Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Sagar Fir No. 202/2005 on 30 August, 2010
State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005
IN THE COURT OF SH. INDER JEET SINGH, ADDL. SESSION JUDGE02,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of
S. C. No. 61/2006
FIR No. 202/2005
P. S. Patel Nagar
u/s 302/201 IPC
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
.....State
VERSUS
1. Ram Sagar, S/o Sh. Rameshwar Yadav,
R/o H. No. B119, Pandav Nagar,
Patel Nagar, Delhi.
2. Ravinder Yadav, S/o Sh. Chhutaru Yadav,
R/o H. No. B134, Pandav Nagar, Delhi.
.....Accused
Date of Institution : 29.08.2006
Decision Reserved on : 26.08.2010
Date of Decision : 30.08.2010
S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 1 of 17
State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005
JUDGMENT
1.1 (Case of the prosecution) - On 01.04.2005, an information was received in the police station Patel Nagar, Delhi, it was recorded as DD No. 35A dated 01.04.2005 at 7.45 am that a lady namely Ram Dasi, W/o Ram Sagar, who was admitted in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, vide MLC No. 36665/2005 because of fall and was under treatment had died, let the concerned investigating officer be sent to the hospital. On receipt of this information, police officer ASI Simon Kullu was deputed and he went to the hospital. He collected the MLC of injured. He reached Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, where ASI Kanhiya Lal had also reached. ASI Simon Kullu collected the MLC No. 36665/2005 and handed over it to ASI Kanhiya Lal but no eye witness present. Then ASI Kanhiya Lal along with Ct. Pran Singh reached the place of occurrence at second floor of house B119, Pandav Nagar, Delhi, where the complainant Devki W/o Sh. Murari Lal, landlady of accused Ram Sagar, met him and he recorded the statement (Ex. PW 2/A) of Devki and rukka (Ex. PW3/A) was endorsed for registration of FIR under section 302/201 IPC against Ram Sagar, husband of the deceased Smt. Ram Kashi and Ravinder Yadav, brother in law of Ram S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 2 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 Sagar, as it was appearing from the statement of Smt. Devki that Ram Sagar had assaulted Smt. Ram Kashi with a wooden danda and it was witnessed by her. The complainant had called Ravinder Yadav, who was putting up in the vicinity but he disclosed the history of fall from stairs in the hospital pursuant to the dialogue took place at the spot between Ram Sagar and Ravinder Yadav, it was witnessed by the complainant.
1.2 Thence, the then SHO Amarjeet Bajwa (PW17) along with other police officials staff also arrived at the spot, crime team along with photographer and chance print proficient officer arrived at the spot of second floor, where articles like two pillow covers, quilt covers/mattress, T shirt, blood earth, earth control, strand of hairs and broken glass bangles were found and seized by memo (now Ex. PW16/A). The crime team also prepared its report dated 01.04.2005 (Ex. PW9/A), photographer (PW5) Ct. Jai Veer Singh snapped 13 photographs (Ex. PW5/1 to Ex. PW5/13), of the scene and of surroundings and finger print proficient officer PW15 Inspector Manoj Kumar prepared the report (Ex. PW15/A) in respect of discovery of one blood spot having chance print. The investigating officer prepared the unscaled site plan Ex. PW17/A, and scaled site plan (Ex. PW11/A) was prepared by draftsman PW11 Inspector Devender Singh after personal visit at the spot.
S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 3 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 1.3 Since it was named FIR and on discovery of presence of Ram
Sagar through a secret informer, he was arrested on 01.04.2005 followed by arrest of accused Ravinder Yadav on 02.04.2005. Accused Ram Sagar had given disclosure statement and pursuant to such disclosure statement a Seru of cot/wooden danda (P7) was recovered from the bushes of Satya Park, Delhi, which was seized by memo Ex. PW17/G, besides a shirt. Further, blood stained pajama worn over pant by the accused and stained with blood were also seized by the police by memo Ex. PW17/H. The postmortem of Smt. Ram Kashi was conducted by PW7 Dr. Lalit Kumar, who prepared the postmortem report dated 04.04.2005 (Ex. PW7/A) with opinion about the cause of death as well as opinion (Ex. PW7/B) in respect of link between injuries on the body of the deceased and the wooden danda produced before him. The apparels of deceased were also seized by memo (now Ex. PW17/A). The apparels of deceased, apparels of accused, the articles collected at the spot, Seru of cot were sent for scientific opinion, its report is Ex. PW17/O. It result into chargesheet under section 302/201 IPC.
2.1 (Charge) - The case was opened in the Sessions Court after its committal, the accused Ram Sagar has been charged under section 302 IPC that on 31.03.2005 at about 6.30 pm, at second floor of house S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 4 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 No.19, Pandav Nagar, Patel Nagar, Delhi, that he committed the murder of his wife Smt. Ram Kashi by intentionally causing her injuries with Seru of cot on her head and other parts of the body, however, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The other accused Ravinder Yadav has been charged under section 201 IPC that on 31.03.2005 at about 8 pm, at Ram Mahohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi that he gave false history of fall, of Smt. Ram Kashi from stairs, to the doctor of the hospital, intentionally and knowingly to be false with the intention of screening the offender from the legal punishment of commission of murder of Smt. Ram Kashi. Howver, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2.2 (Prosecution evidence) - In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses, their names and purpose of examination are classified and enumerated as follows
1. PW2 Smt. Devki, W/o Sh. Murari Lal, R/o Ground Floor of B119, Pandav Nagar, Delhi to establish that she is landlady of tenant/accused Ram Sagar in respect of premises at second floor of B119, Pandav Nagar, Delhi, she is author of FIR, she is an ocular witness to the incident of 31.03.2005 and to prove her statement (Ex. PW2/A) in respect of the incident occurred at the second floor of the house No. B119, Pandav Nagar, Delhi.
2. PW4 Ct. Satpal No. 365/ND to establish that on 31.03.2005, he was duty officer in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital when accused Ravinder Yadav had brought Smt. Ram Dasi in injured condition and she was treated by Dr. Mrinal Kaushik; the injured was brought in unconscious condition by stating history of fall from stairs.
3. PW3 Ct. Puran Singh No. 1429/W to prove that on 01.04.2005 at 7.45 S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 5 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 am, DD No. 35A was assigned to ASI Simon Kullu (PW10) and to PW3, immediately they went to RML Hospital and then at the spot i.e second floor of house No. B119, Pandav Nagar, Delhi. PW6 SI Kanhiya Lal also came there. PW3 was also assigned the task of taking the tehrir (Ex. PW2/A) cum rukka to the police station and he get the FIR registered, which he got registered. He came back and handed over the FIR and tehrir to ASI Kanhiya Lal.
4. PW10 ASI Simon Kullu, No. 3026/D, Security to establish that on receipt of DD No. 35A (Ex. PW10/A) on 01.04.2005, he along with PW3 Ct. Puran Singh went to Ram Mahohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, he also collected the MLC of Smt. Ram Dasi; Ct. Satpal (PW4) in the hospital disclosed about the death of injured Smt. Ram Dasi. The MLC was handed over to ASI Kanhiya Lal, who also reached the hospital.
5. PW16 SI Kanhiya Lal to prove that he was orally apprised of DD No. 35A of 01.04.2005 at about 7.45 am and as per instructions of SHO, he along with Ct. Puran Singh reached Ram Manohar Lohia hospital where PW10 SI Simon Kullu met him. Then, they came to the spot where statement (Ex. PW2/A) of PW2 Smt. Devki was recorded, it was endorsed (Ex. PW3/A) by him while assigning it to PW3 Puran Singh for registration of the FIR. The senior officers inclusive of the then Station House Officer, Inspector A. S. Bajwa (PW
17) arrived and articles lying at the spot inside the room visavis glass bangles in the stairs were seized, he is also witness to the seizure memos.
6. PW17 ACP Amarjeet Singh, R/o H. No. 252G, Green Apartments, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi to prove that after receipt of information and assigning the task to PW10 and PW16, he took the investigation of the case. Not only the articles lying at the spot inside the room and in the stairs were seized and sealed by memo (Ex. PW16/A) but also the crime team was called at the spot for inspection. Then, firstly, on 01.04.2005, accused Ravinder Yadav was arrested and then on 02.04.2005, accused Ram Sagar was arrested. On the basis of facts revealed in disclosure statement of Ram Sagar, the weapon of offence a bamboo (Seru) of cot and apparels of accused Ram Sagar were seized by memo (Ex. PW17/G and Ex. PW17/H). The dead body of Smt. Ram Kashi was got postmortem and her clothes were also seized. Besides, opinion in respect of cause of death, opinion with regard to injuries and weapon of offence were obtained. The articles were sent to FSL for scientific opinion by him, the report is Ex. PW17/O.
7. PW19 SI Sri Krishan No. 1767/D to establish that he had participated in the investigation on 01.04.2005 and 02.04.2005 with investigating officer/ PW17. He is witness to the proceedings and investigation carried at the spot S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 6 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 visavis the proceedings of, and after, arrest of accused Ram Sagar on 02.04.2005. He is witness to the memos prepared inclusive of recovery of Seru/wooden danda, weapon of offence.
8. PW18 SI Sanjay Sharma No. D/1143 to prove that on 02.04.2005, he participated in the investigation with investigating officer/PW17 when accused Ram Sagar was arrested and investigation subsequent to his arrest was carried inclusive of recovery Seru/wooden danda.
9. PW11 Inspector Davender Singh Draftsman, Crime Branch (to prove that he being official draftsman prepared scaled site plan of the spot (Ex. PW 11/A) after personal visit, at the request of the investigating officer/PW17); **********
10. PW14 Sh. I.C. Tiwari, Record Clerk, RML Hospital, New Delhi to establish that Dr. M. Kaushik had prepared the MLC No. 36665/05 of Smt. Ram Devi (Ex. PW14/A), however, Dr. Kaushik's whereabouts are not known because of his absence since 07.01.2007.
11. PW7 Dr. Lalit Kumar, CGHS, Janak Puri, Delhi to establish that on 04.04.2005 he carried postmortem of deceased Smt. Ram Dasi in Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Hospital Delhi and prepared the postmortem report (Ex. PW7/A), also consisting opinion in respect of cause of death. Further on 12.05.2005, he also gave opinion in respect of elongated baans (bamboo) visavis the injuries on the body of the deceased, the report to this effect is Ex. PW7/B.
12. PW13 SI Jitender Tiwari, No. D/305 to establish that on 12.05.2005, he took one sealed pulanda to Dr. Lalit Kumar and sealed pulanda was opened by doctor, which was containing bamboo stick. PW13 was handed over the opinion as well as bamboo stick after its resealed by the doctor, which he brought and handed over it to the SHO.
**********
13. PW9 Inspector Jitender Singh No. D3782 to establish that on 01.04.2005, he being Incharge Crime Team, West District, along with ASI Manoj Kumar/PW15 (Finger Print Proficient) and Ct. Jaiveer/PW5 (Photographer) went to the spot, the detailed crime report (Ex. PW9/A) was prepared by him.
14. PW5 Ct. Jaiveer Singh No. 769/W Mobile Crime Team, West District, Janak Puri, New Delhi to establish that on 01.04.2005, he being a S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 7 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 photographer/member of the Mobile Crime Team, went to the spot and snapped photographs, which are Ex. PW5/1 to Ex. PW5/13, its negatives are Ex. PW5/14 to Ex. PW5/26.
15. PW15 Manoj Kumar, Inspector Central Excise, Bangalore to establish that he, being Finger Print Proficient of Mobile Crime Team, along with other officials went to the spot and chance prints mark Q1 was found and photographed, the report to this effect is Ex. PW15/A prepared by him with further instructions to get the chance prints photographed also to send finger and palm slips of suspects, inmates and deceased for comparison at the earliest.
**********
16. PW1 W/ASI Satya Dev Lal, R/o H. No.70, Kavita Colony, Nangloi, New Delhi to establish that she was duty officer on 01.04.2005 and on receipt of rukka, she recorded formal FIR No. 202/2005; under section 302/201 IPC.
17. PW12 HC. Babu Lal, No. 347/W, Police Station Patel Nagar, Delhi to establish that he was malkhana moharar and he maintained the registers No. 19 and 21 and dealt with the deposit of the sealed pulanda on 01.04.2005, the same were sent to FSL Rohini, Delhi on 17.05.2005; the record of register (extract) is Ex. PW12/A to Ex. PW12/E.
18. PW6 = PW8 Ct. Joginder Singh No. 742/W, Police Station Patel Nagar, Delhi; he was examined twice to establish that on 17.05.2005, he took the sealed pulanda to the FSL Rohini, Delhi and deposited the articles under seals intact there.
********** 2.3 (Statement of accused persons & Defence Evidence) - After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C recorded, however, they not only denied the allegations but also plead their innocence. Accused Ram Sagar submits that he was not present at his home at the time of incident and his wife had fallen from the stairs when he reached home, his brotherinlaw S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 8 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 Ravinder Yadav had already taken to the hospital and he went to the hospital. The other accused Ravinder Yadav also explains that Ram Sagar's landlady called him and he took Smt. Ram Kashi to the hospital since she has injuries by way of falling. Both have opted for defence evidence and DW1 Hira Lal, a neighbourer and DW2 Dukhi Yadav, father of the deceased Smt. Ram Kashi, were produced in the witness box. DW1 has been produced to establish that he heard the scream and found Smt. Ram Kashi falling in the stairs. DW2 had received information at his native village of demise of his daughter and he reached Delhi, the accused Ram Sagar and deceased Smt. Ram Kashi were living together happily in their matrimonial home. Then the defence evidence was closed.
3.1 (Arguments of the Parties) The final arguments are opened by Shri B.S. Kain, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for State, with a submission that the circumstances appearing from the statement of prosecution witnesses, coupled with the medical opinion and other record established the charge under section 302 IPC against accused Ram Sagar and charge of 201 IPC against accused Ravinder Yadav. Author of FIR, Smt. Devki narrated the episode in her statement (Ex. PW2/A), elucidated the role of both accused and the medical record corroborates the oral testimony of witnesses. Both the accused are S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 9 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 liable to be held guilty accordingly. During clarification, after conclusion of arguments by Ld. defence counsel, Ld. APP for State requests that although, witness PW2 Smt. Devki has resiled from her previous statement, however, the other circumstances appearing were not washed away. The accused cannot derive any benefit. 3.2 Whereas, Ld. counsel Shri M.P.S. Kasana, Advocate for accused persons, requests that there is a presumption of innocence of accused till proved guilty and the evidence on record confirms their innocence. A case of fall from stairs have been converted into a case of homicide. The prosecution could not prove its case beyond shadow of doubt, the accused deserve their acquittal.
The incident is of 6.30 pm of 31.03.2005, as per prosecution; but FIR was not registered till 11 am of 01.04.2005, because it was known to the police officials that Smt. Ram Kashi received injuries by her falling from the stairs and this fact was confirmed by the police during its visit to the hospital on the night of 31.03.2005 itself. The case was registered after receipt of information of demise of Smt. Ram Kashi. There is no eye witness to the incident and the star witness PW2 Smt. Devki failed to support the case of prosecution. On the one hand, the prosecution case is that Smt. Devki was informed by the tenants about the weeping voice of Smt. Ram Kashi but the investigating agency has not probed properly nor any independent witness has been joined nor S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 10 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 any tenant, who had heard such screaming. There are material contradictions in the statement of witnesses, the police official version are also surrounded by doubtful circumstances and recovery of wooden danda (Seru) is also a planted danda, as appearing from the statement of prosecution witnesses. Neither accused Ram Sagar assaulted Ram Kashi, he was away from his residence at the material time of incident, nor there was any conspiracy between Ravinder Yadav and Ram Sagar to describe history of fall from stairs in the hospital but it is in fact, that Ram Kashi had fallen in stairs. Even there was no motives established by the prosecution. Accused Ram Sagar and his wife Smt. Ram Kashi were living together happily, Ram Kashi's father had stepped into the witness box as DW2, to prove that the spouse was living happily. DW 1 had also elucidated that it was a case of fall from the stairs of Ram Kashi. Both the accused deserve acquittal.
4.1 (Findings) - The rival contentions are assessed in the light of evidence on record and the statutory provisions of law. It is cardinal principle of criminal administration of justice that burden lies on the prosecution to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, however, the charge could not have been proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence, therefore, accused Ram Sagar is acquitted of charge under section 302 IPC and accused Ravinder Yadav is S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 11 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 acquitted of charge under section 201 IPC, for the detailed reasons enumerated in paragraph 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4.
4.2 The star witness of the case is PW2 Smt. Devki, residing at the ground floor of House No. B119, Pandav Nagar, Patel Nagar, Delhi and accused Ram Sagar was living as tenant in the second floor of the said house. Other tenants were living in the first floor. However, on the plain reading of statement of PW2 Smt. Devki, neither accused Ram Sagar was seen by her at the time of incident nor PW2 had seen any incident like Ram Sagar was assaulting, with a wooden danda, to his wife Smt. Ram Kashi. To say, she did not see Ram Sagar at the spot nor as culprit of incident.
There is no other ocular witness, who had actually seen the witness, as the tenant who informed Smt. Devki was not arrayed as a witness of the case. Further, PW2 Smt. Devki has not deposed any fact that accused Ram Sagar and accused Ravinder Yadav whispered or thereafter, Smt. Ram Kashi was taken to hospital by Ravinder Yadav, brotherinlaw of accused Ram Sagar. PW2 explains that she called Ravinder Yadav, being brotherinlaw of Ram Sagar, from his residence in the same vicinity and he took the injured Smt. Ram Kashi to hospital.
4.3 On 01.04.2005, at about 7.45 am, an information was received in Police Station Patel Nagar, about demise of Smt. Ram Dasi, which was S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 12 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 recorded as DD No. 35A (Ex. PW10/A). Smt. Ram Dasi had died at 12.55 am (midnight) on 01.04.2010. ASI Simon Kullu was deputed. The entire investigation has been shown to commence on 01.04.20052 on receipt of DD No. 35A dated 01.04.2005 and similarly, entire charge sheet has also been filed, reflecting commencement of investigation from the point of time of receipt of DD No. 35A on 7.45 am of 01.04.2005. Whereas, the police had information on 31.03.2005, police official had also visited the hospital on 31.03.2005. However, no witness had narrated any fact of 31.03.2005 till the Court summoned them by exercising power under section 311 Cr.P.C. DD No. 52B was registered in the Police Station on 31.03.2005 at 8.45 pm, about fall of Smt. Ram Dasi from stairs and ASI Simon Kullu was deputed to look into the affairs. In the MLC (Ex. PW14/A) dated 31.03.2005 at 8 am, of Smt. Ram Dasi, she was declared unfit to make statement at 10.30 pm. It means that the police officials had visited the hospital and also inquired about Ram Dasi and that is why, the medical officer declared her unfit to make statement at 10.30 pm on 31.03.2005. ASI Simon Kullu has not talked about his visit to the hospital on 31.03.2005 but ACP/PW17 Amarjeet was recalled and explained that on the following day, DD No. 79 was effected at 6.45 am in the next morning. To say, there is no evidence that any investigation was carried or any inquiry was conducted by ASI Simon Kullu or any other police official between S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 13 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 the period of 10.30 pm declaring Ram Dasi unfit to make statement and in the receipt of information, recorded in DD No. 35A. 4.4 There are material and major contradictions in the statement of witnesses on vital points, which infer that presence of witnesses at one point of time together is not possible visavis such paradoxical version do not prove the charge. They are (A1) to (A5) and (B1) to (B10), as follows (A1) witness PW10 ASI Simon Kullu says that on 01.04.2010, on receipt of DD No. 35A, he along with PW3 Ct. Puran Singh went to RML Hospital. PW16 SI Kanhiya Lal also reached RML Hospital, but he also says that PW 3 Ct. Puran Singh accompanied him to hospital. Further, when PW10 ASI Simon Kullu was already assigned DD No. 35A to look into the affairs, neither there is any record nor any entry registered of DD number in the roznamcha that PW16 SI Kanhiya Lal was assigned investigation, by virtue of DD No. 35A. PW10 handed over the MLC to SI Kanhiya Lal on later's arrival in the hospital, as if, PW16 is the Investigating Officer, but PW16 claims that he collected the MLC, whereas PW16 had oral information of DD No. 35A;
(A2) the case of prosecution is that the writing work was done at the spot on 01.04.2005 and according to PW17, the proceedings were done by Investigating Officer, whereas PW16 and PW19 claim that the proceedings were conducted by them as per the direction of SHO and memos were prepared by the SHO/PW17, however, PW17 says that he does not remember, as to who had done the writing work. Rukka (Ex. PW3/A) and memo (Ex. PW16/A) are in the same writing, whereas rukka was prepared prior to coming into picture of PW17 and preparing the memo (Ex. PW 16/A);
(A3) PW16 says that no blood was found in the stairs but broken bangles were lying, however, PW17 says he does not remember whether blood was lying in the stairs, whereas PW19 has not made any averment qua blood in the stairs but of bangles;
(A4) there are conflicting version of place of recovery of bangles, as according to Investigating Officer/PW17, the broken pieces of bangles were recovered from inside the room of Ram Kashi and not from stairs of the house, whereas according to PW19, the broken pieces of bangles were S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 14 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 seized from the stairs. Whereas the photographs demonstrate that open piece of bangles were lying in the stairs; and (A5) there are paradoxical versions with regard to inquiry in the surroundings, as PW17/Investigating Officer says that no inquiry was conducted from any tenant in the building and there was also no need to inquire any tenant, as PW2 Smt. Devki had explained all the circumstances, whereas according to PW16, the Investigating Officer had inquired the tenant and the concerned tenant could not be ascertained by the police.
AND (B1) Ram Sagar's arrest memo shows his place of arrest in House No. B 119, Pandav Nagar, Delhi but according to PW18, who deposed about arrest of Ram Sagar, says that he was arrested near House No. B119, when he was coming to his house and PW19 says it was B Block and PW17 says it was Pandav Nagar. Similarly, PW19 says that Ravinder Yadav was arrested at ground floor of B119 but PW17 says that he was arrested in Pandav Nagar;
(B2) PW17 and PW19 are margin witness to disclosure statement of accused persons have given conflicting statement about the person who reduced into writing the disclosure statements;
(B3) PW19 says that the wooden danda was recovered at Satya Park, pursuant to the disclosure statement of Ram Sagar and it was seized. According to his statement, he did not remember whether the danda was measured or weighted, however, as per seizure memo (Ex. PW17/G), the danda was measured, having length of 2 ft. and 10.5 inch; (B4) witness PW9 is a member of Crime Team and he prepared his report (Ex. PW9/A) in respect of the circumstances observed at the spot. During his cross examination, he says, he found a Seru (a wooden part of cot other than leg/paya) lying at the spot. Whereas, the report (Ex. PW9/A) does not reflect presence of Seru at the spot. Secondly, the Seru was not in the picture then how PW9 deposed about the Seru. Thirdly, PW9 visited the spot on 01.04.2005 and accused Ram Sagar was arrested on 02.04.2005, thereafter, the seizure memo (Ex. PW17G) dated 02.04.2005 was prepared. The seizure memo reflects recovery of Seru from Satya Park near jogging track, after covering the way from gas godown. Since, the place of incident of House No. B119, Pandav Nagar and Satya Park are two different places, visit of PW9 at the former place and visit of police party at the later place, is also on different dates i.e. 01.04.2005 and 02.04.2005, therefore, how it was possible for PW9 to see the wooden danda/Seru on 01.04.2005, if recovery S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 15 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 was effected on 02.04.2005. Also, if the Seru was found lying in the room/at spot on 01.04.2005 by PW9, then how it was possible to recover Seru on 02.04.2005 at Satya Park;
(B5) there are contradictory statement of witnesses of joining independent public persons on 02.04.2005 at Satya Park, as PW18 says that public persons were present in Satya Park but they were far away from the spot of recovery i.e not attempt was made for them, whereas, PW19 says no public person was present in Satya Park to join them in the proceedings, whereas PW17/ Investigating Officer says the passerby were requested to join in the police party but they refused to join the police for their plausible reasons. There are also different versions with regard to joining of independent witness on 01.04.2005 at the spot of incident;
(B6) PW9 says no chance prints were discovered on any article but he has not mentioned any fact with regard to examination of Seru lying at the spot whether any chance prints were discovered;
(B7) PW15 Inspector Manoj Kumar in his report (Ex. PW15/A) and statement in the Court, deposed that he had noticed one blood print/ chance print on the wall of stairs, being a questioned mark (Q1). However, no investigation was carried either for obtaining specimens or measurements of accused persons with the permission of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi by way of application under section 5 of the Identification of Prisoner Act, 1920 for scientific opinion with regard to Mark Q1. There is no investigation with regard to Mark Q1, to whom it was belonging; (B8) according to PW19 and PW18, at the time of arrest of Ram Sagar, he was wearing a pyjama over the pant and according to PW19, the accused was wearing a pant stained with blood at the time of his arrest and the same was seized by memo;
(B9) in the FSL result (Ex. PW17/O), blood was detected on the pant but blood could not be detected on the pyjama, which was over worn on the pant. The date of incident is 31.03.2005 at about 6.30. pm and accused Ram Sagar was arrested on 02.04.2005 and from the consolidated statement of witnesses, afternoon hours was the time of his arrest. There are approximate more than 45 hours of arrest from the time of incident and whether the accused was wearing the same pant and pyjama stained with blood. In Alizan vs. State (Criminal Appeal No. 924/2008, decided on 11.05.2010 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), it was held that it cannot be believed that the person will continue to wear blood stained clothes for three days together and such kind of evidence are of weak category; and (B10) according to postmortem report, the death is due to head injury caused by hard blunt object. All the injuries are sufficient, to cause death, S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 16 of 17 State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005 collectively. There is also death summary dated 31.03.2005 on record, reflecting observations that the patient developed cardiac arrest CPR was done but patient could not be revived, despite of best possible and available resuscitative measures and declared dead on 01.04.2005 at 12.55 am (midnight).
5. Hence, for want of proof of charge against the accused persons, they are acquitted.
6. The accused have not brought their sureties for furnishing bonds under section 437A of Cr.P.C but they have obtained consent of their respective sureties that the bonds furnished earlier may be treated as bond under section 437A of Cr.P.C. Accordingly their personal bonds got signed/executed today and the personal bond and surety bonds are accepted in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C for a period of six months.
File is consigned to record room.
(Announced in the open (INDER JEET SINGH)
th
Court on 30 August, 2010) ADDL. SESSION JUDGE
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
P & N
S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 17 of 17
State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005
30.08.2010
Present : Shri B.S. Kain, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for State.
st
It is Room No. 120, 1 Floor, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Earlier, it was conveyed to the accused through their counsel to come and appear in Saket Court complex, matter to be listed there but on 28.08.2010, Ld. counsel Shri M.P.S. Kasana, Advocate was apprised that transfer/posting list was kept at abeyance and mater be listed as scheduled in Room No. 120, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, pursuant to such directions, accused Ram Sagar and Ravinder Yadav are present with Ld. counsel Shri M.P.S. Kasana, Advocate.
Vide separate judgment, announced today, accused Ram Sagar is acquitted of charge under section 302 IPC and other accused Ravinder Yadav is acquitted of charge under section 201 IPC.
The accused have not brought their sureties for furnishing bonds under section 437A of Cr.P.C but they have obtained consent of their respective sureties that the bonds furnished earlier may be treated as bond under section 437A of Cr.P.C. Accordingly their personal bonds got signed/executed today and the personal bond and surety bonds are accepted in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C for a period of six months.
File is consigned to record room.
(INDER JEET SINGH)
ADDL. SESSION JUDGE
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS
N DELHI
(NB : Ld. District & Session Judge, Delhi be informed that the files reserved for orders to be taken at District Court Complex, Saket were not taken there, as Court was held in the Court Room No. 120, Tis Hazari, Delhi).
S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 18 of 17
State vs. Ram Sagar FIR No. 202/2005
S.C. No. 61/2006 Pages 19 of 17