Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Bahadur, on 2 January, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT PARASHAR, ASJ-NW-II:ROHINI:DELHI
SC No.: 785/07
STATE VERSUS RAM BAHADUR,
S/O SH. JAI JAI RAM,
R/O RZT-10, DAYAL PARK,
WEST SAGAR PUR,
DELHI.
FIR NO.: 13/07
PS : JANAK PURI
U/S : 201/302 R/W SECTION 34 IPC & 404 IPC.
DATE OF INSTITUTION IN SESSIONS COURT:8-5-2007.
DATE OF HEARING-2-1-2010.
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED 2-1-2010.
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. is as under:-
"On 10-1-2007 upon receipt of DD no.8A Inspt. Pratap Singh, Addl. SHO, PS Janak Puri went to C2 block Nursery, Dabri Mor, Janak Puri, Delhi and found dead body of a guard of the nursery, namely, Chattarpal lying on a cot with blood around him. Empty bottles of liquor and empty glass were lying there besides one knife. There were multiple wounds on the dead body. The spot was got inspected from the crime team and also from the dog squad. Inquiries were made from nearby public persons, who were present there but, no breakthrough could be made in the matter. Accordingly, on the basis of the DD entry no.8A a rukka was prepared by Inspt. Pratap Singh and a case was got registered for the offence U/S 302 IPC at PS Janak Puri. The cot on which the dead S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 2 body was lying was taken into possession. Blood stained blanket, bed sheet, quilt etc were also seized from the spot besides one kitchen knife also found nearby the dead body. One half liquor bottle and one quarter liquor bottle besides one glass specks, and wrist watch etc were also seized. One 'gandasa' and one 'angithi' were also found outside the room and they were also taken into possession besides the blood stained earth control sample from inside the room. The body was then sent to mortuary DDU Hospital and where after carrying out the inquest proceedings the postmortem examination was got conducted on 11-1- 2006. The blood sample and viscera sample as collected by the Autopsy Surgeon were also taken into possession. During the course of investigation, it also came to the notice of Inspt. Pratap Singh that one mobile phone no.9868014548 belonging to deceased Chattarpal was also missing.
Thereafter, on 13-1-2007 on the basis of a secret information accused Ram Bahadur was arrested from his room in H.No. RZ T-10, Dayal Park, West Sagarpur, Delhi. Upon interrogation accused allegedly made a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the matter. He was accordingly arrested in this case. The disclosure statement of accused was reduced into writing and on the basis of the same one blood stained 'jacket' of the accused was recovered from his room which he was allegedly wearing at the time of incident. Accused also allegedly got recovered one NOKIA 2310 Mobile Phone from an iron box in his room S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 3 stating it to be belonging to deceased Chattarpal. Site plan of the place of recovery was also prepared by the IO. The blood sample of accused was also got collected. The purchase bill of mobile phone was also taken into possession from Sunil Kumar, son of deceased Chattarpal. Efforts were made to thereafter trace out the weapon of offence but, same could not be recovered. The call details of mobile phone no. 9868014548 of deceased were also collected. Thereafter, on 25-1-2007 the various exhibits so collected during the course of investigation were sent to FSL for examination. Scaled site plan of the place of incident was also got prepared. Upon completion of necessary further investigation, challan was prepared and was filed in the court for trial. However, thereafter, the DNA report of the blood sample of accused vis-à-vis the blood stains found on the 'jacket' was also collected and was filed in the court".
Upon committal of the case to the court of sessions, charge for the offence U/S 201/302 r/W Section 34 IPC and 404 IPC was framed against the accused by the then ld. Predecessor of this court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution thereafter examined 20 witnesses in order to prove its case. The accused was thereafter examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. He however did not lead any evidence in his defence.
PW1 Jiya Lal was the owner of H.No.RZT-10, Dayal Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi where accused was residing as a tenant. He deposed that on the night intervening 9/10-1-2007 while he was sleeping S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 4 in his room after closing the door of the ground floor then, accused came and rang the door bell. He further stated that accused at that time was wearing a blue and white 'jacket' over which there were some red colour stains on it. However, upon inquiry he stated that he had come across an accident and had taken the victim to hospital. He further stated that he found the accused to be disturbed at that time.
PW2 Inku Lal was allegedly running a cigarette shop near the room of Chattar Pal (deceased) outside the gate of DDA Nursery. This witness however claimed complete ignorance as to whether accused Ram Bahadur ever used to visit Chattarpal or not. He thus disowned the prosecution story in this regard and was accordingly cross-examined by ld. APP at length. In his cross-examination by ld. APP he denied having seen accused visiting the room of Chattarpal or visiting his shop to purchase cigarette etc. He denied that on 9-1-07 he had seen accused Ram Bahadur along with one other person consuming drinks in the room of Chattarpal along with Chattarpal. He also denied having heard, any noises from the room of Chattarpal or having seen Ram Bahadur and the said other person coming out of the room or running towards Dabri Mor or that Ram Bahadur was carrying any danda type object wrapped in a cloth. He also denied having gone inside the room of Chattarpal thereafter or that he found Chattarpal lying dead over there with blood scattered around or that thereafter he returned back to the shop and went back to his house after closing it.
S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 5 PW3 Smt. Sunita also used to sell eggs on a rehri opposite Megna Nursery and used to reside inside the Nursery itself. She further stated that she had relations with accused Ram Bahadur for the past over 1½ years prior to the present occurrence. She also stated that during this period she was also having relations with her earlier husband. She however stated that deceased Chattarpal was not known to her. She also claimed ignorance about the present incident. This witness thus also disowned the prosecution story in material particulars and was accordingly cross-examined at length by ld. APP. In her cross-examination by ld. APP also she denied that on 7-1-07 when she was present in her room along with Ram Bahadur then Chattarpal had come over there and upon finding Ram Bahadur there, a quarrel had started between them or that Chattarpal had hit her. She also denied that thereafter one Yashvir Solanki, owner of Megna Nursery came over there and in his presence accused Ram Bahadur threatened Chattarpal of his life. She further stated that Ram Bahadur thereafter ran away from there and Chattarpal also fled away.
PW4 Sh. RS Chahar, Dy. Director Horticulture Div. No.8 DDA B2B, Janak Puri, Delhi, who deposed that deceased Chattarpal was employed as a 'chowkidar' in C2 Nursery, Janak Puri, Delhi and was on duty at the Nursery on the night intervening 9/10-1-2007.
PW5 Sh. RS Yadav, JTO, MTNL, Telephone Exchange, Tis Hazari, Delhi had furnished the call details of telephone no.9868014548 of S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 6 Chattarpal on the request of IO/Inspt.Pratap Singh vide Ex.PW5/A. He had also furnished the copy of the Customer Application Form and that of the identity proof of the customer as was available in their records.
PW6 Sunil @ Sonu was the son of deceased Chattarpal. He deposed that his father was having a NOKIA mobile phone no.2310 which was purchased from M/s Pyush Communication WZ-170H, Shop No.2, G Block, Hari Mandir near Santoshi Mata Mandir, New Delhi and in it his father was using a Dolphin card no.9868014548. He further stated that on 9-1-07 when his father had gone for job he was carrying the said mobile phone and later on it was found to be missing. He had further handed over a copy of the purchase bill of the mobile phone to the IO.
PW7 SI Naresh Kumr had prepared the site plan of the place of incident vide Ex.PW7/A. PW8 Ashok Kumar was a tenant in the house of deceased Chattarpal and was working as a salesman at Pyush Communication in the year 2006. He stated that on the request of deceased Chattarpal he had brought one NOKIA mobile phone no.2310 and sold it to deceased Chattarpal for Rs.3,200/- against bill Ex.P1.
PW9 Ram Avtar was a gardener at DDA Nursery, Janak Puri, Delhi. He deposed that at about 9.30am on 10-1-07 when he came to know about the death of Chattarpal then information was conveyed to police through mobile phone no.9213174029.
S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 7 PW10 Sovan Singh was JTO, GMTY, MTNL, Delhi, who had attested the copy of the Customer Agreement Form and the ID Proof of customer Chattarpal while the same were collected by the IO.
PW11 Rajesh Kumar was a photographer, who had taken the photographs during the course of postmortem examination carried out on the dead body of deceased Chattarpal and proved them as Ex.P1 to Ex.P23.
PW12 Jagdish Narayan was a supervisor, DDA Nursery, C2 Nursery, C Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi, who had reached the spot upon coming to know that Chattarpal has expired and thereafter from the mobile phone of Ram Avtar he gave the information to the police in this regard.
PW13 Yashvir Solanki was the owner of Megna Nursery in village Nasirpur, Delhi. He deposed that on 7-1-07 at about 10.30pm upon hearing some cries from the room of Sunita @ Sushila, a tenant in her Nursery he had gone over there and found accused Ram Bahadur and Chattarpal quarrelling with each other and Sunita was bleeding from her nose. She further stated that accused was threatening Chattarpal of dire consequences alleging that Chattarpal was maintaining illicit relations with Sunita. He further stated that when he tried to intervene and asked the accused to maintain calm then accused ran away from over there. He further stated that later on he came to know on 30-1-07 from police that Chattarpal has since been murdered. He also stated that he had not S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 8 reported the matter dated 7-1-07 to police.
PW14 Sh. Srinaraian was a FSL expert, who had examined the viscera of Chattarpal and found presence of ethye alcohol over there vide his report Ex.PW14/A. PW16 Dr. Rajender Kumar was also a FSL expert (Biology), who had examined the various exhibits of this case vide his report Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B. PW17 HC Babu Lal was the MHC(M), PS Janak Puri with whom the various case property articles were deposited by the IO.
PW18 W.Hct. Celestina was the duty officer, PS Janak Puri, who had recorded FIR Ex.PW18/A in the present case. She had also recorded initial information about the death of Chattarpal vide DD No.8A Ex.PW18/D and handed over the same to SI Srikishan for further necessary action.
PW19 Dr. Rishi had proved the medical examination sheet Ex.PW19/A of accused Ram Bahadur which was in the hand of Dr. Ankush Garg, who was no longer available. He had also carried out the postmortem examination upon the dead body of deceased Chattarpal vide his report Ex.PW19/B. PW15 Ct. Mohinder had initially gone to the spot along with SI Srikishan and had later on joined the IO/Inspt. Pratap Singh in the investigation of the case as Inspt. Pratap Singh had also reached the spot immediately thereafter.
S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 9 PW20 Inspt. Pratap Singh was the IO of the case. In his deposition, he reiterated the investigation so carried out by him besides proving the various documents and memos prepared by him during the course of investigation.
It will be also worthwhile to mention that the veracity or correctness of the crime team inspection report was not disputed by learned defence counsel-Ms. Sindhu Sakarwal and was thus taken as proved on record.
In his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused however stated the case of the prosecution to be false and the prosecution witnesses to be deposing falsely.
I have heard the arguments as addressed by ld. APP as well as by ld. Amicus Curiae Ms. Sindhu Sakarwal for accused at length.
It was submitted by learned defence counsel that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect accused with the offence in question. It was stated that the DNA report has concluded that the blood stains found on the 'jacket' were neither that of deceased Chattarpal or that of accused Ram Bahadur. The weapon of offence also could not be recovered by the police. It was also stated that accused was sought to be connected with the mere recovery of a mobile phone of deceased and which part of investigation was also shrouded with doubts. The prosecution was thus stated to have miserably failed in proving its case against the accused beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts. He S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 10 was thus prayed to be acquitted.
On the other hand, ld. APP strongly opposed the contentions of learned defence counsel stating that PW13 Yashvir Solanki clearly deposed about an earlier quarrel which took place between accused and deceased Chattarpal wherein accused had threatened him of dire consequences. It was also stated that accused was found to be carrying a blood stained 'jacket' on the night of incident by his landlord. It was also stated that the recovery of mobile phone of deceased-Chattarpal clearly clinches the issue in favour of the prosecution. It was thus stated that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the accused. He was accordingly prayed to be convicted.
I have carefully perused the record.
At the outset, I may state that before proceeding to analyze the nature of evidence led by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused it will be worthwhile to delineate the nature of incriminating evidence with which the prosecution has sought to prove the guilt of the accused.
The recovery of a blood stained 'jacket' of the accused which he was allegedly wearing at the time of incident from his room and which his landlord PW1 Jiya Lal allegedly saw him wearing the said 'jacket' on the night of incident is the first such piece of evidence against the accused. The deposition of PW13 Yashvir Solanki that on 7-1-2007 he had seen accused threatening Chattarpal with dire consequences is S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 11 another piece of evidence and the only evidence led to prove the motive for the accused to commit the present crime. The recovery of mobile phone of deceased is the last such piece of evidence which the prosecution has sought to prove against the accused in order to nail him down.
Thus, what is important is whether these pieces of evidence have been cogently and convincingly proved by the prosecution and if "YES" whether they are sufficient in themselves to prove the guilt of accused or not in order to hold him guilty of the offence of committing the murder of Chattarpal.
As regards the recovery of impugned 'jacket' having blood stains upon it, I may state that even if it is presumed to have been recovered at the instance of accused or that PW1 Jiya Lal deposed truly about having seen accused wearing the said 'jacket' on the impugned night of incident then also the DNA report has completely taken away the very ground beneath the case of the prosecution. In the DNA report Ex.PX as prepared by Sh. AK Srivastava, it has been clearly mentioned that the DNA profile of the blood stains found on the 'jacket' did not match either with the DNA profile of the blood of accused Ram Bahadur or that of deceased Chattarpal. It is thus clear that the said blood stains found on the 'jacket' were neither that of accused nor that of deceased Chattarpal. In this regard, the deposition of PW1 Jiya Lal gains material importance when he says that when on the night of incident accused S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 12 returned back to the house he saw him in a disturbed condition with red stains on his 'jacket' and upon inquiry accused stated that he had come across an incident and had removed the victim to hospital. Thus, there is no reason to doubt the said version of PW1 Jiya Lal and the DNA report further lends support to the aforesaid statement allegedly made by the accused to his landlord. In any case the DNA report completely rules out any connection of the said blood stains found on the 'jacket' of accused with the offence in question.
As regards the motive for the accused to commit the murder of Chattarpal, I may state that PW2 Inku Lal has completely disowned the prosecution story that he ever saw accused Ram Bahadur visiting deceased Chattarpal. PW3 Smt. Sunita, who was allegedly involved in the said incident dated 7-1-2007 has also chosen to disown the prosecution story in this regard. As regards PW13 Yashvir Solanki, I may state that he though stated about a quarrel taking place between the accused and Chattarpal but, strangely enough he stated that none of the other labourers or occupants residing in adjoining rooms to that of Sunita had come over there upon hearing the cries. This fact in itself seems to be highly doubtful. If Yashvir Solanki could have reached the room of Sunita upon hearing her cries then there was no reason as to why other labourers residing in the adjoining rooms would not have reached there.
S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 13 Be that as it may be, the sole deposition of PW13 Yashvir Solanki in the absence of corroboration from the deposition of Sunita herself and PW2 Inku Lal does not inspires much confidence. I may even go on to add that the deposition of PW13 Yashvir Solanki even if is presumed to be correct then also cannot lead to a definite conclusion that the murder of Chattarpal was committed by accused Ram Bahadur only and none else.
Coming to the last piece of evidence as regards the recovery of impugned mobile phone of deceased Chattarpal, I may state that the purchase bill Ex.P1 vide which the mobile phone was allegedly sold to Chattarpal by PW8 Ashok Kumar has not been proved as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1972. PW8 Ashok Kumar merely stated that he was a tenant in the house of deceased and was working as a salesman at M/s Pyush Communication. He thereafter proved the said bill against which he had sold the mobile phone to Chattarpal. However, no bill book from the said shop i.e M/s Pyush Communication was ever produced in the court. No proof of employment of said Ashok Kumar in the shop of M/s Pyush Communication was also placed on record. These questions becomes all the more important when it is found that PW8 Ashok Kumar was a tenant in the house of deceased Chattarpal himself. Moreover, it will be worthwhile to mention that PW6 Sunil @ Sonu, son of Chattarpal met IO/Inspt. Pratap Singh on 10-1-2007 itself but, strangely enough he was not made to join the investigation. None of the S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 14 documents prepared on that day bears his signatures. IO/Inspt. Pratap Singh stated that he merely recorded statement of Sunil on that day towards the identification of the dead body of his father only but nothing was mentioned about the missing of the mobile phone of his father by him. IO however stated that on 10-1-2007 itself he had come to know from other employees of DDA Horticulture Department that the mobile phone of Chattarpal was missing. However, in none of the statement recorded by IO on 10-1-2007 or on 11-1-2007 anything was mentioned regarding the missing of mobile phone of deceased Chattarpal. Thus, from the record, it appears that the recovery of mobile phone was allegedly effected first allegedly at the instance of accused and thereafter statement of any witness was recorded regarding missing of mobile phone of deceased. The other possibility as stated by learned defence counsel thus cannot be completely ruled out that the story of missing of mobile phone was introduced in order to connect the accused with the offence in question.
Be that as it may be, the IO did not care to comply with the requirement of Section 100 Cr.PC while effecting recovery of the mobile phone. No public witness much less any neighbourer was joined in the proceedings by the IO and the explanation put forward in this regard is a stereo typed one.
Thus, in view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that in the overall facts & circumstances of the present case, it will not be safe to rely upon the sole deposition of the police officials as S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 15 regards the recovery of mobile phone from the accused. Moreover, the mere alleged recovery of mobile phone cannot be held to be a sufficient incriminating evidence so as to hold accused Ram Bahadur guilty of the offence of committing the murder of Chattarpal.
I am thus of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts to prove that accused Ram Bahadur committed murder of deceased Chattarpal or that he was found in possession of the mobile phone of deceased Chattarpal or that he was found in possession of his mobile phone much less he caused disappearance of the evidence of the offence of murder by concealing the weapon of offence.
I accordingly hereby giving benefit of doubt to accused Ram Bahadur, acquit him of the offence U/S 201/302 r/W Section 34 IPC and 404 IPC.
He be released from JC, if not required in any other case. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2-1-2010.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II (NW DISTT.) ROHINI COURTS:DELHI *rk S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI 16 S/V RAM BAHADUR, FIR NO.13/07, PS JANAK PURI