Delhi District Court
State vs . Raghuraj @ Raghu on 14 September, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI:ASJ:02:
CENTRAL: ROOM NO.32:TIS HAZARI COURTS :DELHI
ID NO: 02401R037702010
SC NO. 24/2010
FIR NO: 22/10
U/s 302 IPC
PS ANAND PARBAT
STATE vs. RAGHURAJ @ Raghu
JUDGMENT
1 Sl. No. of the Case SC NO: 24/10
2 Date of Committal to Sessions 20.07.2010 3 Name of the complainant STATE 4 Date of commission of offence 10/04/10 5 Name of accused, parentage and Raghuraj @ Raghu S/o Manohar Lal address R/o Village Sukalan PS Khurja Dehat Distt. Bulandsahar , UP 6 Offence complained of 302 IPC 7 Offence charged of 302 IPC 8 Plea of guilt Pleaded not guilty 9 Final order Acquitted 10 Date on which order reserved 14/09/11 11 Date on which order announced 14/09/11 BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The case of the prosecution as per chargesheet is that on 11.4.10 at around 6.45am DD No.6A, Ex.PW11/A was lodged at PS Anand Parbat to the effect that a dead body is lying in bushes near Kacha Rashta leading towards Pahari close to Sulabh Sauchalya in Anand page 1 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 2 Parbat area. It was assigned to SI Dharampal . After reaching the spot , the Crime Team was called and FIR Ex.PW14/A was got recorded after sending the ruqqa . Endorsement on ruqqa is Ex.PW14/B. Further investigation in this matter was taken over by Inspector Birender Kumar. Ex.PW17/C is DD qua lodging of FIR and Ex.PW17/D is DD qua sending of FIR to concerned MM and other officers. Ex.PW12/A is Crime Team Report. Vide memo Ex.PW2/A blood stained earth and sample earth were lifted apart from blood stained clothes of deceased and two pieces of broken handle of KASSI (digging implement ) . Photographs of the dead body are Ex.P1 to P15 and negatives are Ex.P16 to P30. Unnatural death report Ex.PW20/A was prepared. Dead body was identified vide statements Ex.PW20/B and C by brother Sanjay Kumar and widow Smt. Kusum of the deceased Sher Singh. Post Mortem was requested vide application Ex.PW20/D . Scaled site plan of the spot is Ex.PW21/A. Post mortem report is Ex.PW19/A as per which deceased Sher Singh died of ante mortem page 2 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 3 hemorrhagic shock caused by multiple sharp injuries over the neck and other parties of body. Dead body was handed over to widow of deceased vide memo Ex.PW10/B.
2. Thereafter IO recorded statements of PW Dharmender, Vinod, Paliram, Sanju and Kanhiya Chaudhary on 10.4.2010 to the effect that deceased Sher Singh consumed liquor with accused Raghuraj and thereafter they had picked up a quarrel with each other. They consumed more liquor together in the factory of Kanhiya Chaudhary and picked up a quarrel again. While Sher Singh was leaving , Raghuraj followed him and on the next day dead body of Sher Singh was found as detailed supra. Accused Raghuraj was arrested vide memo Ex.PW16/A and personal search Ex.PW16/B. He gave his disclosure statement Ex.PW16/C and stated that he can get the weapon of offence recovered. On his pointing out , knife Ex.P4 was recovered vide memo Ex.PW16/D and its sketch is Ex.PW16/CA. Subsequent opinion qua the weapon of offence was obtained vide Ex.PW19/B as per which as many as 7 injuries were page 3 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 4 possible by this weapon. Exhibits were sent to FSL vide RC Ex.PW9/E and malkhana entry Ex.PW9/A to D . FSL report is Ex.PA as per which shirt and pant found at the spot carrying blood of B group.
3. Upon conclusion of investigation charge sheet U/s 302 IPC was filed. After the case was committed to the Sessions, Ld. Predecessor framed charged against the accused u/s 302 IPC and 27 of Arms Act.
4. To prove its case prosecution examined 21 witnesses in all which was followed by recording of statement of accused wherein he pleaded false implication but choose not to lead evidence in defence.,
5. I have heard arguments of Ld. Addl. PP Sh. G.S.Guraya for State and Ms.Chitramal , Ld. Legal Aid counsel. I have also carefully perused the entire judicial file.
6. First witness examined by the prosecution PW1 HC Ranbir who was on emergency duty and sighted the dead body of Sher Singh page 4 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 5 initially while patrolling at 6.45am on 11.4.2010.
7. PW2 SI Dharam Pal is initial IO of this case and he detailed the steps taken by him during the investigation . He also identified the articles seized by him.
8. PW3 Sanju is coworker of accused. As per him on 10.4.10 in the evening accused came with deceased Sher Singh to their first floor Shastri Nagar house. They both consumed liquor in the factory while he was taking meals. After consuming liquor , they started abusing each other . This witness separated them but Sher Singh left while abusing Raghu and Raghu followed him. Later on Sher Singh found murdered.
9. PW4 Pali Ram deposed on the lines of PW3. He added that while leaving Sher Singh abused and pushed Raghu towards door of his factory.
10.PW5 Dharmender also deposed on the lines of Sanju. He added that on 10.4.2010 they got salary from their employer and they all consumed liquor. As per him Sher Singh and Raghu left together .
page 5 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 6
11.PW6 is Vinod Kumar @ Kallu. He also deposed on the same lines bzut added that accused Raghu told while leaving that he will leave Sher Singh at his house and he accompanied Sher Singh.
12.PW7 Ct. Ramesh is the photographer.
13.PW8 SI Bal Mukund collected the opinion about weapon of offence.
14.PW9 HC Phool chand was MHCM and he proved relevant entries.
15.PW10 Ct. Rohtash joined investigation with SI Dharampal initially and also got the FIR registered.
16.PW11 HC Jai Singh was Duty Officer who recorded the DD No.6A.
17.PW12 SI Dharam Singh was part of Crime Team.
18.PW13 is Kanhiya Chaudhary, employer of accused Raghu . As per him he gave Rs.500/ to the accused but did not support the prosecution case qua an extra judicial confession of murder by accused to him. He was put leading questions by Ld. APP wherein he accepted that accused was drunk on the morning of 11.4.2010. He also stated that PW Sanju and accused used to live page 6 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 7 in the factory.
19.PW14 is HC M.R.Arya who recorded the FIR in hand.
20.PW15 is Ct. Prithvi Raj who took the copy of FIR to concerned MM and DCP.
21.PW16 is Ct.Satish who joined the investigation with IO Inspector Birender Kumar and also witnessed arrest of accused. he also witnessed recovery of weapon of offence from bushes near the spot on the pointing out of accused.
22.PW17 is Ct. Sandeep who deposited exhibits with FSL.
23.PW18 is HC Rati Ram who deposited the weapon of offence with hospital.
24.PW19 Dr. Amit Sharma conducted post mortem of deceased Sher Singh.
25.PW20 is IO Inspector Birender Kumar who detailed the steps taken during investigation.
26.PW21 is SI Mahesh who prepared the scaled site plan.
27.At the onset it is observed that prosecution endeavoured to prove page 7 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 8 this case against accused Raghuraj only on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances which were sought to be proved against the accused are as under: i. Last seen together ii. Verbal abuse between deceased and accused iii. Recovery of blood stained wooden handle of Kassi near the spot.
iv. Recovery of blood stained knife on the pointing out of accused v. Recovery of blood stained pant of accused vi. Extra Judicial Confession before PW 13 Kanhiya Chaudhary vii. Opinion of Doctor qua weapon of offence
28.Now I shall evaluate the evidence brought by the prosecution on record qua each of the above circumstances individually.
(i)Last seen together
29. & ( ii)Verbal abuse between deceased and accused It has come in the deposition of PW3 Sanju , PW4 Pali Ram , PW5 Dharmender and PW6 Vinod Kumar @ Kallu that on 10.4.2010 accused Raghu and deceased Sher Singh consumed liquor together in the factory late in the evening. Above witnesses were also present there . Dharmender and Vinod had also consumed page 8 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 9 liquor . During the cross examination of above witnesses no negative suggestion was given about the Last Seen Plea even though in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, accused denied the same. As per PW3 Sanju , accused followed Sher Singh while he was leaving. PW4 Pali Ram is silent qua accused following deceased Sher Singh. As per Pw5 Dharmender and PW6 Vinod Kumar deceased and accused left together. As such there is slight contradiction in the description as to in what manner, deceased and accused left the factory.
30.As per the PW5 Dharmender , accused stated that he will leave Sher Singh to his house. There appears to be element of improbability in they leaving together. As per all the witnesses except PW5 Dharmender and PW6 Vinod @ Kallu, they had verbal quarrel soon before they left. PW5 & PW6 are totally silent qua any quarrel between deceased and accused on that day. As per PW3 and PW4, it was deceased Sher Singh who was abusing Raghu . Interestingly in the deposition in the Court , although they both page 9 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 10 named Raghu in their statements, but neither of them identified accused Raghu in the Court.
(iii)Recovery
31. of blood stained wooden handle of Kassi near the spot.
As far as this circumstance is concerned, the two wooden pieces of handle of Kassi Ex.P3 were seized from the spot. No thumb impression was lifted from either of them so as to connect them with the accused. Also as per FSL Report Ex.PH no blood could be detected upon them, even though as per seizure memo Ex.PW2/A, they were claimed to be blood stained. As such prosecution failed to connect either of the two wooden pieces with the accused or the offence in hand.
(iv)
32. Recovery of blood stained knife on the pointing out of accused After the arrest of the accused on 15.4.2010, he is shown to have made disclosure statement Ex.PW16/C. He is also shown to have got recovered blood stained knife vide memo Ex.PW16/D from bushes near the place where the dead body was found. Even this page 10 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 11 knife was shown to be stained with blood and blood stained soil but as per FSL report Ex.PX , no blood was found over it. Also no finger prints were lifted from the knife so as to connect it with the accused. In the absence thereof, prosecution has failed to prove this circumstance as well.
(v)
33. Recovery of blood stained pant of accused Accused is also shown to have got recovered a blood stained pant vide memo Ex.PW16/E. As per FSL report Ex.PX, no blood was found on this pant and as such it could not be connected with the offence in hand.
(vi)
34. Extra Judicial Confession before PW 13 Kanhiya Chaudhary As per charge sheet accused is shown to have made an extra judicial confession of the murder before his employer PW13 Kanhiya Chaudhary on the next day morning. However, this witness has turned hostile and he denied the suggestion of Ld. APP qua accused's confessing about the crime before him. As such this circumstance too remained unproved.
page 11 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 12
(vii)Opinion of Doctor qua weapon of offence
35. IO is shown to have obtained subsequent opinion of the Doctor who conducted the post mortem as Ex.PW19/B where it is opined that 7 of the 9 injuries could have been caused by the knife Ex.P4. In the backdrop of failure of the prosecution to connect the knife with the offence through FSL report of blood stains / finger print etc. , this plain opinion is of not much significance. Although the knife is shown to be sharp on the one side and serrated on the other side , neither of the injuries in the post mortem report Ex.PW19/A has been opined to have been caused by such a knife. As per PM Report the first stabbed injury on the neck was only single edged. Other multiple stab injuries have been opined to be having sharp clean cut. As such in the absence of the support from the forensic report, the opinion of the doctor is also of not much consequence.
36.As far as evaluation of evidence in the case wholly based on circumstantial evidence, law is well settled.
page 12 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 13
37.In case titled Gambhir Vs. State AIR 1982 SC 1157 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled. When a case rests on circumstantial evidence it must satisfy three tests Viz. (1) circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established, (2) those circumstances should be of definite nature and tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and (3) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete in itself that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else."
38.In case "B.L. Satish Vs. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SCW 2755 while dealing with murder case the circumstantial evidence wherein the only circumstance proved against the grand son of the deceased was that he pointed out to the ornaments of his grand mother which were kept in his maternal grand father's house Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that :
"since there was no other circumstance available in the entire breadth and length of the prosecution, the single circumstance of recovery of ornament is hardly page 13 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 14 sufficient for a Criminal Court to reach to a conclusion that the murder of the grand old lady was committed by her grand son."
39.In case titled Lakhan Pal Vs. State AIR 1979 SC 1620 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"Similarly the mere fact that accused was last seen together with the deceased does not by itself conclusively prove the offence of murder."
40.Further in case titled Gurnam Singh Vs. State AIR 1998 SC 2673 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"the mere circumstance that accused was last seen in the company of the missing person , without anything more , is not sufficient to form basis of conclusion."
41.In case titled Gamparai Hrudayaraju vs. State of AP 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 534 (SC) while dealing with the murder case based on circumstantial evidence, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"When case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests :
1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently page 14 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 15 and firmly established.
2. those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused.
3. the circumstances, taken cumulatively should from 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
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.
5. the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
6. onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution can not be cured by false defence or plea."
42.In the light of aforesaid case laws, while evaluating the evidence brought by the prosecution on record, it is revealed that the sole page 15 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 16 material circumstance, somewhat proved on record, is only "Last Seen Evidence". As discussed , supra, out of four witnesses examined in this regard namely PW3 to PW6, they have not given a consistent version about accused and deceased leaving together. As such it was not the accused and deceased who were alone together but deceased was also in the company of other persons as well i.e. PW5 Dharmender and PW6 Vinod @Kallu apart from PW 3 Sanju and PW4 Pali Ram. This sole circumstance , in its own wisdom, in my considered view, is wholly insufficient to bring home the charge of murder. This one circumstance is not even indicative of accused Raghuraj murdering Sher Singh , what to talk of forming a complete chain of circumstances inevitably leading to the conclusion of guilt.
43.In view of the above discussion and in the absence of support of scientific and ocular evidence, I have no hesitation in concluding that prosecution has miserably failed in proving the charge of murder against the accused beyond shadow of doubt.
page 16 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011 17
44.In Narender Singh Vs. State of MP AIR 2004 SC 3249, while dealing the murder case of circumstantial evidence, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
'' benefit there of must go to accused person as in any event there being two possible views, one supporting accused should be upheld."
45.In case titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Naresh @ Ram Naresh 2009 (9) SCC 368 SC while dealing with a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, it was held that , "........These facts raise suspicion but do not prove the commission of murder............. unless and until evidence reduced clearly and pointedly establishes the guilt of accused, order of conviction can not be passed."
46.As such accused is accordingly acquitted of charge U/s 302 IPC, he be released from J/c forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Personal Bond of Rs.20,000/ be got executed from the accused which shall be deemed canceled after the expiry of period of appeal. File be consigned to RR.
ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN OPEN COURT ON: 14.09.2011 (SURINDER S. RATHI) Addl. Sessions Judge02 Central : Delhi page 17 / 17 of judgment State vs Raghuraj dated 14.09.2011