Delhi District Court
State vs (1) Bunty S/O Sh. Ajeet Singh on 6 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ
ASJ02 (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Unique ID No. 02402R0283132009
Sessions Case No.07/12
Date of Institution: 22.09.09
Date of transfer to this order:01.08.12
Date on which reserved for orders: 16.02.13
Date of delivery of order: 28.02.13
State v/s (1) Bunty S/o Sh. Ajeet Singh
R/o. H.No.13/401, Trilok Puri,
Delhi.
(2) Manjeet S/o Sh. Sulender Singh,
R/o. 6/5, Trilok Puri,
Delhi.
FIR No. 157/09
PS. Kalyan Puri
U/s.302/34 IPC
JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 21/06/2009 at 22.16 hours an information was received at Police Control Room (PCR), which was forwarded to Police Station Kalyan Puri and was recorded as DD 43 A. On receiving the information ASI SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 1 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. Rajbir Singh along with Ct. Shiv Kumar & Ct. Kanti Prasad went to the spot, 5/353 Trilok Puri Delhi. He saw there blood, a knife stained with blood and a pair of slippers also stained with blood. ASI Rajbir, leaving Ct. Shiv Kumar at the spot, went to the LBS Hospital along with Ct. Kanti Prasad, where the injured was taken. The patient as per the MLC (4379/09) was unconscious and was unfit to give the statement. The IO met a boy Umesh Prasad Yadav aged 32 years, who claimed to be an eye witness of the incident and gave his statement to the IO. The statement was that he i.e Umesh Prasad Yadav was living in Delhi at 5/353, Trilok Puri, where Daddan Kumar, Inderjeet, Ram Babu Yadav and Shambhu were also living and that he used to drive TSR. Around 10 pm they were present in their room, when they saw Daddan Kumar bringing his TSR No. DL1R K 2456 towards their room. When Daddan Kumar reached near the corner of the park, three boys named Bunty, Manjeet and Somvir, who were bad elements of the area, stopped Daddan Kumar and caught his collar (Gireban). Bunty said to Daddan Kumar if he wanted to hit them. The three of them beat (hatha pai) Daddan Kumar. He i.e Umesh Prasad Yadav was standing along with Inderjeet and Ram Babu Yadav outside their room and all three of them went and intervened. Bunty again came while Daddan Kumar was going towards the room and stabbed Daddan Kumar on his left thigh while Manjeet and Somvir were quarreling with him. Bunty threw the knife there and all three of them ran away. He and his friends took Daddan Kumar to LBS hospital. He stated that the clothes of Inderjeet and Ram Babu Yadav were got stained with blood of Daddan Kumar.
A case u/s. 307/34 IPC was registered. PW Umesh Prasad Yadav was taken SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 2 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. by the police to the spot and at his instance the site plan was prepared and blood and earth control were seized in plastic containers. The blood stained slippers of deceased and the blood stained knife lying at the spot were also seized. The crime team was called and photographs of the spot were taken. Clothes of Ram Babu Yadav and Inderjeet were seized. In the meanwhile injured Daddan Kumar was shifted to Safdarjung hospital, where he died, which information was sent to the police station by the concerned Duty constable Surender posted at Safdarjung hospital vide DD No. 23 B. The matter was converted u/s. 302 IPC and further investigation was handed over to Inspector Mahender Kumar. Inspector Mahender Kumar sent the dead body for postmortem; got the dead body identified by Ram Babu Yadav & Umesh Prasad Yadav; arrested the accused Bunty and Manjeet at the instance of Umesh Prasad Yadav and Ram Babu Yadav respectively; obtained the postmortem report and subsequent opinion; got prepared the scaled site plan through Ct. Sonu Kaushik; obtained NBWs of the absconding accused Somvir and filed the chargesheet. It was later revealed that accused Somvir had died on 07.10.09.
2. Charge was framed against the accused persons u/s. 302/34 IPC to which both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined 19 witnesses to prove its case. PW2 Ct. Sunita deposed that on 21.06.09 at 22.12 hours, she had received the information at PCR that ' hamare driver ko chaku maar diya'. She has proved the PCR call which is Ex.PW SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 3 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. 2/A. She says that she had flashed the message on the net for further communication.
4. PW19 HC Prem Raj was posted at PS Kalyan Puri and he says that he had received the information at 22.15 hours on 21.06.09, which he had recorded as DD no.42 in Roznamcha, which was marked to ASI Rajbeer Singh. The entry is Ex.PW19/A. He says that on the same date another DD entry was made being DD No. 43A at 22.16 hours. The same is Ex.PW19/B. The relevant entry of the case, however, is Ex.PW19/A, having been sent by PW2 lady Ct. Sunita.
5. PW16 ASI Rabeer Singh and PW8 Ct.Shiv Kumar along with Ct. Kanti Prasad had gone to the place of incident, i.e H.No 353, Block No.5, Trilok Puri. PW 16 ASI Rajbeer Singh has deposed that on receiving the DD No.42A and 43 A he along with Ct. Shiv Kumar and Ct. Kanti Prasad had gone to H. No. 5/353, Trilok Puri, where he noticed blood lying in front of the house and also saw a blood stained knife and a pair of plastic chappals. It was informed that the injured is removed to hospital. Leaving Ct. Shiv Kumar there, he went to LBS hospital alongwith Ct. Kanti Prasad. He obtained the MLC of Daddan Kumar the injured on which the opinion of doctor was that the injured was unfit for statement. He met one witness named Umesh Prasad Yadav and recorded his statement, which is Ex.PW15/A. He came back to the spot and made an endorsement on the statement (Ex.PW16/A), which he sent through Ct. Kanti Prasad to the police station for registration of FIR. He clarified on the next date of his evidence that the rukka i.e statement Ex.PW15/A was SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 4 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. sent from hospital ( and not from the spot) to the Police Station.
6. PW5 HC Rajender Kumar, who was the duty officer at PS Kalyan Puri has deposed that he received rukka from Ct. Kanti Prasad sent by ASI Rajbeer Singh at 1.10 am on 22.06.09. He recorded the FIR, which is Ex.PW5/A and made his endorsement on the FIR, which is Ex.PW5/B. He says that he had handed over the rukka and the copy of FIR to Ct. Kanti Prasad for giving it to ASI Rajbeer Singh for investigation.
7. PW16 ASI Rajbeer Singh in the meanwhile had called the crime team headed by PW4 Inspector Rajesh Sinha, who has deposed that he had met ASI Rajbeer Singh at the spot and on the instruction of ASI Rajbeer Singh, Ct. Manoj Kumar ( PW3) took the photographs of blood, chopper and slippers lying outside the house. In his crossexamination he stated that he had not noticed any damage at the spot. The blood and the chopper were lying on the middle of the road in front of the house.
8. PW3 Ct. Manoj Kumar deposed that he was a part of crime team, which visited the spot i.e house no. 5/353, Trilok Puri and he had taken 8 photographs of blood and chopper. The photographs are Ex.PW3/A1 to A8 and negatives thereof are Ex.PW3/B1 to B8. He has also stated that the chopper and the slippers were lying near each other in front of the house.
SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 5 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc.
9. PW16 ASI Rajbeer Singh further deposed that he had prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/D; the sketch of the knife Ex.PW8/A. He sealed the knife and seized it vide memo Ex.PW8/B; he lifted the blood from the spot, lifted the earth control and also seized the slippers all vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/C. He has deposed that the length of the seized knife was 31.7 cms. Ct. Kanti Kumar came back alongwith the copy of FIR and rukka and all three of them went to the LBS hospital. He has deposed that at the hospital Ct. Om Jeet had handed over one pullanda containing clothes of deceased and sample seal of the hospital, which were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW13/A. Ct. Om Jeet, who has been examined as PW3 had deposed in this regard that he was duty Constable at LBS hospital on 21.06.09 and had collected one sealed pullanda with the seal of LBS hospital containing blood stained clothes of deceased, which he had handed over to the IO alongwith a sample seal of the hospital ( seizure memo Ex.PW13A).
10. PW16 further deposed that after seizure of the pullanda from LBS hospital, he went back to the PS and kept the pullandas in his almirah and thereafter along with Ct. Kanti Prasad, Ct. Shiv Kumar, witnesses Umesh Prasad Yadav, Ram Babu Yadav and Inderjeet went to the spot. He made enquiries from the persons present at the spot and searched for the accused persons, who were not traceable. Thereafter, he came back to the police station and deposited the case property in malkhana. Vide DD No. 23B (Ex.PW16/B) he was informed that injured Daddan SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 6 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. Kumar has died. He deposed that on 23.06.09 he alongwith Ct. Kanti Prasad had gone to the mortuary of Safdarjung hospital, where Ram Babu Yadav and Umesh Prasad Yadav identified the dead body of Daddan Kumar. He recorded the statement regarding identification, which were Ex.PW16/C and PW15/F. The dead body was handed over to the legal heirs of deceased vide memo Ex.PW16/D. He was handed over two small bottles containing the blood of the deceased in gauze, which was seized by him vide memo Ex.PW16/E. He deposited the pullanda and sample seal in the malkhana. On 24.06.09 he joined the investigation with Inspector Ravinder Kumar and witness Umesh Prasad Yadav and went to LBS hospital Road, block 21, Kalyan Puri and on the identification of Umesh Prasad Yadav accused Bunty was arrested vide memo Ex.PW15/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/C. He made disclosure statement, which is Ex.PW15/D. He says that thereafter, accused led them to the spot and pointed to the place of incident, regarding which pointing out memo (Ex.PW15/E) was prepared. He deposed that the accused was medically examined, and was thereafter put in lockup and was produced in the court on 25.06.09.
11. On 25.06.09 he again joined the investigation at 5 pm with Inspector Mahender Kumar and witness Ram Babu Yadav and accused Manjeet @ Arvind was arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/A. He was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW10/B and he made a disclosure statement which is Ex.PW10/C. This accused also took them to the place of incident and the pointing out memo Ex.PW10/D was prepared. SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 7 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. He was also taken to LBS hospital for medical examination and thereafter was taken to the lockup. The witness identified the knife Ex.P1, which was recovered from the spot, the baniyan and the pant of PW Ram Babu Yadav, which are Ex.P2, denim pant with brown stains and one shirt with brown stains of PW Inderjeet Yadav, which are Ex.P3. He also identified the pair of slipper, which was recovered from the spot and has been exhibited as Ex.P4. Plastic container containing the cemented pieces described as earth control and blood stained earth were identified by him as having been lifted from the spot as Ex.P5 & P6. In his crossexamination the witness stated that he had not noticed if any public person was present at the spot when he reached there but clarified again that 46 persons were present there and they had told him that the injured has been taken to the hospital. No one at the spot had disclosed anything about the incident. He did not meet the landlord of the deceased and did not record his statement. He saw the landlady when the relatives of the deceased protested and brought the dead body of the deceased in the police station on 23.06.09 around the evening time. He said that he did not go inside the house of the deceased. No liquor bottle was recovered from the spot. He denied that signatures were obtained on blank papers; the accused were falsely implicated; the real offenders have escaped; the accused had apprehended while they were trying to chase the actual offenders to solve the case.
12. During the investigation statement of three witnesses PW10 Ram Babu Yadav, PW11 Inderjeet Kumar and PW15 Umesh Prasad Yadav was recorded. SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 8 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. Statement of PW15 Umesh Yadav was recorded at the hospital itself. The witness has deposed that in the year 2009 he used to drive a TSR and was residing in house no. 5/353, Trilok Puri, Delhi, alongwith Ram Babu Yadav, Inderjeet, Daddan Kumar and Shambhu. On 21.06.09 around 10 pm he, Ram Babu Yadav and Inderjeet were standing outside their house, when they saw Daddan Kumar returning on his TSR. Three persons named Somvir, Bunty and Manjeet were standing at the corner of the park. He saw that those persons caught hold of Daddan Kumar saying that he would run the TSR over them and started beating him. They intervened and brought Daddan Kumar to their room. The two boys went away but when they reached near the gate of their room, the three boys came again. Manjeet and Somvir started quarreling with Daddan Kumar and Bunty inflicted knife blow on the thigh of Daddan Kumar, due to which he fell down and started bleeding. The three of them tried to catch the accused, who fled leaving the knife there. Ram Babu Yadav and Inderjeet placed Daddan Kumar in the TSR, which he drove to LBS hospital, where they met the police. He said that the police recorded his statement at the hospital, which is PW15/A bearing his signatures at point A. He stated that the clothes of Ram Babu Yadav and Inderjeet were stained by blood of Daddan Kumar. After the registration of case they were taken by the police to the spot, where the police took the photographs of the spot and the IO prepared the site plan. Blood stained earth, knife, slippers of Daddan Kumar and clothes of Inderjeet Kumar and Ram Babu Yadav were sealed in different pullandas. The site plan prepared in his presence was signed by him at point B, the same is Ex.PW8/D. The seizure memos Ex.PW8/B & C SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 9 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. were also signed by him. He deposed that on 24.06.09 he alongwith IO and police staff went in search of the accused and in the afternoon he saw accused Bunty standing at the bus stop near Sulabh Sauchalaya, Block 22, Kalyan Puri. At his instance the accused was arrested. The arrest memo Ex.PW15/B personal search memo Ex.PW15/C and the disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW15/D were all signed by him at point A. In his presence the accused had pointed to the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW15/E also signed by him at point A. On 23.06.09 he identified the dead body of Dadan Kumar vide memo Ex.PW15/F with his signatures at point A. On 22.07.09 he had gone to the police station on being called by the IO and then had gone to the spot alongwith the draftsman. He had shown the spot to the draftsman, who took the measurements in his presence. In this regard PW9 HC Sonu Kaushik, Asstt. Draftman, Crime Branch also deposed that on 22.07.09 he alongwith IO and PW Umesh Prasad Yadav had gone to H.No. 5/353, Trilok Puri, Delhi. On the pointing out of Umesh Prasad Yadav he prepared rough notes and on the basis of rough notes he prepared the scaled site plan Ex.Pw9/A with his signatures at point A. In his crossexamination he stated that IO had not asked from many persons gathered there, if they would become the witness to the proceedings of preparation of the site plan.
13. PW15 Umesh Prasad Yadav identified accused Bunty and Manjeet in the court. He identified the knife used in the incident as Ex.,P1 and the slippers of the deceased as Ex.P4. In his crossexamination PW Umesh Prasad Yadav deposed that SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 10 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. he was present in the house at the time of incident. There was no agreement executed between him and his landlady Rajo Devi regarding the tenancy nor any rent receipt was issued to him ever. He stated that all persons, who used to live with him had come to the house at the time of incident on 21.06.09 and nephew of Shambhu was cooking food. They did not have T.V, Refrigerator, Washing Machine, VCR etc. Suggestions were given to the witness regarding execution of all the documents at the PS; nonobtaining of his signatures by police on any document; he not being the eye witness of incident and having falsely implicated the accused; the real offenders having run away from the spot; the accused having been arrested while trying to chase the real offenders; there being a previous enmity with both the accused persons because of professional rivalry; extending of threatenings to the accused earlier to leave the area, which were all denied by the witness as incorrect.
14. PW 10 Ram Babu Yadav has deposed in similar term and has stated that he was standing with Umesh Prasad Yadav and Inderjeet outside his rented house at 5/353, Trilok Puri, Delhi, when they saw Daddan Kumar returning on his TSR. Three persons named Somvir, Bunty and Manjeet were standing at the corner of the park. They saw those three persons caught hold of Daddan by his collar and said that he would run TSR over them and started beating him. They intervened and brought Daddan Kumar to their room. When they reached near the gate, the three boys came again and Manjeet and Somvir started quarreling with Daddan while Bunty inflicted knife blow on his thigh. He stated that they had come out of the room 57 minutes SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 11 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. before the time of incident. He and Inderjeet placed Daddan in TSR of Umesh Prasad Yadav, who drove the TSR to LBS hospital. He deposed that his blood soaked clothes were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW8/A with his signatures at point A. He deposed that on 25.06.09 accused Manjeet was arrested by the police vide memo Ex.PW10/A having his signatures at point A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/B and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.PW10/C. He had pointed to the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW10/D and that his statement in this regard was recorded by the IO. All the documents were signed by him at point A. The witness identified the knife (Ex.P1); his clothes worn at the time of incident (Ex.P2), and the clothes of deceased worn at the time of incident (Ex.P7). He also identified both the accused Manjeet and Bunty. In his cross examination he stated that Daddan Kumar, Umesh Prasad Yadav, Madan, Anil, Suresh, Shambhu and he were sharing the room. He was living in the room for two years but did not know the name of landlord. There was no one inside the room at the time of incident. The food was prepared by 9 pm but they had not consumed the food till the incident. All the accused were known to him as they used to visit the place where the TSRs were parked to take snacks etc. but he did not know their addresses. He deposed that they had walked for a distance of 10 meters after the first incident, when the accused again caught Daddan. They chased accused for 1020 meters but then came back as Daddan was injured. He said that he himself had not called the PCR. The police recorded his statement at his room and recorded another statement on 25.06.09 (the statement regarding arrest of accused Manjeet). His SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 12 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. clothes were seized at his room. On the date of arrest of accused Manjeet, the police had met him at Chand Cinema and he got Manjeet arrested near the Chand Cinema. Suggestions were given to the witness that he never lived in the house and was not present at the house at the time of incident; he was deposing at the instance of IO falsely; all the proceedings were documented at the police station; a quarrel having taken place between Manjeet and Umesh Prasad Yadav regarding the driving of TSR and he being the friend of Umesh Prasad Yadav having falsely implicated Manjeet and Bunty in the case, which all were denied by the witness.
15. PW11 Inderjeet has deposed strictly in the same terms as PW10 & 15. He has stated that his blood stained clothes were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW8/F with his signatures at point C and has identified the knife and his clothes, Ex.P1 & P3 respectively. He also identified both the accused, who were present in the court. In his crossexamination he said that he used to live with Ram Babu Yadav, Umesh Prasad Yadav, Shambhu, Anil and two others. There were two rooms in the house, one at the ground floor and one at first floor, where the mother of landlord used to reside. On the day of incident Anil and Shambhu were present along with two other boys inside the room. He stated that he was not aware if accused Manjeet was a TSR driver and stated that he did not know Manjeet prior to the incident. He stated that all the persons except him, Umesh Prasad Yadav and Ram Babu Yadav were watching T.V in the room at about 10 pm on the day of incident. He stated that they (Inderjeet, Ram Babu Yadav & Umesh Prasad Yadav) had come out of the room 10 minutes SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 13 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. before the time of incident. He stated in his crossexamination that deceased had driven the TSR till the front of the room and had parked it and Somvir, Bunty and Manjeet came to the gate of their room and started quarreling. The witness denied that there was a quarrel between Manjeet and Umesh Prasad Yadav regarding driving of TSR and he being the friend of Umesh Prasad Yadav had named Manjeet and Bunty falsely in this case.
16. PW1 deposed that he was incharge of malkhana on 22.06.09 and was given one sealed parcel, which he deposited after making relevant entry in register no.1 Ex.PW1/A. On 18.09.09 one sealed parcel containing knife was sent to Safdarjung hospital through Ct. Rajender vide RC no. 24/21 for subsequent opinion and entry in this regard was made in register no. 19 at serial no. 3643. On 23.06.09 ASI Rajbeer Singh had deposited on viol with the seal of SJS Forensic Medicines New Delhi alongwith sample seal which was deposited vide entry number 3649 Ex.PW1/B. On 07.10.09 eight sealed parcels were sent to FSL Rohini through RC no.31/21 and relevant entries in register no.19 at S. No. 3643, exhibited Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively.
17. PW6 Ct. Prahlad Narayan deposed that on 22.06.09 he had typed the contents of FIR on the basis of rukka and had issued certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding correctness and genuineness of the computer generated record, the certificate being Ex.PW6/A. SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 14 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc.
18. PW7 Ct. Surender had intimated the admission of Daddan Kumar Yadav in Safdarjung hospital from LBS hospital to the duty officer of PS Kalyan Puri vide DD No.23.
19. PW8 Ct. Shiv Kumar was with ASI Rajbeer Singh on 21.06.09, when they went to the place of incident after receiving the DD no. 42A and 43A. He has deposed that the sketch of the knife was prepared by the IO in his presence and proved the same as Ex.PW8/A with his signatures at point A. The seizure memo of knife as Ex.PW8/B and the seizure memo of blood, earth control as Ex.PW8/C; the site plan prepared by the IO at the instance of Umesh Prasad Yadav as Ex.PW8/D; the seizure memo regarding seizure of clothes of Umesh Prasad Yadav and Inderjeet as Ex.PW8/E and F, with all documents having his signatures at point A. In his cross examination he stated that the first statement of UmeshPrasad Yadav was not recorded by the IO in his presence and the same was recorded in the hospital while statement of Ram Babu Yadav and Inderjeet was recorded by the IO at the spot at 1.30 am in his own handwriting. He stated that Ram Babu Yadav and Inderjeet came at the spot in blood stained clothes.
20. PW12 Dr. Shalini Gupta had prepared the MLC of the deceased at LBS hospital and has proved the MLC as Ex.PW12/A. She says that the patient was unconscious with feeble pulse rate and non recordable BP with wound in his thigh, SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 15 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. muscle deep, profusely bleeding, which could be dangerous. In cross she stated that no history was given by the patient or his attendant.
21. PW14 Ct. Rajender has deposed that he had deposited the sealed pullanda with inquest papers vide RC No. 24/21 at Safdarjung hospital for subsequent opinion on 18.09.09 and had obtained the subsequent opinion from the hospital on 19.09.09, which he handed over to the MHC(M). He has not been crossexamined.
22. PW17 Inspector Mahender Kumar deposed that the investigation of case was marked to him by SHO on 23.06.09. On 24.06.09 he alongwith ASI Rajbeer Singh and Umesh Prasad Yadav reached near LBS hospital Road, 21 Block, Kalyan Puri and on identification by Umesh Prasad Yadav, he arrested Bunty vide arrest memo Ex.PW15/B, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.Pw15/C and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW15/D. He prepared the pointing out memo of the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW15/E. All the above documents had his signatures at point C. On 25.06.09 the accused Bunty was produced in the court and was sent to judicial custody around 5 pm, the same day he alongwith ASI Rajbeer Singh and Ram Babu Yadav reached near Main Road, Chand Cinema,Trilok Puri and on identification of Ram Babu Yadav, he arrested Manjeet @ Arvind vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/A, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW10/C; he prepared the pointing out memo of the place of SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 16 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. incident vide memo Ex.PW10/D with all the documents having his signatures at point C. On 22.07.09 he had called draftsman Ct. Sonu Kaushik and alongwith him and Umesh Prasad Yadav, he went to the spot, where on the pointing of Umesh Prasad Yadav Ct. Sonu Kaushik took the measurements and prepared the scaled site plan, which he gave to him.
On 18.09.09 on his instructions MHC(M) had given the pullanda ( of knife) to Ct. Rajender for obtaining subsequent opinion, which was taken by Ct. Rajender on 19.09.09 to Forensic Medicine Department. Subsequent opinion was given to him by Ct. Rajender and the pullanda was deposited back with the MHC(M). During the trial FSL report was collected and was filed in the court. The same is Ex.PA1. In his cross examination he stated that the landlady of deceased was never asked to join the investigation. He denied the suggestions that Daddan Kumar had a quarrel with landlady and so he did not meet her. He did not search the room where deceased was residing with Umesh Prasad Yadav and Ram Babu Yadav. He did not record the statement of owner of TSR. He admitted that accused Bunty and Manjeet were not the BC but the expired accused Somvir was the BC of the area. He denied that the accused were falsely implicated because of previous enmity with the complainant as the real culprits had run away from the spot.
23. PW18 Dr. Sumit Tellewar has proved the postmortem report. He deposed that the dead body had an incised stabbed wound measuring 3.5 cm x 0.2 cm cutting SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 17 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. the soft tissues and muscles of thigh making a total depth of 13 cm. He stated that as per his opinion this injury, (which was the only external injury on the body of the deceased) was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. He also proved his subsequent opinion saying that the knife Ex.P1 could be the weapon of offence. Postmortem report is Ex.PW18/A; subsequent opinion is Ex.PW18/B and the sketch of knife is Ex.PW18/C with signatures of doctor at point A. In his crossexamination he denied the suggestions that he gave the subsequent opinion without seeing the weapon of offence.
24. PW19 has deposed that he had received a message at 22.15 hours on 21.06.09 which was recorded as DD No.42A and another message at 22.16 hours vide DD No. 43A exhibited as Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B respectively.
25. Arguments were advanced by SH. I.H.Siddiqui, Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of the State and by Sh. A.K.Tiwari, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the accused persons.
It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP that there are as many as three eye witnesses of the incident. All these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and have not shaken in the crossexamination. As per the CFSL report the blood of same group as that of the deceased was found on the clothes of two eye witnesses which establishes the presence of the eye witnesses at the place of incident. The FIR was lodged without any delay. The accused in common intention with each other attacked SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 18 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. the deceased and caused him injury, which ultimately resulted into his death. Nothing has been pointed out in the crossexamination to discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Ld. Counsel for the accused on the other hand argued that the charge was wrongly framed u/s. 302 IPC as the injury was not caused on any vital part; only single blow was given; there was no motive to commit crime; the accused did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and in support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments:
1995 (2) RCR 597 Bhagwan Das Vs. State (page 598 para10); AIR 1981 SC 1441 Gokul Prasharan Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra; 24 (1983) DLT 152 Diwan Chand Vs. State.
He argued that the death was caused by the cutting of arteries and in view of the judgment in 1993 Crl. LJ 63 Sarmon and Ors. Vs. State of M.P, the death having been caused by aforesaid reasons constitutes a case u/s. 304 IPC and not u/s. 302 IPC. He argued that the owner of the TSR was not examined. There is no investigation on who had called the police and given this information. Informer has not been examined. The recovery of the knife is found at the spot and cannot be attributed to the accused. The names of the assailants were not mentioned in the MLC as per PW12. The owner of the house namely Shyam Lal has not been examined and Ct. Kanti Kumar, who had gone to the spot along with the IO and had got the FIR registered has also not been examined. No recovery was effected from the accused after their arrest. The FIR SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 19 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. was not sent to the senior police officers and the Ilaqa Magistrate as per the requirement of law. In this regard he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1996 (3) Crimes 282 (SC) Devinder Vs. State of Haryana. He argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of PW11 and PW15. While PW11 says that other persons in the room were watching T.V, PW15 said that they did not have any T.V; PW 10 stated that they had eaten the food while the other witness said that they had not eaten the food. It was argued that there was a professional rivalry because of which the accused have been falsely implicated and that they are entitled to benefit of doubt.
26. Arguments heard Record perused.
EVIDENCE AGAINST ACCUSED EYE WITNESSES: The prosecution by examining three witnesses PWs 10, 11 & 15 has tried to prove the incident.
The witnesses have corroborated each other completely in their examination in chief and have narrated the incident as it occurred stating that they first saw Manjeet, Somvir and Bunty picking up quarrel with the deceased and beating him and after they intervened and were trying to bring the deceased back to their room, the above three came and started quarreling with deceased again and accused Bunty took out the knife and stabbed the deceased in his left thigh.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has pointed out the contradictions in the cross examination of these witnesses to dispute their presence at the spot. He says that PW SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 20 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. 10 stated twice in his crossexamination that while he was standing outside, there was no one inside the room. PW11 on the other hand stated in his crossexamination that Anil, Shambhu and two others were present inside the house and also said that all persons except him, Umesh Prasad Yadav and Ram Babu Yadav were watching T.V. in the room and later in his evidence he said that those persons came out on hearing the noise of quarrel; while PW 15 said that they did not have a T.V., refrigerator, VCR etc. PW11 though he says in his statement that the others were watching T.V. inside the room, it was not asked from him, which room he was referring to: their own room or the other room. The statement cannot be twisted to suit the case of the defence to presume that there was a T.V. in the room of the complainant, which the other persons were watching, when the defence did not put the correct question to the witness in clear terms. The other contradiction pointed out by Ld. defence counsel is that PW 10 said in his cross examination that all the drivers had taken the dinner except him, Umesh Prasad Yadav and Ram Babu Yadav while PW 15 Umesh Prasad Yadav said that nephew of Shambhu was cooking the food.
The witnesses deposed in the court after 2 2 ½ years of the incident is a relevant fact and it being so some contradictions on facts because of loss of memory on account of lapse of time are bound to be there. These contradictions are too trivial to discredit the otherwise unshaken testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2000 I AD (Cr) SC 49, State of HP vs Lekh Raj and another had, while distinguishing the "Discrepancies in evidence" from "contradiction", held as under:
SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 21 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. ' though latter could be fatal for prosecution case former rather can be a proof of truthfulness of a witness.
In 1974 (3) SCC 767 Ousu Varghese vs State of Kerala also it was held that minor variations in the accounts of witnesses are often the hall mark of the truth of their testimony.
With these judgments, the minor contradictions in the evidence of PWs 10,
11 & 15 can safely be ignored.
On the other hand as pointed out by Ld Addl PP the testimony of the witnesses is corroborative on material aspects and the witnesses have stood by each other's version in the evidence as well as cross examination. PW10 in his cross examination said that he, Madan, Anil, Suresh, Shambhu, Daddan and Ram Babu Yadav used to live in the house. PW 11 said that he, Ram Babu Yadav, Umesh Prasad Yadav, Shambhu, Anil and two others were living in the room. PW15 mentioned in his cross about Shambhu and his nephew (whose name he said he had forgotten), Ram Babu Yadav, Inderjeet and Umesh Prasad Yadav. He did not mention about all the persons as no such question was put to him in the cross examination.
PW15 stated that the house was three storied building and PW11 stated that the building had two constructed rooms, one each at ground and first floor, thus corroborating each other.
PW11 stated that the owner of the house was Shyam Lal and his mother used to live on the first floor, PW15 stated that the landlord was Smt. Rajo Devi who as per PW11 was living alone on the first floor of the house.
SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 22 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. The answers of the witnesses, being in response to the questions put to them in different manners at different points of time, during cross examination, are strengthening the case of prosecution that the three witnesses were living in the said house along with Daddan, Shambhu and others.
Similarly PW10 stated in the cross examination : 'we were standing outside the room' for about 57 minutes prior to seeing Daddan Kumar' and PW 11 stated (in cross examination) : ' we came out side from the room for about 10 minutes prior to the incident'. The two statements do suggest that the witnesses were truthful in their testimony when they said that they came out of the room slightly before the occurrence.
Totality of the facts when considered clearly reveals that statement of witnesses cannot be stated to be of untruthful witnesses. They were undoubtedly present at the spot and in an incoherent manner have described as to how the injury was caused on the person of the deceased. Certain omissions here and there would not lead to a conclusion that the testimony of all the three witnesses is unreliable.
27. It was argued by Ld. counsel that landlord was an important witness but was not examined. The evidence of the landlord would merely have proved that the witnesses were residing at the given address and nothing more, as no one is saying that she was an eye witness of the incident. The factum of the witnesses residing at the given address stands proved by PW 10, 11 & 15 by direct statement in chief as well as by their replies, which came in answer to the questions put by the defence counsel in cross examination.
SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 23 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. Similarly regarding nonexamination of the witnesses in the room or near the spot, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1998 SC 2606 State of Bihar vs. Ram Padarth Singh, wherein it was held that Veracity of testimony (of witnesses) cannot be doubted on the ground that other available witnesses were not examined. And reliance can also be placed on AIR 2000 SC118 Sheelam Ramesh and anr v state of Andhra Pradesh wherein it was held that having examined all the eye witnesses even, if other persons present nearby not examined and all, the evidence of eye witness cannot be discarded.
28. Corroborative evidence: The clothes of the witnesses were seized by the I.O. and seizure memos have been duly proved by the prosecution. The clothes were identified by PW10 & PW11 in their testimony and were also identified by the witnesses of investigation PW8 & PW16. These clothes were sent by the prosecution to CFSL for examination. The report of CFSL, which has not been disputed by the defence says that the blood found on the clothes of the witnesses, was of the same group as that of the deceased. This goes to corroborate the evidence of PW10 & 11 that they had taken the deceased to the LBS hospital and that their clothes got soaked with the blood of deceased on way.
29. Post Mortem Report: The report says that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to antemortem injury. It says that this injury was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. The report also says that the deceased had only one SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 24 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. external injury. All the three prosecution witnesses have deposed that the deceased was stabbed only once by accused Bunty. The report corroborates the evidence of prosecution witnesses that Death was a direct result of injury caused by the accused.
30. Subsequent opinion : The doctor who conducted the post mortem gave his subsequent opinion and said that the injury, which the deceased had suffered was possible by the kind of weapon, which was sent to him for obtaining the subsequent opinion. This weapon has been proved by PWs 10, 11, 15, 8 & 16 as the knife which was seized from the place of incident and which as per the PWs 10,11 & 15 was left by accused Bunty at the spot after the commission of offence. Except for some suggestions nothing has been said in the cross examination of the doctor to discredit the subsequent opinion.
31. No delay: The DD entry regarding the incident is of 22:16 hours and the FIR was registered at 01: 15 hours. During which time the investigating team went to the spot and then to the hospital where the statement of eye witness was recorded. There is absolutely no delay in registration of FIR.
32. It was argued that Ct. Kanti Prasad who was a material witness was not examined by the prosecution. Admittedly this witness has been cited by the prosecution and was a part of investigation but has not been examined. Record reveals that PW Ct. Kanti Prasad had appeared in the court for his evidence on 21.09.12. He, however was not examined and was dropped by the prosecution being a SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 25 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. repetitive witness. The dropping was not objected by the defence counsel who was present in the court at that time.
It is therefore to be presumed that the defence was not keen on cross examining this witness and the loss, if at all, is of only in respect of what this witness could have proved for the prosecution. The witness could have proved that he went to the place of incident, which has been proved by PWs 8 & 16. He would have proved that he took the rukka to the police station and got the FIR registered. The defence has not challenged the timings of rukka and recording of FIR in the crossexamination of PW16.
It was held in 2000 I AD (Cr) SC 289 Ambika Prasad and another vs. State (Delhi Administration) that non examination of IO and police witness turning hostile is not fatal to the case of prosecution case when there is other overwhelming evidence on record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court thus has held that even the non examination of I.O. is ignorable if the case of the prosecution stands otherwise. The case of the prosecution has been proved by the eyewitnesses supported by the medical and scientific evidence and the other witnesses of prosecution. Non examination of Ct. Kanti Prasad, therefore, is immaterial.
33. It has been argued by Ld. counsel that no witness has been examined by the prosecution to show that the FIR was sent to the senior police officers and Ilaqa Magistrate. In this regard he has relied upon a judgment of the year 1996 (Devinder SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 26 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. Supra). Before concluding that this lapse can be fatal for the case of prosecution one needs to understand the purpose with which the provision of sending the FIRs as above was made. To my understanding, the only purpose for this could be to prevent manipulation/ tampering with the FIR. In today's ways and world of technology the fear has been addressed by computerised check on the possibility of manipulation. The FIRs get automatically locked after being written once and the operator concerned gives a certificate under section 65 B of the Evidence Act, which in the present case was done by PW6 Ct. Prahlad.
The provision though it has not been done away with yet, the non examination of the person, who delivered the report to the higher officials and the MM concerned, under present scenario will not cast a doubt on the genuineness of the FIR and its contents.
34. It was argued by Ld. Counsel that the name of assailants was not given in the MLC. The important fact here is that the injured was unconscious, under such circumstances the focus becomes the medical assistance for the injured. Non mentioning of the names of assailants is thus an ignorable issue. In the judgment cited by Ld. Counsel in Devinder (supra) the deceased was fully conscious when he was taken to hospital, which was immediately after the incident and the FIR was also delayed having been recorded at 2:40 PM for the incident, which took place in the morning. It was under those circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that all the issues viz non mentioning of the names of assailants in FIR, SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 27 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. special report having not been sent to the Magistrate etc, were pointing that the FIR was not lodged properly. Contrary to that in the present case the deceased was unconscious and was bleeding dangerously (as per MLC), there was thus hardly any time to focus on the formalities as has been argued by Ld. Counsel. Further the FIR was recorded without any loss of time, leaving no opportunity for changing/ manipulating the story.
35. The defence has taken the plea of enmity with accused Manjeet on account of professional rivalry. This, however does not seem believable at the outset, since if there were any rivalry as is being claimed, the prosecution witnesses would have levelled the most serious allegation against Manjeet with whom there was the alleged enmity /rivalry. The witnesses however have said that the knife blow was given by Bunty and not by Manjeet. PW11 Inderjeet could not even tell the name of accused Manjeet and had identified him by pointing towards him. If there was any rivalry with Manjeet, the witness would have known him by name. This renders the plea of the accused unbelievable.
36. The prosecution thus has proved that an incident of quarrel took place outside H.No. 5/353, Trilok Puri, Delhi between Daddan Kumar Yadav and Somvir, accused Manjeet & accused Bunty. It is also proved that during the quarrel Bunty had stabbed the deceased on his left thigh with a knife Ex.P1 and all the three had run away leaving the knife at the spot. Ld. Counsel argued that these facts taken per SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 28 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. se make out a case u/s. 304 IPC and not U/s. 302 IPC. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 1995 (2) RCR, Bhagwan Das Vs. State. The facts of the said case as mentioned in para 6 at page no. 598 are similar to the facts of the present case and are reproduced hereunder:
" There is not even an iota of suggestions that the appellant had any motive to kill Sukh Lal or had any intention to cause his death. She has pointed out that the occurrence had taken place in a very sudden manner. The real purpose of the appellant and his coaccused was to somehow make Sukh Lal to gamble with them but Sukh Lal was not keen for gambling at that time because his two brothers had come and so he wanted to go back to his house and suddenly the appellant had taken out the knife and gave one stab blow at the back of the thigh of deceased and so the offence committed is under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code."
" That death was due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from injury to the said artery and the said injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature."
The Hon'ble High Court in aforesaid circumstances had held as under:
" Under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, the offence would be culpable homicide amounting to murder if there was any intention to cause death. That is not the case in the present facts. Clause 3 of Section 300 could have been made applicable if the appellant had intended to cause the injury to the said particular artery which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Here the appellant had struck only one blow with the knife and not at any vital part of the SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 29 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. deceased, but unfortunately the said blow resulted in puncturing the said artery which resulted in death of Sukh Lal. So, it cannot be said from this evidence that the appellant intended to cause that particular injury to the said artery and thus the matter would not be covered by the said clause 3 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code."
To conclude as above following judgments were relied upon by Hon'ble High Court:
Parashram Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 1441, wherein it was held by the Apex Court that the accused given only a solitary blow to the deceased on the left clavicle a non vital part.... the accused had no intention to cause the death and also had not intended to cause the said injury to the said superior venacava and it held that the offence made out was under Section 304 Part II and had sentenced the accused in that case to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and Dewan Chand and another V. State, 24 (1983) Delhi Law Times 152, wherein it was held that the injury had been caused on the deceased's thigh with a knife which had cut former artery and the injury was opined to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.... it was not proved from the facts that the accused intended to cause death of the deceased and also did not intend to cause such injury to the said femoral artery and thus it was held that the offence made out was under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code.
In the present case admittedly the incident took place at the spur of the moment. To impute upon the accused, an intention to cause death of the deceased SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 30 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. would not be appropriate as the evidence of the prosecution does not suggests this. Accused caused a single blow on the thigh of the deceased and left the knife there and ran away. Accused thus did not intend to cause such injury to the deceased as would have resulted in his death as per the requirement of section 300 IPC. Going by the judgments cited above, the accused having caused a single injury on the person of accused, on a non vital part of his body, though caused his death but did not commit his murder and is not liable under section 302 IPC. The offence committed in this case is u/s. 304 part II IPC having been caused with the knowledge that the act may result into the death, which ultimately occurred.
37. Who committed what offence ?: The prosecution case is that all the accused including the dead accused were in common intention with each other and they committed the offence with such common intention and are thus liable u/s. 34 alongwith other sections of IPC.
The essence of section 34 is simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. (AIR 1998 SC Jangeer Singh and others v State of Rajasthan).
Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1998 SC 40 Dukhmochan Pandey etc. v State of Bihar relied upon by AIR 2000SC 1779, Rajendra Singh and others vs State of Bihar held as under:
" There lies a difference between common intention and similar intention and question whether there exists common intention in all the persons who made some SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 31 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. overt act resulting in the death of some person of the other party is a question of fact and can be inferred only from the circumstances. The distinction between the common intention and the similar intention may be fine, but is nonetheless a real one and if overlooked may lead to miscarriage of justice".
Coming to the facts of present case all the eye witnesses of prosecution have said the quarrel ensued first at some distance from the place where they were standing and they saw that ' those persons ' ( Manjeet, Somveer and Bunty) started beating the deceased. About the second incident the witnesses say that while Manjeet and Somvir picked up the quarrel, Bunty inflicted the knife blow upon the deceased. Though they mention that other two accused had also quarreled with the deceased; all the witnesses are silent on how, if at all, had they (Manjeet and Somvir) assisted and/or supported and/or instigated and /or consented to the act of accused Bunty.
PW11 says in his crossexamination that Bunty had taken out the knife from his left leg and the same was kept in his socks. He does not say that accused Manjeet or Somvir had asked him to take out the knife or to stab the deceased or to cause him any injury. The evidence is lacking completely in bringing out the element of common intention allegedly shared between Manjeet and Bunty.
38. It is thus concluded that the fatal injury was caused to the deceased by accused Bunty and by him alone. He is accordingly convicted u/s. 304 part II IPC. SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 32 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. The evidence against accused Manjeet is of having beaten the deceased at the first instance and he for this act of his can be convicted only for having caused hurt to the deceased. He is held guilty for an offence punishable under section 323 IPC. Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open
court on 28.02.13 (ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ)
ASJ03, (EAST) KKD COURTS/DELHI
SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 33 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc.
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ
ASJ02 (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No.07/12
State V/s. (1) Bunty S/o Sh. Ajeet Singh
R/o. H.No.13/401, Trilok Puri,
Delhi.
(2) Manjeet S/o Sh. Sulender Singh,
R/o. 6/5, Trilok Puri,
Delhi.
FIR No. 157/09
PS. Kalyan Puri
U/s.302/34 IPC
Pr: Sh. I.H.Siddiqui, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Bunty in custody.
Mr. A. K. Tiwari, Legal Aid Counsel for convict.
ORDER ON SENTNENCE:
1. The accused have been convicted by order/judgment of this court dt.
28.02.2013.
2. Heard on point of sentence.
3. It was argued that convict Bunty has been in custody for the last more than SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 34 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. 3 years 8 months and 11 days. He is a person of tender age and was only 20 years old at the time of commission of offence. His father had died few days before the commission of offence and his sisters are married. It has further been contended by Counsel for the convict that convict is 24 years of age and is having responsibility of his old and ailing mother and handicapped elder brother and that he is the sole bread earner of his family. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that convict Bunty is not a previous convict. As per Ld. Counsel, present dispute arose at a spur of moment and the convict had no intention to commit the offence.
Relying on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in State of Punjab Vs. Balwant Singh 1995 (2) RCR 239, where the accused, who had given only one blow to the deceased, was released on probation, Ld. Counsel sought the release of accused on probation. He argued that there are chances of reformation of accused considering his tender age and also stated that no complaints were received against the accused during the period of his custody, showing that he in fact has improved. Citing all these reason, Ld. defence counsel has requested for taking a lenient view against the convict.
4. On the other hand Ld. Addl. PP has argued that the accused had hidden a knife in his socks which shows his intent and is also reflective of his mental state, which cannot be said to be of an innocent person who can be reformed. He has sought the maximum sentence for the convict SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 35 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc.
5. The law related to sentencing as laid by various Higher Courts is that a balance is to be drawn between the rights of the convict and the justice to the society. The convict in this matter has used a knife blatantly on a small rift with the deceased, the severity of blow was such that the deceased died of the injury caused by convict. The act of the convict is not such as can be considered to be deserving of his release on probation as claimed by Ld. defence Counsel. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be subserved if the convict Bunty is sentenced U/s. 304 Part II IPC to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment. Convict Manjeet has already been sentenced u/s. 323 IPC to imprisonment of one year vide order dt. 05.03.13.
6. The period of detention already undergone by them during investigation, inquiry or trial may be set off against the sentence awarded in this case, in view of section 428 Cr.PC.
7. It is clarified that convict Manjeet has not been held guilty u/s. 307/302/34 IPC and convict Bunty has also not been held guilty u/s. 307/302/34 IPC. This clarification is in response to the query of Jail authorities vide letter no. F.8 & 9/SC8 & 9/AS (UT)/2013/300 Dt. 06.03.13. Convict Manjeet be released in this case, if not wanted in any other case.
8. A copy of this order as well as of judgment be given to convicts free of SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 36 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc. cost. Copy be also sent to Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action. Announced in the open court on 06.03.13 (ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ) ASJ03, (EAST) KKD COURTS, DELHI/06.03.13 SC No.07/12, FIR No.157/09, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 37 of 37 State Vs. Bunty etc.