Delhi District Court
State vs . : 1) Amar Nath Singh Yadav on 19 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF ASJ/PILOT COURT/NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No:509/17
FIR No. : 287/17
U/s : 302 IPC
P.S. : Bhalaswa Dairy
State Vs. : 1) Amar Nath Singh Yadav
S/o Sh. Rambir Singh Yadav
R/o 747, Gali No.10, G-Block,
Shardhanand Colony, Bhalaswa
Dairy, Delhi.
Offence complained of : 302 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of committal : 23.08.2017
Date of Judgment : 19.03.2018
JUDGMENT
1. On 05.05.2017 Maharaj @ Amarnath Singh Yadav went to the house of Zareena at about 8.00 or 8.30 pm. He told Zareena that yesterday he had a quarrel with Prahlad and that he would not leave Prahlad. Zareena was knowing Prahlad as he was resident of Shradhanand Colony. After some time Maharaj left the house of Zareena in a fit of anger. Zareena tried to pacify him but he did not agree. When Maharaj left, Zareena followed her maintaining distance of about 15-20 steps as she was fearing that Maharaj may give swear beating to Prahlad. At about 9.30/9.45 pm Prahlad State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 1 ::
was seen coming from the side of 30 feet road. Maharaj started quarreling with Prahlad. Maharaj took out a knife and gave three four knife blows to Prahlad. Prahlad fell down on the ground. PCR van removed the injured to hospital. Doctor declared the injured brought dead. The FIR No. 287/17 was registered. Accused was arrested. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed. Ld. MM after complying with the provisions of Section 207 CRPC committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offence punishable under section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
2. Accused was charged for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined twenty witnesses.
4. Dr, N.K. Gunjan was examined as PW1. He conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Prahlad on 07.05.2017. He opined that the cause of death in this case is Haemorrhage, as a result of stab injury to the abdomen, produced by a sharp cutting/stabbing instrument. Injury No. 4 and 6 are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. After post-mortem the blood sample in gauze piece, State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 2 ::
clothes and Blood in Sodium Fluoride for chemical analysis were preserved, sealed with the seal of NKG FMT BJRM HOSPITAL and handed over to the police with sample seal. He proved the post-mortem report as EX PW1/A. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontrovrted.
5. Dr. V.K.Jha was examined as PW2. He deposed that on 05.05.2017 Prahlad S/o Sh. Rakesh, Aged about 22 years male was brought to casualty of BJRM hospital. Prahlad was declared brought dead at 10.27 pm vide MLC EX PW2/A. The dead body was sent to mortuary for post-mortem examination. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontrovrted.
6. ASI Meer Singh was examined as PW3. On 06.05.2017 he was working as duty officer in police station Bhalaswa Dairy. He proved the copy of FIR as EX PW3/A, the endorsement on the rukka as EX PW3/B. He also proved the certificate under Section 65 Evidence Act as EX PW3/C. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness during his cross-examination.
7. Ct. Sandeep was examined as PW4. On 05.05.2017 he was working as DD writer in PS Bhalswa Dairy. On that day at about 09.53 pm he received information from wireless operator that, "chaku mar diya hai, gali no. 10, F-Block, State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 3 ::
Shradhanand Colony". He passed on this information to ASI Vinod. ASI Vinod along with Ct. Rajnish left for the spot. He recorded DD No. 75B and proved the certified copy of the same as EX PW4/A.
8. During cross-examination he denied the suggestion that no such information was received by him or that he did not record the DD No. 75B.
9. HC Sikander was examined as PW5. He was working as MHC(M). He proved the entries in register no. 19 as EX PW5/A to EX PW5/C. He proved the entries in register no. 21 as EX PW 5/D and EX PW5/E. He also proved the acknowledgements of FSL as EX PW5/F and PW5/G. He also deposed that during the period exhibits remained in his possession no one tampered with the same. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness during his cross- examination.
10. ASI Manoj was examined as PW6. He was photographer in the Mobile Crime team, which visited the scene of crime. He took nine photographs of the scene of crime from different angles. He proved the photographs as EX PW6/A-1 to EX PW6/A-9. The CD is proved as EX PW6/B. The Certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act is proved as EX PW6/C. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontrovrted.
State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 4 ::
11. SI Manjur Alam was examined as PW7. He was in- charge of Mobile Crime Team, which visited the scene of crime. He inspected the scene of crime and prepared the report EX PW7/A. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontrovrted.
12. Inspector Manohar Lal was examined as PW8. He proved the Scaled Site Plan of the place of occurrence as EX PW8/A. During cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he did not visit the scene of crime or took any measurements or prepared rough notes.
13. Ms. Zareena was examined as PW9. She deposed that about 5-6 months ago on 5 th at about 8-8.30 PM, she was going to her house after purchasing vegetables from weekly market i.e. shani bazar. She noticed that many public persons had gathered at 30 foota road. She also stopped at the said place in order to see what is going on. She noticed that some persons were quarreling but she was not knowing who were those persons. She went home thereafter. Next day in the morning police reached her home and made inquiries from her.
14. She was cross-examined by Ld. APP wherein she deposed that she knows accused Mehraj @ Amarnath Singh Yadav who is a resident of their locality. She also correctly identified the accused. She does not know any person by the State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 5 ::
name of Prahlad and had not seen any person by the name of Prahlad in their locality. Accused Mehraj used to drink liquor and take drugs. She denied the suggestion that accused Mehraj visited her house on 05.05.2017 at about 8- 8.30 PM and told her that he had quarreled with Prahlad or that today he would not leave him(Prahlad) or that the accused started abusing Prahlad and left her house or that she followed the accused upto 15-20 steps in order to make him understand and not quarell with Prahlad or that at the same time Prahlad was seen coming on the 30 foota road or that at about 9.30-9.45 PM, she saw accused Mehraj started quarreling with Prahlad or that accused Mehraj pulled out a knife and started stabbing indiscriminately 3-4 times on the body of Prahlad who fell down on the ground or that accused Mehraj ran away from the said place or that she also become afraid of this sudden incident or that she went to her house and did not tell anyone about the incident she was confronted with her statement EX PW9/A. She also denied the suggestion that accused was arrested on her identification.
15. Ms. Aarti was examined as PW 10. She deposed that on 05.05.2017 at about 5.45 PM, she was present at her house. On that day her brother Prahlad reached at her house and met her. After 5 minutes her brother Prahlad left the State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 6 ::
home. She asked her brother as to where he is going. Prahlad replied that he is going to purchase food for his wife. At about 9.05 PM two boys came to her house on motorcycle and informed her that quarrel is taking place with her brother Prahlad. She along with those two motorcycle riders reached at the spot i.e. Gali no.10 on their motorcycle. Her brother was lying on a heap of rodi. She picked up her brother Prahlad and asked as to who gave beating to him. Her brother Prahlad replied "behan mujhe bacha lo" and he said that "Jaggi aur unke bhai aur maa". She stated that her brother was telling the name of a person starting with letter "maa". Thereafter police vehicle reached there. She with the help of police officials lifted her brother Prahlad from the spot and taken to BJRM hospital. The doctor after examining him declared brought dead.
16. On 07.05.2017, she identified the dead body of her brother Prahlad in BJRM hospital. Her statement in this regard is Ex. PW10/A. After postmortem she received the dead body vide memo Ex. PW10/B.
17. In answer to a leading question put by Ld. APP she stated that she had not given any such statement to the police doubting Arun and his brother in the murderr of her brother Prahlad.
18. During cross-examination by defence she deposed State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 7 ::
that she was present in the police station but police had not recorded her statement on her version. Police had offered her Rs. Five lacs. Police has not recorded the statement of those two boys who were riding on motorcycle and came to her house.
19. SI Harish Chander Pathak was examined as PW11. He deposed that on 09.06.2017, he generated PCR form no. 05MAY171440640 dated 05.05.2017, landing time 21:46:51 and dispatch time 21:48:15 from mobile no.7557651903 at extention no.144. He issued certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act which is Ex. PW11/A. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
20. Ct. Krishan Kumar was examined as PW 12. He deposed that on 05.05.2017, he was working at extention no. 144 at CPCR PHQ. He received information from mobile no. 7557651903 that "ek ladke ko kisi ne chaku maar diya hai"
gali no.10 ke bahar G Block Shardanand Colony. He fed the content of the same in PCR form no.05MAY171440640 dated 05.05.2017, landing time 21:46:51 and dispatch time 21:48:15 from mobile no.7557651903. The PCR form is proved as Ex. PW12/A.
21. SI Rohtash Singh was examined as PW 13. He deposed that on 05/06.05.2017, he was working in PCR Commandor 68 from 8 PM to 8.00 AM. At about 2.52 PM a State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 8 ::
call was received from the Control Room that from mobile no. 7557651903 information is received that "ek ladke ko kisi ne chaku maar diya hai gali no.10 ke bahar G Block Shardanand Colony". He recorded the same in wireless and log diary. At about 9.57 PM they reached at the spot and at 10.07 PM they reached at BJRM hospital. At 10.16 PM, he recorded and informed to Control Room that injured Prahlad was unconscious and his sister Aarti was with them who revealed the name of injured. The injured was admitted in the BJRM hospital in the custody of Duty HC Ashok and doctor declared him brought dead. There were stab wounds on the left side as well as on the right side on the body of Prahlad.
He also deposed that Aarti sister of injured told them that the injured was telling the name of Arun. The copies of the wireless log and diary of PCR is Ex. PW13/A running into 3 pages. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontriverted.
22. Ct. Rajnish was examined as PW 14. He deposed that in the intervening night of 5/6.05.17 at about 9.55 PM ASI Vinod received DD no.75B. He along with SI Vinod reached at gali no.10, 30 foota road, G Block, Shardhanand colony, Bhalswa Dairy. On the spot they came to know that injured had been removed by PCR van to BJRM hospital. Beat HC Rohtash was left at the spot. He along with IO reached at State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 9 ::
BJRM hospital. No eye witness was found at the spot. In the hospital IO collected the MLC of injured Prahlad, who was declared brought dead. IO prepared an application for preserving the dead body of deceased Prahlad in the mortuary. He removed the dead body to the mortury.
23. On 07.05.17 IO came to the mortuary of BJRM hospital where he prepared inquest documents for the post mortem. The dead body was identified by Aarti and Naveen and their statements were recorded. After post-mortem dead body was handed over to the relatives of deceased. The hospital/doctor handed over one envelope and one polythene duly sealed with the seal of hospital along with sample seal which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW-14/A.
24. Doctor/hospital handed over one vial containing the blood duly sealed along with sample seal which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW-14/B. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
25. Ct. Ram Swaroop was examined as PW 15. He deposed that on 11.05.2017 he joined the investigation with inspt. Satish and HC Karam Singh. They all left in search of the accused as IO had received a phone call from Zareena who informed that accused Amarnath would come to his house at about 8.30-8.45 PM. They all reached in gali no.8, G-block, Shradhanand Colony at about 8.15 PM. Zareena State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 10 ::
met them there. She was joined in the team. One boy was seen coming in the street and pointed out by Zareena as accused. On the identification and pointing out of Zareena, accused Amarnath was apprehended. Accused was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A. The personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/A.
26. The accused was brought to PS. The accused was interrogated by the IO and his disclosure statement Ex.PW15/B was recorded. The accused led them near gandanala bridge towards the bushes and produced one blood stained knife to the IO. The IO prepared sketch Ex.PW15/C of the knife. The knife was wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of SK vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/D. The accused led them to the scene of crime and pointed out the same vide pointing out memo Ex.PW15/E. He correctly identified the accused. He identified the knife as Ex.PW15/Article 1.
27. During cross-examination by the defence counsel he stated that they left the PS at 8.00 PM. The distance between gali no.8 and PS is about 1 - 1.5 km. 8-10 public persons were passing from the gali when they met Zareena. IO did not ask those public persons to become witness. 15- 20 public persons gathered when the accused was State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 11 ::
apprehended. He does not know if the IO made any of those public persons a witness. After about 30 minutes since the apprehension of the accused, he was taken to the PS. Zareena did not accompany them to PS. The personal search and arrest memo were prepared in gali no.8 while standing. It took 45 minutes in recording the disclosure statement in the PS. They remained in PS for about 45 minutes to an hour.
28. The distance between the gandanala and PS is about half km. They reached gandanala in ERV. Many public persons were present near the place of recovery. IO did not ask any public person to join the investigation. There were blood stains on the knife. He does not remember if IO filled the CFSL Form on the spot. IO only prepared the sketch of the knife and sealed the same in a white cloth. He did not sign the parcel of the knife. They remained at the place of recovery for about one or 1.5 hours. At the time of sealing of the knife, IO did not ask public persons to join. From the place of recovery they went to the spot. He does not know the time of preparing pointing out memo. IO requested public person to join the investigation. They returned to the PS at about 1.00 midnight.
29. HC Karam Singh was examined as PW 16. He corroborated the testimony of PW15 regarding arrest of State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 12 ::
accused, the recovery of knife at the instance of accused and pointing out of the place of occurrence.
30. He also deposed that on 19-06-2017 on the direction of the IO, he took five pullandas/exhibits and samples seals from MHC(M) for depositing the same in FSL vide RC No.157,158/21/17. He deposited the same and obtained the acknowledgement and copy of Road Certificate from FSL.
He returned to the PS and handed over to MHC(M) the acknowledgement and copy of RC. During the period the exhibits remained in his possession, no one tampered the same.
31. He correctly identified the accused. He also identified the knife as Ex.PW15/Article 1.
32. During cross-examination by the defence he deposed that they left the PS at about 8.00 PM. Zareena met them in street no.8 When they met Zareena 10-15 public persons were there in the street. IO did not ask any public person for joining the investigation. In his presence. 4- 5 persons gathered at the time of apprehension of accused. They remained In gali no.8 for about 30 minutes. IO prepared documents i.e. arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement in gali no.8. IO asked the public persons to become a witness in the present case but they refused showing their inability. They reached the PS at about State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 13 ::
8.45 PM. They remained in the PS for about 10 minutes.
33. The distance between the PS and gandanala is about 700-800 meter. It took them only 7-8 minutes to reach there. They reached at gandanala at about 9.00 PM. IO did not ask any public person to become a witness in the present case at the time of recovery. They stayed there for about 15 minutes. They returned to the PS at about 9.30 PM.
34. HC Rohtash was examined as PW 17. He deposed that on 05-05-17 after attending briefing, he was present in his beat. At about 9.55 PM, one public person informed him that one person had been stabbed in the gali no.10, G-block, Shradhanand Colony. He reached at the spot where ASI Vinod and Ct. Rajneesh met him. PCR van had already removed the injured to the hospital. Blood was lying at the spot. No eye-witness was present at the scene of crime. ASI Vinod with Ct. Rajneesh left for BJRM hospital leaving him on the spot. At about 10.30-10.40 PM ASI Vinod came back to the spot. Crime-team also reached the spot. Crime-team inspected the scene of crime and photographer took the photographs. The blood was lifted with a cotton from the scene of crime, put in a plastic container, wrapped with a piece of cloth,sealed with the seal of VK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/A.
35. ASI Vinod prepared rukka and handed over to him at State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 14 ::
12.30 AM on 06-05-2017 for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and returned to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka. He presented the copy of FIR and original rukka to Inspector Satish Kumar who conducted further investigation.
36. During cross-examination by the defence counsel he deposed that he was in beat no.3. He cannot tell the name of the public person who informed him about the incident in F- block. The distance between F-block and gali no.10 G-block is about 2000 meters. He reached in gali no.10 at about 9.55 PM. He finally left the spot at about 1.30 AM. He received the rukka at about 12.30 AM and reached PS within 15 minutes. He remained in the PS for about 40-50 minutes.
37. ASI Vinod Kumar was examined as PW18. On the intervening night of 5/6.05.17 he was on emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM with Ct. Rajnish. On that day at about 9.55 PM, DD no.75B was marked to him. He along with Ct.Rajnish went to gali no.10, 30 foota road, G Block, Shardhanand colony, Bhalswa Dairy. They came to know that injured had been removed by PCR van to BJRM hospital. At the same time HC Rohtsh reached at the spot. He left HC Rohtash at the spot. He along with Ct. Rajnish went to BJRM hospital. No eye witness was found at the spot. In the hospital he collected the MLC of injured Prahlad, who was declared brought dead. He prepared an application for State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 15 ::
preserving the dead body of deceased Prahlad in the mortuary. Ct. Rajnish was appointed in the mortuary for taking guard of the dead body. He returned back to the spot. He called crime team at the spot. Crime team in-charge inspected the place of occurrence and prepared his report. Crime team photographer took the photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles. From the spot he lifted blood with the help of cotton gauze, kept the same in a plastic container. The container was sealed with the seal of VK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-17/A. He prepared rukka Ex.PW-18/A on DD no. 75 B. He handed over the rukka to HC Rohtash. HC Rohtas went to PS for getting the FIR registered. After the registration of FIR Inspector Satish and HC Rohtash reached at the spot. He handed over the said sealed pullanda and seizure memo to IO.
38. On 12.05.17 he accompanied witness Zareena, ASI Runa Rathore and IO Inspector Satish Kumar to the place of occurrence where IO prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of Zareena.
39. During cross-examination by the defence he denied the suggestion he had not prepared any rukka at the spot or that he had not visited the spot. He denied the suggestion that ante time or ante dated FIR was lodged. He also denied the suggestion that he had not lifted any exhibit from the State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 16 ::
spot.
40. Sh. Bablu Yadav was examined as PW 19. He deposed that he does the work of POP. On 05.05.17 after finishing his work at Rohini, he was returning to his home. At about 10 PM when he reached at the corner of the street, where his house is situated, he found a person lying on the road and was bleeding. Many public persons were standing there. He made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone no.7557651903. He told the police that a person is lying and is bleeding. After 2-3 minutes police reached there and removed the injured from there in PCR van. One girl also accompanied the injured who reached the spot later on. He had not talked with that boy.
41. The witness was cross-examined by the Ld. APP wherein he denied the suggestion that the said injured boy informed him on his asking that, "Maharaj naam ke ladke se mera jhagda ho gaya tha jisne mujhe chaku maar diya hai" or that after 2-3 minutes the said injured boy become unconscious. He denied the suggestion that he knows Meharaj, who is resident of the same locality or that he narrated these facts to Inspector Satish Kumar on 20.10.17.
He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW-19/A.
42. During cross-examination by the defence counsel he deposed that he had not brought any document to show that State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 17 ::
mobile phone no.7557651903 was issued in the name of his mother Amrawati.
43. Inspector Satish Kumar was examined as PW 20. He is IO of the case. He deposed that in the intervening night of 5/6.05.17 ASI Vinod along with Ct.Rajnish went to gali no.10, 30 foota road, G Block, Shardhanand colony, Bhalswa Dairy, where they came to know that injured had been removed by PCR van to BJRM hospital and HC Rohtash was left at the spot. Thereafter they went to BJRM hospital where no eye witness was found at the spot. In the hospital, MLC of injured Prahlad was obtained by ASI Vinod and Prahlad was declared brought dead. ASI Vinod got preserved the dead body of deceased Prahlad in the mortuary. Ct. Rajnish was deputed in the said hospital/mortuary for taking guard of the dead body. Thereafter ASI Vinod returned back to the spot. ASI Vinod had called crime team at the spot. He reached at the spot with staff where he met ASI Vinod, who apprised him the facts of the case. Crime team incharge inspected the place of occurrence and prepared his report. Crime team photographer took the photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles. He corroborated the statement of ASI Vinod regarding lifting of blood from the spot and seizure of the same. After the registration of FIR, HC Rohtash handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 18 ::
him.
44. He also deposed that on 06.05.17 secret informer met him in the PS and revealed that the incident was seen by Zareena. He went to the house of Ms. Zareena and recorded her statement under Sec.161 Cr.PC.
45. On 07.05.17 he went to BJRM hospital, Mortuary where he prepared inquest papers for post mortem. The dead body was identified by Aarti and Naveen. He recorded their statements in this regard. After post mortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives. He moved application for autopsy Ex.PW-20/A. He proved the inquest papers collectively as Ex.PW-20/B. After the post mortem doctor handed over the sealed parcels along with sample seal which he seized vide memo Ex.PW-14/A and PW-14/B. He returned to the PS and deposited the case property in the malkhana.
46. He also corroborated the testimonies of PW 15 and PW 16 regarding arrest of accused, the disclosure statement of accused, the recovery of knife and pointing out by the accused.
47. He also deposed that on 12.05.17 he along with Zareena reached the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW- 20/C at the instance of Zareena. He also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of knife on 11.05.17 which is State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 19 ::
Ex.PW-20/D.
48. On 11.07.17 he along with Inspector Manohar Lal visited the scene of crime, who prepared the rough notes and took measurements on the scene of crime at his instance. Inspector Manohar Lal prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW- 8/A and handed over to him.
49. He sent the exhibits to FSL through Ct. He collected the results from FSL and also the case property. He placed the FSL results Ex.PW-20/E and PW-20/E on the file. After completion of investigation he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court. He correctly identified the accused. He also identified the knife as Ex.15/Article1.
50. During cross-examination by the defence he deposed that he left the police station at 11.30 pm on 05.05.2017 and reached at spot at about 12.30 am. There is a distance of 2 kms in between police station and spot. On the spot he met with HC Rohtash, ASI Vinod and other staff whose name he does not remember. He remained at the spot for 2 hours and finally left the spot at 2.00/2.30 am. The place of occurrence is surrounded by residential area. He admitted that there are shops near the place of occurrence. He does not know if the shops near the spot remain open till 10.00 p.m. daily. He made inquiries from the residents of nearby houses but none was aware of the incident. He received the copy of FIR and State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 20 ::
rukka at about 1.30 am.
51. On 06.05.2017 he received secret information from secret informer personally in the PS at about 6.00 am. He first time met Zareena only on 06.05.2017. He does not recollect the complete address of Zareena but she is resident of Shradhanand colony, Bhalswa Dairy. At about 6.30 am he along with Lady const. reached at the house of Zareena in his private car. He does not remember the name of the lady constable who accompanied him. He did not record the statement of said lady constable.
52. On 11.05.2017 he received information from Zareena personally with regard to accused at about 7.00 pm. Zareena came to the police station and informed him. She left the police station at 8.00 pm. At about 8.15 pm he along with HC Karam Singh and Ct. Ram Swaroop reached in gali no. 8. At about 9.30/9.45 pm he left gali no. 8 for police station. Zareena also left gali no. 8 about 10 minutes prior to his leaving the said gali. In gali no. 8 he prepared arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement which were signed by him and police staff, however, Zareena only put her thumb impression on arrest memo.
53. They reached the PS at about 10.00 pm and made the DD entry. He does not remember the number of that DD. They remained at PS for 20 minutes and left the PS for State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 21 ::
recovery of knife. The ganda nala is situated about ½ km from police station. They reached ganda nala in his car at about 10.35/10.40 pm and remained there for about 40 minutes. He admitted that there is a through fare near the ganda nala. He request public persons to join but none agreed. They returned to the PS at about 11.30 pm.
54. Thereafter the prosecution evidence was closed. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC wherein he denied the entire evidence. He wished to lead evidence in defence. Thereafter the case was fixed for defence evidence.
55. Renu was examined as DW 1. She is the mother of accused. She deposed that about one year ago five police personal reached at her house. Two police personal were in uniform and other three were in civil clothes. Her son Amar Nath was taken away by the police. She went to police station Bhalaswa Dairy. Police informed that her son is arrested in murder case. She has not filed any complaint that her son was falsely implicated.
56. During cross-examination by Ld. APP she deposed that she knew Zareena who is residing in their locality in Gali No.10. Zareena is running a general store and she used to visit her shop to make purchases. She does not know any female by the name of Aarti. She denied the suggestion that State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 22 ::
her son was not lifted from the house or that her son was caught from gali No.8 G-block Shradanand colony. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely being mother of accused.
57. Thereafter the accused closed his defence evidence. The case was fixed for final arguments.
58. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State but could not hear the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused. I have perused the record.
59. In this case there was one eye witness Zareena. According to the story of prosecution she witnessed the incident. She was examined as PW-9. She did not support the prosecution case at all. She stated that she has not witnessed the incident wherein Prahlad was stabbed. He stated that she had seen a quarrel which was going on between 4-5 persons and thereafter she returned home. She knew accused Amar Nath Singh Yadav, but she did not say anything about the incident. There is no other eye witness who can link the accused with the commission of offence. As the only eye witness has not supported the prosecution case therefore, in my opinion on this ground prosecution has failed to link the accused with the commission of offence.
60. The prosecution also alleges that deceased made a dying declaration before his death that Amar Nath Singh State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 23 ::
Yadav caused injuries on his person. In this regard Babloo Yadav PW-19 was examined. He stated that when he was returning home and reached at the corner of street No.10, he saw a person lying on the road and bleeding. Many persons were there. He made a call at 100 number. He was cross- examined by Ld. APP but he did not support the prosecution case. He stated that he had no conversation with the injured. Injured did not tell him anything about the incident. Therefore, the witness of dying declaration i.e. Babloo Yadav had not stated that deceased made any dying declaration before him.
61. The other witness is PW-10 Ms. Arti. She is the sister of deceased. She stated that she reached the spot after getting information from two boys who came on the motorcycle. Babloo Yadav PW-19 also stated that she reached there on the spot lateron. She deposed that when she reached the spot and asked her brother as to who gave beatings to him her brother told him that "Jaggi aur unke Bhai aur maa". She deposed that his brother wanted to say some name starting letter by 'M' It is important to note that one name of the accused is Maharaj also. But no such inference can be drawn from this statement that deceased wanted to utter the word Maharaj by the letter 'M' and not any other name.
State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 24 ::
62. It is also important to note that the deceased was removed to hospital by SI Rohtash Singh examined as PW-
13. He was the commander of the PCR Van who reached the spot after getting information. He deposed that on the way to the hospital Aarti PW-10 told him that her brother told her that it was Arun who stabbed him. Keeping in view this testimony of PW-13 it is clear that PW-10 told PW-13 that one Arun was behind the murder of her brother whereas in the court she stated that it was Jaggi aur his brother who caused injuries to him and one person whose name was starting with letter 'M'. Keeping in view this contradictory testimony of PW-10 and PW-13 and also that from the letter 'M' there can be so many names and not only Maharaj. In my opinion it is not safe to reach the conclusion that it was only accused who stabbed the deceased. The onus which was upon the prosecution to prove and establish that deceased made any dying declaration naming the accused as the person who caused injuries to him resulting into his death has not been discharged.
63. In view of the above discussion and testimonies of PW-10, PW-13 and PW-19 in my opinion the prosecution has failed to show that there is any dying declaration made by the deceased pointing or linking the accused with the commission of offence i.e. his murder.
State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 25 ::
64. The third circumstance which prosecution want to prove against the accused is the recovery of knife i.e. weapon of offence with which the injuries on the person of deceased were caused. It is alleged that when the accused was arrested he got recovered the knife on 11.05.2017 from ganda nala. Prosecution in order to prove this circumstance has examined three witnesses, Ct. Ram Swaroop PW-15, HC Karam Singh PW-16 and Inspector Satish PW-20. This recovery was effected in pursuance to the disclosure statement made by accused as per these three witnesses. The knife was taken out from the bushes from the bank of the ganda nala by the accused and handed over to the IO who prepared the sketch of the same Ex.PW15/C. The knife was put in a cloth piece, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW15/D. Despite the fact that this recovery was effected from the public place, public persons were also present there as deposed by the witnesses, no public person was joined. Infact according to PW-15 and PW-16 IO did not ask any person to join investigation. Though PW-20 stated that he requested public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. This non joining of public witnesses and even not making any effort to join the public witness goes against the prosecution.
65. There are other contradictions also in the testimonies State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 26 ::
of these three witnesses which makes them highly unbelievable and improbable. According to PW-15 they reached there in Emergency Response Vehicle whereas according to PW-20 they reached there in his private car. According to PW-15 only the arrest memo and the personal search memo of accused was prepared on the spot whereas disclosure statement was recorded in the police station. According to PW-16 and PW-20 the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded on the spot. According to the PW- 15 they remained in the police station for about 45 minutes whereas according to PW15 they remained in the PS for only about 10 minutes. It is also important to note that according to PW-16 they reached the spot of recovery at about 9:00 pm whereas according to PW-20 they reached the place of recovery at about 10:35 or 10:40 pm. They also contradicted as to for how much time they remained on the place of recovery. According to PW-15 they remained at the place of recovery for about one and a half hour, PW-16 stated that they remained their for fifteen minutes and according to PW-20 they remained at the spot for about 40 minutes. They also contradicted as to at what time they returned to the police station.
66. According to PW-15 they returned to police station at about 1:00 am whereas according to PW-20 they returned to State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 27 ::
the police station at 11:30 pm. Keeping in view all these contradictions in the testimonies of all these three witnesses who are only witnesses of recovery in my opinion the recovery of knife itself becomes doubtful. Under the circumstances as the recovery of knife itself is doubtful and also that there is no other circumstance established against the accused. The onus which was on the prosecution has not been discharged.
67. It is settled law as laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
"(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused".
68. Keeping in view this Judgment it is clear that if a case State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 28 ::
is based upon the circumstantial evidence then all the circumstances shall be proved and established beyond doubt the circumstances so establish shall point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances shall form a complete chain and shall point towards the guilt of the accused and at the same time shall also be inconsistent with any hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. In the present case the prosecution alleges only one circumstance i.e. the recovery of the knife that also is not established. The chain is not complete. It also does not point towards the guilt of the accused. Therefore, in my opinion prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond doubt. Accused is acquitted. He be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of like amount u/s 437A Cr.PC for a period of six months.
File be consigned to record room.Digitally signed by
VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
Date: 2018.03.19
BANSAL 12:35:01 +0530
Announced in the open court (VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL)
today on 19.03.2018 ASJ/Pilot Court/North District
Rohini Courts/New Delhi.
State Vs. Amar Nath Singh Yadav SC No.509/17 :: 29 ::