Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Rahul on 11 July, 2018

                               State Vs. Rahul


           IN THE COURT OF PAWAN KUMAR MATTO,
  SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, 
                  NORTH WEST,  ROHINI COURTS, DELHI


Sessions Case Number                    :        51937/2016
State
                               versus


1) Rahul @ Tinku
S/o Shri Kanwar Pal
R/o Jhuggi No.41BC, Block Beriwala Bagh,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.


2)  Jasbir (Proclaimed Offender)
S/o Shri Kanwar Pal
R/o Jhuggi No.41BC, Block Beriwala Bagh,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.


First Information Report Number  :               274/14
Police Station                          :        Shalimar Bagh
Under section                           :        302/308/34 IPC

Date of registration of the charge sheet
in this court                           :        31.07.2014
Final Arguments concluded on            :        11.07.2018

SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh               page 1 of 78
                                  State Vs. Rahul


Date of judgment                           :       11.07.2018 


1.

Brief   facts   of   the   present   case   are   that   on   dated 21.03.2014, DD No.30A was assigned to Sub Inspector Manish, who arrived at the spot alongwith Const. Gurvinder Singh and on arriving at the spot, he came to understand that the injured were already taken to the hospital and he alongwith the said Constable arrived   in   the   BJRM   Hospital,   Delhi   and   received   the   MLC   of Kanta, Phoolwati, Rahul, Dhan Devi, Sumitra, Ram Babu and MLC of Phoolwati had shown that she was declared brought dead and complainant   Kanta,   who is  an eye­witness  and also injured had given the statement Ex.PW8/A, wherein, she has deposed that she resides on the address as mentioned in her statement Ex. PW8/A and   for   about   10   days,   she   was   living   in   the   jhuggi   no.   102, Beriwala Bagh, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and this jhuggi belongs to her sister Phoolwati and on dated 21.03.2014 at about 5.30 pm, the wife of Sukhbir namely Saraswati was quarreling with her mother in law  namely  Dhan   Devi  and  wife  of  Jasbir   namely  Sumitra,  who frequently used to quarrel with each other. Jasbir had separated them and then Jasbir started abusing to his brother Sukhbir and brother of this complainant namely Bheeku, who was also sitting outside   the   jhuggi   of   Phoolwati   and   Jasbir   started   abusing   to Bheeku and he accused Bheeku for such quarrel in his house and accused Jasbir (P.O) attacked on Bheeku with a Lathi, but Bheeku SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 2 of 78 State Vs. Rahul succeeded in fleeing away from there without suffering any injury from   the   hand   of   Jasbir   and   when,   this   complainant   Kanta prevented Jasbir from doing so, accused Jasbir gave Lathi blow on the head of Kanta (complainant) and she has also stated that on seeing the same, Sangeeta and Ranjana, who are the daughters of   her   sister   Phoolwati   started   weeping   and   shouting   and   on hearing the same, her sister Phoolwati came out of the jhuggi to rescue the complainant and when, she was trying   to rescue the complainant from the hands of Jasbir, accused Jasbir had given a Lathi blow on the head of Phoolwati, as a result of which, she fell down   on   the   ground   and   at   the   same   time,   accused   Rahul   @ Tinku, who is brother of accused Jasbir had also arrived there, who was   also   carrying   a   danda   in   his   hand.   Complainant   has   also alleged that this accused Rahul @ Tinku had also started beating to   the   complainant   party   and   when,   the   husband   of   this complainant namely Ram Babu had come to rescue them, then, the   accused   had   also   given  Lathi  Blows  on  the   person  of  Ram Babu.   Complainant has also stated that when, wife of accused Jasbir namely Sumitra, his mother Dhan Devi, his younger brother Kuldeep had come to rescue, then, they had also suffered injuries and some inhabitants of said jhuggies had come and rescued them and   in   the   meantime,   police   had   come   and   took   them   to   the hospital, where her sister Phoolwati was declared brought dead. This complainant has alleged that her sister Phoolwati has been SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 3 of 78 State Vs. Rahul killed   by   lathi   blow,   given   by   Jasbir   and   prayed   for   taking   legal action.  On such complaint of Kanta, FIR no. 274/14 was registered u/s   302/308/34   IPC.   Statements   of   the   witnesses   of   the prosecution were recorded by the IO and the medical examinations of   the   injured   were   also   done.   The   postmortem   on   the   body   of Phoolwati   was   also   conducted.   Accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   was arrested on dated 21.03.2014 and was released on bail on dated 07.10.2014 and exhibits were also seized and on completion of the of   the   investigation,   charge­sheet   under  section   302/308/34   IPC was  filed against accused Rahul @ Tinku, as accused Jasbir was declared Proclaimed Offender.  The copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused Rahul @ Tinku and the present case was committed   to   the   court   of   Sessions   and   it   was   assigned   to   this court.

2.    On finding prima facie case, this court had framed charges under   section   302/34   of  IPC,  308/34  of  IPC  and  323/34   of   IPC against this accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and he was put on trial.

3.  In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses.

4. Ct.   Sandeep   has   been   examined   as   PW­1,   who   has SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 4 of 78 State Vs. Rahul deposed that on 21.03.2014, he was posted as Photographer in the   Mobile   Crime   Team,   North   West   District,   Maurya   Enclave, Delhi.  He has further deposed that on receiving of the information about  the   present  incident from  Control Room, he alongwith I/C Crime   Team   ASI   Rajbir   and   SI   Sajid   Hassan,   in   official   vehicle reached   at   the   place   of   incident   i.e.   jhuggi,   BC­Block,   Beriwala Bagh, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.   He has further deposed that police officials met them there at the spot and on the instructions of the IO and Incharge crime team, he took ten photographs of the spot from different   angles   through   digital   camera.  He   has   further   deposed that later on, he handed over the photographs to the IO and same are already on judicial record.   He has further deposed that the photographs   are   Ex.PW1/A1   to   A10   and   he   has   proved   the Certificate   U/s.65B   of   Indian   Evidence   Act   qua   the   above photographs   which   is   Ex.  PW1/B.  Opportunity to  cross  examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, but he did   not   cross   examine   this   witness.     So,   the   opportunity   of   the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.

5. Whereas, HC Naresh Kumar has been examined as PW2 who has deposed that on 21.03.2014, he was posted as Incharge at   Commander   42/PCR   from   8   AM   to   8   PM.     He   has   further deposed   that   on   that   day   at   about   6   PM   on   the   receipt   of information   from   control   room   regarding   a   quarrel,   he   alongwith SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 5 of 78 State Vs. Rahul PCR   staff   in   the   official   vehicle   reached   at   BC­Block   jhuggies, Beriwala Bagh, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. He has further deposed that injured Dhan Devi and Sumitra met them there at the spot and they took them to BJRM Hospital in the official gypsy. He has further deposed   that   he   got   them admitted in the hospital through duty constable. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, but he did not cross examine this witness.  So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness for the accused was done nil.

6. Whereas, Ct. Krishan Gopal has been examined as PW3, who has deposed that on 21.03.2014, he was sent to mortuary, BJRM Hospital for preservation of dead body of one female namely Phoolwati w/o Kali Charan, by SI Manish Kumar.   He has further deposed that he discharged his duty accordingly and on the next day after postmortem, dead body was handed over to its relatives. He has further deposed that no tampering was done to dead body, during the period, the same remained in his custody.  Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused,   but   he   did   not   cross   examine   this   witness.     So,   the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.

7. Whereas, Ct. Jasmer has been examined as PW 4, who has SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 6 of 78 State Vs. Rahul deposed that on  28.03.2014, while he was posted as constable in PS Shalimar Bagh, he had taken the exhibits of the present case which were contained in two sealed pullandas on the directions of IO   Inspector   Rajesh   Kumar   from   the   malkhana   of   PS   Shalimar Bagh to BJRM Hospital. He has further deposed that the doctor had opened the parcels, checked them and thereafter had sealed them with the seal of the hospital and handed over the same to him along with a sample seal of the hospital. He has further deposed that   on   return   to   the   PS,   he   had   deposited   the   two   sealed pullandas   with   the   malkhana   moharrar.   He   has   further   deposed that so long as the case property remained in his possession, the same was not  tampered with by anyone and his statement was recorded by the IO. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given   to   the   Ld.   Counsel  for  the  accused,  but   he   did  not  cross examine this witness.  So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.

8. Whereas, HC Rakesh Kumar has been examined as PW 5, who   has   deposed   that   on   21.03.2014,   while   he   was   posted   as Head   constable   in   PS   Shalimar   Bagh,   he   had   joined   the investigation of the present case under directions of SI Manish. He has further deposed that on 21.03.2014, he was the Beat Officer of Beat No.5. SI Manish was on emergency duty and he had received information regarding a quarrel (JHAGDA) and SI Manish went to SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 7 of 78 State Vs. Rahul the spot i.e. jhuggies of BC Block near Beriwala Bagh and found that a crowd was there and after sometime, SHO Inspector Rajesh Kumar had also reached there and both Inspector Rajesh Kumar and   SI   Manish   issued   directions   that   the   spot   should   not   be tampered with by anyone, as the blood, slippers and wooden sticks (danda) were lying on the ground. He has further deposed that the crime team arrived and conducted the investigation and before he had   reached   at   the   spot,   the   injured   were   already   taken   to   the hospital by the PCR. His statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded and on 13.04.2014 or 14.04.2014, he had gone with SI Rajender and Ct. Upender to village Gajora, District Kashganj, P.S Songarhi, in U.P., in search of accused Jasbir, but, he was not found. He has further deposed that again, he was sent along with Ct. Maan Singh to   village   Gajora,   District   Kashganj,   P.S   Songarhi,   in   U.P.,   in search of accused Jasbir, but, he was not found.  Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused,   but,   he   did   not   cross   examine   this   witness.   So,   the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.

9. Whereas,   HC   Satish   Kumar   has   been   examined   as PW6, who has deposed that on 21.03.2014, he was posted in PS Shalimar Bagh as MHCM. On that day, Inspector Rajesh Kumar got deposited seven sealed parcels sealed with the seal of RK. He SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 8 of 78 State Vs. Rahul has   further   deposed   that   he   made   the   entry   to   that   effect   in Register   no.19     at   Serial   no.   3875/14   and   on   next   day,   i.e. 22.03.2014,   Inspector   Rajesh   Kumar   got   deposited   two   sealed pullandas and one sample seal of FMT BJRM Hospital Delhi. He has further  deposed  that the entry to that effect is at Serial no. 3876/14  and on 28.03.2014, two sealed parcels sealed with the seal   of   RK  were   sent   to  BJRM   Hospital  through  Ct.  Jasmer  for opinion   and   he   returned   sealed   parcels   sealed   with   the   seal   of FMT BJRM Hospital with sample seal.   He has further deposed that on 01.04.2014, all the above mentioned sealed parcels and sample seals were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Shamsher vide RC   No.   32/21/14   and   received   acknowledgment   vide   no.   DNA­ 2413 from Ct. Shamsher.   He has further deposed that he made relevant   entry   regarding   sending   of   sealed   parcels   to   FSL   and hospital   against   relevant   entries   i.e.   3875/14   and   he   also   made entries regarding acknowledging against entry 3876/14. The copy of   entry   no.   3875   is   Ex.PW6/A   and   copy   of   entry   no.   3876   is Ex.PW6/B. Copy of RC is Ex.PW6/C and copy of acknowledgment is   Ex.PW6/D.   The   sealed   parcels   and   sample   seal   were   not tampered   with   till   remained   in   his   custody.  Opportunity   to  cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, but he did not cross examine this witness.  So, the opportunity of the  accused  to  cross examine this witness for the accused was done nil.

SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 9 of 78 State Vs. Rahul

10. Whereas,   Mr.  Bheeke   has   been   examined   as   PW­7. He was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.

11. Whereas, Ms. Kanta (complainant) has been examined as   PW8.     She   was   also   cross   examined   by   Ld.   Counsel   for accused. 

12. Enforcement Officer Rajesh Kumar has been examined as PW9,  who has deposed that on 21.03.2014, he was posted as SHO at PS Shalimar Bagh and on that day at about 6.00 pm, he along with SI Rajender, Ct. Rakesh and other staff  was patrolling in the area in the official vehicle and he received the message on his wireless set that a quarrel had been taken place in the jhuggies of BC block Shalimar Bagh and he arrived at the spot and came to know that injured persons were already taken to BJRM hospital by the PCR and then, he went to BJRM hospital, where SI Manish was already found present and he was entrusted with the DD no. 30A received in the PS regarding the same incident and  he came to   hospital   for   inquiry   /   investigation   of   that   DD   entry.     He   has further   deposed   that   at   the   time,   SI   Manish   was   preparing   the rukka on the statement of injured Ms. Kanta and he had already got   preserved   the   dead   body   of   deceased   Phoolwati   in   the mortuary of BJRM hospital. He has further deposed that he handed over the rukka to Ct. Gurvinder and sent him to PS for registration SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 10 of 78 State Vs. Rahul of FIR. He has further deposed that   SI Manish handed over the MLC   of   injured   Ms.   Kanta,   Mr.   Ram   Babu   and   of   deceased Phoolwati and he also handed over MLCs of Dhandevi, Sumitra and Rahul @ Tinku (opposite party). He has further deposed that SI Manish also handed over the form 25.35 and copy of application form requesting for preservation of dead body and he took over the further   investigation   of   this   case.   Thereafter,   he   along   with   SI Manish, SI Rajender, Ct. Rakesh and injured persons came to the spot i.e jhuggies of BC Block, Beriwala Bagh, Shalimar Bagh. He has   further   deposed   that   the   crime   team   officials   were   already present at the spot, as information was already sent in the office of crime team and the incharge of crime team ASI Rajbir prepared his report after inspecting the crime spot.  He has further deposed that the photographs of the spot were also taken by the photographer of crime team. He has further deposed that  he prepared the site plan  Ex.PW9/A at the instance of complainant Ms. Kanta and he requested 4­5 public persons to join the proceedings, but they did not join and went away without disclosing their identities. He has further deposed that some blood stains, one wooden danda and one bamboo danda and one slipper of right foot were lying at the spot. He has further deposed that he lifted the blood stained earth control, slipper, earth control with blood stains from the spot and prepared   separate   parcels   of   these   articles.   He   has   further deposed  that these  parcels were given serial no. 1 to 6 and all SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 11 of 78 State Vs. Rahul were sealed with the seal of RK. He has further deposed that these parcels   were   taken   into   police   possession   vide   seizure   memo Ex.PW9/ B and in the meantime Ct. Gurvinder came to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him.   He has further   deposed   that   as   complainant   had   levelled   allegations against two persons namely Rahul @ Tinku and his brother Jasbir and accused Rahul @ Tinku was present at the spot as he was brought   by   him   from   the   hospital.   This   witness   had   correctly identified to the accused Rahul @ Tinku in the Court and deposed that there were some blood stains on the wearing shirt of accused Rahul   @   Tinku   and   same   was   taken   from   him.   He   has   further deposed that he prepared parcel of this shirt and sealed with the seal of RK and there was check design with black and pink colour. He   has   further   deposed   that   this   shirt   was   seized   vide   memo Ex.PW9/C and the seal was handed over to SI Manish after use. He   has   further   deposed   that   he   interrogated   accused   Rahul   @ Tinku   and   arrested   him   in   the   present   case   vide   arrest   memo Ex.PW8/B and the personal search of accused Rahul @ Tinku was conducted vide memo  as Ex.PW8/C. He has further deposed that accused Rahul @ Tinku was identified by complainant Ms. Kanta and he made efforts to join the independent eye witnesses, but, no one   could   be   found   and   he   has   also   made   efforts   to   find   the whereabouts of other accused Jasbir but, he could not get any clue about him and he had recorded the supplementary statement of SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 12 of 78 State Vs. Rahul complainant and also recorded  statement of Mr. Bheeke (brother of complainant), Mr. Ram Babu (husband of complainant) and of Mr.   Sukhbir   (brother   of   accused).   He   has   further   deposed   that thereafter,   he   along   with   his   staff   and   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku returned to PS at about 2.00 am.  He has further deposed that all the   seized   articles   were   deposited   with   MHC(M)   and   he   had recorded the statement of SI Manish, SI Rajender, Ct. Gurvinder and Ct. Lakhan (special messenger). He has further deposed that in the morning hours of 22.03.2014, he had interrogated accused Rahul @ Tinku and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW9/D and on 22.03.14, he along with S.I. Manish and other staff went to Mortuary BJRM Hospital and the husband Mr. Kalicharan and Mr. Bheeke,   brother   of   the   deceased   also   reached   in   mortuary   of BJRM Hospital. He has further deposed that he got identified the dead body of Ms. Phoolwati through her husband and brother and he had recorded the statements of Mr. Kalicharan and Mr. Bheeke in this regard which are Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW7/A.  He has further deposed that he prepared request for conducting the postmortem on the dead body of Phoolwati and brief fact which are exhibited PW9/E   and   Ex.PW9/F.   He   has   further   deposed   that   after   the postmortem examination, the body of deceased was handed over to her husband and brother vide receipt  Ex.PW7/B.  He has further deposed that he had recorded the statement of Mr. Kalicharan and supplementary   statement   of   Mr.   Bheeke   under   section   161   of SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 13 of 78 State Vs. Rahul Cr.P.C. He has further deposed that the doctor who had conducted the   postmortem   examination   on   the   body   of   deceased,   handed over   two   sealed   parcels   containing   the   her   clothes   and   blood samples along with sample seal, which were seized by him vide seizure memo exhibited PW14/D. He has further deposed that he went to the court and accused Rahul @Tinku was produced before the   court   and   he   was   sent   in   judicial   custody.   He   has   further deposed   that   accused   Rahul   was   brought   to   the   court   by   SI Rajinder Singh from PS after getting him medically examined. He has further deposed that he had deposited the seized exhibits with MHC(M) after returning to PS and he had recorded the statements of the S.I Manish, Ct. Krishan Gopal, and S.I Rajinder Singh, U/S 161 of Cr.P.C. He has further deposed that on 23.03.2014, he had recorded the statements of HC Rakesh and on 28.03.2014, he got collected   the   PCR   form   through   Ct.   Brij   Lal.   He   has   further deposed that he had collected PM report from BJRM hospital and on receipt of two sealed parcels containing the weapons of offence i.e. wooden sticks from MHC(M) by Ct. Jasmer, he along with him and SI Manish went to BJRM Hospital. He has further deposed that he  met   the   concerned   doctor,   who   conducted   the   postmortem examination   on   the   dead   body   of   Phoolwati   and   moved   an application   Ex.PW9/E   for   seeking   opinion   regarding   injuries inflicted   and   he   had   also   produced   both   the   sealed   parcels containing   wooden   sticks   before   the   concerned   doctor.  He   has SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 14 of 78 State Vs. Rahul further   deposed   that   after   examining   the   wooden   sticks,   doctor gave   subsequent   opinion,   Ex.PX8   and   also   handed   over   the wooden   sticks   after   resealing   the   same   with   his   seal.   He   has further deposed that then, they returned to PS and he directed Ct. Jasmer to deposit both the sealed parcels with MHC(M) and he recorded the statement of Ct. Jasmer in this regard.  He has further deposed that on 01.04.2014, he got deposited the sealed exhibits in FSL Rohini through Ct. Shamsher vide RC No.32/21/14 and he recorded the statement of Ct. Shamsher. He has further deposed that on 27.04.2014, he along with SI Rajender visited the jhuggies BC Block, Beriwala Bagh to search accused Jasbir, but, he could not be traced.  He has further deposed that he  had recorded the statements   of   Ms.   Ranjana   and   Ms.   Sangeeta,   daughters   of deceased, who were present at the spot at the time of occurrence. He   has   further   deposed   that   he  made  efforts   to   arrest  accused Jasbir in the area of Shalimar Bagh, as well as, in Kashganj, UP where  a team was sent to trace him. He has further deposed that on 05.05.2014, he proceeded on leave and case file was handed over to MHC(R).  He has further deposed that on 16.06.2014, he resumed his duty and further investigated the case. He has further deposed that on the day, he received the scaled site plan from SI Rajender,   which   was   got   prepared   by   Insp.   Hansraj   through draftsman,   (during   the   period   when   he   was   on   leave).  He   has further   deposed   that   he  had  recorded   the  statements  of  MHCM SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 15 of 78 State Vs. Rahul and SI Rajender and after completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet. He has further deposed that he obtained the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C and 83 Cr.P.C against accused Jasbir. However, the said process could not executed against accused Jasbir and the Ld.   Addl.   PP   had   pointed   out   that   accused   Jasbir   was subsequently   declared   P.O   vide   order   dated   30.06.2015   by   the Court of Mr. Sushil Anuj Tyagi, Ld.MM, North­West,Rohini). This witness has further deposed that in the month of November, 2014 he   was   transferred   from   PS   Shalimar   Bagh   and   later   on supplementary charge sheet was filed by Insp.Ajay Kumar Singh. He had identified the case properties viz., the long wooden danda Ex.P4,  which was seized by him from the spot and on seeing the long   bamboo   danda.   He   had   stated   that   this   is   the   same   long bamboo danda  which was seized by him from the spot. The long bamboo danda is Ex.P­5 and on seeing the cloth piece(gauze) of white colour with some small sized brownish stains. He said  that he  had  lifted  the   same from the spot with the help of this cloth piece. The   cloth piece (gauze) is Ex.P­6. This witness on seeing the   plastic   container   containing   the   soil   has   stated   that   he   had lifted the blood stained soil/earth control Ex. P­7 from the spot. This witness,   on   seeing   the  plastic  container  containing  the soil, had stated that he had lifted the soil/earth control (without blood), Ex. P­8 from the spot. This witness on seeing the slipper(chappal) of right   foot.   He   had   stated   that   he   had   lifted   the   same SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 16 of 78 State Vs. Rahul slippers/chappal from the spot is Ex. P­9. This  witness was cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused during his cross­examination he   has   admitted   that   he   had   not   recorded   statement   of   any independent   witness   to   verify   the   veracity   the   complaint   of   the complainant family and voluntarily deposed that he had tried to find out independent witness, but none was found and he   could not verify   the   false   implication   of   the   accused   in   the   present   case since, no independent witness was found. He is denied that he has not investigated the case fairly and properly. But the testimony of this   witness   is   inconsistent   with   the   testimony   of   PW­8 (complainant) and other alleged eye witnesses. As PW8 and other alleged eye witnesses have deposed that many people gathered at the spot. Whereas, this witness has deposed that no independent witness was found.

13.  Ms. Sangeeta d/o Mr. Kali Charan has been examined as PW10. She was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. 

14. Ms.   Ranjana   @   Rajni   d/o   Mr.   Kali   Charan   has   been examined as PW11.  She was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. 

15. Mr.   Kali   Charan   s/o   Mr.Giri   Raj   Singh   has   been examined as PW12 . He was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. 

SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 17 of 78 State Vs. Rahul

16. Ct. Gurvinder Singh has been examined as PW 13, who has deposed that on 21.03.2014, he was posted as Constable in the police Station Shalimar Bagh and on that day, on receiving of DD No.30A at about 6.00pm, he along with SI Manish went to spot i.e.   Jhuggies  BC  Block,  Beriwala  Bagh,  Shalimar   Bagh.  Several persons were present at the spot. He has further deposed that they came to know that injured persons were already taken to BJRM Hospital,   Jahangir   Puri   in   the   PCR   Van   and   he   along   with   SI Manish went to BJRM Hospital. He has further deposed that IO had  collected  the MLCs of injured persons and IO recorded the statement of injured Ms. Kanta and prepared rukka. He has further deposed that on the instructions of IO /SI Manish, this witness had taken the rukka to PS at about 8.15 pm and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he returned to the spot and handed over copy of the FIR and original rukka to the SHO, who was already present at the spot. He has further deposed that  his statement was recorded by the second IO / Inspector Rajesh Kumar, SHO, PS Shalimar Bagh. Opportunity  to   cross  examine  this   witness  was  given   to   the  Ld. Counsel   for   the   accused,   but   he   did   not   cross   examine   this witness.  So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.

17. SI Manish Kumar has been examined as PW 14, who has   deposed   that   on   21.03.2014,   he   was   posted   as   SI   in   PS SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 18 of 78 State Vs. Rahul Shalimar Bagh and on that day, at about 6.00pm on receiving of DD   No.30A   regarding   quarrel   at   Beriwala   Bagh,   Jhuggies,   BC Block,Shalimar Bagh, he along with Ct. Gurvinder went to the spot and   came   to   know   that   injured   persons   were   already   taken   to BJRM Jahangir Puri by PCR. He has further deposed that he along with Ct. Gurvinder went to BJRM Hospital, after leaving the beat staff i.e.  HC Rakesh Kumar, he had collected the MLCs of Rahul, Dhan   Devi,   Kanta,   Ram   Babu,   Sumitra   and   Phoolwati.   On   the MLC  of Phoolwati, she was declared brought dead. He has further deposed that he had recorded the statement of injured Kanta and made   his   endorsement   Ex.PW14/A   thereon.   He   has   further deposed   that   the   complainant   Kanta   had   levelled   allegations against two persons namely Rahul @ Tinku and Jasbir and he got preserved   the   dead   body   of   Phoolwati   in   the   mortuary,   vide application Ex.PW14/B. He has further deposed that he also filled up Form No.25.35 Ex.PW14/C  and he had handed over the rukka to Ct. Gurvinder who was sent to PS for registration of the FIR.  He has further deposed that in the meantime, SHO/Inspector Rajesh Kumar also reached at BJRM Hospital and he apprised  him about the facts and then, he along with him went at the spot in the gypsy. He has further deposed that further investigation of this case was taken   up   by   the   SHO   and   he   had   handed   over   all   the   MLCs collected by him in BJRM Hospital, receipt for depositing the dead body in the mortuary and Form no.25.35 to him. He has further SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 19 of 78 State Vs. Rahul deposed   that   accused   Rahul  @ Tinku  was  discharged  from   the hospital   and   he   was   also   along   with   them.     He   had     correctly identified   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   in   the   court.     He   has   further deposed that the other injured persons also came to the spot along with them and in the meantime, Crime Team officials reached at the spot. He has further deposed that they inspected the spot and took   the   photographs   and    IO   had  also  seized  the  blood,  earth control, one slipper(chappal) and two wooden sticks, which were lying at the spot. He has further deposed that these articles were separately sealed with the seal of RK by the IO and seized vide seizure   memo   Ex.PW9/B.   He   has   further   deposed   that   IO interrogated   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   and   arrested   him   in   the present   case   vide   memo   of   arrest   Ex.PW8/B   and   his   personal search was conducted as Ex.PW8/C. He has further deposed that his   disclosure   statement   Ex.PW8/D   was   also   recorded   and thereafter,   accused   Rahul  @ Tinku  was brought to  PS.  He  has further deposed that the shirt of accused Rahul @ Tinku was also taken by the IO and it was sealed with the seal of RK and taken into   police   possession   vide  memo    exhibited  Ex.PW9/C  and his statement was recorded by the IO. He has further deposed that he again joined the investigation on this case on 22.03.2014 and on that day, he along with IO went to Mortuary of BJRM Hospital and there IO conducted the inquest proceedings and got conducted the post   mortem   examination   on   the   dead   body   of   Phoolwati   and SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 20 of 78 State Vs. Rahul thereafter,  the dead  body was handed over to her relatives and after   the   postmortem   examination,   doctor   had   handed   over   the sealed exhibits, which were taken into police possession by IO vide memo   Ex.PW14/D.   On   seeing   the   long   wooden   danda,   he   has deposed that this is the same long wooden danda Ex.P4, which was seized by IO from the spot in his presence. On seeing, the long bamboo danda, He has deposed that this is the same long bamboo danda  Ex.P5, which was seized by IO from the spot in his presence. On seeing, the piece of cloth of white colour with some small   sized   brownish   stains.   He   has   deposed   that   IO   lifted   that from   the   spot   with   the   help   of   this   piece   of   cloth   Ex.P6   in   his presence. On seeing the plastic container containing the soil, he has   deposed   that   IO   lifted   the   blood   stained   soil/earth   control Ex.P7   from   the   spot   in   his   presence.   On   seeing,   the   plastic container containing the soil, he has deposed that   IO lifted the soil/earth   control   (without   blood)   Ex.P8   from   the   spot   in   his presence. On seeing the slipper (chappal) of right foot Ex.P­9, he has deposed that IO lifted that from the spot in his presence and on seeing the shirt with  check print of pink, black and gray colour with several cuts, he has deposed that IO had seized the same shirt Ex.P­10 from accused Rahul @ Tinku, in his presence and the   Addl.PP   has   submitted   that   the   cuts   in  the   shirt   have  been made in the FSL during the examination of the shirt. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. During his cross­ SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 21 of 78 State Vs. Rahul examination   he   has   denied   that   accused   did   not   disclose   his involvement   in   the   present   case   or   that   the   signatures   of   the accused were obtained on the blank papers or that the same were fabricated into various documents or that accused is innocent or that he has deposed falsely.

18. Mr. Ram Babu (injured) has been examined as PW 15. He was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.

19. Whereas   Inspector   Hansraj   has   been   examined   as PW16, who has deposed that on 23.05.2014, he was posted as Inspector   investigation   at   PS   Shalimar   Bagh   and   on   that   day, further   investigation   of   this   case   was   assigned   to   him.   He   has further deposed that on that day, he had deposited the MLCs of Ram   Babu   and   Kanta   in   BJRM   hospital   for   obtaining   opinion regarding   nature   of   injuries   and   on   02.06.2014,   he   along   with Inspector   Manohar   Lal   and   SI   Rajender   visited   the   spot   i.e   BC Block,  jhuggies,  Shalimar  Bagh and Inspector Manohar  Lal took the rough notes and measurements at the spot at the instance of SI   Rajender   for   preparation   of   scaled   site   plan.   He   has   further deposed   that   he   had   recorded   the   statements   of   Inspector Manohar   Lal   and   SI   Rajender   and   he   had   also   recorded   the statement of PCR officials and the officials of mobile crime team. He   has   further   deposed   that   he   had   moved   an   application   for SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 22 of 78 State Vs. Rahul medical examination of accused Rahul @ Tinku for  determination of his bone age, which was fixed for 7th July and thereafter, further investigation of this case was taken up by SHO/Inspector Rajesh. Opportunity  to   cross  examine  this   witness  was  given   to   the  Ld. Counsel   for   the   accused,   but   he   did   not   cross   examine   this witness.  So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.

20. Whereas,   Inspector   Rajender   Singh   has   been examined as PW 17 who has deposed that on 21.03.2014,  he was posted as SI at PS Shalimar Bagh and on that day in the evening hours,   he   along   with   Insp.   Rajesh   was   patrolling   in   the   area   of Shalimar   Bagh.     He   has  further  deposed  that at about 6 pm,  a message was received through wireless that a quarrel took place in the jhuggies of Beriwala Bagh.  He has further deposed that he along with Insp. Rajesh went to the spot and it was informed that the injured persons were already been taken to BJRM Hospital by PCR and they went to BJRM Hospital, where SI Manish met them. He has further deposed that SI Manish briefed the IO and handed over   the   MLC's   of   injured   persons   to   him   and   on   the   MLC   of Phoolwati,   she   was   declared   as   brought   dead.   He   has   further deposed that SI Manish had preserved the dead body of Phoolwati in   the   mortuary   of   BJRM   Hospital   and   there   were   six   injured persons.  He has also deposed that injured Kanta was discharged SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 23 of 78 State Vs. Rahul from the hospital after treatment. He has further deposed that he along   with   IO,   SI   Manish,   injured   Kanta   and   accused   Rahul   @ Tinku   came   to   the   spot   and   accused   Rahul   had   also   sustained injuries in the quarrel and he was also taken to BJRM Hospital and FIR of this case was already got registered by SI Manish and the crime team also reached at the spot and photographs of the spot were taken by the photographer of crime team and the crime team Incharge   inspected   the   spot   and     IO   prepared   site   plan   at   the instance of Ms. Kanta. He has further deposed that IO Insp. Rajesh asked 4­5 public persons to join the investigation, but none joined and left the spot without disclosing their identity and two dandas, blood   and   one   sleeper   were   lying   at   the   spot.   He   has   further deposed that there were blood stains on both the dandas and IO lifted blood, earth control, sleeper and wooden danda from the spot and   prepared   separate   parcels   of   these   articles.   He   has   also deposed that all the parcels were sealed with the seal of RK and taken into police possession vide seizure memo exhibited as Ex. PW9/B. He has correctly identified accused Rahul @ Tinku in the court.  He has further deposed that there were blood stains on the shirt which was worn up by accused Rahul @ Tinku and this shirt of accused was taken from him, IO prepared the parcel of cloth of this shirt, and sealed it with the seal of RK. He has further deposed that   it   was   seized   vide   memo   already   Ex.PW9/C   and   all   these parcels were given serial no. 1 to 7.  He has further deposed that SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 24 of 78 State Vs. Rahul accused Rahul @  Tinku was interrogated by IO and then, he was arrested in the present case vide memo of arrest Ex.PW8/B.   He has   further   deposed   that   personal   search   of   accused   Rahul   @ Tinku   was   conducted   by   IO   vide   memo   of   personal   search   Ex. PW8/C and   seal after use was handed over by IO to SI Manish. He has further deposed that they made search for other accused namely   Jasbir,   but,   he   could   not   be   found,   on   that   day   and   IO recorded the statement of witnesses.  He has further deposed that thereafter,   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   was   brought   to   PS   and   IO deposited   all   the   seized   articles   in   Malkhana.   He   has   further deposed   that   IO   interrogated   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW9/D and his statement was recorded by IO. He has further deposed that in the month of April, 2014, he again joined the investigation of this case and he obtained   NBW  of  accused Jasbir from the Court, as IO was on leave and he made efforts to arrest accused Jasbir and during that process he visited his house situated in Beriwala Bagh, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and he also visited his native village in Aita (UP).  He has further deposed that accused Jasbir could not be found in his native village also and on 02.06.2014, he joined the investigation of this  case with Insp. Hansraj. He has further deposed that he along with IO and draftsman Insp. Manohar Lal went to the spot i.e. jhuggies Beriwala Bagh, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and  Insp. Manohar Lal  took rough   notes  and measurements on his pointing out for SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 25 of 78 State Vs. Rahul preparation of scaled site plan.   He has further deposed that his statement was recorded by Insp. Rajesh after resuming of his duty, on completion of his leave and on seeing the long wooden danda Ex.P­4,   this   witness   has   deposed   that   this   is   the   same   long wooden   danda,     which  was  seized by IO from  the  spot and on seeing the long bamboo danda Ex.P­5, this witness has deposed that this is the same long bamboo danda, which was seized by IO from the spot and on seeing, the piece of cloth (gauze) Ex.P­6 of white   colour   with   some   small   sized   brownish   stains,   he   has deposed that IO had lifted the same from the spot with the help of this piece of cloth. On seeing the plastic container containing the soil Ex.P­7, he has deposed that IO had lifted the blood stained soil/earth control  from the spot and on seeing the plastic container containing the soil Ex.P­8, he has deposed that IO had lifted the soil/earth   control   (without   blood)   from   the   spot.   On   seeing,   the slipper(chappal) of right foot Ex.P­9, he has deposed that IO had lifted   that   from   the   spot   and   on   seeing   the   shirt,   Ex.P­10,   with check print of pink, black and grey colour with several cuts, this witness   has   deposed   that   IO   had   seized   the   same   shirt   from accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   in   his   presence   and   Ld.Addl.PP   had submitted that the cuts in the shirt were made in the FSL during the examination of the said shirt and the Ld. Addl.PP has submitted that   the   remaining   parcels   are   not   required   to   be   opened   and shown   to   the   witness   as   the   same   contains   the   clothes   and SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 26 of 78 State Vs. Rahul samples   of   the   deceased   and   the   same   were   not   taken   in   the presence of     witness by the doctor, who had handed the sealed clothes and samples of the deceased to the IO in presence of the witness. This   witness   was   cross   examined   by   ld.   Counsel   for accused.   During   his   cross   examination,   he   has   deposed   that accused Rahul @ Tinku was apprehended in the BJRM Hospital and at that time, there was injury on his head and IO had not made any   inquiry   from   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku,   as   to   how,   had   he sustained injuries in his head, in his presence.  He has denied that accused Rahul @ Tinku was not present in the quarrel or that he arrived at the spot after hearing about the quarrel or that he was brutally beaten by the complainant party and these facts were in the knowledge of police officials or that for this reason, no inquiry was made from accused Rahul @ Tinku regarding his injury.  He has denied that accused was falsely implicated in the present case or that he had deposed falsely.

21.   Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh has been examined as PW 18, who has deposed that on 30.06.2015, he was posted as Inspector in   police   station   Shalimar   Bagh   and   the   charge­sheet   of   the present case against accused Rahul @ Tinku was filed by previous IO Inspector Rajesh.  He has further deposed that at that time, the proceedings u/s 82/83 Cr PC were pending against accused Jasbir and the process u/s 82/83 Cr PC was entrusted to SI Parveen for execution against accused Jasbir. He has further deposed that SI SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 27 of 78 State Vs. Rahul Parveen made efforts for executing the process u/s 82/83 Cr PC against accused Jasbir, but, the same could not be executed.  He has further deposed that on the same day i.e. on 30.06.2015, the court   had   declared   accused   Jasbir   as   proclaimed   offender   after recording the   statement SI Parveen Kumar. He has further de­ posed that in the month of August 2015, he had collected the FSL result   and   on   21.09.2015,   he   had   filed   supplementary   charge­ sheet with FSL result, showing the accused Jasbir as proclaimed offender. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, but he did not cross examine this witness.  So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.

22. Mr. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Assistant Director Biology,   FSL Rohini, Delhi has been examined as PW19 who has deposed that on 01.04.2014, he was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (biology) at FSL Rohini and on that day, eight sealed cloth parcels and one sealed envelope along with sample seal were received in the office of FSL from police  station Shalimar Bagh for examination in con­ nection with the present case and same were marked to him for examination.   He has further   deposed that all the parcels were opened after breaking the seal and were examined by him and on biological examination, blood was detected on all the exhibits ex­ cept  Exhibit No. 3 and 6, which are earthy material and one chap­ pal respectively. He has further deposed that the DNA examination SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 28 of 78 State Vs. Rahul was also conducted by him and on examination, he had opined that   the   DNA   profile   performed   on   the   exhibits­1,   (one   blood   in gauze from the scene of crime) 8a, (saree of deceased) 8b (blouse of deceased) and 9 (blood in gauze of deceased) were sufficient to conclude that DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibit 9 is similar with the DNA profile generated form the source of Exhibit­1, 8a and 8b. He has further deposed that the detailed report pre­ pared by him, dated 25.08.2015 is Ex.PW19/A and after examina­ tion, the remnants  of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of IKM FSL Delhi. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, but he did not cross examine this witness.  So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.

23. Dr.Bhim Singh, Professor (Forensic Medicines), Subharti Medical College, Meerut, UP, has been examined as PW20.   He was also cross­examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.

24. On   completion   of   the   evidence   of   the   prosecution,   the statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded and all the incriminating evidences led by the prosecution were put before him   and   he   has   denied   the   correctness   thereof   and   pleaded innocence.  The accused did not lead any evidence in defence.

SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 29 of 78 State Vs. Rahul

25. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties.

26.          The Ld. Addl. PP for State has submitted that case in hand,   the   case   was   registered   on   the   statement   of   Kanta   and further submitted that the brother of the accused Rahul @ Tinku, namely Jasbir has already been declared proclaimed offender and accused   Jasbir   (P.O.)   had   quarreled   with   Bheeke,   who   is   the brother   of   complainant.   But,   Bheeke   fled   away   from   the   spot. When, altercation was going on between the Jasbir and Bheeke. Then, the sister of the complainant  Phoolwati had gone out of the jhuggi and accued Jasbir had given danda blow on the head of Phoolwati (since deceased) as a result of which, she fell down on the earth and died and further submitted that this accused Rahul @ Tinku had also come with the danda in his hand and caused injuries   on   the   persons   of   complainant   Kanta   and   her   husband Ram Babu.  It is further submitted that  Kanta has been examined as   PW   8   and   she   has   alleged   that   danda   blow   was   given   by accused Rahul on her head and also alleged that this accused had also beaten her and her husband Ram Babu. Sangeeta has been examined as PW 10, who is the daughter of Phoolwati and further submitted that Ms.  Sangeeta has also alleged that this accused alongwith his brother Jasbir (P.O.) had beaten to the Kanta and Ram Babu and further submitted that PW11 Ranjana @ Rajni who is also another daughter of Phoolwati, has also deposed that Rahul SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 30 of 78 State Vs. Rahul had   beaten   Kanta   and   Ram   Babu   and   further   submitted   that Bheeke   has   been   examined   as   PW7,   who   has     also   deposed about the altercation took place between him and Jasbir and he fled away from the spot and further submitted that Bheeke had also identified the dead body of his sister Phoolwati. Ld. Addl PP for the State has also submitted that Ram Babu has been examined as PW 15, who has also deposed that Rahul @ Tinku and his brother had beaten him and his wife and he had sustained injuries on his person   and   further   submitted   that   PW   9   Inspector   Rajesh   had prepared   the   rukka   Ex.PW8/A   on   the   complaint   of   Kanta   and prepared   site   plan   Ex.PW9/A   at   the   instance   of   Kanta   and   the weapons viz. dandas used by this accused and his co­accused, were recovered from the spot. Danda of Bamboo is Ex. P4 and wooden danda is Ex.P5 and blood was also found on the earth and submitted   that   even   the   FSL   report   proves   that   the   blood   was detected   on   the   danda.   FSL   report   is   Ex.PW   19/A   and   also submitted   that   Bhim   Singh   PW20   had   also   given   subsequent opinion which is Ex. PX8 in accordance with which, the injuries as mentioned in the postmortem report and MLCs   could be caused with the dandas Ex P4 and Ex. P5. Further submitted that Ram Babu had suffered four abrasion injuries and Kanta had suffered two injuries from the hands of this accused and MLC of Ram Babu is proved as Ex. PX1 and MLC of Kanta is Ex. PX6 and it is proved on   the   record   that   one   clear   lacerated   wound   and   bruise   were SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 31 of 78 State Vs. Rahul suffered by Kanta and further submitted that PW8, 10 and 11 have also correctly identified weapons used in the commission of crime and shirt of the accused Rahul was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 9/C. Blood was also detected thereon. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has admitted that injury of Phoolwati was not attributed to this   accused   in   the   statement   of   Ms.   Kanta   in   the   complaint Ex.PW8/A of Kanta, on the basis of which, FIR has been registered and submitted that the injury caused on the head of Phoolwati was attributed   by   the   Kanta   in   her   complaint   Ex.PW8/A   to   accused Jasbir, who is already declared proclaimed offender and submitted that   since   the   charge   u/s.   308/34   IPC   was   framed   against   the accused   regarding   the   injuries   caused   by   this   accused   in furtherance   of   his   common   intention   with   accused   Jasbir   (P.O.) and   submitted   that   since   the   injury   on   the   head   of   deceased Phoolwati was caused by accused Jasbir and this accused Rahul @ Tinku had come at the spot after infliction of injury by accused Jasbir to Phoolwati on her head so, he has fairly admitted that no offence U/s. 302/34 of IPC is made out against this accused Rahul and   also   submitted   that   similarly,   no   offence   u/s.323/34   IPC regarding the injury to Dhan Devi, Sumitra and Kuldeep is made out against this accused and submitted that from the testimony of Kanta PW8 and Ram Babu PW15 and from their MLCs, it is proved on the record that this accused Rahul along with his brother Jasbir (P.O)   had   caused   four   abrasion   injuries   on   the   person   of   Ram SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 32 of 78 State Vs. Rahul Babu and two injuries on the person of Kanta. Ld. APP for State has   further   submitted   that   charges   against   the   accused   were framed u/s. 302/34 of IPC   and u/s. 308/34 of IPC and also u/s. 323/34 of IPC but from the complaint Ex. PW 8/A of Kanta, who has   been   examined   as   PW   8,   it   is   clear   that   accused   Jasbir (Proclaimed   Offender)   had   given   danda   blow   on   the   head   of Phoolwati as a result of which, she had expired and since the Dr. Bhim Singh has been examined as PW 20 who has proved that only   one   external  injury  was  caused  to  the  deceased  Phoolwati and other internal injuries are the result of one external injury to the deceased. He has also submitted that complaint Ex.PW8/A shows that this accused Rahul @Tinku had come at the spot   after the infliction   of   injury   to   the   Phoolwati   (since   deceased)   caused   by accused Jasbir (Proclaimed Offender), so he has not pressed the conviction of accused u/s. 302/34 of IPC as that injury was caused by Jasbir who is the proclaimed offender. He is further submitted that since the charge u/s. 323/34 of IPC was framed u/s. 323/34 IPC   regarding   the   injuries   suffered   by   Dhan   Devi,   who   is   the mother of Rahul and Sumitra who is the bhabhi of accused Rahul, but   they  are   not   examined   and  submitted   since  the  charge   u/s. 308/34   IPC   was   framed   against   the   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku regarding the injuries caused by this accused to Kanta and Ram Babu   and   Kanta   who   has   been   examined   as   PW   8   who   has deposed in the court that this accused Rahul @ Tinku had given SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 33 of 78 State Vs. Rahul danda blow on her head and Ram Babu, who is the husband of Kanta also deposed that accused Rahul @ Tinku had beaten him and   further   submitted   that   MLC   of   Kanta   has   been   proved   on record Ex. PX6, whereas, MLC of Ram Babu is proved as Ex.PX5. Kanta has been examined as PW 8 she has suffered two injuries whereas Ram Babu has been examined as PW 15 he has suffered injuries and submitted that since the testimonies of the PW 8 and PW15 are corroborated with the medical evidence so this accused is   liable   to   be   convicted   u/s.   308/34   of   IPC   and   prayed   for convicting Rahul under the same sections. 

27. On   the   other   hand,   Ld.   Counsel   for   accused   has submitted that since in the case in hand Dr. Bhim Singh has been examined as PW 20, who has conducted the postmortem of the deceased   Phoolwati.   During   his   cross­examination,   he   has admitted   it   to   be   correct   that   all   the   internal   injuries   were consequent to the one external injury caused to the deceased and further   submitted   that   if   the   complaint   Ex.PW8/A   filed   by   the complainant   Kanta   is   looked   into,   then,   the   accused   Rahul   had come at belated stage that too after infliction of injury on the head of   the   Phoolwati   by   accused   Jasbir,   who   has   already   been declared   Proclaimed   Offender   and   submitted   that   since   the   Ld. APP for State has not pressed the conviction of this accused u/s. 302/34 and u/s. 323/34 of IPC and the prosecution has failed to SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 34 of 78 State Vs. Rahul prove that accused had committed offence u/s. 302/34 of IPC and submitted that charge u/s. 323/34 of IPC was framed against the accused regarding the injuries alleged to have been suffered by Dhan Devi, Sumitra and Kuldeep, but prosecution has chosen not to examine these witnesses in the court. So, the prosecution has failed to prove that Rahul has committed offence punishable u/s 323/34 of IPC. He has further submitted that charge against the accused u/s.308/34 is framed regarding the injuries alleged to have been   suffered   by   Kanta,   who   has   been   examined   as   PW8   and submitted that this Kanta (PW8) has alleged in her examination in chief that Rahul @ Tinku had given danda blow on her head. But, the complaint of this complainant Kanta Ex.PW8/A reveals that she has   alleged   therein   that   the   danda   blow   was   given   by   accused Jasbir   (proclaimed   offender),   on   her   head   and   submitted   that testimony   of   this   witness   PW8   is   not   only   improved,   but,   also contradictory   to   her   complaint   Ex.   PW   8/A.   He   has   further submitted that complaint of this complainant reveals that she has alleged therein that the accused Rahul @ Tinku had arrived at the spot, when, Phoolwati fell down on the earth in view of lathi blow given on the head of Phoolwati by accused Jasbir (P.O.), whereas, at   the   time   of   her   cross­examination,   this   witness   has   deposed both  the  brothers  had  come together  and thus testimony of this witness   is   contradictory   and   it   cannot   be   relied   upon.     He   has further   submitted   that   testimony   of   PW   8   is   improved   and SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 35 of 78 State Vs. Rahul embellished, so, it cannot be relied upon and further submitted that charge   against   this   accused   u/s   308/34   of   IPC   is   also   framed regarding the injuries alleged to have been suffered by Ram Babu, who has been examined as PW15 and  submitted that testimony of this witness cannot be relied upon, as this witness has alleged that accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   had   attacked   on   the   Bheeke   also   and during his re­examination by the ld. APP for State that this witness had   admitted   that   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   was   not   there   and further submitted that PW 15 has alleged that Rahul @ Tinku had given danda blow on his person and this witness PW 15 has also alleged     in   his   examination   in   chief   that   this   accused   Rahul   @ Tinku had also given danda blow on the head of the Phoolwati and in view of the same, she fell down and also alleged that thereafter accused  Rahul  @  Tinku had fled away from the spot. Whereas PW20   has  clarified   that Phoolwati (deceased)  had suffered only one external injury and second injury (internal) is the result of the first injury and submitted that accused Rahul   @ Tinku was also medically examined. So it is clear that false allegation against this accused have been levelled. He has further submitted that injuries of Kanta and Ram Babu are found to be simple and submitted that there   are   contradictions   in   the   testimonies   of   these   prosecution witnesses,   which   cannot   be   relied   upon   and   submitted   that prosecution has failed to prove on record that accused Rahul had caused   any   injury.   He   has   further   submitted   that   subsequent SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 36 of 78 State Vs. Rahul opinion   Ex.PX8   has   been   obtained   from   Dr.   Bhim,   who   had conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Phoolwati and submitted   that   Kanta   is   alleged     to   have   suffered   2   lacerated wound   and   bruise.     Whereas,   Ram   Babu   is   alleged   to   have suffered one bruise and four abrasions and all injuries are found to be   simple   and   submitted   that   injuries   with   the   dandas   are   not possible   and   submitted   that   accused   is   innocent   person   and prayed for acquitting the  accused Rahul @ Tinku.

28. I   have   given   thoughtful   consideration   to   the submissions made by the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.

29. The perusal of the record reveals that in the case in hand the FIR was registered on the basis of complaint Ex. PW8/A, wherein, the complainant Kanta  has deposed that she resides on the   address   as   mentioned   in   her   statement   Ex.   PW8/A   and   for about   10   days,   she   was   living   in   the   jhuggi   no.   102,   Dairywala Bagh, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and this jhuggi belongs to her Sister Phoolwati and on dated 21.03.2014 at about 5.30 pm, the wife of Sukhbir namely Saraswati was quarreling with his mother namely Dhan   Devi   and   wife   of   Jasbir   namely   Sumitra,   who,   frequently quarrel with each other. Jasbir had separated them and then Jasbir started   abusing   to   his   brother   Sukhbir   and   brother   of   this SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 37 of 78 State Vs. Rahul complainant namely Bheeku was also sitting outside the jhuggi of Phoolwati and Jasbir started abusing to Bheeku and also accused to Bheeku for such quarrel in his house and accused Jasbir (P.O) attacked on Bheeku with a Lathi, but Bheeku succeeded in fleeing away   from   there   without   suffering   any   injury   from   the   hand   of Jasbir   and   when,   this   complainant   Kanta   prevented   Jasbir   from doing so, accused Jasbir gave Lathi blow on the head of Kanta (Complainant) and she has also stated that on seeing the same, Sangeeta   and   Ranjana,   who   are   the   daughters   of   her   sister Phoolwati started weeping and shouting and on hearing the same, her   sister   Phoolwati   came   out   of   the   jhuggi   to   rescue   the complainant and when, she was trying  to rescue the complainant from the hands of Jasbir, accused Jasbir had given a Lathi blow on the head of Phoolwati, as a result of which, she fell down on the ground   and   at   the   same   time,   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku,   who   is brother of accused Jasbir had also arrived at there, who was also carrying a Danda in his hand.   Complainant has also alleged hat this   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   had   also   started   beating   to   the complainant   party   and   when   the   husband   of   this   complainant namely Ram Babu had come to rescue them, then, the accused had   also   given   Lathi   Blows   on   the   person   of   Ram   Babu. Complainant had also stated that when, the wife of accused Jasbir namely   Sumitra,   his   mother   Dhan   Devi,   his   younger   brother Kuldeep had come to rescue, then, they had also suffered injuries SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 38 of 78 State Vs. Rahul and some inhabitants of said jhuggies had come and rescued them and   in   the   meantime,   police   had   come   and   took   them   to   the hospital,   where   her   sister   was   declared   brought   dead.   This complainant has alleged that her sister Phoolwati has been killed by Lathi Blow, given by Jasbir and prayed for taking legal action. On such complaint of Kanta, the FIR no. 274/14 was registered u/s 302/308/34 IPC.

30. Whereas, Ms. Kanta has been examined as PW 8, who has deposed that she cannot tell the date, month and year of the incident, as she is illiterate and about two years and 5 months have been passed, since the day of incident. She has further deposed that   she   came   to   the   house   of   her   sister   Phoolwati,   which   is situated   near   Beri   Wala   bagh,   Shalimar   Bagh,   Delhi.   She   has further deposed that on the day of incident at about 5.00 pm, she was present inside the house of her sister Ms. Phoolwati and her brother   Mr.   Bheeke   was   sitting   outside   the   jhuggi   and   in   the meantime, she heard noises of quarrel, which took place between wife of accused Jasbir with the wife of her brother and with his mother namely Dhandevi. She has further deposed that she knows accused Rahul @ Tinku and accused Jasbir, as they are brothers and reside in the neighbourhood of her sister Ms. Phoolwati.  She has identified  accused  to Rahul @ Tinku in the Court. She has further   deposed   that   accused   Jasbir   (since   declared   PO) SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 39 of 78 State Vs. Rahul intervened  in  the  quarrel going on between his wife, wife of his brother   and   his   mother   and   separated   them.   At   that   time   Mr. Sukhbir (brother of accused Rahul @ Tinku) was also present with her brother Mr. Bheeke.   She has further deposed that accused Jasbir   and   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   started   quarreling   with   her brother Mr. Bheeke and with their brother Sukhbir and they also abused   Bheeke.     She   has   further   deposed   that   accused   Jasbir blamed his brother Bheeke by saying that Bheeke was responsible for the quarrel, which used to take place in his house.   She has further deposed that accused Jasbir attacked on his brother Mr. Bheeke with lathi. However, his brother Mr. Bheeke saved himself. She   has   further   deposed   that   she   immediately   came   out   of   the jhuggi and asked accused Jasbir, as to why  was he attacking on his brother Bheeke. She has further deposed that in the meantime her brother Mr. Bheeke fled away from the spot and accused Rahul @Tinku hit a danda on her head. Ms. Sangeeta and Ms. Ranjana, daughters   of   her   sister   Ms.   Phoolwati   were   also   present   at   the spot.  She has further deposed that on seeing her condition, they started crying and raising alarm and her sister Ms. Phoolwati also came at the spot and accused Jasbir and accused Rahul @ Tinku started beating her sister Ms. Phoolwati with lathi and danda. She has further deposed that her husband Mr. Ram Babu also came at the spot and both the accused persons also attacked on him with lathi   and   danda.     She   has   further   deposed   that   several   public SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 40 of 78 State Vs. Rahul persons  gathered  at  the spot and police also arrived and police took this complainant, her sister Ms. Phoolwati, her husband Ram Babu to BJRM hospital and her sister Ms. Phoolwati was declared dead in the hospital. She was medically examined in the hospital. Her   statement   was   recorded   by   police   in   the   hospital   which   is Ex.PW8/A. She has further deposed that on the next day police got conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of her sister Ms.   Phoolwati  and   thereafter  they  received the dead body.  She has further deposed that one lathi was lying at the spot, which was lifted by the police from the spot and accused Rahul @ Tinku was arrested   by   the   police   vide   arrest   memo   Ex.PW8/B.   She   has further deposed that accused Jasbir had fled away from the spot and he could not be apprehended and the personal search memo of   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   is   Ex.PW8/C   and   on   seeing,   the clothes, she has deposed that these are the same clothes, which were worn by her sister Ms. Phoolwati at the time of incident. The saree is Ex.P­1, the blouse is Ex.P­2 and one petticoat is Ex.P­3 and on seeing wooden danda, she has deposed that this is the same long wooden danda Ex.P­4,   which was used by accused persons at the time of commission of offence and on seeing, she has   deposed   that   this   is   the   same   long   bamboo   danda   Ex.P5 which was used by accused persons at the time of commission of offence.   This   witness   was   cross   examined   by   ld.   Counsel   for accused.   During   her   cross   examination,   she   has   deposed   that SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 41 of 78 State Vs. Rahul accused Jasbir and accused Rahul @ Tinku, both came together at the spot and started quarreling with her brother Mr Bheeke. This witness was confronted with her statement Ex.PW8/A, on the basis of which, FIR was registered, where it is not so recorded. She has also   deposed   that   she   had   stated   before   the   police   in   her statement that accused Rahul @ Tinku hit a danda on her head. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW8/A, where it is not so recorded.  She has further deposed that she had stated to the police in her statement that accused Rahul @ Tinku hit a danda on the head of her sister Ms. Phoolwati. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW8/A, where it is not so recorded. It is mentioned therein   that   accused   Jasbir   hit   a   danda   on   the   head   of   Ms. Phoowati.   She   has  further  deposed that  on the date  of incident initially,  the quarrel was going on between wife of accused Jasbir, wife of Sukhbir and mother of accused Jasbir and neither herself nor her any other family member intervened in that quarrel. She has further deposed that at that time, Mr. Kali Charan (husband of deceased Phoolwati) was not present at the spot. She has further deposed that her husband was sitting inside the jhuggi, when, the quarrel among the family members of accused persons was going on and her husband also  did not intervene in that quarrel. She has further deposed that the jhuggi of accused persons is situated in a separate street from the street of jhuggi of her sister and there are two jhuggies on both the sides of street between the jhuggi of her SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 42 of 78 State Vs. Rahul sister Phoolwati and jhuggi of accused persons. She has further deposed   that   there   is   less   than   one   minute   walking   distance between   jhuggies   of   accused   persons   and   jhuggi   of   her   sister Phoolwati. She has further deposed that the jhuggi of her sister Phoolwati is visible from the jhuggi of accused persons. She has further deposed that  the incident took place near the jhuggi of her mother   and   voluntarily   stated   that   the   Jhuggi   of   her   mother   is situated   near   the   jhuggi   of   accused   persons.   She   has   further deposed that there is gap of two jhuggies in between jhuggi of her mother   and   that   of   accused  persons  and   the  jhuggi   of   accused persons   is   on   the   front   side   street,   whereas,   the   jhuggi   of   her mother is on the back side of the street and the front side of the jhuggi of her mother is not visible from the jhuggi of accused Rahul @ Tinku. At the time of incident, she was present in the jhuggi of her mother, whereas her sister was present in her jhuggi. She has further deposed that the other residents of the area also gathered, when, the wife of accused Jasbir was quarreling with the wife of Sukhbir and her mother in law and she did not come out to see that quarrel and no one from her family went to see that quarrel in the jhuggi of accused and she saw the above quarrel and then again went inside jhuggi of her mother at that time accused Jasbir was not   carrying   any   danda.   She   has   further   deposed   that   accused Rahul @ Tinku was not present at the time of above said quarrel which had taken place among the family members of the accused SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 43 of 78 State Vs. Rahul and the quarrel among above said three ladies continued for about half an hour. She has further deposed that accused Rahul @ Tinku was not arrested by police in her presence and he was arrested from the place of incident itself and he was apprehended after she was removed  to  the  hospital, after the incident. She has further deposed that the police obtained her thumb impression on several papers in the hospital and also in police station. She has denied that accused Rahul @ Tinku was not present at the spot at the time of incident or that she came to the spot after the occurrence or that when accused Rahul @ Tinku came at the spot. Then, she and   her   other   family   members   attacked   on   him   with   lathi   and danda   or   that   due   to   which   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   sustained injuries   on   his   head   and   other   parts   of   his   body.   She   has   also deposed   that   at   the   time   of   incident,   her   husband,   her   sister Phoolwati and two daughters of her sister Phoolwati were present at the spot.  She knew one Mr. Jonny, who is brother of her brother in law (jija) and lives in Mukundpur. Mr. Jonny was not present at the spot, at the time of incident. She has further deposed that the age of Vijay, son of her brother Mr. Bheeke is about 16 years and several persons of the locality gathered at the spot. But, no one came forward to save her, her sister and her husband. She has denied that the accused persons did not attack on them and since her sister died during the quarrel, they had concocted a false story and involved the accused persons or that accused Rahul @ Tinku SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 44 of 78 State Vs. Rahul is innocent or she  has deposed falsely.

31. Thus, from the testimony of this complainant (PW8), it is   clear   that   the   testimony   of   this   witness   is   found   to   be contradictory on the material points as this PW8, in her complaint Ex.PW8/A,   she   has   alleged   that   danda   blow   on   her   head   was given   by   accused   Jasbir   (Proclaimed   Offender),   whereas   at   the time of her examination in the court, she has alleged that accused Rahul @ Tinku had given danda blow on her head. PW­8 has not attributed  any  other  categorical injury on her  person to accused Rahul @ Tinku,   in her statement recorded in the court and this witness   in   her   complaint   Ex.PW8/A   has   alleged   that   accused Jasbir   had   given   danda   blow   on   the   head   of   Phoolwati   (since deceased) and  Phoolwati fell down, whereas, at the time of her examination in the court, she has alleged that accused Jasbir and accused Rahul @ Tinku started beating her sister Phoolwati with danda and lathi, whereas, the doctor Bhim Singh (Pw20) who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased has deposed that the deceased had suffered only one external injury   and internal injuries were consequent to the one external injury. If the complaint of the complainant Ex.PW8/A is looked into then, it is clear that this complainant (PW8) has attributed the injury caused on the head of Phoolwati   to   accused   Jasbir   (proclaimed   offender)   and   this complainant   had   stated   in   her   complaint   that   when   her   sister SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 45 of 78 State Vs. Rahul Phoolwati came to rescue her from accused Jasbir, then, accused Jasbir had given Lathi blow on the head of Phoolwati, with which, she fell down on the earth and then, accused Rahul @ Tinku had also   come   at   the   spot   with   a   danda,   whereas,   this  complainant when examined in the court as PW8, she has alleged that accused Jasbir (P.O.) and accused Rahul @ Tinku were quarreling with her brother Bheeke and she has also alleged that accused Rahul @ Tinku has also beaten to Phoolwati along with brother with danda and lathi and since this complainant has attributed injury caused on the head of Phoolwati to Jasbir in her complaint Ex.PW8/A and if the testimony of PW20 is looked into, then, only one external injury was caused on the head of Phoolwati which is proved to be fatal. Had this accused Rahul @ Tinku caused any injury on the person of   Phoolwati,   then,   multiple   injuries   on   the   person   of   deceased could   be   observed   by   the   doctor   Bhim   Singh   (PW20)   who   had conducted   postmortem   on   the   body   of   deceased.   But,   if   the testimony of PW20 looked into, he had observed only one external injury on the body of deceased which was attributed to accused Jasbir (Proclaimed offender) in the complaint Ex.PW8/A Thus the testimony   of   this   witness   is   not   corroborated   with   the   medical evidence and her testimony is also found to be contradictory and inconsistent to the contents of her complaint Ex.PW8/A.  Perusal of the complaint Ex.PW8/A reveals that the complainant has stated therein that at the time of alleged occurrence, this complainant was SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 46 of 78 State Vs. Rahul therein the jhuggi of her sister Phoolwati, whereas, at the time of her cross­examination, she has stated that at the time of alleged occurrence, she was present in the house of her mother. Since, the charge under Section 308/34 IPC was framed against this accused regarding the injuries alleged to have been caused on the body of this complainant and her husband Ram Babu and this complainant has attributed only one injury on her head with danda, to accused Rahul @ Tinku, whereas, in her complaint, she has attributed the said injury on her head to Jasbir (P.O.) and since the complaint Ex.PW8/A reveals that this accused Rahul @ Tinku had come at the   spot,   after   infliction   of   injury   on   the   head   of   Phoolwati   by accused Jasbir and from the contents of the complaint Ex.PW8/A, it may be observed that accused Rahul @ Tinku was not present at the spot. When, the injuries on the heads of this witness PW8 and Phoolwati (deceased) were caused by accused Jasbir (P.O.), so, the common intention to this accused Rahul @ Tinku cannot be attributed for the commission of the crime by accused Jasbir, which was  allegedly  committed by him   prior   to  the arrival of Rahul  @ Tinku at the spot and since, Ld. Addl PP for the state has admitted that the injury on the head of deceased Phoolwati was caused by Jasbir   (P.O.)   so,   I   am   inclined   to   hold   that   the   prosecution   has failed to prove on record that this accused had common intention with the accused Jasbir who  had committed the offence of murder of   Phoolwati   and   in   view   of   contradictory   and   inconsistent SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 47 of 78 State Vs. Rahul statement   of   this   witness,   as   discussed   herein   above,   her testimony does not inspire any confidence therein.

32. Whereas,   Mr.   Ram   Babu,   who   is   the   husband   of complainant   Kanta   has   been   examined   as   PW   15,   who   has deposed   that   he   cannot   tell   the   date,   month   and   year   of   the incident, as he is illiterate. However, about one and half years have been passed and during those days, he along with his wife Kanta and his children came to Delhi. He has further deposed that he along with his family was staying in the jhuggi of his mother in law ­ Ms.   Birma   situated   in   Beriwala   Bagh,   Shalimar   Bagh.     He   has further deposed that on the day of incident at about 5.30pm, he was present outside  the jhuggi of his mother in law. He has further deposed   that   at   that   time   his   wife   was   doing   household   work outside the jhuggi and his brother in law Mr. Bheeke was sitting on his   rickshaw.   He   has   further   deposed   that   in   the   meantime, accused Rahul @ Tinku and his brother, whose name he does not know   started   abusing   to   his   brother   in   law   Mr.Bheeke   and thereafter,   a   quarrel   started   between   Mr.   Bheeke   with   accused Rahul @ Tinku and his brother. He has further deposed that at that time his sister in law Phoolwati was inside the jhuggi and serving food to children and accused Rahul @ Tinku  attacked on Bheeke with   a   danda,   but,   Bheeke   fled   away   from   the   spot   and   the accused Rahul @ Tinku could not cause any injury with danda to SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 48 of 78 State Vs. Rahul Bheeke. He has further deposed that on hearing noise Phoolwati came of the jhuggi and intervened as accused Rahul @ Tinku and his brother started quarreling with this witness and his wife. He has further deposed that accused Rahul @ Tinku gave a danda blow on  the   head   of   Phoolwati, due  to  which, she  fell  down. He has further deposed that accused Rahul @ Tinku and his brother gave beatings to him and his wife, due to which, he   sustained injuries on his back, head and face. He has further deposed that his wife also sustained injuries and then accused Rahul and his brother fled away  from  the spot and they lifted Phoolwati from the spot and brought inside the jhuggi. He has further deposed that the elder brother   of   accused   Rahul   @Tinku   informed   the   police   and   the police came at the spot after some time.  He has further deposed that the police took Phoolwati to hospital and he, his wife Kanta and   Kalicharan,  husband of Phoolwati also went to hospital. He has further deposed that  the doctor declared Phoolwati as brought dead and he was also got medically examined in the hospital and the police made inquiries from him. Then, the Ld. Addl. P.P. had sought   permission   to   put   a   leading   question   to   this   witness   to clarify the name of (co­accused) brother of accused Rahul @ Tinku and after hearing the Ld. APP for the State, was allowed to put a leading question to this witness and this witness has admitted it to be correct that the name of co­accused (brother of accused Rahul is   Jasbir   (since   declared   P.O).   This   witness   was   also   cross SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 49 of 78 State Vs. Rahul examined   by   ld.   Counsel   for   accused.   During   his   cross examination he has admitted it to be correct that his mother in law Ms. Birma and his sister in law Ms. Phoolwati (since deceased) used to reside in separate jhuggies at that time and the jhuggi of his brother in law situated at the main road whereas the jhuggi of Phoolwati was situated after taking turn at a distance of about 4­5 steps. He has admitted it to be correct that while standing on the front side of jhuggi of his mother in law, the jhuggi of Phoolwati is not visible.  He has deposed that there is a gap of two jhuggies in between the jhuggies of his mother in law and deceased and the incident took place near the jhuggi of his mother in law.   He has further   deposed   that   the accused Rahul   and  his  brother  Jasbir started quarreling with Mr. Bheeke, as he used to sit and talk with their brother, who had made the PCR call. He does not know the name of elder brother of accused Rahul, who made the PCR call. Neither   himself   nor   his   wife,   mother   in   law   or   any   other   family member   gave   any   beatings   to   accused   Rahul   and   his   brother Jasbir at the time of incident and then this witness was read over his statement Ex.PW15/DA recorded u/s.161 CrPC on 21.03.2014, by the IO and on hearing the same, he has admitted that IO had recorded his said statement. This witness has deposed that he had stated to the police in his statement Ex.PW15/DA, that at the time of incident, he was sitting outside the jhuggi of his mother in law, where   it   is   not   so   recorded.   He   has   also   deposed   that   he   had SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 50 of 78 State Vs. Rahul stated to the police in his statement that accused Rahul and his brother   Jasbir   started   abusing   to   Bheeke   and   accused   Rahul attacked   Bheeke   with   danda  but   Bheeke  fled  away   and  did  not sustain any injury. This witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW15/DA, where it was not so recorded. He has also deposed that he had stated to the police in his statement Ex.PW15/DA that on   hearing   noise,   Phoolwati   came   outside   from   jhuggi   and   she intervened   as   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   and   his   brother   started quarreling with him and his wife and accused Rahul @ Tinku gave a   danda   blow   on   the   head   of   Phoolwati,   due   to   which,   she   fell down. This witness was confronted with his said statement, where it was not so recorded. He has admitted it to be correct that about 50 public persons gathered at the spot, at the time of incident. He has   also   deposed   that   some   persons   were   mere   spectators. Whereas, some were favoring the accused persons. He has further deposed that about 3­4 persons, who were favoring the accused persons caught him at the spot and  some persons from the crowd also caught his wife and mother in law and he  does not know the names of those persons, who caught him, his wife and his mother in   law   and   he   had   tried   to   get   rid   from   the   clutches   of   those persons and in that process they gave him beatings.  He could not see   as   to   whether   or   not   his   wife   and   his   mother   in   law   were making   efforts   to   get   themselves   free   or   not,   as   his   head   was bowed, while he was saving himself. He has also deposed that he SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 51 of 78 State Vs. Rahul could not see, as to whether or not Phoolwati was trying to stand. He has further submitted that he was surrounded by 3­4 people of the   crowd  and  at  first  those public persons caught his wife and then   he   was   caught   by   them.     He   has   further   deposed   that accused   Rahul   @   Tinku,   Jasbir   and   some   other   persons   had caught his wife and had beaten them and at that time, his mother in law was not present. He has denied that accused Rahul was not present at the spot at the time of incident or that he came to the spot  later  on  or that this witness attacked on him and his other family members due to which, Rahul (accused) sustained injuries on his head. He has denied that he is  a planted witness or that he has deposed falsely.

33. Thus, from the testimony of this witness, it is clear that the   testimony   of   this   witness   is   contradictory   to   his   statement Ex.PW15/DA and also inconsistent to the contents to the complaint Ex.PW8/A. As this witness at the time of recording of the statement Ex.PW15/DA by the IO had stated that on the date of occurrence, he was living in the jhuggi of his sister in law Phoolwati and at the time of occurrence, accused Rahul @ Tinku and his brother Jasbir were beating to his wife Kanta and his sister in law Phoolwati and her sister in law was lying on the earth. He has also alleged that when he went to rescue them, then he was beaten by accused Jasbir (P.O.) and his brother Rahul @ Tinku. Whereas, at the time SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 52 of 78 State Vs. Rahul of his examination in the court, he has deposed that on the date and time of occurrence, he was present outside the jhuggi of his mother in law. This witness has deposed in the court that Rahul @ Tinku and his brother were abusing to his brother in law Bheeke and thereafter, a quarrel started between Bheeke, accused Rahul @  Tinku  and  his  brother. But, he has nowhere stated so in his statement Ex.PW15/DA. He has also not stated in his statement Ex.PW15/DA that accused Rahul attacked on Bheeke with danda. This witness has also not stated in his said statement Ex.PW15/DA that accused Rahul @ Tinku had given danda blow on the head of Phoolwati, due to which, she fell down and thus the testimony of this   witness   is   found   to   be   improved   and   embellished   and   also inconsistent to the complaint Ex.PW8/A as the complainant in her complaint Ex.PW8/A has alleged that the Phoolwati fell down on the earth in view of the danda blow given by accused Jasbir (P.O.) and this witness during examination in chief has alleged that the Phoolwati fell down on the earth in view of the danda blow given by accused Rahul @ Tinku and if the complaint Ex.PW8/A is looked into   then,   the   altercation   started   between   Bheeke   and   accused Jasbir (P.O.) and this accused Rahul @ Tinku had come at the spot, when Phoolwati fell down on the earth in view of the danda blow given by accused Jasbir on her head. Thus the testimony of this   witness   is   found   to   be   contradictory,   improved   and embellished.   Since   this   witness   has   also   admitted   in   his   cross­ SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 53 of 78 State Vs. Rahul examination that he was caught by 3­4 persons and when he was trying to get rid from their clutches, they had also given beating to him, so the possibility of sustaining of injuries by this prosecution witness from the hands of those 3­4 persons canot be ruled out. Since the testimony of this witness is found to be inconsistent and contradictory, so the same is held to be suspicious and the same does not inspire any confidence therein.

34. Whereas, Mr. Bheeke has been examined as PW 7 who has deposed that the incident took place on 21st day, but, he could not tell the month and year of the incident. He has deposed that about two years have been passed since the date of incident and on that day at about 5.30 pm, he was sitting on his rickshaw, which was kept outside of his jhuggi and he knows accused Rahul @ Tinku and accused Jasbir (since PO), as they used to reside in his neighbourhood. He has correctly identified to the accused Rahul @ Tinku   in the Court and deposed that accused Jasbir (P.O.) and accused Rahul @ Tinku are brothers.  He has further deposed that they   started   beating     Saraswati,   wife   of   their   brother   Sukhbir. Sukhbir was sitting with him and accused Jasbir started saying that the   quarrel   used   to   take   place   in   their   house   because   of   this witness Bheeke.  He has further deposed that accused Jasbir tried to give a lathi blow on his person, but, he succeeded in fleeing away from there. He has further deposed that he does not know, SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 54 of 78 State Vs. Rahul as to what had happened thereafter. He has further deposed that he returned to the spot after about half an hour and then, he came to   know   that   a   quarrel   took  place   and  his  sister   Kanta  and  her husband   Ram   Babu   had   sustained   injuries.   He   has   further deposed that his other sister Phoolwati also sustained injuries and she expired in the hospital. He has further deposed that Sukhbir made   call   at   100   number   and   police   came   and   police   took   his sister  Phoolwati to the hospital from the spot in his presence. He has   further   deposed   that   he   also   went   to   the   hospital   with   his injured sister Ms. Kanta and her husband Ram Babu and the police made inquiries from him, but, his statement was not recorded. He has   further   deposed   that   when   he   was   present   at   the   spot,   no member   of   his   family   came   there   in   his   presence   and   he   had identified the dead body of his sister Ms. Phoolwati in the hospital and his statement in this regard Ex.PW7/A was also recorded. He has   further   deposed   that   after   post   mortem   examination,   he received the dead body vide receipt Ex.PW7/B and then Ld. Addl. P.P. had sought permission to cross examine the witness, as he had resiled from his previous statement and after hearing, the Ld. APP for the State was allowed to cross examine this witness and during  his  cross­examination by Ld. Addl. PP  for  the State, this witness had admitted it to be correct that the quarrels used to take place between the wives of  Sukhbir and Jasbir and the mother of Sukhbir and on the date of incident i.e on 21st day of the month, at SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 55 of 78 State Vs. Rahul about 5.30 pm, a quarrel started between Saraswati w/o Sukhbir, Dhanwati,   (mother   of   Mr.   Sukhbir)   and   Sumitra   w/o   Jasbir (accused) and  he does not know, if accused Jasbir pacified the matter by separating them.   He has admitted it to be correct that his sister  Ms. Kanta came to the spot when she saw that accused Jasbir was attacking on him with lathi and he got afraid on seeing the conduct of accused Jasbir and fled away from the spot. This witness was cross examined by ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross­examination, he has admitted it to be correct that accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   was   not   present   at   the   spot,   in   his presence and then  Ld. Addl. PP has requested to the predecessor of   this   court   for   seeking   permission   to   re­examine   the   witness regarding the presence of accused Rahul @ Tinku at the spot and after hearing, the Ld. APP for the State was allowed to re­examine this   witness   and   during   when   he   was   asked   that   during   his examination in chief, he had deposed that accused Rahul @ Tinku was   present   with   his   brother   Jasbir   at   the   spot   when   accused Jasbir tried to attack on him with a lathi, however, during his cross examination, he had deposed that accused Rahul @ Tinku was not present at the spot in his presence and which of his statement was correct  and then, this witness has again reiterated that accused Rahul @ Tinku was not present at the spot and inadvertently, he had deposed that accused Rahul @ Tinku was present at the spot, in his presence. Thus, the testimony of this witness is found to be SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 56 of 78 State Vs. Rahul inconsistent to the contents of the complaint Ex.PW8/A and also to the   testimonies   of   PW8   complainant   /   injured   and   PW­15   Ram Babu (injured), as PW8 when examined in the court has alleged that   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   had   quarreled   with   Bheeke.   But, Bheeke (PW7) has denied the presence of Rahul @ Tinku at the spot and similarly, PW15 has also alleged in the court that he had witnessed the quarrel between Bheeke (PW7) on the one side and accused Rahul @ Tinku and Jasbir on the other side and since, this witness ie PW7 has deposed in the court that when he was present   at   the  spot,   no member  of his family came there in his presence  and, if the testimony of this witness is taken to be true, then, none of the family member of this witness had witnessed the altercation held between this witness Bheeke and accused Jasbir and thus, the presence of all the alleged eye witnesses become suspicious   and   the   testimonies   of   material   witnesses   of   the prosecution   number   PW7,   PW8   and   PW15   are   found   to   be inconsistent to each other and in view of the same, they are found to be doubtful, so the same do not inspire any confidence.

35. Whereas,   Ms.   Sangeeta   d/o   Mr.Kali   Charan   has   been examined as PW 10, who has deposed that the incident took place on   21.03.2014   during   evening   hours   and   at   that   time   she   was present in her jhuggi. She has further deposed that her  sister Ms. Rajni and   her mother Ms. Phoolwati (since deceased) were also SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 57 of 78 State Vs. Rahul present with him in their jhuggi and in the meantime, they heard the voices of quarrel coming from the back side of their jhuggi and the jhuggi of her maternal uncle Mr. Bhiku is also situated on the back side of their jhuggi. She has further deposed that accused Jasbir   was   quarreling   with   his   brother   Mr.   Sukhbir.   She   know accused Jasbir (Proclaimed Offender) and Mr.Sukhbir, as both are brothers of accused Rahul @ Tinku and all the three brothers used to reside in their neighbourhood.  She has correctly identified to the accused   Rahul @ Tinku and also deposed that after hearing the voices of quarrel between accused Jasbir and his brother Sukhbir, she and her sister Ms. Rajni went out from their jhuggi and her maternal uncle Mr. Bhiku was also sitting outside his jhuggi, where accused   Jasbir   and   Sukhbir   were   quarreling.   She   has   further deposed that accused Jasbir started levelling allegation against her maternal   uncle   Mr.   Bhiku   by   saying   that   because   of   Bhiku,   the quarrel   used   to   take   place   in   his   house   and   accused   Jasbir attacked on her maternal uncle with lathi, however, his maternal uncle saved himself and fled away from the spot. She has further deposed that her aunt (mausi) Ms. Kanta was also present at the spot   and     Ms.   Kanta   tried   to   stop   accused   Jasbir,   but   he   hit   a danda   on   her   head.   She   has   further   deposed   that   Ms.   Kanta started raising alarm and then on hearing the voices. This witness and Ms. Rajni who were standing outside their jhuggi immediately rushed on the back side of jhuggi where incident was taken place.

SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 58 of 78 State Vs. Rahul She has again said, accused Jasbir hit danda on the head of her mausi in her   presence, as on hearing the voices, she   and her sister already rushed to the spot. She has further deposed that she started raising alarm, then her mother Ms.Phoolwati also came at the spot and  accused Rahul @ Tinku also reached at the spot and accused Jasbir hit a danda on the head of her mother and then accused Jasbir and accused Rahul @ Tinku both started beating her mother with dandas. She has further deposed that  her  mausi and uncle Mr.   Ram Babu who were present in the jhuggi of Mr. Bhiku also came out and both the accused persons started beating Mr.  Ram   Babu   also.  She has further deposed that she and her sister both started crying. She has further deposed that someone made a PCR call and several persons gathered at the spot and intervened to pacify the matter. She has further deposed that after some time police officials reached at the spot and her mother, her aunt Ms. Kanta and her uncle Mr. Ram Babu were taken to the hospital. She has further deposed that she was informed that her mother   was   declared   dead   by   the   doctors   in   the   hospital.   On seeing saree, blouse and one petticoat, this witness has deposed that    these are the same clothes which were worn by her mother Ms. Phoolwati at the time of incident. The saree is Ex. P­1, the blouse is as Ex. P­2 and one petticoat is Ex. P­3 and on seeing the long wooden danda Ex.P­4, she has deposed that this is the same long wooden danda, which was used by accused persons at the SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 59 of 78 State Vs. Rahul time   of   commission   of   offence   and   on   seeing   the   long   bamboo danda Ex.P­5, this witness has deposed that this is the same long bamboo danda, which was used by accused persons at the time of commission of offence. This witness was cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during her cross­examination, she has deposed that she cannot tell the duration of quarrel / incident and she even cannot say as to whether it continued for one hour, two hours   or   three   hours.   She   has   further   deposed   that   several persons gathered at the spot at the time of incident and no one from   their   side   started   quarrel   with   accused   persons.   She   has further deposed that accused Rahul @ Tinku caused injuries on his head of his own after giving beatings to her mother and she has further deposed that accused Rahul @ Tinku reached at the spot, when   accused   Jasbir   hit   danda   on   the   head   of   her   mausi   Ms. Kanta   and   the   incident   took   place   outside   the   house   of   her maternal   uncle   Mr.   Bheeke.   She   has   further   deposed   that   the jhuggi of her mother is situated on the back side of jhuggi of her maternal uncle and both the jhuggies are situated in the opposite streets.   She   has   further   deposed   that   there   are   3­4   jhuggies between the jhuggi of her mother and jhuggi of accused Rahul @ Tinku and initially accused Jasbir was quarreling with his brother Sukhbir outside the jhuggi of her maternal uncle. Neither she nor her sister or her mother intervened in the quarrel between accused Jasbir   and   Sukhbir.  She has further  deposed that there was no SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 60 of 78 State Vs. Rahul quarrel   or   any   dispute   between   her   family   and   the   family   of accused Rahul @ Tinku and they   are not on visiting terms with accused Rahul @ Tinku. She has further deposed that she cannot tell the area of the open space outside the jhuggi of her maternal uncle and she  was standing at some distance and shouting when accused   Jasbir   hit   danda   on   the   head   of   her   mother.   She   has voluntarily deposed that she tried to save her mother and he  could not hold her mother, as, she fell down. She has further deposed that her uncle Ram Babu also reached to intervene and save her mother, but accused persons gave beatings to him also. She has denied   that     accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   reached   at   the   spot   after occurrence   of   the   incident   or   that   she   and   her   other   family members gave beatings to accused Rahul @ Tinku, as his brother Jasbir had fled away from the spot after the incident. She did not sustain any injury during the incident.   She has denied that she was   not   present   at   the   spot   or   that   for   this   reason   she   did   not sustain any injury during the incident or she is   deposing falsely. Thus, the testimony of this witness is also found to be contradictory to the testimony of PW8, as this witness has also deposed that accused   Jasbir   (P.O.)   gave   danda   blow   on   the   head   of   Kanta (PW8).   Whereas,   Ms.   Kanta   (PW8)   during   her   evidence   in   the court   has   alleged   that  Rahul  @  Tinku  gave  danda  blow   on   her head. The testimony of this witness is also self contradictory as in one breath, this witness has deposed that when Kanta tried to stop SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 61 of 78 State Vs. Rahul the accused Jasbir, then Jasbir gave a danda blow on the head of Kanta and Kanta started raising alarm and on hearing the voices, this witness and Ms Rajni who was standing outside their jhuggi immediately   rushed   on   the   backside   of   her   jhuggi,   where   the incident   had   taken   place   and   such   statement   of   this   witness creates   her   testimony   to   be   suspicious   and   also   creates   her presence at the spot, suspicious at the time of alleged occurrence. As she claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence. Perusal of the statement of this witness reveals that this witness has alleged that danda blow on the head of her mother was given by accused Jasbir, whereas, PW8 at the time of her examination has alleged that   danda   blow   on   her   head   was   given   by   accused   Rahul   @ Tinku.  This witness has also deposed in the court that accused Jasbir (PO) had given danda blow on the head of Kanta (PW8). But, PW8 when examined in the court, has alleged that   danda blow   on   her   head   was   given   by   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku.   This witness has also alleged that accused Jasbir and accused Rahul had  also beaten to her mother with the dandas but if the testimony of PW20 is looked into, then, only one external injury was caused to   the   Phoolwati   (since   deceased)   and   internal   injuries   were consequent to the one external injury. Had accused Jasbir (PO) and   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   given   beatings   to   deceased Phoolwati,   then   multiple   external   injuries   could   be   observed   by PW20,   who   had   conducted   the   postmortem   on   the   body   of SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 62 of 78 State Vs. Rahul deceased   Phoolwati.   Thus,   the   testimony   of   this   witness   is   not corroborated with the medical evidence and since it is found to be inconsistent   with   the   testimony   of   PW­8   complainant   Kanta   and also with the medical evidence, so the same does not inspire any confidence.

36. Ms.   Ranjana   @   Rajni   d/o   Mr.Kali   Charan   has   been examined as PW 11, who has deposed that the incident took place on  21.03.2014   and   on  that  day, during evening hours, she  was present   in   her   jhuggi.   She   has   further   deposed   that   her   sister Ms.Sangeeta and her mother Ms. Phoolwati were also present in the jhuggi at that time and she heard voices of quarrel taking place near the jhuggi of her maternal uncle Mr. Bhiku @ Bheeke and the jhuggi of her maternal uncle is situated opposite to her jhuggi and accused   Jasbir   (since   declared   P.O)   was   quarreling   with   his brother Sukhbir outside the jhuggi of her maternal uncle. She has further   deposed   that   she  knows  accused  Jasbir   and  his  brother Sukhbir as they reside in her neighbourhood and accused Jasbir also started abusing to her maternal uncle Mr. Bheeke, who was sitting   in   his   rickshaw.   She   has  further   deposed  that  she   heard these voices, when she was present in her jhuggi and on hearing the   voices,   she   and   her   sister   Ms.   Sangeeta   went   to   the   spot, where accused Jasbir was abusing to her maternal uncle.  She has further deposed that she saw that accused Jasbir attacked on her SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 63 of 78 State Vs. Rahul maternal   uncle   with   a   lathi,   however,   her   maternal   uncle   saved himself and fled away and her aunty Ms. Kanta was staying in the jhuggi of her maternal uncle at that time.  She has further deposed that she came out from the jhuggi and started stopping accused Jasbir, however accused Jasbir hit lathi / danda on the head of her mausi Ms. Kanta. She has further deposed that she and her sister started   crying   and   raising   alarm   and   her   mother   Ms.   Phoolwati (since   deceased)   came   to   the   spot   and   when   her   mother intervened, accused Jasbir hit a danda on the head of her mother and  in  the  meantime accused Rahul @ Tinku also came to the spot and he and his brother Jasbir both started beating her mother with dandas. She has further deposed that some one had informed the police and police also reached after sometime. Police took her mother and her mausi Ms. Kanta to the hospital and again said her uncle   (mausa)   Mr.   Ram   Babu   had   also   suffered   injuries,   as   he came   out   and   accused   Jasbir   gave   beatings   to   him   also   with danda. She has further deposed that her uncle Mr. Ram Babu was also taken to the hospital and her   mother was declared dead by the doctors in the hospital. Accused Rahul @ Tinku was correctly identified by this witness in the court and deposed that accused Rahul @ Tinku is the brother of accused Jasbir and used to reside in   her   neighbourhood   and   he   and   his   brother   Jasbir   had   given beatings to her mother.  She   had   correctly   identified   the   clothes which   were   worn   by   her   mother   Ms.   Phoolwati   at   the   time   of SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 64 of 78 State Vs. Rahul incident.  The  saree  as Ex. P­1, the blouse as Ex. P­2 and one petticoat as Ex. P­3 and one long wooden danda Ex.P­4  and the long bamboo danda as Ex. P­5 and then, the Ld. Addl. P.P. had sought permission to ask a leading question witness to clarify as to whether accused Rahul @ Tinku also gave beatings to Ms. Kanta and   Mr. Ram Babu. After hearing the Ld. APP for the State, he was allowed to ask leading question, during which, this witness has stated that Yes, it is correct that accused Rahul @ Tinku along with his brother Jasbir also gave beatings to Ms. Kanta and Mr. Ram Babu besides to her mother Ms. Phoolwati. This witness was also cross   examined   by   ld.   Counsel   for   accused.   During   her   cross­ examination, she has deposed that a water pipe is installed near the jhuggi of Sukhbir and her mother fell down after sustaining the danda blow on her head, which was caused by accused Jasbir. She has further deposed that accused Jasbir started beating her other   family   members,   when   her   mother   had   fallen   due   to   the danda   blow.   She   has   further   deposed   that   she   and   her   sister intervened   to   save   Ms.   Kanta   and   Mr.   Ram   Babu.   She   did   not sustain any injury during the incident. She has further deposed that her mausi Ms. Kanta sustained injuries on the head as accused Jasbir hit a danda and   Mr. Ram Babu sustained injuries on his forehead and hand.  She has further deposed that accused Jasbir fled away from the spot after the incident and accused Rahul @ Tinku was already present at the spot, when accused Jasbir fled SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 65 of 78 State Vs. Rahul away from the spot and she does not know, if accused Rahul @ Tinku sustained injuries on his head during the incident and after sustaining of injuries by Ms. Kanta and Mr. Ram Babu, she went to see her mother, where she was lying on the road. She has further deposed that at that time, her mother was not able to speak and she could not try to give water to her mother for drinking as foam (jhaag)   was  oozing   out from  her  mouth and her  father  took her mother to hospital in the vehicle of police.   She has denied that accused Rahul @ Tinku reached at the spot after occurrence of the   incident   or   that   she   and   her   other   family   members   gave beatings to accused Rahul @ Tinku as his brother Jasbir had fled away from the spot after the incident or that she was not present at the   spot   or   that   for   this   reason   she   did     not   sustain   any   injury during   the   incident   or   that   she   has   deposed   falsely.     Thus   this witness has also alleged that it is the accused Jasbir (PO) who had given danda blows on the head of Phoolwati (since deceased) and Ms.Kanta (PW8/complainant) and thus, testimony of this witness is also  found to  be  inconsistent with the testimony of complainant. Since this witness during her cross­examination has admitted that her mother Phoolwati fell down on the earth after the danda blow given by accused Jasbir, so, from such testimony of this witness, it is clear that the injury on the head of Phoolwati was attributed to the accused Jasbir (PO) and this witness has also deposed in her examination in chief that accused Jasbir hit a danda on the head of SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 66 of 78 State Vs. Rahul her   mother   Phoolwati   and   in   the   meantime,   accused   Rahul   @ Tinku also came at the spot. Meaning thereby, this accused Rahul @ Tinku is alleged to have come at the spot after infliction of injury by accused Jasbir (PO) on the head of Phoolwati and Phoolwati is alleged to have been expired in view of the fatal blow alleged to have been caused on the head of the deceased, so, the intention cannot be attributed to this accused Rahul @ Tinku common with accused Jasbir (PO) in causing the said fatal injury on the head of the   deceased   and   since   from   the   testimony   of   PW20   and postmortem report, it is clear that deceased had suffered only one external   injury   and   internal   injuries   suffered   by   her   were consequent   to   the   one   external  injury,   which   is   alleged   to   have been caused by the accused Jasbir (PO) and since the testimony of this witness is found to be inconsistent with the testimonies of PW8 Kanta and also Ram Babu (PW­15), so the testimony of this witness also appears to be suspicious, so the same does inspire any confidence therein.

37. Whereas, Mr. Kali Charan has been examined as PW12 who has deposed that on 22.03.2014, he went to mortuary BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri and he had identified the dead body of his wife Ms. Phoolwati in the mortuary and his statement Ex.PW12/A regarding   identification   of   the   dead   body   of   Ms.   Phoolwati   was recorded.   He has further deposed that after the post mortem, he SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 67 of 78 State Vs. Rahul received  the  dead  body of his wife vide receipt Ex.PW7/B. This witness was cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused. During his cross examination, he has deposed that he  was present in his house at the time of incident and he did not come outside of his house, when quarrel was allegedly going on. 

38. Dr. Bhim Singh, Professor (Forensic Medicines), Subharti Medical College, Meerut, UP has been examined as PW 20, who has deposed that on 22.03.2014, he was posted at BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi as Incharge Mortuary and on that day, he had conducted   postmortem   examination   on   the   dead   body   of Phoolwati,   aged   about   35   years   female   brought   by   Inspector Rajesh Kumar of PS Shalimar Bagh Delhi with alleged history of declared   brought   dead  on 21.03.2014 at 6:30PM  with history of assault. On external examination, he had found following external injury:

i).  Lacerated wounds, 5 cm X 1cm into bone deep over left parieto­temporal region of head.

On internal examination, he had found following injuries:

i).  Extra vexation of blood was present below injury no.1 as   described   in   external   injury   in   scalp   tissues   with   opening   of coronal and saggital sutures.

ii).     Brain   shows   diffused   sub­dural   hemorrhage,   sub­ arachnoid hemorrhage in left cerebral hemisphere with edema of brain.

SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 68 of 78 State Vs. Rahul He   has   further   deposed   that   all   other   organs   were intact and after postmortem examination, he had opined that death was   due   to   cranio­cerebral   damage,   consequent   upon   external head injury and all the injuries were ante­mortem, fresh in duration and   caused   by   hard   blunt   object.   He   has   further   deposed   that injuries  were   sufficient   to cause  death in the  ordinary course of nature and time since death was around 18 hours. He has further deposed that after postmortem examination, he had handed over the   postmortem   report   along   with   13   inquest   papers,   clothes   of deceased   and   blood   in   gauze   piece   in   sealed   condition,   sealed with   sample   seal   of   department   to   the   IO   and   the   postmortem report   Ex.PX7.   He   has   further   deposed   that   he   had   also   given subsequent opinion on the request of the IO, on 28.03.2014 and he  had  received  an  application from  Inspector  Rajesh Kumar of police station Shalimar Bagh, Delhi vide letter No.883­R/SHO PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi along with postmortem report, MLCs bearing No.75515   &   75703   and   two   sealed   pullandas   duly   sealed   with seals of RK for subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence. He   has   further   deposed   that   on   opening   the   Pullanda   No.1,   he found one solid wooden danda having blood stains on one end and he had prepared the sketch of the same as Figure No.I. He has further deposed that on opening the Pullanda No.2, he had found holo bamboo danda having   blood stains and iron nails at three places.   The   same   were   described   in   Figure   No.II   and   after SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 69 of 78 State Vs. Rahul examining   the   above   said   dandas,   he   opined   that   injuries mentioned   in   postmortem   report   No.250/14   and   MLCs     bearing No.75515   &   75703   could   be   possible   by   above   examined weapons, which are bamboo danda and wooden danda. He has further deposed that after examination, pullandas were re­sealed and handed over to the police with sample seal of department  and the subsequent opinion Ex.PX8. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. During his cross­examination, he has admitted to be correct that all the internal injuries were consequent to the one external injury caused to the deceased.

39. Thus from the testimony of this witness, it is clear that deceased Phoolwati had suffered only one external injury and two internal injuries were consequent to the one external injury, which is alleged to have been attributed in the complaint Ex.PW1/A, to the accused Jasbir (PO).

40. Since   the   charges   against   this   accused   were   framed and   charge   under   Section   302/34   IPC   was   framed   regarding murder of Phoolwati, charge 308/34, of IPC was framed regarding the injuries caused on the persons of Smt. Kanta (PW8) and Ram Babu (PW­15) and charge under Section 323/34 IPC was framed regarding the injuries alleged to have been caused on the persons of Dhan Devi, Sumitra and Kuldeep and the prosecution has failed SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 70 of 78 State Vs. Rahul to lead any cogent evidence to prove the charge u/s.302/34 IPC and  at the time of arguments, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has fairly admitted that the injury caused on the head of deceased Phoolwati was attributed to accused Jasbir (PO) and not pressed conviction of this accused Rahul @ Tinku u/s.302/34 IPC. Since, the injury on the head of the Phoolwati is attributed to the accused Jasbir (P.O.). As per complaint Ex.PW8/A, that injury was caused by Jasbir on the head of Phoolwati before arrival of Rahul @ Tinku at the spot, so, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove on record that this accused Rahul @ Tinku has committed the offence punishable u/s.302/34 IPC of murder of Phoolwati   or Rahul had any   common   intention   with   Jasbir   to   kill   Phoolwati.   The   charge under Section 323/34 IPC was also framed against accused Rahul regarding the injuries alleged to have been caused on persons of Dhan   Devi,   Sumitra   and   Kuldeep   but,   the   prosecution   has   not examined all these three injured  Dhan Devi, Sumitra and Kuldeep, so in the absence of any evidence of these alleged injured, I am inclined to hold that the proseuction has failed to prove on record that   this   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   had   committed   the   offence punishable   under   section   323/34   IPC.   The   charge   against   this accused under Section 308/34 IPC was also framed regarding the injuries   alleged   to   have   been   caused   on   the   persons   of   Kanta (PW8)/complainant and Ram Babu(PW­15).

SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 71 of 78 State Vs. Rahul

41.  Since   their   Lordship   of   High   Court   of   Delhi,   in   case 'Sheila   Devi   &   Ors.   v   State',   Crl.   Rev.   P.   217/15   decided   on 23.09.2015, was please to observe as under:

"In the instant case, both the parties were acquainted with each other and they lived as neighbours in the same vicinity. There   was   no   history   of   previous   animosity   or   hostility   between them. On 25.07.2012, a sudden quarrel took place between them on a trivial issue of raising alleged unauthorized toilet which was objected to by the complainant. Again on 26.07.2012, quarrel took place   between   them   on   the   said   issue.   In   the   said   quarrel,   the complainant sustained injuries on her forehead. MLC (Annexure­C) reveals   that   one   lacerated   wound   3'1   c.m.   was   found   on   the forehead of the victim. Injuries were 'simple' in nature caused by blunt   object.   The   victim   did   not   need   hospitalization   and   was discharged on the same day after prescribing certain medicines. Apparently, the injuries sustained by the victim were not sufficient to cause death in  the ordinary course of nature. The petitioners were not armed with any deadly weapons. Only a single blow was allegedly sustained by the victim when a brick was thrown at her by one of the petitioners in the quarrel that had taken place all of a sudden without premeditation. No serious injuries were caused on the vital organ of the victim. Under these circumstances, it cannot be  inferred that  injuries were inflicted with the avowed object or intention to cause death or bodily injury capable of causing death.

SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 72 of 78 State Vs. Rahul Merely because a superficial injury was found on the forehead of the victim, it cannot be said that such an injury was caused with the intention   to   commit   culpable   homicide.   The   material   before   the learned Trial Court was deficient to attract Section 308 IPC. It was a simple case of scuffle/ quarrel between the parties where injuries were   inflicted   voluntarily   and   for   that   the   assailants   can   be proceeded for causing hurt under Section 323 IPC."

42. In 'Rajiv Sharma v State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.', Crl. Rev. P. 34/2015 decided on 17.09.2015, Hon'ble High Court while setting aside charge under section 308 IPC observed as under:

"In the instant case, the complainant was residing as a tenant in premises in question under one Jyotsna Das. It appears that   subsequently   the   said   premises   were   purchased   by   the petitioners. Apparently, there was no previous animosity or hostility between   the   parties   before   the   incident.   It   is   alleged   that   the petitioners'   intention   was   to   get   the   tenanted   premises   vacated forcibly. No complaint, whatsoever, was lodged by the complainant against the petitioners before 22.02.2009. On that day too, both the parties were booked under Sections 107/150 Cr.P.C. Pradeep and complainant Ram Avtar Sharma sustained injuries 'simple' in nature on their bodies. They were medically examined at AIIMS soon after the quarrel and were discharged on the same day after SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 73 of 78 State Vs. Rahul prescribing certain medicines. The injuries were 'simple' in nature caused by a blunt object. None of the victims was found to have suffered   any   fracture.   Subsequently,   the   Investigating   Officer sought specific opinion from the concerned examining doctor who informed that the injuries sustained by Ram Avtar were "contusion on scalp, abrasion and swelling on left eye, swelling on lower lip and tenderness on our aspect of right eye." X­ray report mentions 'no fracture seen'. MLC pertaining to Pradeep mentions "lacerated wound   on   scalp   on   left   perital   region   2.5   cm,   swelling   and tenderness on left shoulder, contusion on left shoulder, abrasion of upper   lip,   abrasions   on   right   elbow."   X­ray   report   mentions   'no fracture seen'. He further informed that the injuries mentioned in both MLCs were possible in a fight. These were caused by blunt force/ weapon. All the injuries were 'simple' in nature and were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 

43. In order to convict an accused under Section 308 IPC, it is not essential that the injury actually caused to the victim should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act,   irrespective   of   its   result,   was   done   with   the   intention   or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if one by that act caused   death,   he   would   be   guilty   of   culpable   homicide   not amounting to murder. If an accused does not intend to cause death or any bodily injury, which he knows to be likely to cause death or SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 74 of 78 State Vs. Rahul even to cause  such bodily injury as is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, Section 308 IPC would not apply. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the   accused   had   the   intention   to   cause   death   or   knew   in   the circumstances that his act was going to cause death.

44. Since in the case in hand, the charge under Section 308/34 IPC was framed against this accused regarding the injuries alleged to have been caused on the persons of Kanta (PW8) and Shri Ram Babu (PW­15) and perusal of the complaint of Ms. Kanta Ex.PW8/A,   reveals  that  this  witness had  attributed injury on her head to the accused Jasbir (PO) but at the time of recording of her testimony   in   the   court,   she   has   alleged   that   accused   Rahul   @ Tinku had given danda blow on her head. No any other specific injury has been attributed to accused Rahul @ Tinku, when, she was examined in the court. So the possibility of inflicting of injury on the head of PW­8 Kanta by accused Jasbir (P.O) cannot be ruled out. The testimony of this witness PW8 is also found to be contradictory and inconsistent with the testimonies of prosecution witnesses - Bheeke (PW­7), Sangeeta (PW­10), Ranjana @ Rajni (PW­11) and if the testimony of Bheeke is looked into, then he has deposed that none of her family member was present at the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence, so the presence of the alleged eye witnesses at the spot become suspicious and testimony of the SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 75 of 78 State Vs. Rahul alleged   eye   witnesses   become   doubtful.   Ram   Babu   has   been examined as PW­15. His testimony is also found to be improved, contradictory   and   inconsistent   with   the   testimonies   of   other material   witnesses   and   since,  this   court   has   observed   that   the testimonies of the prosecution witness Kanta, Ram Babu, Bheeke, Sangeeta, Ranjana are found to be inconsistent to the contents of the   complaint   Ex.PW8/A  and contradictory  to  each other  on the material   points   as   discussed   hereinabove   and   injuries   on   the person of Kanta and Ram Babu are found to be simple. In view of material   contradictions,   inconsistency   and   suspicion   in   the testimonies   of   PW7,   PW8,   PW10,   PW11   and   PW15,   and   their testimonies   do   not   inspire   any   confidence.   As   they   are   also relatives of each other and if the testimonies of these alleged eye witnesses are looked into, then, many public persons had come at the spot at the time of alleged occurrence. But, IO has failed to make   sincere   efforts   for   recording   the   statement   of   any   of   the independent witness for the best reason known to him.

45. As   their   lordship   of   Supreme   Court   in   case  State   of Rajasthan   V.   Raja   Ram,   V   (2003)   SLT   45­III   (2003)   CCR   198 (SC)=(2003) 8 SCC 180 was pleased to hold that:

46. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the   order   of   acquittal   shall   not   be   interfered   with   because   the SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 76 of 78 State Vs. Rahul presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by   acquittal.   The   golden   thread   which   runs   through   the   web   of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case, where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not (see Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P., (2002) 4 SCC 85). The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the   judgment   of   acquittal   is   to   interfere   only   when   there   are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment   is   clearly   unreasonable,   it   is   a   compelling   reason   for interference.   These   aspects   were   highlighted   by   this   Court   in Shivaji Sahabrao Badade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC

793.

47. Thus the testimonies of the material witnesses of the prosecution   are   found   to   be   contradictory,   inconsistent, SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh page 77 of 78 State Vs. Rahul embellished and doubtful.

48. In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to hold that it will be unsafe to convict   to the accused, as there are so many   infirmities,   holes   and   lacunae   in   the   version   of   the prosecution as discussed hereinabove. Since doubts are also there in   the   version   of   witnesses   of   the   prosecution   and   benefits   of doubts are given to the accused. Therefore,  I am inclined to hold that   the   prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   it's   case   beyond reasonable   doubt   against   this   accused   Rahul   @   Tinku   that   this accused   has   committed   the   offences   punishable   under   Section 302/34,   308/34   and   323/34   IPC.   Accordingly,   accused   Rahul   @ Tinku is acquitted of the charges framed against him and as per provision of Section 437­A of Cr.P.C, the accused Rahul @ Tinku is directed to furnish bail bonds in a sum of Rs. 30,000/­ with one surety   of   like   amount   for   a   period   of   six   months   to   ensure   his attendance and appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate Court, if so required. 

49. File be consigned to the Record Room on filing of the bail bonds / surety bonds.  PAWAN Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR MATTO KUMAR Date:

                                                    MATTO        2018.07.04
                                                                 17:09:25 +0530
Announced in the open court            (PAWAN KUMAR MATTO)    
today i.e. on 11.07.2018                 Special Judge (NDPS)
                                Additional Sessions Judge(N­W)
                                        Rohini, Delhi / 11.07.2018



SC No.51937/16, FIR No.274/14, PS Shalimar Bagh                   page 78 of 78