008 annexed alongwith the Ex. PW4/B are neither signed nor bear any thumb impression.
The witness was illiterate.
13.11 She replied that the panchayat as a punishment expelled the accused persons out of the village. She replied that she did not know whether Dev Karan was living on the ground floor or on the first floor of that house where the party was going on from where her husband was thrown.
13.12 She replied that she never went to that place and to her mind even Dev Karan was involved in murder of her husband. She replied that Ram Khiladi was also present in the party. She replied that she did not know if statement of any other person was also recorded by police when her statement was recorded. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
13.13 She replied that she did not know how long the 2024.03.19 16:33:04 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 21 policeman remained in the village when he recorded her statement. She further replied that now the accused persons have came back in the village. She denied the suggestion that panchayat took a wrong decision against the accused persons.
13.14 She replied that she had appeared before the Court of Ld. Magistrate also and her statement was also recorded there.
She denied the suggestion that her statement was not recorded before the Court of the Ld. Magistrate. She denied the suggestion that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case to extract money form them.
14. PW-5 Sh. Dev Karan:- He deposed that he was an agriculturist. He deposed that he was working as a Lineman in NDMC and retired from his job in the year 2008. He deposed that at that time, he was residing in D-88, J.J Colony, Khanpur, Delhi. He deposed that probably it was 30 th June, 2008 and he had arranged a party at his house of his retirement.
14.1 He deposed that about 100 persons had gathered in the party including the neighbours and his relatives from his village.
14.2 He deposed that the party was over and he had gone to sleep about 01.00 am in the night in his house i.e. D-88, J.J Colony, Khanpur, Delhi. He deposed that around 02.00 am in the night, one person came and informed that a person had fallen at house at D-41, J.J Colony, Khanpur, Delhi. He deposed that D-41 was a house of a relative of witness and some guests had also stayed over at D-41, J.J Colony, Khanpur, Delhi.
Digitally 14.3 He deposed that he went to D-41, J.J Colony, RAVINDRA signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Khanpur, Delhi and found Giriraj lying on a cot. He deposed that PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:33:14 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 22 Giriraj did not reply when he tried to talk to him. He deposed that Giriraj was taken to AIIMS Hospital. He further deposed that he, Tufan, Madhav Singh and Amar Singh had accompanied Giriraj to the hospital.
14.4 He deposed that Giriraj was admitted in AIIMS Hospital. He further deposed that treatment of Giriraj at the hospital continued for about 10 days and he died thereafter in the hospital. He further deposed that Giriraj was his brother in law (saala). He deposed that when Giriraj was examined in the hospital by the doctor, he was found having head injuries. He deposed that police had made inquiries from him. He further deposed that he has seen his statement Ex. PW1/D. 14.5 During cross examination made on behalf of the accused persons, he replied that he had stated to the police that his brother in law Giriraj had died due to injury received by him after he fell from first floor of D-41, J.J Colony, Khanpur, Delhi and that he has no doubt on anyone of any foul play. He replied that accused persons are in no way connected or involved in the present case.
15. PW-6 Goban Sahai:- He deposed that he was an agriculturist and had never been Sarpanch of his village. He deposed that he did not know anyone namely Giriraj or Shanti Devi. He deposed that he was aware of a village called ' Lalsa', which is at a distance of 4/5 Kilometers from his village. He deposed that he had gone several times to attend a Panchayat held in Lalsa, and it could be that he might have attended a Panchayat in that village in the year 2008. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR
15.1 He deposed that he did not remember if he had KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:33:33 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 23 attended a Panchayat in village-Lalsa relating to death of one Giriraj, who had died in Delhi.
15.2 During cross examination made on behalf of the State by Ld. Additional PP for the State, he replied that police had never made any inquiries from him till date. He replied that police had never recorded his statement.
15.3 The said witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
16. PW-7 Sh. Ram Roop:- He deposed that he was an agriculturist. He further deposed that on 30.06.2008, his co-
brother (Saadu) Dev Karan retired from his job in NDMC and on his retirement, he had arranged a party in which he invited all the relatives as well as the persons with whom he was having dealings. He deposed that he was also invited for that party and he had also attended the same.
16.1 He deposed that the party was held in a Baraat Ghar in Khanpur, Delhi. He further deposed that his brother in law (Saala) Giriraj R/o Village Lalsa, District Karoli, Rajasthan also attended that party. He deposed that accused Amar Singh and accused Tufan were also there in the party of Dev Karan and were near to Giriraj.
16.2 He deposed that he was at a distance but he noticed exchange of hot words between Giriraj on the one side and Amar Singh and Tufan on the other side. He deposed that on seeing this, he went to the place where Giriraj, Amar Singh and Tufan were present. He further deposed that accused Amar Singh and Tufan were saying something about Ms. Shanti W/o Giriraj. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY 16.3 He deposed that he calmed down all three of them. PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:33:45 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 24 He further deposed that thereafter, he saw accused Amar Singh and Tufan consuming liquor in the party. He further deposed that Dev Karan was owning two houses in the area of Khanpur, Delhi. 16.4 He deposed that after having meals in the party, he went to sleep on the roof of first floor of second house of Dev Karan and alongwith witness Giriraj, accused Tufan, Amar Singh and Sawada and one Kamal Singh also were there on the roof of the first floor of the second house of Dev Karan with him that night.
16.5 He deposed that again Giriraj, Tufan and Amar Singh started quarreling each other on the issue of Ms. Shanti W/o Giriraj. He deposed that he again persuaded all three of them to calm down and thereafter, all of them went to sleep. He further deposed that after a while, they again started fighting with each other and during the fight, Tufan and Amar Singh pushed Giriraj down from the roof of the first floor of the house.
16.6 He deposed that thereafter, accused Amar Singh, Tufan and Sawada ran away from the place. He deposed that when there was noise, the persons sleeping on the ground floor of the house, were also awake. He deposed that many persons gathered there and he was knowing only one Madho Singh of them. He deposed that he was frightened.
16.7 He further deposed that Giriraj was taken to hospital by Madho Singh. He further deposed that he went to hospital in the morning and from hospital, he returned to his village in Rajasthan.
16.8 He deposed that after three or four days, he had Digitally signed by RAVINDRA informed about the incident to Ms. Shanti W/o Giriraj about the RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:33:54 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 25 quarrel as well as his being pushed down from the roof of the first floor by Taufan and Amar Singh. He deposed that after 9 or 10 days, Giriraj expired in the hospital and then his dead body was taken to the village.
16.9 He deposed that after 1 or 2 months, a Panchayat was held in Village Lalsa. He further deposed that in the Panchayat, Amar Singh and Tufan admitted their guilt and they were declared outcaste by the Panchayat and their social boycott was announced. He also identified accused Sawada during his examination in the Court.
16.10 Witness replied to the question put by Ld. Additional PP for the State that inquiries were made by the police from him and his statement was recorded and he did not notice Sawada quarreling with Giriraj.
16.11 During cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, he replied that he did not receive any invitation card from Dev Karan to attend his party on 30.06.2008. He replied that he was invited by Dev Karan through phone. He replied that he did not know about the day of week on 30.06.2008 as he was illiterate.
16.12 He replied that many persons in the party had consumed liquor but not all. He replied that he had not taken liquor in the party. He replied that he did not see Giriraj taking liquor. He deposed that he also did not see accused Sawada taking liquor but accused Amar Nath and accused Tufan had taken liquor.
16.13 He replied that police made inquiries from him after Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR 2/3 months of the incident. He replied that his statement in the KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:34:04 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 26 form of his answer was being recorded but the same was not read over to him. He replied that he did not notice anyone taking photographs in the party.
16.14 He replied that he had reached in the party around 03.00/03.30 pm. He replied that he cannot say if the party was not held in Baraat Ghar and held at the house of Dev Karan. He replied that the party was held in a Shamiana/Tent. He replied that he did not remember the number of his mobile phone which he was having in the year 2008.
16.15 He voluntarily replied that he did not know even the number of the mobile phone which he was having now.
16.16 He replied that the mobile set was of make 'Nokia'.
He further replied that he had been invited by Dev Karan 2/3 days prior to 30.06.2008. He further replied that only he had attended the party from his village. He replied that police did not meet him at the hospital. He replied that police had contacted him in regard to this case once only.
16.17 He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely for the reason that deceased was his brother in law. He denied the suggestion that he did not attend the party of Dev Karan on 30.06.2008. He replied that Dev Karan as well as Madho Singh were present in the party on 30.06.2008.
16.18 He replied that Giriraj, Tufan and Amar Singh quarreled twice during the day time and once while they were sleeping in the other house of Dev Karan during night. He replied that first time, he noticed then quarreling at 04.00/04.30 pm, second time at about 06.00 pm and third time around Digitally signed by 10.00/04.30 pm. RAVINDRA KUMAR RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:34:14 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 27 16.19 He replied that Giriraj was already there in the party when he reached there. He replied that his statement was recorded by the police after about 2/3 years of the incident. He replied that he by mistake stated that his statement was recorded by the police after about 2/3 months. He replied that he did not tell the police in his statement Ex. PW7/A that deceased Giriraj had also taken liquor in the party.
16.20 He replied that he did not remember if in his statement to the police, he had stated that Kamal was also present in the party. He deposed that he was sleeping on the floor of the roof of the first floor. He replied that deceased Giriraj was pushed down around 10.00/10.30 pm. 16.21 He replied that Madho had taken Giriraj to the hospital. He further replied that he was frightened and so he did not accompany Giriraj to the hospital. He denied the suggestion that Giriraj was taken to hospital in the morning by Madho Singh, Amar Singh and Tufan. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the place of incident. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
16.22 He replied that he did not tell the police in his statement that after he was able to calm down, Giriraj, Amar Singh and Tufaan and he returned to his village and he also did not tell the police that after 2/3 days, he came to know about Giriraj falling down from the house. He further replied that he went to the hospital around 09.00/10.00 am. He replied that he might have told the police about his going to hospital in the morning.
Digitally 16.23 He further replied that he had told about the incident signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:34:24 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 28 +0530 to Ms. Shanti W/o Giriraj, 3/4 days later but he did not remember the date. He replied that he had not come to Khanpur to attend the last rites of Giriraj. He replied that he did not make a call to police at number 100 about the incident on that day.
16.24 He replied that he was not having mobile phone with him on that day.
16.25 Witness voluntarily replied that mobile phone remained with the children. He replied that the cremation of Giriraj took place in the village Lalsa and he had attended the cremation. He replied that he did not tell about the incident to the brother or any other family members of Ms. Shanti.
16.26 He replied that he did not tell other family members since parents of Giriraj had come to Delhi after the incident. He replied that even after the cremation, he did not tell about the incident to anyone except Ms. Shanti. He replied that Ms. Shanti was just weeping and did not say anything to him.
16.27 He replied that Giriraj was working somewhere in Delhi but he did not know about his job and duties. He replied that he was at a distance of 15/20 feet away from the place where Giriraj, Amar Singh and Tufan were quarreling in the party. He replied that apart from him, other persons attending the party had also intervened to calm down Giriraj, Amar Singh and Tufan when they were quarreling.
16.28 He replied that he had gone to sleep around 08.00/08.30 pm and was asleeped when Giriraj was pushed down. He replied that he awake when they were quarreling with each other. He replied that he was frightened and exactly did not know when Giriraj was taken to hospital and what was the Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.03.19 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 29 16:34:37 +0530 vehicle used for taking him to the hospital.
16.29 He replied that Dev Karan had also come to the place from his other house after Giriraj was pushed down. He replied that there was railing on the roof of the first floor and he had noticed the railing on the side from which Giriraj was pushed down by Amar Singh and Tufan.
16.30 During cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, witness replied that the area of the house where, he was sleeping that night was approximately 100 square yards. He replied that there were six persons sleeping on the roof of first floor of the house that night was D-41, Khanpur, Delhi. He replied that the area of D-41, Khanpur, Delhi could be 22 ½ square yards and he has told the area as about 100 square yards by approximation. He denied the suggestion that he was not in D-41, Khanpur, Delhi that night.
16.31 He further denied the suggestion that 20 people were sleeping on the roof of first floor of D-41, Khanpur, Delhi on 30.06.2008. He replied that he had seen Giriraj after he was pushed down and had seen head injury as well as injury on the leg of Giriraj.
16.32 He replied that he did not know if anyone, apart from Dev Karan also used to live in D-41, Khanpur, Delhi at that time. He replied that the distance between the two houses of Dev Karan was less than half a mile but it was in other Gali, however, the second house of Dev Karan was also in D Block, Khanpur.
Digitally 16.33 He replied that he had not seen Amar Singh and RAVINDRA signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
Tufan taking liquor earlier to 30.06.2008. He replied that he did 2024.03.19 16:35:15 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 30 not have any connection with them earlier to 30.06.2008. He denied the suggestion that accused Amar Singh and Tufan had never taken liquor. He further denied the suggestion that Giriraj was heavily drunken that night.
16.34 He replied that Giriraj did not drink in his presence and he also did not feel that he was under influence of liquor when he was talking to him. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being a relative of Giriraj. He further denied the suggestion that he was not invited to the party on 30.06.2008 by Dev Karan.
16.35 He denied the suggestion that Giriraj had fallen down from the roof on his own at 04.30 am as he was under
influence of liquor and was not able to keep his balance. He denied the suggestion that Giriraj had not been pushed from the roof at 10.00/10.30 pm by the accused persons.
16.36 He replied that he had not come to attend any function of Dev Karan in Delhi prior to 30.06.2008.
16.37 Witness voluntarily replied that he had gone to his village for functions. He replied that he had attended the marriage of children of Dev Karan but he did not remember the year. He replied that he had attended the marriage of children of Dev Karan in his village about 10/12 years ago. He denied the suggestion that Dev Karan had held the marriage ceremonies of his children only in Delhi and not at his native village.
16.38 He replied that he remained in the hospital from morning to evening and in the evening, he left for his village. He Digitally replied that he left the hospital around 07.00 pm. He further signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY replied that Madho, Khilari and Dev Karan were also present in PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:35:25 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 31 the hospital. He replied that accused Amar Singh, Tufan and Sawada were not present in the hospital.
16.39 He replied that no policeman came to hospital in his presence and no inquiry was made by any policeman from Madho, Khilari and Dev Karan in his presence on that day. He replied that he did not give any information about the incident to the family members of Giriraj or to his wife from the hospital. He voluntarily replied that real uncle of Giriraj namely Chiranji, elder brother of his father was present in the hospital. He replied that he did not go to house of Giriraj after reaching his village on that day and no one from his family also came to his house.
16.40 He voluntarily replied that Chiranji had informed the family about the incident on phone.
16.41 He replied that he had gone to the house of Giriraj after 3 /4 days. He replied that he had gone to the house of Giriraj earlier to his death. He replied that apart from Shanti, Ramesh brother of Giriraj were found present in the house when he had gone there. He replied that he stayed at the house of Giriraj on that day for 2/3 hours.
16.42 He replied that Ramesh had also reached at his house on that day from Delhi. He further replied that no one had come to the house of Giriraj except Shanti and Ramesh, on that day in his presence.
16.43 He replied that 2/3 years earlier, Ms. Shanti told him that she had got registered a case with police relating to murder of her husband. He replied that Ms. Shanti did not tell him the names of the persons, name by her in her complaint to the police. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY 16.44 He replied that he has come to the Court alongwith PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:36:24 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 32 Ms. Shanti and both Ms. Shanti and Ramesh were present when he had told about the incident.
16.45 He denied the suggestion that he had not stated anything relating to the incident neither to Ms. Shanti nor to Ramesh. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely being a relative and interesting person. He denied the suggestion that he had got a false case registered against the accused persons by instigating Ms. Shanti.
17. PW-9 Sh. Vicky:- He deposed that he did not remember the exact date, month and year of the incident on the date of his examination. He further deposed that on that day, one person had fallen in the gali in the night. He deposed that police met him regarding this case and made inquiries from him about the incident. He deposed that he told the police that he did not know anything about this case. He deposed that he had not shown the place of incident to the police.
17.1 During cross examination made by Ld. Additional PP for the State, witness denied the case of prosecution and he had not supported the case of prosecution.
17.2 The said witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
18. PW-10 Sh. Raghubir Patel:- He deposed that he was residing at Village Chirawada, Tehshil Nadori, District Karauli, Rajasthan since his birth. He further deposed that he was not head of the Village (Sarpanch). He further deposed that he know accused Amar Singh, Toofan and Sawada as they were resident of village Lalsar which was situated at a distance of about 2-3 kms Digitally from his village. He deposed that they were called by the RAVINDRA signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 33 16:36:40 +0530 Panchayat at the instance of father of Giriraj to inquire about the death of Giriraj.
18.1 He deposed that he did not remember the exact date, month and year when they were called but it was about 4-5 years back, however, accused Amar Singh, Toofan and Sawada did not appear before the Panchayat, therefore, it was decided in the Panchayat that when both the parties were not present before the Panahayat, no decision could be taken in their absence. He deposed that police did not make any inquiries from him.
18.2 He had not supported the case of prosecution.
18.3 During the cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, he replied that police never met him in respect of this case or made any inquires from him.
19. PW-11 Sh. Raghubir Singh:- He deposed that he was residing at Village Chirawada, Tehsil Nadori, District Karauli, Rajashtan since his birth. He deposed that he was not head of the village (Sarpanch). He deposed that he did not know accused Amar Singh, Toofan and Sawada. He deposed that police did not make any inquiries from him.
19.1 He had not supported the case of prosecution.
19.2 During cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, witness replied that police never met him in respect of this case or made any inquires from him.
20. PW-12 Sh. Madhav Singh:- He deposed that in the year 2008, he was residing at house no. D-94, JJ Colony, Khanpur, New Delhi on rent. He deposed that he was doing the job of Digitally signed plumber. He further deposed that on 30.06.2008, he attended the by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.03.19 16:37:27 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 34 retirement party of his brother in law Dev Karan, who was husband of his cousin Kamla. He further deposed that Dev Karan was retired from NDMC.
20.1 He deposed that the said party was celebrated at Community Centre, JJ Colony, Khanpur. He deposed that it was also attended by his cousin Giriraj son of Sh. Ghasiram. He deposed that he had come to attend the said function alongwith accused Amar Singh, Toofan and Sawada who were resident of other village situated at a distance of about 3 kms from his village but they were working as a electrician in Delhi.
20.2 He deposed that after the said function, Giriraj alongwith accused Amar Singh, Toofan and Sawada and some other guests stayed at the house No. D-41, JJ Colony, Khanpur house of Dev Karan. He deposed that on the next day morning, at about 05.00-05.30 am, while he was going to buy milk, he found gathering of public persons outside the house of Dev Karan.
20.3 He deposed that on inquiry from the persons gathered there, he came to know that Giriraj had fallen down from roof. He deposed that when he went inside the house, he found Giriraj was lying unconscious in a room on the first floor.
He deposed that he alongwith Toofan took Giriraj to Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS. He further deposed that treatment was provided to Giriraj. He deposed that he remained admitted in the hospital under treatment till 10.07.2008 and on the said date he died in the hospital.
20.4 He further deposed that postmortem on the body of
Giriraj was conducted. He deposed that his body was taken to Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19
SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 35 16:37:50 +0530
village for cremation. He further deposed that his statement
regarding identification of dead body of Giriraj Ex. PW1/G was also recorded. He deposed that police made inquiries from him and he narrated the aforesaid facts to the police.
20.5 During cross examination made on behalf of the accused persons, witness was confronted with statement dated 11.07.2008 and admits the said statement and his signature thereon. He proved the photocopy of the same as marked as Mark PW12/DA.
20.6 He replied that he could make out that deceased Giriraj was drunk because of smell of liquor from him. He replied that police did not conduct any inquiry from him after 11.07.2008.
21. PW-13 Sh. Kamal:- He deposed that on 30.06.2008, Dev Karan was retired from government services. He deposed that he was relative of his brother in law Giriraj. He further deposed that the retirement party was organized by Dev Karan at Khanpur, Delhi. He deposed that the said party was attended by him, Giriraj and other persons.
21.1 He deposed that he had gone there from Dhaula Kuan where he was doing the job to install electric pole. He deposed that they reached at the party around 04.00-05.00 pm and the said party was also attended by accused Amar Singh, Tufan and Sawada. He deposed that they had a quarrel with Giriraj in the party.
21.2 He deposed that on the same day, prior to attending the said party, accused Amar Singh, Tufan and Sawada also Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR quarreled with Giriraj at Dhaula Kuan on the issue of wife of KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:38:00 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 36 Giriraj (his sister Shanti). He deposed that they pacified them at that time. He deposed that when they again quarreled in the party, they again tried to pacify them.
21.3 He deposed that at about 09.30-10.00 pm, he alongwith Giriraj and accused Amar Singh, Tufan and Sawada went to the roof of the house to sleep where the arrangement for their sleeping was made by the host. He deposed that at about 11.30 pm, he saw that accused Amar Singh, Tufan and Sawada thrown Giriraj from the roof while they again started quarreling with Giriraj. He deposed that Giriraj fell down on the ground and he was taken inside the house by other guests who were present at the ground floor.
21.4 He deposed that he was kept inside the house for sometime and thereafter, he was taken to the doctor by Madhu and some other persons. He further deposed that he did not accompany them and on the next day morning, he returned to his village. He deposed that he informed his elder brother Sukhram about this incident.
21.5 He deposed that the he came to Delhi with money for the treatment of Giriraj and after two days of his returning to village, he came to know about the death of his brother in law Giriraj. He deposed that police did not make any inquiry from him about the incident.
21.6 During cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, witness replied that he had came to Delhi for the first time 2-3 months prior to 30.06.2008 and returned to his native place on the next day of incident and never returned back to Delhi thereafter. He replied that he did not give any gift to Dev Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.03.19 16:38:09 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 37 +0530 Karan on his retirement.
21.7 He voluntarily deposed that Dev Karan was related to his brother in law and he had brought gift for him and he had attended the function alongwith his brother in law Giriraj. He further replied that in his presence, no video recording or photographs were taken.
21.8 He replied that he did not know about the persons who were accompanying Dev Karan from his office to his house.
He replied that the tent where the dinning arrangement was made was at 5-7 minutes walking distance from Dev Karan's house. He replied that there was no arrangement of liquor in the function. He replied that though his brother in law Giriraj used to have occasionally liquor but on the date of incident he did not consume any liquor.
21.9 He replied that he tried to intervene when accused persons started quarreling with Giriraj. He replied that he did not take the deceased to the hospital. He further replied that he left alone for their village at about 06.00 am on the next date of incident. He replied that his brother in law Giriraj was residing at Dhaula Kuan Power Station. He replied that he did not know if any Panchayat meeting was held at the village of Giriraj or not. He replied that he did not know whether any person namely Ramesh was present in the party.
21.10 He denied the suggestion that he did not attend the retirement party of Dev Karan. He further denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of his sister. He replied that there was boundary wall about 3 ft. height on the roof of the Digitally signed by RAVINDRA house of Dev Karan. He denied the suggestion that Giriraj fell RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:38:49 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 38 down from the roof as he was drunk and due to excessive drinking he was inebriated state.
21.11 He further denied the suggestion that his sister got the accused falsely implicated to extort money from them. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
OFFICIAL WITNESS
22. PW-17 Sh. Rajender Singh, Record Clerk, AIIMS Trauma Cener, New Delhi:- He deposed that he was working in the AIIMS Trauma Center since 2006. He further deposed that he can recognize the handwriting and the signatures of Dr. Shabbir, who was working as Junior Resident on 10.07.2008 at AIIMS Trauma Center and has presently left the services of the hospital and his present whereabout was not known.
22.1 He deposed that he had seen Dr. Shabbir signing and writing in his official course of duties and have also seen the records.
22.2 He deposed that MLC No. 126518/2008 Ex. PW17/A of injured Giriraj was on the handwriting of Dr. Shabbir.
22.3 During cross examination made on behalf of the accused persons, witness replied that he had worked as Record Clerk during the service tenure of Dr. Shabbir and he had seen Dr. Shabbir signing and writing during the course of his duties. He replied that Dr. Shabbir had worked in AIIMS hospital w.e.f 01.07.2008 to 31.12.2008. He replied that he did not know the present whereabouts of Dr. Shabbir. He replied that Dr. Shabbir was working in Emergency Department. He replied that he Digitally signed by cannot specifically tell the date on which he had seen Dr. Shabbir RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY signing in his presence. PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:39:22 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 39 MEDICAL WITNESSES
23. PW-18 Dr. Arun, Senior Resident, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi:- He deposed that he has been deputed by the MS AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi to depose on behalf of the Dr. Shabbir as Ex. PW18/A. 23.1 He further deposed that he had seen the MLC Ex.
PW17/A of injured Giriraj and as per which, the patient was suffering from severe head injury with right acute sub dural haemtoma with gross MLE and mass effect. He deposed that as per MLC, the patient was unconscious and in unresponsive state.
23.2 During cross examination made on behalf of the accused persons, witness replied that the nature of the injury was not mentioned by the concerned doctor on the MLC.
24. PW-8 Dr. Arvind Kumar, Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine, Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi:- He deposed that on 11.07.2008, he was working as Senior Resident in JPNATC, AIIMS, New Delhi and on that day he had conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Giriraj S/o Sh. Ghasi Ram aged 34 years vide PM report no. TC-382/08 and during postmortem, he found the following injuries:-
1. Craniotomy wound 30 cm long curvilinear on right side of scalp. Sub-scalp organized extravassation of blood over temporal-occipital region. Left temporal bone fracture line 6 CM patchy intra-parenchycal hemorrhagic areas seen in right frontal, left parietal and both occipital lobes. Brain edematous.
Subarachanoid hemorrhage about 30 ml, seen.
Digitally
2. Partially healed abrasion 3 x 1 cm scab loosely adherent signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY over medial side of right elbow, and of size 4 x 3 cm over right KUMAR PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:39:40 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 40 posterior axillary fold, and of size over 1 x 0.5 over mid left tibia shin. Right great toe nail partially avulsed with extravassation of blood in nail bed.
3. A surgical stitch wound 12 cm long horizontally placed over left abdomen at the level of umbilicus and another surgical tracheotomy would present in the lower neck region.
24.1 He deposed that the cause of death in this case was 'septicemia' consequent to head injury caused by blunt force and all the injuries were ante-mortem nature and could be possible as per brief history mentioned in PM report. He proved the detailed PM report as Ex. PW8/A. 24.2 The said witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
25. Vide order dated 06.01.2020, the prosecution evidence was closed and after the conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, in which all the incriminating evidence which came on the record were put to the accused persons. The accused persons denied the same and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused persons opted to lead evidence towards their defence but vide order dated 25.10.2021, the accused persons submitted that they are not willing to lead any defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence was closed on 25.10.2021.
26. I have heard Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Sh. Rajpal Kasana, Ld. counsel for accused persons. I have also gone through the material available on Digitally signed by RAVINDRA record. RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2024.03.19 16:40:10 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 41 FINAL ARGUMENTS ADVANCED Arguments on behalf of the State through Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
27. It is argued on behalf of the State by Ld. Additional PP for the State that police officials supported the case of prosecution and case of prosecution is duly proved on the basis of oral testimony of the public witnesses as well as circumstantial evidence, so the accused persons are liable to be convicted for offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC.
27.1 It is further argued on behalf of the State by Ld. Additional PP for the State that the present incident pertains to the intervening night of 30.06.2008 to 01.07.2008 and incident took place at D-41, JJ Colony, Khanplur, Delhi. It is argued that retirement party was organized by Dev Karan, where all the accused persons including victim Giri Raj besides other guests were invited and after the party, all the accused persons and deceased Giriraj were sleeping on the roof of the top of the house and in the late night, it was informed that deceased Girraj had fell down. It is further argued that victim Giriraj was expired on 10.07.2008.
27.2 It is further argued that no FIR was registered but on the complaint filed U/s 156(3) Cr.PC by his wife of victim Smt. Shanti, the FIR in the present case was registered. It is further argued that PW-7 Sh. Ram Roop had narrated about the incident, motive of the incident and role of the accused persons namely Amar Nath, Sawada and Tufaan.
27.3 It is further argued on behalf of the State by Ld. Digitally Additional PP for the State that PW-4 deposed that the accused signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 42 16:40:32 +0530 persons namely Amar Nath, Sawada and Tufaan had admitted their guilt on 04.09.2008 in the Panchayat at their village in which they confessed their crime and the same is admissible as extra judicial confession made before the complainant and not a confession to the police.
27.4 It is further argued that accused persons were expelled from their village. It is submitted that the complainant had send her complaint to the police on 02.02.2009 to SHO PS Ambedkar Nagar Ex. PW4/A and she also proved the complaint filed in the Court as Ex. PW4/B. 27.5 It is further submitted that PW-5/Dev Karan was the organizer of the party and he proved the presence of accused persons and victim in the party organized by him on the date of incident.
27.6 It is further argued that PW-7 Sh Ram Roop also corroborate the fact of extra judicial confession made by the accused persons in the Panchayat held in the village of the victim.
27.7 It is further argued that PW-3 Sh. Ramesh was the brother of the victim Giriraj and he proved the Panchayat document as mark PW3/X1 to mark PW3/X3. It is further argued that the original of the same were also produced and same were proved as Ex. PW3/B1 to Ex. PW3/B-3 regarding extra judicial confession.
27.8 It is further submitted that all the statements of witnesses/eye witnesses proved that the accused persons and victim were only present at the roof where the incident took place and no other person was present which also rules out the Digitally signed by possibility of any other persons involvement. It is further RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:40:51 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 43 +0530 submitted that the subsequent conduct of fleeing from the spot by the accused persons also corroborate and relevant regarding the involvement in the commission of offence by the accused persons.
27.9 It is further argued that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable in the present case. It is further submitted that the cause of death was head injury septicemia consequent to head injury caused due to blunt force and all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. It is further argued that PW- 8 has proved the PM Report as Ex. PW8/A. 27.10 It is further argued that PW-13 Sh Kamal also proved the fact that accused persons had thrown the victim from the roof while they were quarreling with the victim and victim was fell down on the ground. It is further argued that PW-13 was the eye witness of the incident and he saw the incident at about 11.30 pm when the accused persons namely Amar Singh, Tufaan and Sawada had thrown the victim from the roof while they were quarreling with the victim Giri Raj.
27.11 It is further argued that the witness who was present at the spot was the relevant witness. It is further submitted that there are direct and corroborated evidence in the present case, so the accused persons namely Amar Nath and Sawada are liable to be convicted and they be convicted and sentenced as per law.
Arguments on behalf of the accused persons namely Amar Nath and Sawada through Ld. Defence counsel Sh. Rajpal Kasana
28. It is argued on behalf of accused persons by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the present incident pertains Digitally signed by RAVINDRA st to 1 July, 2008 and the case was registered on the basis of DD RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2024.03.19 16:41:36 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 44 No. 43-A dated 10.07.2008 Ex. PW1/B. It is further argued that during the incident, victim Giriraj had died. It is further submitted that complaint dated 12.07.2008 Ex. PW4/B was unsigned given by PW-4 Smt. Shanti.
28.1 It is further argued that on 20.11.2008, a Panchayat was allegedly held but there was no mention about the said Panchayat in the document. It is further argued that both the eye witnesses namely Ram Roop and Kamal of the present case are related to each other and they are planted witnesses of the prosecution.
28.2 It is further argued that in the FIR, there was no mention about their presence at the spot, neither they visited the hospital. It is further argued that there was no discussion about the holding of Panchayat and complaint dated 02.02.2009 in the FIR. It is further argued that in the FIR, there was no discussion about the presence of eye witness.
28.3 It is further submitted that PW1 HC Surajmal had recorded the statement of relatives of victim namely Ramesh, Madhav and Dev Karan. However, they had not raised suspicion against anyone including the accused persons. It is further submitted that the panchayat witnesses namely PW10 Raghubir Singh and PW-11 Raghubir Patel and PW Govind Singh have not supported the case of the prosecution.
28.4 It is further argued that PW-1 in his statement had stated that DD entry was lodged regarding falling of victim from the stairs. It is further argued that PW-2 had not discussed anything about the incident. It is further argued that PW-3 Ramesh got admitted the victim in the hospital. It is further Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:41:47 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 45 argued that PW3 had referred about some complaint given to police. However, no complaint was proved as stated to be given on 09.08.2008.
28.5 It is further argued that statement of complainant/ PW3 Ex. PW3/A was recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC in the year 2012. It is further argued that on the date of incident, PW3 Sh. Ramesh was not present at the spot of incident. It is further argued that the testimony of PW3 Sh. Ramesh is hearsay.
28.6 It is further argued that PW4 Smt. Shanti was not the eye witness of the incident. It is argued that Panchayat was held and complainant had filed an application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC dated 02.02.2009 Ex. PW4/A for registration of the FIR. It is further argued that no eye witness was present at the spot and only Sh.
Ramroop had informed about the incident. It is further submitted that complaint dated 12.07.2008 Ex. PW4/B was unsigned given by PW-4.
28.7 It is further submitted that PW-5 Dev Karan was the eye witnesses of the incident but he had not supported the case of prosecution. It is further argued that PW-6 Goban Sahai had not supported the case of prosecution and he had also not supported the prosecution story regarding the Panchayat and extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused persons.
28.8 It is submitted on behalf of accused persons that the case of prosecution is based on extra judicial confession and alleged eye witnesses Kamal, Ram Roop were not in the party where the alleged incident took place. It is further submitted that wife of deceased had never taken their names. It is further argued that in the statements of Ghasi Ram, Ramesh and Mahdav Singh Ex. PW1/A, Ex. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PW1/C and Ex. PW1/B, they have stated that they took the injured to KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:41:58 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 46 +0530 the hospital.
28.9 It is further argued that PW-1 Dev Karan had not alleged anything against the accused persons and he was the organizer of the party where alleged incident took place. It is further argued that victim Giriraj was the real brother of witness Ramesh and in his statement Ex. PW1/C, he did not raised any suspicion against the accused persons. It is further argued that PW Madhav Singh in his statement Ex. PW1/E had not raised any suspicion against any person.
28.10 It is further argued that case of prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Amar Nath and Sawada and no corroborative evidence or direct or indirect evidence came during the trial against the accused persons, so accused persons are entitled to be acquitted from the present case and from the charge of offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC.
29. The legal position in regard to the circumstances of last seen and circumstantial evidence as settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various judgments are reproduced as under:-
CIRCUMSTANCE OF LAST SEEN:
30. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Nizam & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan", Crl. Appeal No. 413/2007, decided on 04.09.2015, discussed the law regarding last seen theory.
It was observed: - "Elaborating the principle of "last seen alive" in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, this Court held as under:- "23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the Digitally signed by burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 47 16:42:22 +0530 with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd., Re. (AIR 1960 Mad 218)" The above judgment was relied upon and reiterated in Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal, (2015) 5 Scale 319."
31. Further, in Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Appeal (Crl.) 997 of 2005, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held as follows:-
"It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well-settled that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in Digitally finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial RAVINDRA signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:42:32 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 48 +0530 evidence. [See Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67 and Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P. (2005) 7 SCC 603].
The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case courts should look for some corroboration."
32. In case of State of U.P. v. Satish, Appeal (Crl.) 256-257 of 2005, with regard to last-seen theory following was held as under:-
"The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons 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. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by witnesses."
LEGAL POSITION ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
33. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled as " Anwar Ali and Another Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh", Crl Appeal No. 1121/2016 dated 25.09.2020 has held as under:-
" 5.4 It is also required to be noted and it is not in dispute that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. As held by this Court Digitally signed by RAVINDRA in catena of decisions that in case of a circumstantial evidence, RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:42:56 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 49 +0530 the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should 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 none else and 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 his innocence. In the case of Babu (supra), it is observed and held in paragraphs 22 to 24 as under:
"22. In Krishan Vs. State (2008) 15 SCC 430, this Court after considering a large number of its earlier judgments observed as follows: (SCC p. 435, para 15) "15. ... This 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 chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; 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 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:43:53 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 50 State of Maharashtra (1982) 2 SCC 351)"
34. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (SCC p. 185, para 153)
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned "must" or "should" and not " may be" established;
(ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
(v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
35. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in State of U.P Vs. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114 and Pawan Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2009) 15 SCC 259. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY 5.5 Even in the case of G. Parshwanath (supra), this Court has PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:44:17 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 51 in paragraphs 23 and 24 observed as under:
"23. In cases where 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. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the Court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although, there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts.
24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves Digitally is/are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:44:37 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 52 +0530 only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court".
36. In Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No. 1348/2013 dated 02.03.2021, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"11. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been very well crystallized in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra:-
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicted that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be"
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal Digitally signed by distinction between " may be proved" and " must be or should RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:44:49 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 53 be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the observations were made: [ SCC para 10, p. 807; SCC (Cri) p. 1047.
"19.... Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between ' may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
37. Further, in State of Odisha Vs. Banabihari Mohapatra and Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1156/2021, dated 12.02.2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
Digitally "35. Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully RAVINDRA signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:45:00 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 54 the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. There has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable doubt for any conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the Accused.
36. In Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12 SCC 158, this Court held that the principles for conviction of the accused based on circumstantial evidence are:-
"10.1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established.
10.2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
10.3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must 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 none else.
10.4. 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 his innocence."
37. Keeping the above test in mind, we have no iota of doubt that the Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused Respondents. There is a strong possibility that the accused, who was as per the opinion of the doctor who performed the autopsy, intoxicated with alcohol, might have accidentally touched a live electrical wire, may be while he was asleep. The impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay does not call for interference under Digitally signed by RAVINDRA Article 136 of the Constitution of India. RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2024.03.19 16:45:10 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 55
38. It is well settled by a plethora of judicial pronouncement of this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This proposition has been reiterated in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam reported in AIR 2013 SC 3817."
38. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, this Court observed:-
"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought is to be established by circumstantial evidence."
39. In the case titled as "Anjan Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Assam" (2017) 14 SCC 359, it was observed:
"(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' not and 'may be' established;
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not the explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature of tendency; (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be provided; and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of Digitally the accused and must shown that in all human probability the act must signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:45:19 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 56 have been done by the accused (See: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashra (1984) 4 SCC 116; M G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200)."
40. The principles with regard to appreciation of circumstantial evidence have also been explained in Gagan Kanojia Vs. State of Punjab (2016) 13 SCC 516.
Therefore, the principle, as laid down in aforesaid judicial dicta, is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The various circumstances in the chain of events must be such so as to rule out the reasonable likelihood of innocence of accused. The missing of important link snaps the chain of circumstances and the other circumstances cannot in any manner establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
41. Section 300 IPC- Murder:-
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
2ndly.--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-- 3rdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-- 4thly.--If the person committing the act knows that it is so Digitally signed by RAVINDRA imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2024.03.19 16:45:41 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 57 death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Illustrations
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.
(c) A, intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z's death.
(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual. Digitally signed by Exception 1.--When culpable homicide is not murder.--
RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:45:54 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 58 Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:--
First.--That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly.--That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly.--That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation.--Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Illustrations
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills Y, Z's child. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight.
A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19
16:46:04
+0530
SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 59
(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) A appears as a witness before Z, a Magistrate. Z says that he does not believe a word of A's deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.
(e) A attempts to pull Z's nose. Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was giving by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder. Exception 2.--Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Illustration Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the Digitally signed by RAVINDRA assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:46:23 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 60 prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide. Exception 3.--Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.--Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.--It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Exception 5.--Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
Illustration A, by instigation, voluntarily causes Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder.
42. Section 302 Punishment for murder--Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, Digitally signed by and shall also be liable to fine.
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19
16:46:35
+0530
SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 61 THE REASON FOR DECISION
43. The case of prosecution is that in the intervening night of 30.06.2008/01.07.2008 at unknown time, at the roof of House No. D-41, J.J Colony, Khanpur, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi, all the three accused persons namely Amar Nath, Taufaan Singh and Sawada in furtherance of their common intention had first hit the deceased Giri Raj with blunt object and when he fell down, they threw him from the roof of the first floor of the said house and due to the injuries received in the incident, he expired on 10.07.2008.
44. In order to prove the charge of offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC against the accused persons Amar Nath and Sawada, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of eye witnesses namely PW-13 Kamal and PW-7 Ram Roop and prosecution has relied upon these witnesses in order to establish the presence of the accused persons at the spot, the incident of quarreling between the victim and accused persons and incident of pushing the victim from the roof to the ground due to which the victim had expired on 10.07.2008. However, the presence of PW13 Kamal and PW7 Ram Roop at the time of alleged incident is doubtful in view of the deposition of prosecution witness PW12 Madhav Singh who had specifically stated that he had came to attend the function from his village alongwith Amar Singh, Taufaan and Sawada and he did not disclose anything about the presence of the witness PW13 Kamal and PW7 Ram Roop on the date of incident and at the place of incident and Digitally signed by RAVINDRA admittedly this witness got admitted the victim in the hospital RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2024.03.19 16:46:45 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 62 after the incident. Further, the testimony of PW7 Ram Roop he had stated that he had not informed anyone about the incident and he left the spot for his village without informing anyone regarding the allegation as made by him. He stated in his testimony that he had informed to the wife of the victim 3-4 days after the incident. The conduct of the witness PW7 regarding the leaving the spot without informing anyone regarding the alleged incident create doubt regarding his version of the incident and his testimony.
Similarly, the testimony of PW13 Kamal regarding the fact that he left alone for his village after the incident without informing anyone regarding the incident creates doubt on his version of the prosecution case and his presence at the time of the incident.
The testimony of PW7 and PW13 does not find any corroboration from the any other evidence or the corroboration from the testimony of any other prosecution witnesses whose presence is not doubtful at the time of incident and at the place of incident. Hence, the testimony of PW7 and PW13 regarding the allegation against the accused persons is doubtful and accordingly, rejected.
45. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW3 Ramesh, brother of the deceased/victim. However, his averment is merely hearsay as admittedly he was not present on the spot at the time of incident and as per his testimony, he received information regarding the incident of falling of the victim from the roof on 01.07.2008 through one relative. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
46. The prosecution has also relied the testimony of PW3 PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:46:55 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 63 Ramesh in order to prove the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused persons in the Panchayat held in the year 2008 in the village of the victim and to prove the document Ex. PW3/B1 to Ex. PW3/B3 i.e. document in regard to the proceedings of the Panchayat.
However, admittedly the statement of any of the participants of the said Panchayat qua the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused persons was not recorded by the police during investigation and proceedings of the Panchayat were not proved during the trial.
Further, the alleged participants of the said Panchayat i.e. witness PW6 Goban Sahai, PW10 Raghubir Patel and witness PW11 Raghubir Singh had not supported the case of prosecution regarding the Panchayat or alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused persons in the said Panchayat.
47. The prosecution has also relied upon the complaint Ex. PW3/A as lodged by the PW3. However, admittedly the said complaint was neither having thumb impression nor the signature of the witness PW3 and it is not proved that said complaint was lodged by witness PW3.
Further, in initial statement given to the police Ex. PW1/C by the witness PW3, he had not suspected any one regarding the death of the victim.
48. The other witness of the prosecution Smt. Shanti /PW4 is not the eye witness of the incident and her version regarding the incident is merely hearsay and cannot be taken into Digitally consideration. signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
49. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the PANDEY Date:
2024.03.19 16:47:20 +0530 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 64 considered view that no incriminating evidence, circumstantial evidence or last seen evidence came on record and proved during the trial of the present case and case of prosecution against the accused persons namely Amar Nath S/o Ranjita and Sawada S/o Ram Sahaya is not proved.
Accordingly, accused Amar Nath S/o Ranjita and Sawada S/o Ram Sahaya are acquitted from the present case and from the charge of offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC.
50. File be consigned to Record Room.
RAVINDRA Digitally RAVINDRA signed by Announced in the open Court, KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2024.03.19 PANDEY 16:47:27 +0530 On 19th March, 2024. (Ravindra Kumar Pandey) ASJ-03/South/SaketCourts/NewDelhi 19.03.2024 SC No. 6820/2016 State Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar page no. 65