Delhi District Court
State vs Lal Mohammad on 13 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT SHARMA:
ASJ-02: SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS :
NEW DELHI
State Vs Lal Mohammad
FIR No.: 120/17
U/s : 302 IPC
PS : Amar Colony.
Date of Institution : 04.07.2017
Date of Judgment reserved on : 30.08.2022
Date of Judgment : 13.10.2022
Brief Details Of The Case
Case Number : 273/2017
Offence complained of : U/s 302 IPC
Date of Offence : 02.04.2017
Name of the complainant : Smt. Rajni Singh
S/o Sh. Kripal Singh
R/o T-58, Sriniwaspuri, New
Delhi.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 1 of 69
Name of the accused : Lal Mohammad
S/o Late Mohd. Hasan
R/o Village Katari, District
Sultanpur, Gaura Jamu,
Uttarpradesh.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted.
Date of Order : 13.10.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Accused namely Lal Mohammad faced trial for offence punishable under section 302 IPC, based on circumstantial evidence, collected by police.
2. As per charge-sheet, on 02.04.2017, a PCR call was received at PP Sriniwaspuri, Police Station Amar Colony, which was recorded vide DD No. 17 at 4.20 pm. That DD entry was entrusted to ASI Balbir who reached at the spot alongwith Constable Satish. At the spot, that is near/ outside jhuggi no. T-58, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi, said police officials met SI Manu Dev and Ct. Hawa Singh, who were patrolling and who had reached at the spot after receiving DD No. 11, PP Dated 02.04.2017, PS Amar Colony. At the spot, dead State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 2 of 69 body of one person whose name was later on found to be Suhail resident of T-58 Jhuggi, Sriniwaspuri (In short 'S.N. Puri') was lying. Said deceased was wearing navy blue trouser, white inner which were stained with blood, a wrist watch on left hand and a pant which was tied with belt. Dust and grasses were also found on the dead body of said person. There were several multiple stab injuries/ abrasion about 25-30 on the dead body of said deceased person. On inspection, crime scene suggested that a scuffle had taken place between deceased and culprit, as a result of which, culprit had caused stab injuries on the dead body of deceased. Police found witness Smt. Rajni at the spot and SI Manu Dev recorded her statement. In her statement, she claimed that her tenant Shakal Mandal after reaching her house had told her that her other tenant namely Suhail was lying bleeding in front of his jhuggi. Shakal Mandal further told her that he had reached at the spot where Suhail was lying after hearing ruckus. Consequently, police was called at 100 number by Smt. Rajni, who stated that she had suspicion that accused had killed Suhail. Based on said statement, FIR in question was registered u/sec. 302 IPC and investigation ensued.
3. During investigation, IO Inspector Raj Pal Singh reached at the spot at 6.40 pm after receiving DD No. 30A alongwith investigating kit. There he met SI Manu Dev with other police officials. SI Satish, Incharge of Crime Team, South-East District, was also present alongwith photographer ASI Babu Lal. SI Manu Dev told IO that accused was over powered by police staff from bushes, State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 3 of 69 near Railway Line, adjacent to wall of T-58, Jhuggi, S.N. Puri. He found dead body of Suhail lying near his jhuggi. Crime Team inspected the spot and took photographs of deceased as well as surrounding of deceased from different angles.
4. IO prepared site plan of scene of crime without scale on the pointing out of SI Manu Dev. He found railway track towards east of jhuggi of deceased and five/six feet high wall between railway track and wall of premise no.T-58, Jhuggi S.N. Puri, New Delhi. There were big bushes beyond the said wall. On the west side of the jhuggi there was a ganda nala, passing in north-south direction. He also found many jhuggies having sixteen rooms out of which eleven rooms were in use. All the said rooms were constructed in premise no.T-58 and they were occupied by different tenants. He also found that there was a temporary passage between boundary wall and body of deceased, where blood was present. In charge crime team after inspection gave him his crime report. Photographer ASI Babu Lal furnished photographs of scene of crime to him. Following exhibits were lifted from the spot with the help of accompanied staff.
(a) one blood stained concrete piece of floor, lifted from jhuggi of deceased (referred as Mark A-1)
(b) Earth control sample from Jhuggi of deceased (referred as Mark A-1A)
(c) Blood sample lifted with the help of cotton from jhuggi of State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 4 of 69 deceased and it was kept in test tube, which was closed with the help of yellow colour cap (referred as Mark A-1(B)
(d) Blood sample lifted with the help of cotton from deceased body and it was kept in a test tube carrying yellow colour cap (referred as Mark PT-B)
(e) Blood stained earth lifted near temporary passage and kept in a small plastic bottle (referred as Mark A2)
(f) Earth control lifted near temporary passage kept in a small plastic bottle (referred as Mark A2-A)
(g) Blood stained wooden piece of door lifted from the jhuggi of accused and kept in a bottle (referred as Mark A3)
(h) Blood stained shirt lying near the dead body of deceased, which was seized vide seizure memo after making pullanda with the help of white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'RSS' (I) Blood stained concrete from wall in front of jhuggi of deceased (referred as Mark A-4)
(j) Earth control sample of the wall in front of jhuggi of deceased (referred as Mark A-4A) All the said items were seized vide seizure memo, bearing signature of SI Manu Dev.State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 5 of 69
In the meantime, Ct. Hawa Singh reached at the spot around 07.20PM and handed over copy of FIR in question along with rukka to IO. Thereafter, IO directed HC Om Prakash and Ct. Satish to preserve the dead body of deceased in mortuary, AIIMS for 72 hours and in this regard a request letter was written by ASI Balbir. Thereafter, HC Om Prakash and Ct. Satish left the spot along with dead body in ERV gypsy.
5. During investigation, further, IO recorded disclosure statement of accused after arresting him in which accused confessed that he had killed deceased as deceased was creating hurdle in the earning of accused, for the reason that accused and deceased were in same profession of tailoring. At the pointing out of accused, his blood stained clothes were recovered from his own jhuggi at T-58. The weapon of offence i.e. blood stained knife was recovered from ganda nala in front of jhuggi of deceased with the help of one labour namely Ravi Yadav. Those articles were sealed with the seal of 'RSS' after preparing pullanda with the help of white cloth.
6. Further, during investigation accused was sent to AIIMS hospital for getting his medical examination. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Blood sample of accused was collected through seizure memo. Relatives of deceased identified dead body of deceased on 05.04.2017. Thereafter, inquest papers were prepared and statements of relatives of deceased for identifying deceased were recorded. Postmortem of deceased was conducted and thereafter, State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 6 of 69 after completing necessary formalities as per law, dead body of deceased was handed over to its relatives. It was revealed that relatives of deceased had no knowledge about the life of deceased or about his enmity with anyone.
7. Further, during investigation scaled map of place of occurrence was prepared by draftsman Inspector Mukesh Jain, postmortem report was collected, exhibits were deposited with FSL Rohini.
8. Based on aforesaid investigation, IO chargesheeted accused for offence punishable u/s 302 IPC.
9. After filing of the chargesheet, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences against accused. Proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C were concluded with regard to main chargesheet and then matter was committed to this court as per law.
10. Subsequently, supplementary chargesheet was filed on 20.01.2018 against accused which was based on the results regarding the exhibits sent to FSL Rohini. That report from FSL was based on DNA examination and DNA profiling.
11. After filing of supplementary chargesheet, its copy was supplied to accused and it was also committed to this court as per law.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 7 of 6912. Consequent to the committal of this matter, arguments on charge were heard and based on the contents of chargesheet, accused was charged with offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed for prosecution evidence.
13. Prosecution examined 34 witnesses, in total.
14. PW-1 Inspector Mukesh Jain deposed that on 07.04.2017, he reached at the spot of incident i.e. T-58, Complex, Near Railway Line, Pvt. Colony, Sri Niwas Puri, where at the instance of Inspector Rajpal Singh, he took rough notes and measurements of spot of incident. Based on said notes and measurements, he prepared site plan Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A on 08.04.2017. The rough notes were destroyed after preparation of site plan.
15. PW-2 Bahar Ahmed, in his testimony deposed that he was real brother of deceased Suhail. After receiving information from police station Amar Colony, regarding death of his brother, he came to Delhi on 05.04.2017 and identified dead body of his brother, regarding which his statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded by police, bearing his signatures at point A.
16. PW-3 Ct. Satish deposed that on 02.04.2017, when he and ASI Balbir were on emergency duty at Police Post Sri Niwas Puri, they State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 8 of 69 were patrolling. ASI Balbir received information on his phone from police post, regarding one person lying blood stain at T-58, Jhuggi Complex, Sri Niwas Puri. Consequently, both of them reached at the spot where SI Manu Dev was already present along with Ct. Hawa Singh. He found one lady Rajni also at the spot. He was directed by SI Manu Dev to guard the dead body. SI Manu Dev made enquiry at the spot from said lady and other persons. Ct. Hawa Singh was sent for registration of FIR to police station from the spot. After sometime, it was found that one person was hiding in bushes near Railway Patri at about 100 meters, from the place where dead body was lying. That person was Lal Mohammad, i.e. accused herein.
17. PW-3 further deposed that SI Manu Dev asked him to take injured to hospital. Thereafter, he along with HC Om Prakash took injured to AIIMS Hospital in ERV Gypsy. Concerned Doctor after examining the injured declared him dead and thereafter, dead body was kept in mortuary. Subsequently, he went to police station Sri Niwas Puri. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted and that dead body was handed over to its relatives. The exhibits including blood gauze and clothes of deceased were brought by him from AIIMS Mortuary and deposited in Malkhana. He identified seizure memo Ex.PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A.
18. PW-4 Sakal Mandal, deposed that he was residing at T-58, Jhuggi, Sri Niwas Puri, New Delhi for last 15 years. On 02.04.2017, he was present in his Jhuggi and was sitting outside his Jhuggi, State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 9 of 69 around 02.30 PM, after taking lunch. At that time, he heard a noise "Bachao Bachao Bachao". He got up and tried to understand from where said noise was coming. He walked about 16-17 feet and found a person who was bleeding profusely and whose cheek was cut, as a result of which said injured was finding in difficult. He found the name of said injured as Suhail Khan. That injured pointed finger towards his room and uttered "Master, Master". That "Master" was identified by him in the court as accused. He also noticed that accused had cut marks on the palms of his both hands from where it was bleeding. He did not see any object. When he inquired from accused as to what had happened to his hands, accused replied that it had happened just like that. He asked accused as to who had caused injury to Suhail and in response to the same accused replied that some outsider has caused said injuries. Thereafter, he called his landlady Ms. Rajni, who came to the spot and called 100 number PCR. Thereafter, he returned to his room. As per him, accused had run away from the spot and subsequently police had come to the spot. Police took dead body of Suhail to hospital. He went to police station for giving his statement in night. He was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State, with the permission of the court. In the said cross- examination he admitted that the accused had run away towards Railway Line.
19. PW-5 Saleem was brother-in-law of deceased Suhail Ahmed.
He deposed that he had identified dead body of deceased, regarding which his statement was recorded by police vide Ex.PW5/A, bearing State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 10 of 69 his signatures at point A.
20. PW-6 Smt. Rajni deposed that she was residing at T-58, Sri Niwas Puri, New Delhi, for last about 14 years. As per her T-58 is a Jhuggi cluster near Railway Line and there were number of tenants in those Jhuggis. On 02/03.04.2017, around 04.00 PM one of her tenant namely Sakal came to her and told that another tenant Suhail was lying in blood near the Jhuggi. Thereafter, She along with Sakal went to the spot where Suhail was lying. She saw stab injuries on the stomach and face of Suhail and blood around his body. She called police at 100number and informed that murder had taken place. She also saw accused, who was also a tenant in one of her Jhuggis, at the spot, having his hands stained with blood. She inquired from accused as to what had happened and accused told her that Suhail had a quarrel with somebody and he intervened to stop the quarrel.
21. PW-6 further deposed that police had come to the spot and apprehended accused who was hiding in bushes behind the wall, in the back of Jhuggis, near Railway Line. Accused has confessed in her presence that he had killed Suhail with a Knife and had thrown the said knife in the nearby Nala. Later on, said knife was recovered by somebody who was called by police, on the pointing out of accused. She identified her statement Ex.PW6/A recorded by Police, having her signatures at point A. She identified arrest memo of accused Ex.PW6/B, personal search memo of accused Ex.PW6/C, seizure memo/pointing out of knife Ex.PW6/D, rough sketch of knife State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 11 of 69 Ex.PW6/E and pointing out memo Ex.PW6/F bearing her signatures at point A. She deposed that police had conducted search in the Jhuggi of accused in her presence and had recovered blood stained pant and shirt lying under the folding cot. She identified the knife used in alleged crime as Ex.P1.
22. PW-7 Ct. Rameshwar, deposed that on 02.04.2017, he along with HC Om Prakash, were present at PS Amar Colony. Around 04.30 PM, HC Om Prakash received a message based on which both of them reached at T-58 ,Jhuggi Sri Niwas Puri, New Delhi, where they met SI Manu Dev, Ct. Hawa Singh, ASI Balbir, Ct. Satish and other police officials. He saw dead body of a person having blood on his body. He estimated that injuries were caused to the said dead body by some sharp object. Later on he came to know that said dead body was of Suhail. SI Manu Dev recorded the statement of Mrs. Rajni and prepared rukka which she gave to Ct. Hawa Singh for registration of FIR in question. In the meanwhile, crime team reached at the spot and lifted exhibits and clicked photographs.
23. PW-7 further deposed that he along with other police officials while looking near the bushes, located near the Railway Line, had found accused hiding himself in the bushes. All of them apprehended accused and found that he had injuries on his hands. Accused took them to the room, from where he recovered his blood stained shirt and pant. Those clothes were seized in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of 'RSS'. Accused pointed out the place from where knife, used State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 12 of 69 by him in alleged crime, was recovered with the help of a public person. That knife was recovered from Nala and it was sealed with the seal of RSS. On the direction of Inspector Rajpal Singh he along with ASI Balbir and HC Om Prakash went to AIIMS Trauma Centre with accused where accused was medically treated. Concerned doctor took blood sample of injured and it was kept in a pullanda. He handed over the said pullanda to containing blood sample of accused to Inspector Rajpal Singh, vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. The knife which was recovered at the instance of accused was having wooden handle and a steel blade. IO prepared rough sketch of said knife and seized it in a pullanda. He identified the said knife as Ex.P1. He identified the clothes of accused seized by police during investigation as Ex.P2.
24. PW-8 Nikhil Kumar Singh, deposed that he was residing in Sri Niwas Puri, in a Jhuggi near Okhla Railway Station on 02.04.2017, when he heard some commotion around 03.30 PM, while he was sleeping in his Jhuggi. He came out of his Jhuggi and saw accused going towards his home having blood stained hands and clothes. Thereafter, he returned to his house and after sometime police came to the spot. He saw deceased Suhail lying outside and accused running towards his home. As per him, police had apprehended accused from the place near Railway Line, where accused was hiding. Further, as per him police had recorded his statement in the police station. One week prior to alleged incident, he had heard deceased Suhail abusing accused as accused had thrown clothes and State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 13 of 69 utensils of Suhail outside his Jhuggi. He didn't know about any quarrel taking place between accused and deceased Suhail.
25. PW-9 Baby Khushi was a child witness who deposed that her date of birth was 21.04.2006 and she was a resident of house i.e. T- 58, Sri Niwas Puri, New Delhi, where a Railway Track was present near her house. She knew that one lady Ms. Laxmi was resident of nearby house. She deposed that a quarrel had taken place near her house once. On the day of quarrel she had not seen accused. A murder had taken place about a month back, prior to said quarrel. As per her accused was present in the room where murder had taken place and she had seen that initially, the person who was murdered had come out of the house and then accused had come out of the said room. All the clothes of accused were blood stained. After seeing said blood, she was frightened and went back to her house.
26. PW-10 SI Manu Dev deposed that on 02.04.2017, he was posted as In-charge, Police Post Sri Niwas Puri, Police Station Amar Colony. DD No. 17, Ex.PW10/A was marked to ASI Balbir Singh for necessary action. Information of said DD was also forwarded to him through wireless set and pursuant thereof he along with Ct. Hawa Singh, reached at the spot, where they found dead body of a person, whose name they later on found to be Suhail. The said dead body adorned sleeveless west and dark blue color pant with black color belt tied around his waist. One blue color shirt stained with blood was also lying near the dead body. He observed injury marks on the State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 14 of 69 dead body, which appeared to have been caused by sharp weapon. He also saw blood line on the floor of the Jhuggi as well as outside the Jhuggi of deceased and also on the passage between the Jhuggis. ASI Balbir Singh and Ct. Satish were already present at the spot. Complainant Smt. Rajni was also present there and her statement Ex.PW6/A was recorded by him bearing her signature at point A. He made endorsement on the said statement from point C to C and gave the rukka to Ct. Hawa Singh with direction to get the FIR in question registered. He along with Ct. Rameshwar and 2/3 other police officials conducted cursory inspection of scene of crime and spotted accused hiding himself in bushes along the wall of premises, near Railway Line. He saw injured marks on the hands of accused and when accused tried to flee away, he was apprehended by them. Accused confessed his crime. In the meanwhile, Inspector Rajpal Singh reached at the spot along with District Crime Team, which inspected the scene of crime. Photographs of scene of crime were clicked by the photographer of crime team.
27. PW10 further deposed that he handed over accused to IO and thereafter necessary proceedings were conducted by the IO, which included lifting of blood from scene of crime, sealing of said exhibits, preparation of seizure memos Ex.PW10/B to Ex.PW10/E, arrest of accused, preparation of arrest memo Ex.PW6/B, seizure of clothes of accused, preparation of seizure memo Ex.PW6/F noting down disclosure statement of accused, preparation of sketch of knife, sealing of the said knife in pullanda vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/D State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 15 of 69 and handing over of seal of 'RSS' after use, for deposition in police station. Dead body of deceased was sent to AIIMS hospital in his presence. He identified case properties viz knife as Ex.P-1, Clothes of accused Ex.P-2 and clothes of victim Ex.P-3. He identified accused in the court.
28. PW11 Dr. Antara Deb Barma, senior resident, department of forensic medicine, AIIMS New Delhi in his testimony deposed that she along with Dr. Hemant Kumar Kanwar, senior resident, department of forensic medicine had conducted postmortem of victim on 05.04.2017 when IO presented 21 inquest papers with request for conducting postmortem of dead body. She identified postmortem report as Ex.PW11/A bearing her signatures at point A. she identified signature of Dr. Hemant Kumar Kanwar at point B in the said report. As per her, dead body was identified by Ruksar and Saleem, both relatives of deceased. The injuries on the dead body of the deceased was antemortem in nature. The cause of death based on postmortem was 'hemorrhagic shock as a result of multiple stabbed injury caused by sharp pointed object.' The specimen of the said body was collected, preserved, sealed and was handed over to SI Khem Singh along with sample seal.
29. PW12 Ravi Yadav deposed that on the directions of police officials he had entered into ganda nala and had recovered knife, which he handed over to police. That knife was seized and sealed by police. During cross examination by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the state, he State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 16 of 69 admitted that he had taken out the said knife from ganda nala on 02.04.2017 and that police had met him when he was roaming near jhuggi no.T-58 Sriniwaspuri. He identified knife as Ex.P-1.
30. PW13 Ct. Hawa Singh deposed that on 02.04.2017, he had joined investigation with SI Manu Dev. Both of them reached at the place of incident i.e. Jhuggi no.T-58, where they met ASI Balbir and Ct. Satish Kumar. He found a dead body having multiple injuries marks lying in a pool of blood. On inquiry he found that name of said dead person was Sohail. In his presence, SI Manu Dev had recorded the statement of Ms. Rajni vide Ex.PW6/A, on which endorsement was made by SI Manu Dev for registration of FIR. The FIR in question thereafter was registered on the basis of said endorsement by him. After registration of FIR, investigation was entrusted with Inspector Raj Pal Singh. During investigation, on the directions of IO, Ct. Satish took the dead body to AIIMS mortuary where it was preserved. IO arrested accused and prepared arrest memo Ex.PW6/B and personal search memo Ex.PW6/C. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused and at the instance of accused got his blood stained clothes from his jhuggi, which was sealed in a parcel with the seal of RSS. Thereafter, accused got the knife recovered from nearby nala, with the help of labour Ravi Yadav. IO prepared sketch of said knife and sealed it in a pullanda with the seal of RSS. He identified knife as Ex.P-1 and blood stained clothes of accused as Ex.P-2 (colly).
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 17 of 6931. PW14 HC Om Prakash deposed that on 02.04.2017 after receiving message at PP Sriniwaspuri where he was posted, he reached at the spot i.e. T-58, Jhuggi near Railway Line, Sriniwaspuri along with Ct. Rameshwar where SI Manu Dev was present along with other police officials. He found one dead body lying in a pool of blood. IO collected exhibits from the crime scene and crime team also reached at the spot. Accused, who was hiding in bushes near the wall was apprehended and it was found that accused had injuries and blood was coming from his hands. Identity of deceased was made out. After completing formalities dead body was sent to AIIMS hospital for postmortem. He accompanied dead body along with Ct. Satish to the hospital. That dead body was preserved for 72 hours and Ct. Satish was deployed for the purpose of safety of said dead body. He returned to P.P. Sriniwaspuri. Spot of incident was photographed by the crime team and IO recorded his statement. He identified accused in the court.
32. PW15 HC Sukhdev Ram deposed that during his official duty on 02.04.2017. He had registered FIR in question vide DD no.30A, on the basis of rukka produced by Ct. Hawa Singh, being sent by SI Manu Dev at 06.25pm. He identified the endorsement on the rukka at Ex.PW15/A and computerized FIR in question as Ex.PW15/B bearing his signatures at point A. He identified certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act with respect to said FIR as Ex.PW15/C. After registration of FIR, investigation was entrusted to Inspector Raj Pal Singh.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 18 of 6933. PW16- Retired SI Balbir Sharma deposed that on 02.04.2017, when he was posted as ASI at PP Sriniwas Puri, PS- Amar Colony, he received call at 4.20 pm, vide DD No. 17PP and thereafter he alongwith HC Satish went to Jhuggi No. T-58, Sriniwas Puri, where they met SI Manu Dev and other police officials. He found dead body of a male person in a pool of blood. Consequently, SI Manu Dev recorded statement of Smt. Rajni, prepared rukka and got the FIR in question registered through Ct. Satish, by sending him to police station. On search, accused was found hiding behind a wall about 100 meters from the spot. SI Manu Dev apprehended accused and on interrogation, accused revealed his name as Lal Mohammad. Crime Team also reached at the spot and inspected the spot. Crime spot was photographed. Accused was medically examined and dead body was preserved in hospital. Thereafter, weapon of offence was recovered from nearby Nala at the instance of accused. Inspector Raj Pal Singh reached at the spot and prepared site plan. SI Manu Dev seized knife and handed it over to Inspector Raj Pal Singh. Blood stained clothes of accused were recovered from the house of accused at his instance. They were sealed with the seal of 'RSS'. IO prepared sketch of knife and seized it. Thereafter, said clothes and knife were sealed with the seal of 'RSS'. Sketch of said knife was prepared by Inspector Raj Pal Singh. He identified the clothes of accused and knife as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 19 of 6934. PW17- Dr. Hemant Kumar Kanwar, Sr. Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS New Delhi identified postmortem report Ex.PW11/A bearing his signature at 'point B'. He deposed that he alongwith Dr. Antra Deb Barma, Sr. Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine had conducted the postmortem of dead body which was given by IO on 05.04.2017 alongwith 21 inquest papers. Thereafter, he had prepared postmortem report as identified by him above. Further, he deposed that specimens were collected from the said dead body and were described in 'column h' of postmortem report. Those specimens were preserved, sealed and handed over to SI Khem Singh alongwith sample seal.
35. PW18- Dr. Om Prakash deposed that he was authorized by head of surgery department, AIIMA Hospital, to depose on behalf of Dr. Abhishek Kumar Tiwari. He identified MLC Ex.PW18/A, bearing signatures of Dr. Abhishek Kumar Tiwari at point A, on the basis of identification of said signatures. As per him, Dr. Abhishek Kumar Tiwari had left the services of hospital and his whereabouts were not known.
36. PW19- Ram Pat, Medical Record Technician, Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi, appeared on behalf of Dr. Saud PM and identified the MLC of accused as Ex.PW19/A being prepared by Dr. Saud PM having his signatures at point A. He identified signature of Dr. Saud PM in his official capacity. He also furnished discharged summary of accused, attested by Mr. R.K. Kaul as Ex.PW19/B, State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 20 of 69 bearing signature of Mr. R.K. Kaul at point A. He deposed that he had seen Mr. R.K. Kaul, writing and signing during his official duties.
37. PW20 Dr. Saikat Mondal, Sr. Resident, Department of Medicine, Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi deposed that he was working in the said hospital. He identified MLC Ex.PW19/A bearing prepared by Dr. Saud PM, bearing his signature at point A.
38. PW21 W/Constable Manisha had deposed that on 02.04.2017, when he was posted at CPCR, PHQ as Channel Operator, she received a call from control room, at about 04.13pm, regarding 'koi aadmi behosh pada hua hai' at government dispensary, Sriniwaspuri, Amar Colony. That message was automatically recorded in control room system. She produced computer generated print out of the said fact in the shape of form no.1, verified and attested by ACP/CPCR/PHQ, which she referred as Ex.PW21/A.
39. PW22 ASI Babu Lal deposed that on 02.04.2017, he was posted as ASI/photographer in mobile crime team, south-east district, which was headed by SI Satish Kumar. An information was received from police control room regarding a dead person, lying in Amar Colony, Area. Thereafter, he along with SI Satish Kumar and ASI Kirti Kumar (finger print proficient) along with Ct. Chirag went to the spot i.e. Jhuggi no.T-58, near Railway Line, Jhuggi Sriniwaspuri, Delhi where they found dead body of a male lying in pool of blood State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 21 of 69 on the ground. They also found blood inside the said jhuggi. He took 18 photographs of the spot of incident including dead body which he identified as Ex.PW22/1. He identified 18 negatives of the said photographs as Ex.PW22/2. After developing the said photographs, he handed over the same to IO along with negatives.
40. PW23 Ct. Sandeep deposed that on 02.04.2017 duty officer HC Sukhdev Ram had handed over four computer generated copies of FIR, directing him to deliver the same to ACP office, DCP office, Joint CP Office and area local Magistrate. He delivered the said copies of FIR to the concerned offices and IO had recorded his statement.
41. PW24 ASI Jagdish deposed that on 02.04.2017 he was working as computer operator at police station Amar Colony. He had typed FIR in question Ex.PW15/B on the instructions of HC Sukhdev Ram and delivered the computer print out of the same to HC Sukhdev Ram.
42. PW25 SI George Ibrahim deposed that on 07.06.2017, when he was posted as Nodal Officer, CPCR, PHQ New Delhi, he had handed over PCR form-I along with certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act to police. He identified the said PCR form-I as Ex.PW21/A and certificate 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW25/A bearing his signature at point A. State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 22 of 69
43. PW26 Ct. Anil Kumar deposed that on 18.05.2017, he was posted as constable at police station Amar Colony. On that day, on the instructions of IO, he took 21 duly sealed pullandas sealed along with sample seal and forwarding letter vide RC No.59/21/17 for depositing in FSL Rohini. He deposited the said pullandas and received acknowledgment from FSL Rohini. Thereafter, he returned to police station and handed over the acknowledgment to MHC(M). as per him, said pullandas were not tampered in any manner, during the time they remained with him.
44. PW 27 Ct. Madho Lal deposed that on 09.05.2017 he was posted at P.S. Amar Colony. On that day, on the instructions of IO, he took one sealed parcel containing viscera along with sample seal and forwarding letter vide RC No.47/21/17 for depositing in FSL, Rohini. He identified copy of the said RC as Ex.PW27/A. He deposited the said pullanda/parcel at FSL Rohini and received acknowledgment. Thereafter, he returned to police station and handed over the said acknowledgment to MHC(M). he identified the copy of acknowledgment as Ex.PW27/B. He deposed that during the time pullanda/parcel remained with him, it was not tampered with in any manner.
45. PW28 HC Yashpal deposed that on 02.4.2017, he was posted as MHC(M) at P.S. Amar Colony. Inspector Rajpal Singh, on that day, had handed over to him seven sealed pullandas, two plastic boxes, one another white cloth pullanda, one knife in sealed State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 23 of 69 condition, one pullanda of shirt and pant, all of which were sealed with the seal of RSS. He made entry to the said effect in register no.19 vide entry at serial no.1080/17. On 03.04.2017 Inspector Rajpal Singh handed over to him, one blood sample of accused in sealed condition and one sample seal of CMO JPN ATC AIIMS NEW DELHI regarding which he made entry at serial no.1081/17 in register no.19. On 05.04.2017, he received six pullandas, five sample seals of department of forensic medicine, AIIMS New Delhi from Inspector Rajpal Singh regarding which he made entry in register no.19 at serial no.1085/17. Further, he identified the said entries in register no.19 as Ex.PW28/A to Ex.PW28/C bearing his signatures at point A.
46. PW28 HC Yashpal further deposed that on 18.05.2017 he sent 19 exhibits in sealed condition and four sample seals to FSL Rohini through Ct. Anil vide RC No.59/21/17, who returned with acknowledgment after depositing the same. He brought original register no.21 containing the said RC and acknowledgment. He identified the copy of the said RC as Ex.PW28/D and that of acknowledgment as Ex.PW28/E. On 09.05.2017, he sent one sealed pullanda containing viscera sealed with the seal of department of forensic medicine, AIIMS New Delhi through Ct.Madho Lal vide RC No.47/21/17 who after depositing the same, returned the acknowledgment to him. He identified copy of RC as Ex.PW28/F and that of acknowledgement as Ex.PW28/G. State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 24 of 69
47. PW29 Dr. Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) FSL, Rohini deposed that on 18.05.2017, FSL Rohini received 19 sealed parcels and they were marked to him for examination. Before opening the parcels, seals on the parcels were tallied with specimen seals and were found intact. Parcels were opened and exhibits were taken out. Those exhibits were marked as Ex.1 to Ex.11, Ex.13a, Ex.13b, Ex.14 to Ex.18, Ex.19a, Ex.19b, Ex.20a to Ex.20c. On biological examination, blood was detected on all exhibits except Ex.2, Ex.6 & Ex9. On DNA examination of the exhibits, DNA was isolated from Ex.1, Ex.7, 10,11,13a,13b,15,16,17 & 20a. On the basis of DNA profiling, it was concluded that DNA profiling of Ex.11 (blood sample of accused Lal Mohammad matched with DNA profile of Ex.1, 7 & 13a). DNA profile of Ex.17 i.e. blood sample of deceased was found matching with DNA profile of Ex.1, 10,13a,13b,15,16 & 20a. After examination, parcel no.10 and 20 were sent to physics devision on 11.09.2017 and remaining parcels were resealed with the seal of 'NK FSL DELHI'. He prepared detailed biological and DNA report based on his examination and identified the same as Ex.PW29/A bearing his signature at point A.
48. PW30 Parshuram, Assistant Director, Physics, FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 11.09.2017, he was so posted at FSL Rohini. On that day, two sealed parcels were received in physics division, from biology division from FSL Rohini and they were marked to him for examination. Before opening the parcels, seals on the parcels were tallied with specimen seals and they were found intact. Parcels State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 25 of 69 were opened and exhibits were taken out and were marked. After opening parcel no.10 a blueish colour full sleeve shirt with dark brown stains having seven cuts at backside right lower portion, were found and they were marked as Q1 to Q7. On opening parcel no.20, a sleeveless baniyan, a black colour pant and a greenish colour underwear were found. Cut marks were present on baniyan and they were marked as Q8 to Q25. Cut marks on black colour pant were marked as Q26 to Q27. On examination of the cut marks, it was found that said cuts were caused by sharp edged weapon like knife. He prepared detailed report in this regard which he identified as Ex.PW30/A bearing his signature at point A. After examining the exhibits they were resealed with the seal of 'PS FSL DELHI'.
49. PW31 Dr. Lingaraj Sahu, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) FSL Rohini Delhi deposed that on 09.05.2017 one sealed parcel with the seal of department of forensic medicine, AIIMS New Delhi was received in the office of FSL, Rohini Delhi and it was marked to him for examination and for filing of report. On 16.05.2017, he opened the sealed parcel which was duly sealed and examined it. He prepared detailed examination report which he identified as Ex.PW31/A bearing his signature at point A. After examining the exhibits they were resealed with the seal of 'LRS FSL DELHI'. The exhibits 1A, 1B & 1C were found containing ethyl alcohol. Ex.1C contained ethyl alcohol to the extent of 235.9 milligram per 100 milliliters of blood. In Ex.1D i.e. preservative, no trace of metallic poison, ethyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 26 of 69 barbiturates, tranquilizer and pesticide were detected.
50. PW32 Dr. Hemant Kumar Tawar, Senior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi deposed that he along with Dr. Antara Deb Barma had examined the weapon and postmortem report. He prepared detailed report after examining documents and weapon that had caused injuries mentioned in postmortem report bearing no.461/17, which he identified as Ex.PW32/A. He had prepared said report after receiving photocopy of FIR in question, attested copy of postmortem report bearing no.461/17 dated 05.04.2017, inquest papers and carbon copy of road certificate dated 04.01.2018 with respect to sealed weapon deposited in his office by Inspector Raj Pal Singh, P.S. Amar Colony. He identified signature of Dr. Antara Deb Barma at point B as he had worked with Dr. Antara Deb Barma in his official capacity.
51. PW33 Dr. Antara Deb Barma, Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS New Delhi deposed that on the same lines as was deposed by PW32, as mentioned above. She identified detailed report Ex.PW32/A prepared by her along with Dr. Hemant Kumar Tanwar bearing her signature at point B.
52. PW34 Inspector Rajpal Singh deposed that on 02.04.2017 he was posted as Inspector ATO at P.S. Amar Colony. After receiving information vide DD no.30A i.e. PW34/A, he reached at the spot i.e. T-58, Jhuggi Sriniwaspuri, near Railway Line Delhi where he met SI State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 27 of 69 Manu Dev, ASI Balbir, SI Satish and other police official. Accused was found with said police officials, one dead body was lying outside jhuggi No. T-58. He inspected the spot and found dead body of male lying in pool of blood having various wounds. Said deceased was bearing blue colour pant, belt and white sando vest. He came to know that name of said deceased was Sohail. He inspected the spot with crime team officials and SI Manu Dev. ASI Babu Lal clicked photographs of the spot.
53. PW34 further deposed that he lifted samples/exhibits from the spot vide seizure memos Ex.PW10/B to Ex.PW10/E, bearing his signatures at point X. He prepared site plan at the instance of SI Manu Dev which he identified as Ex.PW34/B bearing his signatures at point X. he examined SI Manu Dev and complainant Smt. Rajni. In the meanwhile, Ct. Hawa Singh reached at the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka, in which SHO concerned had directed him to conduct investigation further. Consequently, during investigation, he arrested accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW6/B & Ex.PW6/C respectively. He recorded disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW10/D bearing his signature at point X. Dead body of the deceased was sent to AIIMS mortuary for getting postmortem through HC Om Prakash. Based on disclosure statement of accused, his clothes were recovered from his jhuggi, which were sealed in a pullanda with the seal of 'RSS' vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/F bearing his signature at point X. Blood stained shirt of deceased was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/C State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 28 of 69 bearing his signature at point X, with the seal of 'RSS'. Accused led police team to the place where weapon of offence i.e. knife was lying. That place was Nala near place of incident. With the help of labour namely Ravi, said knife was recovered and its sketch Ex.PW6/E was prepared. Same was converted into pullanda vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/D having seal of RSS. Accused was thereafter sent to AIIMS hospital for medical examination through SI Balbir and other police staff.
54. PW34 in his testimony further deposed that he had examined complainant and other witnesses at the spot. Case property was deposited in malkhana P.S. Amar Colony. In the intervening night of 2nd /3rd April, 2017, Ct. Rameshwar Prasad handed over sealed pullanda having seal of 'JPNATC AIIMS', which was stated to be containing blood sample of accused along with sample seal. It was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. Accused was also brought back to the police station after getting his medical examination and thereafter, sent to lock-up, P.S. Amar Colony. On the next day, PW34 along with other police officials came to the court and thereafter, accused was sent to judicial custody.
55. PW34 further deposed that during investigation dead body of deceased was identified by his relatives and their statements ExPW34/C and Ex.PW5/A were recorded. Postmortem of deceased was conducted and dead body was given to the relative of deceased. Doctors at AIIMS handed over exhibits i.e. viscera of deceased, two State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 29 of 69 sealed parcels containing nail clips of deceased, one sealed parcel containing wallet and watch of deceased, five sample seals of 'DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE' in sealed condition. All the said articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A bearing signature of this witness at point A.
56. PW34 further deposed that police officials of crime team prepared crime team report. That he had collected postmortem report from hospital and all the exhibits were sent to FSL for expert opinion. He identified the accused in the court. He collected DD no.11PP dated 02.04.2017 regarding departure entry of SI Manu Dev whose copy he identified as Ex.PW34/D. He filed chargesheet after recording of statement of witnesses. He filed FSL result and exhibits from FSL Rohini after receiving them. He recorded statement of witnesses and filed supplementary chargesheet. He identified DD no.31A as Ex.PW34/E and deposed that scaled site plan of the spot was also prepared. He collected PCR form. He identified clothes of accused as Ex.P-2 (colly) and knife involved in the crime as Ex.P-1. He identified one torn shirt having dark brown stains belonging to deceased as Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 (colly). He identified samples/exhibits collected from the spot as Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-11, all of which were in a sealed box having seal of 'RSS'. Those seals were intact.
57. After examining aforesaid witnesses prosecution closed his evidence and matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 30 of 69 under Section 313 Cr.P.C, all the incriminating evidence was put to accused separately which he denied. He claimed that prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and he was falsely implicated in his case. He claimed that all the documents were prepared by police officials in police station regarding which he was not aware. He did not prefer to lead defence evidence. Consequently, matter was fixed for final arguments.
58. After hearing final arguments, matter was listed for judgment.
59. In order decide present case, I have to appreciate evidence brought on record by prosecution. How that appreciation of evidence has to be done, was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, wherein it was observed that:
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 31 of 69 evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof.
In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases"
60. So, above mentioned observation, clearly indicates that evidence has to be read as a whole and not in piecemeal. It is the impression of the court, of whole of the evidence, which is to be borne in mind, while deciding a case. Minor discrepancies should not weigh much, while deciding a case. The inconsistencies, which go to the root of the matter, as such are to be appreciated, for deciding a State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 32 of 69 case.
61. Further, this case is not based on direct evidence. It is a case, based on circumstantial evidence. Here I must mention law relating to circumstantial evidence.
62. It has been consistently laid down by Apex Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances, are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Hukam Singh Versus State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 1063 & Eradu & Ors Versus State of Hyderabad, AIR 1996 SC 316.
63. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda Versus State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 SC 1622 held that, onus was on prosecution to prove that chain is complete and infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this court, before conviction could be made on circumstantial evidence must be fully established. Those conditions are:
(a) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established.
(b) The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and there should not be any other State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 33 of 69 hypothesis except the guilt of accused
(c) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency.
(d) The circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
(f) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to lead any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
64. So, in the wake of above law, it is clear that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the court has to see that circumstances from which and inference as to the guilt of accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principle facts sought to be inferred from those circumstances. The cumulative facts of circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of accused and bring the offences home beyond reasonable doubt.
65. Keeping in mind above law I am proceeding further and appreciating evidence brought on record by prosecution.
66. The prosecution witnesses are categorized into three categories viz., public witnesses, experts and police witnesses.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 34 of 69Appreciation of testimony of public witnesses.
67. PW4 Sakal Mandal, PW5 Salim, PW6 Smt. Rajni, PW8 Nikhil Kumar Singh, PW9 Baby Khushi, PW12 Ravi Yadav were the public witnesses examined by prosecution.
68. PW4 Sakal Mandal was the witness, who in his testimony had deposed that he had heard the noise of 'Bachao bachao bachao" on 02.04.2017 at about 02.30PM, when he was present in his jhuggi, at T-58, Jhuggi Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi. He came out of his jhuggi and saw victim lying in a pool of blood. He also saw accused having cut marks on his hands and bleeding. Victim pointed a finger towards room and uttered "Master, Master" and that Master came out of his room. Accused fled away from the spot. He told the same to his landlady Smt. Rajni and went back to his room.
69. Presence of PW4 at the spot, cannot be doubted. This witness is resident of T-58 Jhuggi, Sriniwaspuri Delhi, as per his testimony. He refuted the suggestion that he was not residing at the said place. He refuted the suggestion of wrongly identifying accused at the instance of police. As such, no relevant fact was culled out through cross examination, based on which, I could have doubted his presence at the spot. Coupled with the same, I find that no relevant fact was culled out through cross examination, based on which I could have concluded that he had ulterior motive against accused for implicating him falsely in this case.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 35 of 6970. As per prosecution story, PW4 had deposed before the police that he had seen accused having a knife in his hand while victim was lying on the ground. He had also stated before the police that he had asked accused as to what had happened to his hands and in response to the same, accused replied that it had happened just like that. He had also stated before the police that he had asked accused as to who had caused injury to victim and in response to the same, accused had replied that some outsider had caused said injuries. Those facts were not deposed by PW4 in his testimony. He was confronted with said facts but he did not admit that he had stated those facts to police. Infact, in his cross examination, he deposed that his statement was recorded by police but it was not read over to him. In such circumstances, possibility of discrepancies in his testimony, did not make his testimony doubtful.
71. PW4 stuck to his version, in his testimony regarding him seeing victim in a pool of blood on 02.04.2017 and accused having injury marks on his palms. Coupled with the same, his testimony uniformly held its ground regarding accused fleeing away from the spot. In such circumstances, I conclude that accused was the one, who had caused injuries to victim which proved to be fatal.
72. Further, in his testimony, PW4 had deposed that when he met victim/deceased in question, the said victim pointed finger towards accused and stated 'Master, Master'. This witness, identified accused State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 36 of 69 in the court. Now, the above facts indicated that deceased before dying had disclosed that it was accused who had attacked him and had addressed accused as 'Master, Master'. That declaration of victim in question, as such was his dying declaration. In the famous rape case of Nirbhaya, Hon'ble Apex Court had held that dying declaration made through signs, gestures or by nods are admissible in evidence. There is nothing on record, based on which I could have doubted that victim had not made said declaration towards accused or that PW4 had falsely stated in his testimony that victim had made said declaration. As such, said dying declaration of victim qualified the conditions laid down by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana, High Court in Rajindra Kumar Versus State, 1960 Crl. Law Journal,
851. In other words, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that dying declaration was made when victim was in actual danger of death, he was having full apprehension that his death was near and later on, death of victim ensued.
73. Based on testimony of PW4 it cannot be concluded that this witness was not present at the spot or that victim and accused were not present at the spot or that accused had not attacked victim. Further, this witness was not having any false motive to implicate accused in this case. Therefore, I find testimony of this witness believable.
74. PW6 Smt. Rajni in her testimony, had deposed that she was resident of T-58, Jhuggi cluster, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi. She was State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 37 of 69 told by PW4 Sakal that one person was lying in a pool of blood near her jhuggi on 02/03.04.2017 around 04.00PM. She saw victim lying in a pool of blood and consequently called police at 100 number. She also saw accused at the spot having blood stains on his hands. When she inquired from accused as to what had happened, accused had replied that somebody had quarrelled with victim and accused intervened in the said quarrel. She also deposed that accused had killed by knife, in her presence and that he had thrown the said knife in nearby Nala. That knife was recovered from the Nala at the pointing out of accused. She further deposed that police had recorded her statement and accused was arrested and personally searched in her presence. She identified the memos prepared by the police bearing her signatures at point A. She also identified the knife used in alleged crime as Ex.P-1.
75. In her cross examination, she categorically deposed that blood was dripping from the hands of accused. She explained details of the spot by deposing that height of wall behind which accused was hiding in bushes, was about 5feet of height, that width of the nala from where knife was recovered was about 6feet, that said Nala was filled with water at the relevant time. Those facts, when seen in the light of site plan Ex.PW1/A, only corroborated the fact that she was present at the spot immediately after the incident in question.
76. PW6 refuted the suggestions of falsely implicating accused at the instance of police. She refuted that she had not seen accused on State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 38 of 69 the day of incident and that accused was not present at the spot at the time of incident in question.
77. Besides that as per PW6, accused had confessed before her regarding the fact that he had killed the victim by a knife. Question arises as to whether extra judicial confession should be believed or not?. In order to decide the said question, I must mention here relevant law pertaining to extra judicial confession.
78. An extra judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. Further, it was held that such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appeared to be unbiased, not even remotely inimically to the accused and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused. Reliance in this regard is placed upon 'State of Rajasthan Versus Raja Ram (2003) 8SCC 180.
79. Further, there is no absolute rule that extra judicial confession can never be made the basis of a conviction, although, ordinarily an extra judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material. Reliance in this regard is made on 'Sansar Chand Versus State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 39 of 69 State of Rajasthan (2010) 10 SCC 604'.
80. In Mohammad Azad @ Shamin Versus State of West Bengal (2008) 15 SCC 449, it was held that 'it is well settled that conviction can be based on voluntarily confession but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible, it should be corroborated by independence. Extra judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated.
81. In Madan Gopal Kakkad Versus Naval Dubey & Anr (1992) 3SCC 2004, it was held that 'the law does not require that evidence of an extra judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. The rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated......if the court is satisfied that if confession is voluntarily then conviction can be based on the same.....'
82. So, in the wake of abovementioned case laws, it is clear that extra judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated. Conviction of an accused can be based even on uncorroborated extra judicial confession, if it conspires the confidence.
83. Reverting back to the evidence, brought on record by prosecution, I find that unchallenged facts remained that PW6 was State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 40 of 69 the wife of Kripal Singh and as such, was landlady of the jhuggi clusters at the spot. She was informed by PW4 Sakal, who in turn was her tenant. As per her accused was also her tenant. In such circumstances, extra judicial confession of accused, cannot be doubted. There was no reason for PW6 to falsely implicate accused in this case. There was every possibility that being tenant accused had confessed the crime in front of PW6 being his landlady. The relation between accused and PW6, that being of tenant and landlady, was such that accused would have confessed his crime. Therefore, I believed the factum of extra judicial confession being made by accused before PW6.
84. PW6 as such was cross examined with regard to the number of times, her statements were recorded and with regard to the measurement of knife involved in this case. Those aspects were not relevant for purpose of discarding her testimony. She did not remember as to whether she had stated to the police that accused had told her that there was quarrel of victim with some other person in which accused intervened. She also did not remember that she had told police about blood dripping from the hands of accused and accused running away from the spot. Her statement Ex.PW6/A recorded by police did not mention those facts. Absence of those facts, in her previous statement, recorded by police did not make her testimony doubtful. Those facts as such, appeared to be part of chain of events, which had occurred after the crime. Those facts did not materially change the prosecution version, so much so that it could State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 41 of 69 have caused dent on the prosecution story. Therefore, even if this witness did not depose the above facts before police then also, it did not make any difference, helping the cause of accused.
85. PW6, as such was an independent witness. No fact is brought on record by accused, by cross-examining her, which could have indicated that she was inimical towards accused. Accused had confessed the crime before her, as per her testimony. Said extra judicial confession as such, inspired my confidence. Her substantive evidence, recorded in the court, as such stood the acid test of cross- examination pertaining to material particulars viz., presence of this witness at the spot, presence of victim and accused at the spot, presence of injury marks on victim and accused and accused fleeing away from the spot. Therefore, I believed her testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
86. PW8 Nikhil Kumar Singh was another witness, examined by prosecution, who was resident of Jhuggi, Sriniwaspuri, where incident in question had taken place. His testimony revealed that on 02.04.2017 around 03.30PM, when he was sleeping in his jhuggi he heard commotion outside. Thereafter, he came out of his jhuggi and saw accused going towards his home with blood stained clothes. As per him, he had heard victim abusing accused, a week prior to incident in question, as accused had thrown clothes and utensils of victim outside his jhuggi.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 42 of 6987. In his cross examination, he deposed that his statement recorded by police was not read over to him. It was a material fact. This witness deposed that he had stated to the police that he was sleeping when he heard commotion. His statement Ex.PW8/DX with which he was confronted, did not mention the said facts. As such, non-mentioning of said facts, is not such a shortcoming, for which his testimony should be discarded outrightly. Being witness he had stated to the police that he was sleeping in his jhuggi when he heard commotion. If police did not record the said fact, then he cannot be held liable for the same for the purpose of discarding his testimony.
88. PW8, as such confirmed that his statement was recorded by police at police post, in his testimony. He also admitted that after recording his statement, it was not read over to him. In such circumstances, the facts that he had not told the police that he was residing in his jhuggi for last four months and the fact that he had stated to the police that he was sleeping in his jhuggi at the time of alleged incident, which were not recorded in his previous statement, as such were minor discrepancies. Such minor discrepancies in his testimony, did make the said testimony untrustworthy. Important aspect is that he identified the accused in the court being the person who was seen by him, having blood stained clothes on the day of incident, at the spot. He gave details of the location of his jhuggi of accused and his own jhuggi in his testimony. Those details only probablized the fact that he was not a planted witness. Those facts only indicated that he was a resident of jhuggies where alleged State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 43 of 69 incident had taken place. In such circumstances, only possibility remained, that it was accused who had killed victim. Testimony of this witness is therefore, believed by me to be trustworthy and reliable.
89. PW9 Baby Khushi, was eleven years of age, when she deposed in this case, during trial. Therefore, she was a child witness. Now, question arises as to how her testimony has to be appreciated. In this regard, I must mention here relevant law pertaining to appreciation of a child witness.
90. Hon'ble Apex Court in Nirmal Kumar Versus State of U.P. AIR 1992, SC 1131, had stated that a child's evidence should be scrutinized carefully and that the court should seek some form of corroboration because corroboration is more of a norm of practical judgment than of law. The testimony of child witness is very likely to be taught and should be accepted only after careful consideration. Because of fear and temptations, the child may testify about things he has not seen. The court must carefully consider whether the child witness is under any teaching or influence. However, the evidence should not be dismissed as he is likely to be taught because of his soft age.
91. In Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate others Versus State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.345/2008, decided on 19.02.2008, it was held that a child witness's testimony must be State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 44 of 69 scrutinized to ensure that it was not given under duress or undue influence and that it must also corroborate other evidence.
92. So, in the wake of abovementioned case law, it is clear that courts have to examine the evidence of child witness carefully before accepting it by ruling out the possibility of said child being influenced or tutored by anybody. Corroboration of testimony of said child witness, by other evidence, is a matter of prudence, which must be appreciated by the court.
93. Reverting back to the facts of present case, I find that PW9 Baby Khushi identified accused, being her neighbour. She also confirmed in her testimony that it was accused, who she saw coming out of a jhuggi after the person who was murdered. She also deposed that she had seen accused in blood stained clothes. She became frightened after seeing accused in blood stained clothes. Her said reaction, was not challenged by accused, while cross examining her. She admitted in her cross examination that her statement was recorded by police and that she had told the said facts to her parents. She explained that her testimony was recorded around 05.00/06.00PM. As such, her presence at the spot of incident, on account of her residence being in closed proximity, is not disputed. She refuted the suggestion of false implication of accused. In fact, she deposed that she was not told by her mother as to what she had to depose in this case. So, there was nothing based on which I could have concluded that this witness was tutored or influenced by State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 45 of 69 somebody. Infact, no suggestion to that effect was given to accused by cross examining her. Her testimony is not found by me to be improbable or unreasonable. I believed it accordingly to be trustworthy.
94. PW12 Ravi Yadav was the witness who deposed that he had recovered knife in question Ex.P-1, at the instance of police from Ganda Nala. He admitted that he had carried out the said recovery of knife on 02.04.2017, when police took him to the said Nala. To that extent, his testimony remained trustworthy.
95. PW12 did not identify accused in the court, whom he had seen near Nala from where he had recovered knife. He deposed that when he had reached at the spot, he found police officials and one public person. He was not sure as to whether said public person was accused or not. Now, his testimony revealed that he was an illiterate person, who was a labourer/daily wager. Incident in question had taken place on 02.04.2017 and his testimony was recorded on 08.01.2019. Chances of fading away of memory of such witness with such absence of literacy, as such cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the fact that this witness did not categorically identify accused being the person, he had seen at the spot when he had recovered the knife, did not by itself make his testimony doubtful. I believed his testimony to be trustworthy.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 46 of 6996. PW2 Bahar Ahmed and PW5 Salim were the relatives who had identified the dead body of deceased in question. They identified their respective statements Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW5/A, bearing their signatures at point A, in their testimonies. They refuted the suggestion of false implication of accused and deposing falsely. They were asked question with regard to cause of death of their brothers Sohail, which they did not know. That want of knowledge, did not make their testimonies doubtful as both of them were not resident of the area where incident in question had taken place. Both of them had not witnessed incident in question. Even if, they knew the cause of death of their brother, it would have been hearsay in nature which had very little weightage on the scale of evidence. Therefore, their testimonies are believed by me to be trustworthy and reliable.
Appreciation of testimonies of police witnesses.
97. PW1 Inspector Mukesh Jain as per his testimony had prepared site plan Ex.PW1/A, on the basis of rough notes, which he took from Inspector Rajpal Singh. He identified the site plan he had prepared bearing his signatures at point A. He refuted the suggestions of not visiting spot of incident and not deposing truthfully. As such, there was nothing in his testimony, which could have falsified the fact that he had not prepared site plan Ex.PW1/A after visiting the spot. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 47 of 6998. PW3 Ct. Satish in his testimony deposed that he had visited spot on 02.04.2017 where he had seen one dead body of a male person, one lady Smt. Rajni and certain police officials. He testified that FIR in question was registered by IO, by sending Ct. Hawa Singh and that accused was found hiding in bushes, at about 100 meters from the place where dead body was lying. He identified the accused in the court.
99. In his cross examination, PW3 admitted that his statement was recorded by the IO Inspector Rajpal Singh at the police station. He was cross examined with regard to the possibility of accused not being seen from the place where dead body was lying, as accused was allegedly hiding in bushes. Regarding that aspect, he deposed that a person is not visible if he is hiding in bushes, when seen from the place where police officials were standing. That aspect is not relevant, for the reason that police officials present at the spot had deposed that accused was apprehended after he was searched near the area where dead body in question was lying. So, the important aspect is that police officials had searched the area and had found accused hiding in bushes. It is not the situation that police officials by standing at the spot where dead body was lying had seen accused hiding in bushes. Those police officials present at the spot had searched the area and in the process had apprehended accused. Therefore, height of wall near Nala and height of bushes, lost its significance.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 48 of 69100. PW3 in his testimony was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW3/DX for the reason that in the said statement recorded by IO, it was not mentioned that he alongwith ASI Balbir Sharma were on Emergency Duty. Absence of said facts in his previous statement Ex.PW3/DX, was not material for the purpose of discrediting his testimony. It was a minor omission. I discarded it accordingly. Testimony of PW3 categorically proved that he was present at the spot and had seen dead body lying in pool of blood. His testimony also proved that accused was apprehended from the bushes near the spot. Those were the relevant facts which prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt. As such, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
101. PW7 Ct. Rameshwar was another police official who had reached at the spot on 02.04.2017 and had met police officials, as per prosecution story. This witness further deposed that he had seen dead body of victim at the spot, that exhibits were collected by IO from the spot, that accused during search was found hiding in bushes, that accused was having injuries on both of his hands and accused got recovered his blood stained clothes from his jhuggi, which was sealed by the IO. Besides that as per him, accused was medically examined at AIIMS Trauma Center and seizure memo of blood sample of accused was collected by the IO. He identified the blood stained clothes of accused as Ex.P2 and weapon of offence i.e. knife as Ex.P1.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 49 of 69102. In his cross examination, PW7 confirmed that his statement was recorded by the IO and he remained at the spot for two/three hours. He gave location of Ganda Nala near the spot in consonance with prosecution story. He refuted the suggestion of accused based on false implication of accused and non-recovery of knife at the instance of accused.
103. PW7 in his cross examination, did not remember the name of police official who had recorded statement of Smt. Rajni. He did not remember the time when Ct. Hawa Singh returned to the spot after registration of FIR. He did not remember the proceedings which were conducted in the absence of Ct. Hawa Singh at the spot and name of Incharge of crime team. He did not depose about the height of wall alongside Ganda Nala. All the said facts as such, did not make his testimony doubtful. Reason being, that those facts did not create any doubt regarding his presence at the spot and his observations made regarding the spot, as mentioned above. This witness identified accused in the court being the person apprehended by the police on 02.04.2017. The said arrest of accused and the circumstances in which accused was arrested, was in sync with prosecution story. Therefore, based on said appreciation, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
104. PW10 SI Manu Dev was the initial IO in this case, who had reached at the spot after receiving information recorded vide DD no.17PP, Ex.PW10/A. He deposed facts regarding presence of dead State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 50 of 69 body in pool of blood at the spot, apprehension of accused on search of area, recovery of blood stained clothes of accused, recovery of knife used by accused in terms of prosecution story. He identified statement of Smt.Rajni Ex.PW6/A, on which he endorsed for preparation of FIR in question. He handed over the investigation to Inspector Rajpal Singh. In his presence, IO had lifted exhibits from the spot of incident, had sealed them with seal of RSS, arrested accused, had prepared various memos and site plan. He also identified accused in the court being the person who was apprehended by police on 02.04.2017. He identified knife in question as Ex.P1, clothes of accused as Ex.P-2 (Colly) and that of victim as Ex.P-3.
105. In his cross examination, he was asked questions regarding the number of jhuggies in different directions at the spot, regarding details of males and females gathered at the spot and recording of statement of any person at the spot by the IO, regarding which he had no knowledge. He did not remember the number of photographs taken by the photographer. Want of knowledge regarding those facts did not make his testimony doubtful as they were not material for discrediting his testimony. He refuted the suggestion of false implication of accused and regarding him deposing falsely. He refuted the suggestion of case being planted upon accused. As such, there was no relevant fact, based on which his testimony could be discarded. I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 51 of 69106. PW13 Ct. Hawa Singh also deposed regarding him reaching at the spot and facts as deposed by PW10 in his testimony regarding the chain of events which had occurred at the spot of incident. Same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. He identified the memos and documents prepared by IO. He identified the seal of RSS used by IO for seizing articles/exhibits. He identified knife and blood stained clothes of accused as Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 (colly), respectively.
107. PW13 was cross examined with regard to time when police officials reached at the spot. He was questioned with regard to the persons with whom SI Manu Dev had made inquiries. He was asked details of police officials who had brought PW Ravi Kumar at the spot for recovery of knife in question. This witness did not answer the said aspects categorically. He had no knowledge regarding the said aspects. It did not make his testimony doubtful as those aspects were not relevant for discrediting his testimony.
108. PW13 refuted the suggestions based on false implication of accused and PW Ravi Kumar being a planted witness. He discarded suggestion based on falsity in prosecution story. As such, no relevant fact was culled out by accused by cross examining him, which could have created dent on prosecution story. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
109. PW14 HC Om Prakash had also visited the spot on 02.04.2017 where he had seen the dead body of deceased lying in a pool of State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 52 of 69 blood. In his presence, crime team had reached at the spot, IO had collected the exhibits, accused was apprehended, injuries on the hands of accused were found and he was sent to AIIMS hospital. Dead body in question was sent to hospital and spot was photographed by crime team.
110. PW14 was asked questions regarding details of males and females, present at the spot. He was questioned regarding the exact time when Ct. Hawa Singh took rukka from IO to police station and returned to the spot after registration of the FIR. He had no knowledge regarding the said aspect. As such, lack of knowledge regarding said aspect, did not make his testimony doubtful as those aspects were not material.
111. PW14 refuted the suggestion based on false implication of accused. He deposed facts in tune with prosecution story. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
112. PW15 HC Sukhdev Ram had recorded FIR in question and had made his endorsement on the rukka after registration of FIR in question. He identified FIR in question, endorsement on the rukka and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, in his testimony. He refuted the suggestion of FIR in question being ante-dated and ante- timed. As such, there was nothing improbable about his testimony. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 53 of 69113. PW16 Retired SI Balbir Sharma had also reached at the spot. He deposed facts regarding chain of events and his own observations, as deposed by other police officials including PW10 SI Manu Dev. Same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. This witness testified that his statement was recorded by the IO. He identified the sketch of knife, prepared by IO. He was questioned with regard to the height of wall behind which bushes were present near the spot from where accused was apprehended. That aspect is not relevant as police had searched the area and thereafter had apprehended the accused. It was not the situation that somebody had simply seen the accused hiding in bushes near the spot. Therefore, cross examination with regard to the said aspect is not relevant. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
114. PW21 Wct. Manisha had testified that on 02.04.2017 around 04.13pm, she had received a call from control room regarding "koi admi behosh pada hua hai" at government dispensary, Sriniwaspuri, Amar Colony, New Delhi. That message was automatically recorded and she placed on record verified and attested form of said message as Ex.PW21/A. The aforesaid fact regarding message received from control room on 02.04.2017 only probablised the fact that it pertained to deceased in question, at the place of incident. This witness refuted the suggestion of her not being present at her duty and not receiving information as deposed by her. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 54 of 69115. PW22 ASI Babu Lal in his testimony deposed facts regarding dead body of deceased at the spot lying in pool of blood on 02.04.2017 when he visited the spot being a photographer in mobile crime team, south-east district. He identified the photographs he had clicked and the negatives of said photographs as Ex.PW22/1 (colly) and ExPW22/2 (colly), respectively. He deposed that his statement was recorded by police and that he had given said photographs and negatives to the IO. Those facts remained unchallenged during cross examination. He refuted the suggestion of false implication of accused. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
116. PW23 Ct. Sandeep deposed that he had given copy of FIR in question to the office of ACP/DCP/Joint C.P. and Area Magistrate concerned on 02.04.2017. As such, accused failed to bring on record any fact, which could have created doubt regarding this witness not delivering copy of FIR in question to said officers, by cross examining him. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
117. PW24 ASI Jagdish deposed that he had typed FIR in question, which he identified as Ex.PW15/B. He refuted the suggestions viz., that he did not know how to operate computer or type the FIR in question. He refuted the suggestion of deposing falsely. As such, he stood the acid test of cross examination. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 55 of 69118. PW25 SI George Ibrahim was a formal witness who deposed that he had handed over PCR form-1, along with certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act to the police. He identified the said PCR form-1 as Ex.PW21/A and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW25, having its signatures at point A. he refuted the suggestion of not being on duty on 07.06.2017 when he had handed over the said Form and certificate to police. As such, there was nothing improbable about his testimony. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
119. PW26 Ct. Anil Kumar in his testimony had deposed that he had taken 21 sealed pullandas along with sample seal and forwarding letter to FSL Rohini on 18.05.2017, which he duly deposited there. During his tenure said pullandas were not tampered with. He refuted the suggestion based on not going to FSL Rohini and deposing falsely. As such, there was no fact, which accused culled out from this witness, based on which it can be concluded that tampering occurred during the time when said pullandas were with this witness. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
120. PW27 Ct. Madhav Lal in his testimony had deposed that he had taken one sealed parcel containing viscera along with sample seal and forwarding letter to FSL Rohini on 09.05.2017, which he duly deposited there. During his tenure said parcel was not tampered with. He refuted the suggestion based on not going to FSL Rohini State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 56 of 69 and deposing falsely. As such, there was no fact, which accused culled out from this witness, based on which it can be concluded that tampering occurred during the time when said parcel was with this witness. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
121. PW28 HC Yashpal in his testimony had deposed that he had received certain pullandas, articles in sealed condition, sample seals from IO during investigation regarding which he made necessary entries, as mentioned in para 52 of this judgment. Same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. Accused failed to cull out any relevant fact by cross examining him based on which I could have doubted the official duty, this witness had performed, as per his testimony. He refuted the suggestion of not making entries in register no.19 & 21 in ordinary course of his official duty. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
122. PW34 Inspector Rajpal Singh was the IO in this case. He deposed facts in tune with the contents of chargesheet, as already mentioned by me in para 2 of this judgment. Same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. He identified various memos he had prepared and the ones prepared by SI Manu Dev. He identified the site plan, weapon of offence, clothes of victim and accused and other record of the case in his testimony.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 57 of 69123. PW34 was cross examination with regard to various aspects viz., details of public persons at the spot, location of jhuggies at the spot, details of Nala and bushes near the spot and the statements of witnesses he had recorded during investigation. Those aspects as such did not dispute the factum of deceased lying in pool of blood at the spot, accused having blood stained hands and clothes, accused having injuries on his hands, accused hiding in bushes near the spot and accused being found at the spot by various police officials and public persons. So, those aspects lost their significance.
124. PW34 stuck to his version regarding investigating the matter, in the manner mentioned in chargesheet. He identified accused in the court being the person apprehended from the bushes, near the spot of incident. He testified that knife in question was recovered at the instance of accused around 08.00PM from nearby Nala which also supported prosecution story. He refuted the suggestion based on false implication of accused, planting of false witnesses, preparation of false memos, collection of false exhibits and overall false investigation. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
Appreciation of Medical Evidence
125. PW 18 Dr. Om Prakash, based on his testimony, proved the fact that MLC of victim Sohail Ex.PW18/A was prepared by Dr. Abhishek Kumar Tiwari. He identified signatures of said doctor by State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 58 of 69 deposing that signatures were made by the doctor concerned in his official capacity. I have no reason to doubt the personal knowledge of this witness based on which he had identified the signature of Dr. Abhishek Kumar Tiwari. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
126. PW19 Rampath, being Medical Record Technician, AIIMS Trauma Center identified the signature of Dr. Saud P.M. who had prepared MLC of accused Ex.PW19/A. He identified the signatures of said doctor in his official capacity as he had seen said doctor writing and signing during his official duty. He also identified discharged Summary of accused as Ex.PW19/B. He identified the signatures of Dr. Saud P.M in those documents at point A. As such, I have no reason to disbelieve his knowledge with regard to signature of Dr. Saud P.M. Therefore, I believed his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
127. PW11 Dr. Antra Deb Barma (who was also examined as PW33) and PW32 Dr. Hemant Kumar Kanwar, had prepared postmortem report Ex.PW11/A and subsequent opinion for postmortem report Ex.PW32/A jointly.
128. PW11 identified the postmortem report Ex.PW11/A bearing her signature at point A. She also identified the signature of Dr. Hemant Kumar Kanwar at point B in the said report. She also identified the subsequent opinion of postmortem report Ex.PW32/A State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 59 of 69 bearing her signature at point B.
129. PW32 identified his signatures at point A in the report based on subsequent opinion for postmortem report in Ex.PW32/A. He also identified signatures of Dr. Antra Deb Barma in said report at point B.
130. Both PW11 and PW32, as such, proved the reports they had prepared.
131. PW11 Dr. Antra Deb Barma was given suggestion that she had not conducted postmortem of deceased in question as per settled protocol. She refuted the said suggestion. Infact, while cross examining her, accused did not give any details of "Rules/Byelaws"
of settled protocol, which PW11 had not followed. Therefore, said suggestion was merely a bald suggestion which I discarded. PW11 refuted the suggestion of preparing postmortem report Ex.PW11/A mechanically. As such, no relevant fact was culled out by accused by cross examining her, based on which I could have doubted veracity of postmortem report Ex.PW11/A prepared by her.
132. Further, Dr. Antra Deb Barma was again examined by prosecution as PW33. She identified her subsequent opinion for postmortem report, which she had given jointly with PW32 Dr. Hemant Kumar Kanwar. She categorically testified that she had prepared the said report by identifying her signatures at point B. That State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 60 of 69 report noted that knife sealed by police in present case was examined by her and based on her medical knowledge, she concluded that injuries to victim in question, could have been caused by said knife. She testified that brownish stains were present on both surface of blade of said knife, which only probablize the fact that said knife was used by accused to cause injuries to victim in question. Though, she did not prepare sketch of knife but her testimony revealed that she had measured the said knife and thereafter, had given her report Ex.PW32/A. She refuted the suggestion of not examining the said knife and preparing report at the instance of the IO. As such, there was nothing based on which I could have doubted her testimony.
133. PW32 Dr. Hemant Kumar Kanwar also identified his report Ex.PW32/A. His said report reveal that based on his examination of the knife furnished by the IO, victim could have sustained injuries from it. He also testified that knife was received by him in sealed condition and after removing the seal he found that said knife had brownish stains on both surfaces, which indicate the possibility of said knife being used for alleged crime. He gave details of measurement of said knife which were not disputed by accused and it probablize that he had examined the said knife. He refuted the suggestion of not examining said knife and preparing report at the instance of the IO. Therefore, I believed their testimonies to be trustworthy and reliable.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 61 of 69Appreciation of Forensic Evidence.
134. PW 29 Dr. Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi proved DNA report Ex.PW29/A. The relevant details of said DNA report are as follows:
Source of Ex.11.
Ex.11 i.e. blood sample of accused Lal Mohammad is matched with Ex.1 i.e. cemented floor piece having dark brown stains, Ex.7 is small wooden pieces of wooden part of gate having brown stain Ex.13a i.e. one blood stained cloth i.e. T-shirt having dark brown stain of accused Lal Mohammad.
Source of Ex.17.
Source of Ex.17 i.e. blood in guaze of cloth piece of deceased matched with Ex.1 i.e. cemented floor piece having dark brown stains, Ex.10 i.e. one cut/torn shirt having dark brown stain of shirt lifted from the spot and Ex.13a i.e. one blood stained cloth i.e. T-shirt having dark brown stain of accused Lal Mohammad, Ex.13b i.e. one jean pant having dark brown stain of accused Lal Mohammad, Ex.15 few nail clipping of right hand of deceased, Ex.16 i.e. few nail clippings of right hand of deceased and Ex.20a one baniyan having brown stains of deceased Sohail.
135. PW 30 Parshuram Singh, Assistant Director, Physics, FSL, State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 62 of 69 Rohini, Delhi proved the detailed report as Ex.PW30/A. He deposed that Ex.Q1 one bluish colour full sleeves shirt with dark brown stains having seven cuts at backside, right lower portion Mark Q1 to Q7. Ex.10 i.e. shirt lifted from the spot and cut marks Q8 to Q25 on baniyan Ex.20A i.e.baniyan of deceased Sohail and cut marks Q26 & Q27 on pant Ex.20B i.e. one pant with belt having dark brown stain of deceased could have been caused by sharp edged weapon like knife.
136. PW31 Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi proved his detailed examination report Ex.PW31/A. He deposed that Ex.31 was found to contain ethyl alcohol 235.9 mg per 100 ml of blood.
137. Above reports, therefore, proved that blood of accused was present at the spot. The said report is also proved that blood of victim was found on the clothes of accused. As such, accused failed to explain the presence of his blood at the spot and presence of blood of victim on his clothes. It supported the prosecution version.
138. The net result is that testimonies of all prosecution witnesses are found by me to be trustworthy and reliable.
139. So far as accused is concerned, in response to charge u/s302 IPC and in response to incriminating evidence put to him u/s 313 Cr.P.C, he raised the defence of being falsely implicated in this case.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 63 of 69He claimed that all the prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses. That response of accused as such was bereft of any reasoning. He failed to explain as to why he was falsely implicated by police. He did not explain as to why public witnesses identified him and deposed against him. He failed to explain as to why he did not proceed as per law against the concerned public persons and police officials who allegedly had falsely implicated him. His lack of reasoning behind his defence and lack of inaction against the persons who had falsely implicated him. so to say, made his defence, a farce. I discarded it accordingly.
Conclusion
140. Based on evidence brought on record, following facts based on circumstantial evidence are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(a) That victim in question was killed and he had neither committed suicide nor he faced natural death.
(b) That accused was resident of T-58, Jhuggi, Sriniwaspuri, Amar Colony, at the time of incident.
(c) That accused had quarrelled with victim one week prior to incident in question, which means that accused had motive to kill victim in question.
(d) That accused was seen by public persons having injuries on his both hands and blood stained clothes immediately after victim was lying in a pool of blood.
(e) That blood stained clothes of accused were recovered from his jhuggi.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 64 of 69(f) That accused had made extra judicial confession before PW Smt. Rajni after killing victim.
(g) That accused had thrown the knife with which he had caused multiple injuries on the body of victim, in Ganda Nala, located near the place of incident.
(h) That said weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered at the instance of accused from the Ganda Nala.
(i) That accused did not take any legal action against the concerned persons, who had allegedly falsely implicated him in this case.
(j) That there is no scope of involvement of any other person, except accused, who could have killed victim in question.
(k) That accused never disputed the fact that he was known as 'Master' also as deposed by PW4, in his testimony. The said witness had deposed that deceased had pointed out in his presence after being injured and claiming 'Master, Master'.
(l) That victim in question had made dying declaration before PW-4, therefore, proving that it was accused who had attacked with knife and the injuries so sustained by victim became cause of his death.
141. Thus, prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the effect that accused had committed murder of victim by attacking him with knife. Accused had motive to murder victim and in order to achieve that objective, he attacked victim with knife and caused multiple injuries (i.e. 28 in number) on the body of victim. Out of those injuries, injury no.12,15 & 23 were sufficient to cause death of victim as per his postmortem report.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 65 of 69Appreciation of arguments of Ld. Counsel for accused.
142. Ld. Counsel for accused argued certain aspects based on which he prayed acquittal of accused. They are appreciated by me in my subsequent paragraphs:
143. The first argument put forth by Ld. Counsel for accused was that crime in question had taken place without any cause. He claimed that there was lack of motive on the part of accused, to have killed victim.
144. Above argument is not tenable, for the reason that PW8 Nikhil Kumar Singh had deposed in his testimony that one week prior to incident in question he had heard that victim was abusing accused as accused had thrown clothes and utensils of victim outside his jhuggi. That deposition as such is believed by me to be truthful. No cross examination was done with regard to said aspect. It means that accused had no cordial relations with victim, one week prior to incident in question. As such, it is not th ecase of accused that he had never quarrlled with victim or did not know victim. It is also not the case of accused that his relations with victim were cordial. Therefore, in the wake of deposition of PW8 as mentioned above, accused had motive to kill victim.
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 66 of 69145. Even if it is believed that there was lack of motive on the part of accused to kill victim, then also that fact did not help the cause of accused as though motive for crime is important factor in criminal trial to establish guilt of accused, but failure of prosecution to prove motive is not fatal to case against accused if there is direct evidence to establish guilt. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case titled as 'Mahinder Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (4.6.2010) 2010 VII AD (DELHI) 654 (A.K. SIKRI, AJIT BHARIHOKE, JJ.).
146. The next argument of Ld. Counsel for accused was that accused could not have climbed five feet wall present at the spot to reach bushes, after the incident, for the purpose of hiding. That argument is not tenable as said fact was not never probablize by accused by cross examining prosecution witnesses. No defence evidence is led by him in support thereof. There was nothing on record based on which I could have concluded that accused could not have climbed said wall. Therefore, I dismissed the said argument.
147. Ld. Counsel, next argued that it was not possible for police to have apprehended accused from the bushes behind the wall adjacent to ganda nala, as the said wall was about 5/6 feet of height and police officials who had visited the spot, had deposed that from the place where dead body of victim was lying, one cannot see a person hiding in bushes, due to said wall. That arguments is not tenable as police officials had searched the area and during search, they had found accused hiding in bushes as per testimony of police witnesses. It is State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 67 of 69 not the situation that police officials had seen accused hiding in bushes, by standing at the place where dead body of deceased was lying.
148. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that there was absence of cctv footage, absence of fingerprint of accused collected from spot and absence of blood of accused at the spot. Therefore, said shortcomings in prosecution story should help the cause of accused and he must be acquitted. Said argument is not tenable. Reason being, that absence of said evidences, by itself, did not make a case of acquittal of accused. The evidence collected by the IO as appreciated above, is trustworthy and reliable and sufficient to hold that accused had killed victim in question. Therefore, above argument is discarded.
149. Lastly, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that prosecution failed to explain the cause of injuries on the hands of accused as per his MLC Ex.PW19/A. That argument did not help the cause of accused, as case of prosecution was clear, to the extent that accused had attacked victim with a knife and during said attack, he sustained injuries on his hands. As against said explanation, accused did not give his side of the version regarding said injuries. In other words, accused did not explain as to in which circumstances, he has sustained injuries on his hands. The cause of injuries on his hands is a fact, which was within the personal knowledge of accused and therefore, accused had the onus of explaining the said cause. He did State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 68 of 69 not give any explanation and therefore, above argument is discarded by me.
150. In the wake of aforesaid appreciation and conclusions, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that circumstantial evidence, collected by police during investigation was trustworthy and reliable. That evidence only indicated the hypothesis of accused being the culprit. There is absence of any other theory regarding the murder of victim in question. Accused failed to probablise his defence. He failed to make inroads in prosecution version by cross examining prosecution witnesses. Thus, accused is convicted for offence punishable u/s 302 IPC.
Announced in open Court
on 13th October, 2022 [Prashant Sharma]
Additional Sessions Judge-02,
SE District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
State Vs. Lal Mohammad, FIR No.120/2017 Page 69 of 69