Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Darban Singh S/O Sh Balbir Singh on 9 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN, LD. ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE03, SE: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 25/10
State Vs 1. Darban Singh S/o Sh Balbir Singh
R/o 572, Sector9, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
2. Amit Bisht S/o Sh Rajender Bisht
R/o A2442, Netati Nagar, New Delhi
3. Anil Negi S/o Sh Bhopal Singh
R/o 862, Sector5, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
FIR No: : 356/01
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
U/s. : 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 302 IPC
DATE OF INSTITUTION : (21.09.2010Initial date
of Institution : 24.12.2004 )
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 06.08.2011
DATE OF DECISION : 09.08.2011
JUDGMENT:
1. Prosecution story in brief is that on receiving DD no. 16 A on 08.05.2001, SI Pradeep Rawat alongwith SI Satvinder Singh and other staff reached Sri Aurbindo College where on inquiry it was found that some of the injured persons were taken to the Geetanjali hospital and some at AIIMS hospital. In the meanwhile SHO Inspector Udai Veer Singh Rathi also reached at spot and he alongwith SI Satvinder Singh and SI Pradeep and State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -1 ) other staff reached Geetanjali hospital where doctor declared injured Ajay Kumar dead.
2. In the hospital police recorded the statement of injured Dharmender who stated that he alongwith Rajesh, Manish, Akhtar, Mukesh and Ajay, all members of hockey team of Aurbindo College residing at D269, STC colony on rent. On 30.04.2001 Ajay got some dispute with Harender member of boxing team over the use of bathroom but the matter was resolved through Rajesh and Manish, but Harender was not satisfied and threatened Ajay that he will not leave him. Today at around 6 pm when he alongwith Rajesh are looking the repairing of fan, they heard some commotion from outside and when they came out they saw at main gate of college Harender, Anil Bhatt and Satender Bisht and 67 other boys of their boxing team were beating Ajay who were having knives, lathi and one of them was also having pistol in his hand. He further alleged that Harender shouting that this is the person who had abused him over the use of bathroom on 30.4.01 and today he will not leave him and all the persons started beating Ajay. Harender and his other companions had stabbed Ajay in the meanwhile other members of hockey team Dinesh Mukesh and Akhtar also reached at spot. He alongwith Dinesh, Mukesh and Akhtar tried to save Ajay and on this those persons also attacked them and in the injured condition Sh Mahender Singh Director Physical Education had taken him to Geetanjali hospital and lateron he found that State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -2 ) Ajay succumbed to injuries. Pursuant to his statement FIR was registered u/s 147/148/149/307/302 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
3. During investigation SI Satvinder Singh at the instance of complainant Dharmender prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of other eye witnesses. As per postmortem report cause of death of deceased Ajay Kumar opined to be hemorrhage due to stab injury caused by sharp edged weapon.
4. Accused Harender Singh and Satender Singh Bisht were arrested and other accused Anil Bisht, Darban Singh, Anil Negi and Amit Bisht were declared proclaimed offender. Lateron absconding accused Anil Bhatt surrendered and was formally arrested. On completion of trial against accused Harender Singh, Satender Singh Bisht and Anil Bhatt, Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 27.11.2003 convicted accused Harender for commission of offence u/s 302 IPC and acquitted accused Satender Singh Bisht and Anil Bhatt.
5. Subsequently on 13.11.2004 present acused Amit Bisht, Anil Negi, Darban Singh were arrested. During TIP proceedings only accused Amit Bisht was identified by prosecution witness Mukesh and on completion of investigation supplementary chargesheet against accused Amit Bisht, Darban Singh and Anil Negi was filed.
State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -3 )
6. On committal of supplementary chargesheet, charges against the accused were framed u/s. 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149, 308/149, and 323/149 IPC and all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Prosecution had examined 30 prosecution witnesses for substantiating charge. PW3 Dharmender, PW4 Munish Pawar, PW6 Rajesh, PW7 Akhtar Ali, PW8 Mukesh, PW9 Dinesh Kumar are eye witnesses. Other witnesses are police officials, officials of college, Magistrate and doctors. Summery details of the prosecution witnesses are as follows. Deposition of eye witnesses
8. PW3 Dharmender deposed that 23 days prior to 08.05.2001, there was some altercation between Ajay and Harender on the issue of using bathroom and at that time he had gone to Haryana for recruitment in Haryana police and said fact told to him by Mukesh and Akhtar. He further deposed that on 08.05.2001 at about 6.00 p.m, he was alongwith Rajesh when getting the electricity repaired, heard some noise and found 300400 student and public from outside in front of the college. He further deposed that he had seen 57 persons having dandas in their hands and also seen Ajay, Akhtar and Dinesh in injured condition but had not State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -4 ) seen anybody hitting them and causing injuries to them from his own eyes. He further deposed that in the meanwhile Dy. Director of the Sports also reached there. At the same time somebody hit him on his head from the back and he was removed to Gitanjali hospital and Ajay, Dinesh and Akhtar were also removed to Gitanjali hospital. He further deposed that none of the assailants who gave beating to Ajay, Dinesh and Akhtar are present in the court. He further deposed that no assailants was arrested in his presence. On being declared hostile, in cross examination by Ldl Addl P.P. he deposed that he had signed the statement mark PW3/A. He further denied suggestion that he told the police that Harender, Sunil, Satender Bisht and 67 boys gave beatings to the Ajay and they were armed with lathi and one of them was having pistol in his hands. He was confronted with the entire statement but he denied the same and also stated that it is incorrect that Anil Negi, Amit Bisht and Darban Singh present in court were also present at the spot at the time of incident. He further deposed that police had taken his signatures on blank papers.
9. PW4 Munish Pawar deposed that 2025 days prior to this incident there was some altercation regarding use of bathroom and on 08.05.2001, when the examinations were over , one person told Dy. Director of Sports that one member of house keeping was admitted in Gitanjali hospital in front of Arbindo College. On being declared hostile, in cross examination by APP, he denied suggestion that he saw Harender Singh, Anill Kumar State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -5 ) Bhatt, Satender Bisht and their accomplices attacking Ajay Kumar. He further deposed that he do not know accused Darban Singh, Anil Negi and Amit Bisht and denied suggestion that Darban, Anil and Amit also attacked on Ajay on the day of incident. He was duly confronted with his statement given to police mark PW4/A and PW4/B.
10. PW6 Rajesh deposed that on 08.05.2001, after finishing exam at about
6..00 p.m., he came to know that a quarrel took place between Harender and Ajay. And Ajay sustain stab wound. Thereafter, he alongwith Akhtar, Manish, went to Gitanjali hospital where they came to know that Ajay had expired. He had not seen the person who stabbed Ajay. He further deposed that there is some altercation took place between Ajay and Harender on 30.04.2001 over use of bathroom. On being turned hostile, in cross examination denied suggestion that he told the police that he saw Anil, Amit and Satender and giving beating to Ajay Kumar on the main entrance gate. He further denied suggestion that Harender Singh was having knife in his right hand, and Amit Kumar Bhatt was having danda, and one other boy was also having danda and other boy was having pistol. He was duly confronted with the statement given to police vide mark PW6/E. He further deposed that he had seen the accused persons in college premises but had not seen them at the spot at the time of incident and further cannot identify accused by name.
State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -6 )
11. PW7 Akhtar Ali deposed that in the month of May 2001, he alongwith Mukesh, Munish, Dharmender and Rajesh and other used to reside in hostel and on 08.05.2001, after finishing exams when he came outside college, he saw Mukesh and Manish separating quarreling persons in the meanwhile, somebody hit on his head from behind, he fallen down and became unconscious. He further deposed that he cannot say who gave beating and stabbing to Ajay and only saw Mukesh and Manish separating the persons who were quarreling. On being declared hostile, he stated that police has not recorded his statement and police had taken his signatures on blank papers. He further denied suggestion that police had made inquires from him on 09.05.2007. He further denied accused were present at the time was quarrel or that accused Anil was having danda and Amit was having pistol.
12. PW8 Mukesh deposed that in the year 2001, he alongwith deceased Ajay Kumar, Dharmender, Rajesh and Akhtar were residing together being the members of hockey team of college. On 30.04.2001, quarrel took place between Harender Singh and Ajay Kumar over use of bathroom. He further deposed that on 08.05.2001, after having exam, when he alongwith Akhtar reached near channel gate of college they heard some noise and saw Harender and Amit Bisht and other persons giving beating to Ajay. Amit Bisht present in court is correctly identified by the witness was having pistol and further accused Harender was having knife and other State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -7 ) companion of Harender were having dandas in their hands. He further deposed that he Manish and Akhtar tried to intervene in the quarrel and tried to separate and in the process he also sustained injuries on the head and back. He further deposed that he came to know that Ajay died due to injury sustained and Ali Akhtar and Dinesh also sustained injuries, no other companion of Harender who were giving beating except Amit is present in the court. He further deposed that he, Dharmender, Dinesh and Akhtar alongwith father of deceased Ajay went to police station on 08.05.2001 and identified accused Harender. Later on he identified accused Amit Bisht in TIP at jail.
13. In cross examination on behalf of accused Amit Bisht that he deposed that his previous statement in the court was also recorded as PW11 in this case on 10.01.2003 and further twice statements were recorded once when FIR was registered and another when TIP was conducted in the year 2005. He further deposed that it is correct that he did not tell the name of Amit Bisht in his statement. Vol. that he had told Harender etc. and he can identify other persons if shown to him. He further deposed that he has signed his statements but it is observed but there is no such statement on record. He further deposed that he had never told the name of any other accused except Harender in his statement before the police and he told the name of Amit after recording of TIP. He further deposed that in his statement he told to the police the name of other companion of Harender, State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -8 ) like Darban singh etc. and by etc. he means Amit Bisht who is present in the court. He further deposed that he had never written any letter to the police in connection with this case. But it is correct that in his statement after discussing with other eye witness and student he mentioned name of accused Darban Singh, Anil Negi and Amit Bisht. He further denied suggestion that he was not present at the spot and had not witnessed the incident. On clarification by Addl .P.P. he witness told that he had mentioned the name of Darban Singh and Anil Negi in PW8/D1 as he was told .in discussion by other students and eye witnesses who were present at the spot but he himself had not seen them at the spot at the time of incident.
14. PW9 Dinesh deposed that he saw some boys beating Ajay on 08.05.2001 and told name of convicted Harender to police. But this witness denied involvement of present accused in the incident.
Deposition of Police officials:
15. PW1 HC Ranbir Singh, Duty officer who recorded the FIR Ex. PW1/A (and same is also Ex.PW8/B). PW2 Ct. Yoginder, Member of crime team who had taken photographs of the spot. PW5 SI Mahesh Kumar prepared the scaled site plan of the spot. PW10 Ct. Jagjit Singh State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -9 ) accompanied Satbir Singh to Geetanjali hospital and in his presence statement of injured Dharmender was recorded by SI Satvinder Singh who prepared rukka and gave it to ct. Hawa Singh for registration of FIR. PW11 SI Pradeep Rawat went to spot on receiving DD no. 16 A on 08.05.2001 alongwith Ct. Hawa singh and Pawan Kumar and thereafter, went to Geetanjali hospital and found injured Ajay died. PW12 ASI Mahipal Singh arrested accused Darban Singh, Amit Bisht and Anil Negi on 14.11.2004 and further recorded their disclosure statements and conducted their TIP proceedings on 18.12.2004. PW15 SI Begha Ram being Incharge of crime team inspected the spot on 09.05.2001 and submitted case report to IO vide Ex. PW15/A. PW16 HC Narender Singh stated that on 08.05.2001 accused Satender had pointed out the place of occurrence in his presence. PW18 ASI Ram Kishan deposed to have joined the investigation on 08.05.2001 and remained at the spot while SI Satender went to Geetanjali hospital and on the next day SI KP Singh came at spot with photographer and took 3 photographs of place of occurrence and further took blood samples of the spot. PW19 Ct. Hawa Singh on receiving DD no. 16 on 08.05.2001 he handed over the same to SI Pradeep Rawat and reached the spot. He was handed over the rukka by SI Satvinder Singh for registration of case. PW20 SI KP Singh called crime team at the spot on 09.05.2001 and photographs were taken in his presence and he collected blood samples from the spot. PW21 HC Devi State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -10 ) Singh delivered two sealed envelopes received from duty officer on 08.05.2001 to concerned MM and Sr. officers.
16. PW22 Inspector Sajan Singh arrested accused Amit Bisht, Darban Singh and Anil Negi U/s 41 Cr.P.C on 13.11.04 as they were already PO, prepared kalandra and produced the above 3 accused before the court. PW28 SI Satvinder Singh investigating officer of the present case filed chargesheet against accused Harender Singh and Satinder Singh and got declared Amit Bisht, Darban Singh and Anil Negi as Proclaimed offender. Deposition of other witnesses:
17. PW13 Raj Singh identified the dead body of deceased Ajay on 09.05.2001. PW14 Dr. Biplab examined injured Mukesh on 08.,05.2001 vide MLC Ex.PW2/A with alleged history of involvement in a fight and opinion regarding nature of injury is simple blunt. PW17 Dr. Hari Om Principal of Sh Aurbindo College had given the list of name of college boxing team to the investigating officer vide Ex. PW16/A and further on 12.05.2001 given the list of who were absent on 08.05.2001 during examination in the evening session. In cross examination, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge regarding presence and absence of names in the list and the same was prepared by section officer.
State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -11 )
18. PW23 Dr. Dalip Makhija , Consultant Surgeon Geetanjali hospital deposed that on 08.05.2001 he had medically examined deceased Ajay Kumar and despite all efforts patient could not be revived and declared dead at 6.40 pm and he further examined injured Dharmender. PW24 Sh D.S. Chakotra Retd. Sr. Scientific officer had examined 5 sealed parcels vide Ex.PW24/A and Ex.PW24/B. PW25 Dr. Bimlesh Yadav, Principal Sri Aurbindo college (Evening) had supplied the information regarding boxing team vide Ex. PW17/A and had given the names of members of boxing team of evening college and clarified that Dheeraj Singh, Anil Kumar were present in examination of Political Science on 18.05.2001. PW26 Sh Mahender Singh Retd. Reader Sri Aurbindo College deposed that he was already examined on 02.04.2003 as PW18 but do not remember the date of incident. He deposed that during examination at about 6 pm he heard noise at downstairs and seen 34 boxer of college team beating 2 boys of hockey team. One of them was Darban Singh and other from the evening shift of the college. And he intervened and boxer of the college team were sent out of college and took boys of hockey team upstairs in the control room to avoid any further conflict. In the meantime he heard noise and came downstairs and got to know that one boy had been stabbed and taken to Geetanjali hospital and thereafter went to Geetanjali hospital and found deceased Ajay Kumar declared dead. He State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -12 ) further deposed that he cannot say whether he can identify accused Darban Singh and the witness in court could not point out towards Darban Singh. Even on pointing out he could not identfy Darban Singh. Witness states that since it is long time he cannot identify accused Darban Singh. In cross examination he deposed that he can recollect boys beating hockey team member namely Dharamender and Dharam Singh and second time he heard the noise after 57 minutes but had not seen the incident of stabbing. PW27 Baljit Singh identified the dead body of deceased Ajay.
19. PW29 Ms. Barkha Gupta conducted the TIP proceedings of accused Amit Bisht, Anil Negi and Darban Singh and during TIP proceedings on 8.12.04 accused Amit Bisht, was identified by witness Mukesh. PW30 Dr. Sanjiv Lalwani who deposed that he had seen the postmortem report Ex.PW15/A of deceased Ajay Singh and the cause of death opined as hemorrhagic shock due to injury no.1 caused by sharp edged weapon and injury no.1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
20. Accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C and took plea of false implication.
21. Sh Vikas Arora, Ld. Counsel for the accused Amit Bisht submitted that none of the eye/injured witnesses had named accused Amit Bisht in their State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -13 ) testimony except PW8 Mukesh. Ld. counsel further submits that the name of accused persons were not mentioned in FIR . Further their names cropped up during investigation after alleged eye witnesses had written a letter to SHO on 09.07.2001 i.e, about after 2 months of the incident and stating therein that with consultation among themselves and other students found that present accused persons were also involved in the said incident. Sh Vikas Arora further submitted that this PW8 had not mentioned the name of the accused Amit Bisht in his previous deposition as PW11 in previous trial of this case. And in cross examination he could not give the plausible explanation of non mentioning of the name of the accused in previous statements in the court and before the police. This witness is changing stand at every stage, hence, not worthy of any reliance. Ld. Counsel further submits that there is no other incriminating circumstance against the accused. Sh G.C. Nagar Ld. counsel for accused Anil Negi and Darban Singh submits that there is absolutely no evidence against these accused persons. None of the eye witnesses have deposed anything against these accused persons. Ld. counsels further submits that circumstance of mere abscondance of accused persons without any corroborating evidence cannot be relied upon.
22. Ld.Addl. PP on the other hand submitted that there is a positive evidence of PW8 Mukesh against accused Amit Bisht. This PW had stated that he is involved in the commission of offence with the convicted accused State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -14 ) Harender and present at the spot. The explanation of this witness that he previously could not name accused Amit Bisht because he was not brought before him by the police is credible and there is nothing brought on record by defence why this witness will depose against accused Amit Bisht. The testimony of this witness is sufficient to convict the accused Amit Bisht.
23. Arguments heard. Record perused.
24. FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of injured Dharmender (PW3) who stated to the police that at around 6.00 p.m., when he alongwith Rajesh looking repairs of fan heard some commotions outside and thereafter, they reached at the main gate where they found accused Harender, Anil Bhatt and Satender Bisht (previously tried) alongwith 67 other boys of boxing team were beating deceased Ajay who were having knives, lathis and one of them was having pistol in their hands. Accused Harender and other companions had stabbed Ajay. Meanwhile other members of hockey team also tried to save Ajay, but those persons also attacked them. According to this witness, other members i.e. other injured eye witnesses, Dinesh, Mukesh and Akhtar, Munish also reached the spot and they were also attacked by these assailants. The police had recorded the statement of other injured witnesses also. All these witnesses had not named the present accused State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -15 ) persons in their statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C.
25. Later on all these injured witnesses i.e., Manish Panwar, Akhtar Ali, Rajesh, Dharmender, Mukesh had written a letter dated 09.07.2001 after two months of incident to the SHO, Malviya Nagar stating therein that beside accused Harender Singh, Anil Kumar Bhatt and Satender Singh, present accused Darban Singh, Anil Negi and Amit Bisht were also involved. They further stated in that letter that they very well know and identify these accused persons.
26. Eye witness PW3 Dharmender, PW4 Munish Panwar, PW6 Rajesh, PW7 Akhtar Ali, PW8 Mukesh, PW9 Dinesh Kumar are examined before court in present trial. Except PW4 Manish, all these witnesses in their deposition before court had confirmed the incident of alleged stabbing of deceased Ajay on the said day of the incident. PW3 Dharmender deposed that he had not seen anybody, hitting or causing injuries to the injured persons from his own eyes. PW4 Manish Panwar had not talked about the even happening of the incident as alleged by the prosecution. PW6 Rajesh deposed that after examination he came to know about quarrel taken place between Harender and Ajay but had not stated that he himself seen the incident. PW7 Akhtar Ali deposed that he saw Mukesh and Manish to separate persons who were quarreling and somebody hit on his head from behind but further deposed that he cannot say who had stabbed deceased State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -16 ) Ajay. PW9 Dinesh deposed that he had seen one boy catching hold of Ajay having a knife but he had not noticed as to other boys having weapons in their hands and further had not stated anything about the other accused persons except Harender only. All these injured/eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution case over involvement of present accused persons in said incident.
27. One of the injured witness PW8 Mukesh in his statement before court deposed that on 08.05.2001, he came out of the college alongwith Akhtar Ali and heard some noise and saw Harender, Amit Bisht and other persons giving beating to Ajay and correctly identified accused Amit Bisht present in the court. Accused Harender was having a knife in his hand and accused Amit was having a pistol and other accomplice of accused persons were having dandas in their hands. He further deposed that today no other companion of accused Harender except Amit Bisht is present in the court and had identified accused Amit Bisht in TIP.
28. In cross examination this witness stated that he had given previous statement in this court on 10.01.2003 as PW11 and further stated that police had recorded his statement twice. First when the FIR was registered and thereafter, in the year 2005 at Tihar Jail. This witness also deposed that it is correct that he did not tell the name of Amit Bisht in his statement and further also deposed that he had not told the name of any State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -17 ) other persons except accused Harender. The explanation of non mentioning of name of other accused Amit Bisht is that he do not know his name.
29. This witness admittedly had not named the accused Amit Bisht in his previous statement recorded before the court on 10.01.2003, further neither told the name of accused Amit Bisht before the police in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. This witness was confronted with a letter Ex.PW8/D1 written by this witness to SHO Malviya Nagar on 09.07.2001 and he in cross examination admitted to have written that letter Ex. PW8/D1 and that too after discussing with other eye witnesses and other students and mentioned the name of Darban Singh, Anil Negi and Amit Bisht. Perusal of Ex. PW8/D1 shows that name of accused Amit Bisht was disclosed after discussion with injured witnesses and other students and further mentioned in that letter that they know them well before and can identify them.
30. Now one thing is evident from the reading of Ex. PW8/D1, this witness PW8 Mukesh know the accused present persons well but had not deposed their name in his statement before the police and also had in his previous statement recorded before the court as PW11 10.01.2003. Further in present deposition he stated that he could not tell the names before the police or in the court because he do not know the accused persons, which State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -18 ) is inconsistent with his letter written to Ex. PW8/D1. This witness is selectively involving accused persons, he is inconsistent in deposing the names of accused persons, further had not attributed specific role to accused Amit Bisht or other persons in giving beating to deceased Ajay, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness without any other concrete corroboration. None of the other injured/eye witnesses had involved accused Amit Bisht in their testimony.
31. PW26 Sh Mahender Singh deposed that on the day of incident he was posted as Reader, physical Education, Sri Aurbindo College and on the day of incident had seen 34 boxer of the college team beating two boys of hockey team and one of them was Darban Singh and one was from evening shift of the college. But also deposed that he cannot identify accused Darban Singh and could not identify the accused Darban Singh present in the court. Further in cross examination stated that he had not witnessed the stabbing incident. PW8 Mukesh also specifically stated in his cross examination that he did not see Anil Negi and Darban Singh giving beating to deceased Ajay on the day of incident.
32. Accused Amit Bisht was identified by PW8 in TIP. TIP has little significance when as per letter Ex.PW8/D1, PW8 already knew and named accused Amit Bisht. Further, despite knowledge of identity and involvement of accused Amit Bisht he was not named in FIR or in the State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -19 ) statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C made by PW8 Mukesh to the police or previous statement in the court.
33. There is no other evidence on record connecting the accused persons with the alleged commission of offence. Further, the prosecution story that accused Amit Bisht was having pistol at the time of incident but that pistol is not recovered nor any explanation was given by the prosecution for not recovering that pistol from accused Amit Bisht.
34. Ld. Addl. PP has vehemently submitted that accused persons because of their guilt remained absconding for about 4 years and this in itself shows their guilt. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused persons are not absconding and are very well present. Their name was also not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, there is no need of the accused persons to abscond. Apex court in "Macru @Girish Chandra Vs. State of UP, had repelled the submissions made by the state that after the commission of offence the accused had been absconding therefore, inference can be drawn that he was a guilty persons by observing as under:
" The appellant's conduct in absconding was also relied upon. Now, mere absconding by itself does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime such State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -20 ) is the instinct of selfpreservation. The act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case. Normally the courts are disinclined to attach much importance to the act of absconding, treating it as a very small item in the evidence for sustaining conviction. It can scarcely be held as a determining link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. In the present case the appellant was with Ram Chandra till the FIR was lodged. If thereafter he felt that he was being wrongly suspected and he tried to keep out of the way we do not think this circumstance can be considered to be necessarily evidence of a guilty mind attempting to evade justice. It is not inconsistent with his innocence."
35. Therefore, on mere absconding of accused persons without any other concrete corroborating evidences no adverse inference against the accused persons could be drawn.
36. The deposition of PW8 Mukesh qua accused Amit Bisht appears to be selective and inconsistent with his previous statements and found not reliable. None of the other eye witness had deposed about the involvement about the accused persons in the commission of offence. Consequently, prosecution unable to prove offence u/s. 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149, State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -21 ) 308/149, and 323/149 IPC against present accused. Therefore, accused persons are granted benefit of doubt and acquitted of charges. Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bonds in terms of Section 437 A Cr.P.C.
Announced in Open Court
On 9th August, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Jain)
ASJ03: SE: NEW DELHI
State Vs. Darban Singh, SC No.25/10 (Pg -22 )