Delhi District Court
State vs Shiv Lal @ Lala S/O Sh. Jai Bhagwan on 18 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA: ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE03(NE): KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
SC No. 170/10
Unique ID No. 02402R0384532008
Date of institution:24.05.2008
Date of transfer: 12.03.2010
Date on which reserved for order:05.09.2012
Date of delivery of order:17.09.2012
State Vs Shiv Lal @ Lala s/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan
R/o C98, Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi110094.
FIR No. 37/08
PS Karawal Nagar
U/s 302 IPC
JUDGMENT:
1. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that the accused Shiv Lal was residing with his mother Vedwati, brother Pawan and deceased Mamta w/o Pawan at H. no. C98, Ankur Enclave, Karawal nagar, Delhi. The brother of the accused Shiv Lal was doing a private job while he did not do any work and used to frequently quarrel with his family. On 26.2.08 at about 6.15 pm FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 1/49 when Vedwati (mother of the accused) came back from the house of her devar Bhagmal (brother in law) who lived at Yamuna Vihar, the accused started quarreling with her on the ground why she had gone to the house of Bhagmal. When deceased Mamta (wife of his brother Pawan) intervened favouring Vedwati (her mother in law) and started speaking against him, the accused said 'Tu mere bari khilafat karti hai aaj tujhe he maza chakhata hoon' (you always oppose me, today I will teach you a lesson) and picked a kitchen knife lying there and stabbed her. After stabbing Mamta the accused left the scene of occurrence along with knife. When Vedwati raised alarm her neighbour Ashok Sharma came there and he made a call on 100 number. After receipt of the call DD no. No.12A was registered and it was assigned to ASI Habib Ahmed who alongwith Const. Ashok Kumar and Const. Jitender reached at the spot i.e. C98, Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar, Delhi and found the injured lying on the cycle rickshaw and she was bleeding from the wound in her stomach. He asked her regarding the incident and deceased disclosed that her jeth Shiv Lal had stabbed her. In the meantime PCR also reached there FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 2/49 and injured was sent to GTB Hospital where she was declared 'brought dead'. The MLC of the deceased was collected. Statement of Vedwati (mother of the accused) was recorded. FIR was registered against the accused. Incharge crime team along with photographer reached the spot and inspected the spot. Photographs were taken and site plan was prepared. Blood concrete was also collected from the spot. IO also took the earth control. On a secret information the accused was arrested from nala road, Ankur Enclave and on his random search one kitchen knife was recovered from the right side pocket of his pants. IO prepared sketch of the knife. His bloodstained pants were taken into possession. Postmortem of the deceased was also carried out and thereafter her body was handed over to her relatives. The knife by which the deceased was stabbed was sent for subsequent opinion and the doctor opined that injury was possible by the given knife. The exhibits were sent to FSL and after completing other necessary formalities chargesheet was filed against the accused u/s 302 IPC.
2. The accused was charged for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. He abjured his guilt and trial was held.
FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 3/49
3. The prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in support of its case.
● The material prosecution witnesses are PW1 Vedwati (mother of the accused and mother in law of the deceased), PW3 Ashok Kumar Sharma and PW4 Poonam (both neighbours who immediately arrived at the spot after the incident took place).
● The medical evidence has been proved on record by PW8 Dr. P. Phukan who proved the MLC of the deceased prepared by Dr. Murtza A Khan vide Ex. Pw8/A. PW10 is Dr. Sumit Tellewar who conducted postmortem vide Ex. PW10/A. He was also asked to give his subsequent opinion if the death of the deceased was caused by the knife recovered from the accused. He prepared sketch of the knife vide Ex. PW10/B and his subsequent report is Ex. PW10/C. ● The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are police officials.
PW2 HC Ajit Singh is the duty officer who recorded DD no. 12A Ex. Pw2/A. He also recorded kayami DD no. 15A and made his endorsement on rukka vide Ex.PW2/A. He recorded FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 4/49 FIR Ex. PW2/C and also recorded DD no. 16A Ex. Pw2/B regarding completion of recording of FIR. PW5 Ct. Shyam Lal took photographs Ex. PW5/A to Ex. Pw5/D and the negatives are Ex. PW5/E to Ex. PW5/H. PW7 SI Mukesh Jain, draftsman prepared site plan Ex. Pw7/A. PW12 Inspector Rajesh Dogra Incharge Mobile crime team prepared the inspection report Ex. PW12/A. PW15 Ct. Ashok Kumar and PW13 HC Joginder accompanied ASI Habib Ahmed on receipt of DD no. 12A. PW9 Ct. Udai Bhan took the exhibits to FSL, Rohini vide road certificate Ex. PW9/A and acknowledgment receipt issued by the office of FSL is Ex. PW9/B. ● Two prosecution witnesses have been examined as PW14. For the sake of clarity PW14 HC Durvesh Kumar, MHC(M) shall be referred as Pw14A. PW11 SI Satender Pal accompanied PW14 Inspector Sukhbir Singh on 26.02.08 and accused was also apprehended in his presence. The knife was recovered from the possession of accused. On 30.4.08 he took knife pullanda to GTB hospital and requested for subsequent opinion vide Ex. Pw11/A. On 07.5.08 he collected cloth parcel containing clothes of the deceased and handed over same to the IO. He FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 5/49 identified the kitchen knife Ex. P1 and bloodstained pants of accused as Ex. P2. PW6 Habib Ahmed is the first IO of the case and PW14 Inspector Sukhbir Singh the then SHO PS Karawal Nagar took over investigation of the case from ASI Habib Ahmed and is the 2nd IO of the case and he has deposed about the manner in which the investigation was conducted.
4. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr PC wherein he denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence stating that he was falsely implicated in the present case and the police did not trace out the real culprit. He chose not to lead any defence evidence.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of Ld. Prosecutor and Mr. Dasa Ram, Amicus Curiae for the accused and gone through the entire record including the sworn testimony of the witnesses and the documents proved on record.
6. Let us scan the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses to see if the prosecution has been able to prove its case through the witnesses. PW1 Vedwati (mother of the accused and mother in law of the deceased) deposed that she FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 6/49 had been living at C98, Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar, Delhi along with her sons accused Shiv Lal, Pawan and deceased Mamta w/o Pawan. Her son Pawan was doing private service. While accused Shiv Lal was not doing any work and he used to quarrel with them. On 26.02.08 at about 6.00 PM when she came back from the house of her devar Bhagmal at Yamuna Vihar, accused Shiv Lal started quarreling with her on the ground why she had gone to the house of Bhagmal and started beating her. When deceased Mamta w/o Pawan tried to save her from the accused then accused stabbed her with a kitchen knife. Her neighbour Ashok was removing Mamta to the hospital and on the way PCR vehicle met and thereafter Mamta was taken to the hospital in the PCR van. She did not know whether Mamta expired on the way to the hospital or in the hospital. Police recorded her statement Ex. Pw1/A and she pointed out the place of occurrence to the police and site plan was prepared at her instructions. She identified the kitchen knife with which the accused stabbed deceased Mamta as Ex. P1. Her cross examination was deferred at the request of the Amicus Curiae Mr. Dasa Ram on 02.1.09. When the witness was examined on FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 7/49 31.1.09 she completely diverged from her previous statement stating that the accused did not stab Mamta with a knife in her presence. Someone told her that the knife injury came on the person of her daughter in law Mamta in a commotion. She did not go to the hospital. Police arrived at the spot and obtained her thumb impression on many papers. She put her thumb impression on the document Ex.Pw1/A at the instance of police. She did not know the contents of Ex. Pw1/A. Ex. PW1/A was not read over to her by the police. Wherever police officials asked her to put her thumb impression, she put her thumb impression. She was reexamined by Ld. Addl. PP in which only one question was put to her that whether the statement given by her in the court on 02.1.09 was a true statement and that on that day she had not lied in court. She answered that on 02.1.09 her statement was recorded at the instance of one Advocate who was present in the court.
7. PW3 Ashok Kumar Sharma testified that on 26.2.08 at about 6.20 PM when he was present at his house he heard loud noise. On hearing the same he came out from his house and saw that Vedwati w/o late Jai Bhagwan, her neighbour was crying FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 8/49 'Shiv Lal ne apni bhabhi ko chaku maar diya'. Accused Shiv Lal was standing there with a knife in his hand. The bhabhi of Shiv Lal was lying in the house and blood was oozing from her abdomen. He made a call on number 100. Thereafter, when he along with his bhabhi Poonam was removing injured Mamta to hospital in a rickshaw, PCR reached there and thereafter she was taken to the hospital in PCR van. In the hospital Mamta died. Local police also reached at the spot. In his presence police seized the bloodstained floor from the room after cutting the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. Another piece of the floor was also cut and lifted and was taken into possession vide Ex. PW3/B. The accused was arrested in his presence vide Ex. PW3/C. One knife was recovered from the right side pocket of the accused on his search. The sketch of the knife was prepared which is Ex. PW3/E. The knife was seized vide memo Ex. Pw3/F. The accused made disclosure statement Ex. PW3/G. He was cross examined by Ld. Prosecutor as he was not deposing on some material aspects of the case. In his cross examination he stated that he did not remember if the police took into possession the bloodstained pants of the accused. However, he FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 9/49 admitted his signatures on the seizure memo Ex. PW3/H. He stated that he could not identify the bloodstained pants of the accused. He stated that the pants Ex. P2 might be the same pants which the accused was wearing at the time of occurrence. He again stated that the pants were the same. He also stated that the police did not take photographs of the place of occurrence in his presence. In his cross examination he stated that when he reached the spot accused was not at his house and he was standing in a street at some distance from his house and at that time the knife was in the hand of the accused. He did not know for how much time the accused remained standing in the street. At that time the knife was in the hand of the accused. He also stated that his statement was recorded by the police in the police station. He volunteered that inquiry was conducted from him by the police regarding the incident on the spot. After recording of his statement, police did not meet him.
8. PW4 is Smt. Poonam, a neighbour of the deceased who stated that on 26.2.08 at about 6.00 PM she was present in her house. On hearing the noise of commotion she came out of the house and saw that a crowd had gathered in front of the house FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 10/49 of Mamta. She also went there. The persons who were present there were saying that Shiv Lal had stabbed his bhabhi Mamta. Mamta was lying near the main door of the house. Saree of Mamta was soaked in blood. Accused Shiv Lal was present there having a knife in his hand. Thereafter, accused Shiv Lal fled from the scene. Her devar PW3 Ashok who had come over there from his work, made a call on no. 100. While injured Mamta (deceased) was being removed to the hospital in a tricycle rickshaw, PCR van reached there and deceased was taken to the hospital in a PCR vehicle. She identified the knife Ex. P1 to be the same which was in the hands of the accused. She was cross examined by the State on some material points. In her cross examination she admitted that Vedwati was saying that accused Shiv Lal had stabbed his bhabhi Mamta. She also admitted that when police reached the spot while they were taking the deceased to the hospital in the cycle rickshaw, on being asked Mamta told police officials that Shiv Lal had stabbed her. In her cross examination by the defence PW4 Poonam also stated that when accused Shiv Lal was brought by the police in the street, her devar (brother in law) was present in FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 11/49 the house. She also stated that she saw knife in the hand of the accused Shiv Lal. Knife was not shown to her by the police.
9. Deceased Mamta was taken to GTB hospital after the incident. As per the MLC Ex. PW8/A prepared by Dr. Murtza A Khan and proved by PW8 Dr. P. Phukan 'the patient brought by the police with alleged history of stab injury. She was declared brought dead at 7.30 pm'. Dr. Sumit Tellewar has proved the postmortem report of the deceased which is Ex. PW10/A and the deceased had following antemortem injury on her person:
(i) "Incised stab wound measuring 1.7 cm x 0.2 cm on surface present obliquely on the left side cover chest wall. Its upper lateral blunt angle is blunt having a reddish abrasion measuring 0.5 cm x 0.6 cm at its border and lies 17.5 cm above left anterior superior illiac spine, its lower nudial acute angle is 10.5 cm lateral to midline and medial angle is lengthened by an incised wound measuring 5.8 cm x 0.1 cm x 0.1 cm going horizontally towards the midline. The track of the stab wound goes inwards, medially and slightly upwards cutting the 7th intercoastal muscle enters the left chest cavity now making a nick in the lower medial margin of base of left lung then cutting through the pericardium FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 12/49 it cuts through the apex of the heart thus making a total depth of 10.5 cm. About 2 liters of blood present into the chest cavity. The track of the wound is haemorrhagic.
(ii) Incised stab wound measuring 0.8 cm x 0.1 cm on surface present obliquely over the upper inner quarderant of left buttock it upper medial acute angel is 2.4 cm from the midline and lower lateral blunt angel is 4.2 cm medial to mid scapular line. The track of the wound goes forwards, downwards and medially cutting the soft tissues and muscles of the buttock to a depth of 2.3 cm. The track of the wound is haemorrhagic."
10. The cause of death was given shock as a result of antemortem injury to the heart produced by a sharp cutting/ stabbing weapon. The injury no. 1 is antemortem in nature and is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Pw10 Dr. Sumit Tellewar also prepared the sketch of the knife which is Ex. PW10/B and gave subsequent opinion which is as under: "The sealed parcel bears three seals of SBS, on opening, it contains a foldable knife having a single edged metallic blade and a wooden handle. The description of which has been drawn and written above.
Some reddish stains are present on both sides of the metallic blade. After FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 13/49 examining the given weapon and going through the postmortem report no. 197/08 of deceased Mamta 30Y/F dated 27.2.08, I am of the opinion that the injury no. 1 as mentioned in the PM no. 197/08 is possible by the given knife".
11. The defence counsel did not dispute the authenticity and genuineness of FSL report Ex.C1. As per the FSL report blood was detected on the following exhibits: Ex.A1 Pieces of cemented material having brown stains Ex.A2 one knife with wooden handle and metallic blade having brownish stains Ex.A3 one pants having brown stains Ex.A4 (a) One sweater having dark stains Ex.A4 (b) One blouse having brown stains Ex.A4 (c) One brassier having brown stains Ex,A4 (d) One saree having brown stains Ex.A4(e) one petticoat having brown stains Ex.A5 Brown gauze cloth piece As per the serological report the blood found was human blood. On {Ex. A4 (a)}, {Ex.A4(b)},{Ex.A4(c)} and (Ex.A5) the blood was of 'A' group. While Exs. A1, A2, A3, A4(d) and A4(e) did not react.
FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 14/49
12. It has been contended by Ld. Prosecutor that the testimony of the material witnesses viz PW1 Vedwati, PW3 Ashok Kumar Sharma and PW4 Poonam coupled with the statement of PW8 Dr. P. Phukan and PW10 Dr. Sumit Tellewar prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused only who committed murder of the deceased Mamta by stabbing her with a knife. It is stated that the recovery of knife and bloodstained pants of the accused further prove that he was the author of the crime. It has been submitted by Ld. Prosecutor that it is a unique case where the prosecution case is proved by account of eye witness, the dying declaration made by the deceased to PW6 ASI Habib Singh and the circumstantial evidence i.e. by dint of recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife from the possession of the accused, the fact that the accused absconded from the house immediately after the incident and his bloodstained pants. It is further submitted by him that PW1 Vedwati thoroughly supported the prosecution case in her examination in chief on 2.1.2009, however, her statement was deferred on account of adjournment sought on behalf of defence. In the meantime, she was probably won over by the FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 15/49 accused and had change of heart and when she was cross examined after 29 days on 31.1.2009 she tried to wriggle out of her previous statement. It has been pointed out by Ld. Prosecutor that in her cross examination she tried to create confusion when she said that someone told her that the knife injury came on the person of her daughter in law Mamta in a commotion. However, there is nothing on record to suggest on what count there was commotion in the house of PW1 Vedwati and who was that someone who told her that the knife injury came on the person of her daughter in law Mamta in a commotion. It is contended by Ld. Prosecutor that this is beyond comprehension as to why PW1 Vedwati would implicate her own son. The statement of PW1 Vedwati (the complainant) was recorded immediately after the incident and no suggestion was given by the defence to PW6 ASI Habib Singh that the thumb impression of the complainant was taken on an already recorded statement and otherwise also no motive has been imputed to the IO as to why he would falsely implicate the accused on his own.
13. Per contra, Ld. defence counsel has contended that the FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 16/49 evidence brought on record by the prosecution is highly insufficient to prove its case and there are many lacunas in the prosecution case which give the case of the prosecution a fatal blow. It has been submitted by Ld. defence Counsel that as per DD No.12 Ex.PW2/A information was provided regarding 'jhagra' (scuffle) by Const. Ved Prakash No.2610/PCR. However, he has not been examined. It is also stated that the deceased was being removed in a cycle rickshaw to the hospital before the PCR arrived, however, the rickshaw puller was not examined by the prosecution. The PCR official who removed the injured to hospital has also not been examined whose name is disclosed in the MLC Ex.PW8/A as H.C. Brij Mohan No. 1381/PCR B38; that the prosecution has also failed to examine Pawan (husband of the deceased) and Krishan Kumar (jeth of the deceased) who identified her dead body. Since the person who identified the dead body of the deceased have not been examined, the identity of the dead body is not established which is a serious lacuna in the prosecution case. It has also been submitted that the children of the deceased have not been examined though PW15 Const. Ashok Kumar stated that there FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 17/49 were four members of the family of the injured in the house. Ld. defence counsel has relied upon 1973 CAR 102 (SC) Sahaj Ram & Ors. Vs The State of U.P., wherein the court observed that though the prosecution is not bound to call all available witnesses, irrespective of considerations of number and of reliability, witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution case is based must be called by the prosecution, whether in the result the effect of their testimony is for or against the case of the prosecution. The arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel have been challenged by Ld. Prosecutor on the ground that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the deceased and therefore, it was not required of the prosecution to examine all the above said witnesses. The prosecution is not obliged to examine any particular witness and the prosecution has examined all the material witnesses in its wisdom. I find force in the contention of Ld. Prosecutor that it is not the quantity but the quality of the witnesses which tilts the case in favour of the prosecution or the defence.
14. It has further been argued by Ld. defence Counsel that PW1 Vedwati was 80 years of age on the date of her deposition FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 18/49 and she must have been around 79 years of age at the time of incident, though PW1 Vedwati stated that the accused started giving beatings to her but she had no injuries on her person. It is also stated that PW1 Vedwati did not support the prosecution case in her cross examination and reexamination and therefore, the prosecution cannot rely upon the testimony of PW1 Vedwati. This has been refuted by Ld. Prosecutor stating that the court may look into the part of the statement of the witness which appears to be credible and may discard the rest. No doubt upon the basis of sole testimony of such a witness no conviction can be made, however, the court may look for corroboration from other sources and may accept the portion of the testimony which appears to be credible and trustworthy.
15. It is further contended that there is delay of about 3 hours in recording of FIR. As per DD No.12A, the information regarding 'jhagra' was received at 6.36 p.m. MLC was prepared at 7.30 p.m., however, the ruqqa was dispatched only at 9.25 p.m. which raises suspicion about the prosecution case and the benefit should be given to the accused. It has been submitted by Ld. Prosecutor that the time period between 6.36 p.m. to FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 19/49 9.25 p.m. was very crucial. First injured was taken to hospital as the life is more precious then conducting investigation. Thereafter the investigating officer returned to the spot and recorded statement of PW1 Vedwati at the spot. I find force in the contention of Ld. Prosecutor that there has been no inordinate delay in recording of FIR. First DD No.12 A was received at 6.36 p.m. On receipt of the DD No.12A, PW6 ASI Habib Ahmed alongwith Const. Ashok Kumar and Const. Jitender reached the spot i.e. H.No.C98, Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar. Thereafter the deceased Mamta was removed to the hospital in a PCR van. PW6 ASI Habib Ahmed left Const. Ashok at the spot and he alongwith Const. Jitender went to GTB Hospital where injured Mamta was declared brought dead at 7.30 p.m. Thereafter he alongwith Const. Jitender came back to the spot and thereafter he prepared ruqqa and sent the same for registration of FIR. Therefore, I do not find any inordinate or undue delay in recording of FIR. Ld. Defence Counsel has also pointed out that the FIR does not reflect the date and time of dispatch of the FIR to the court. He has relied upon 1974 CAR 145 (SC) Datar Singh vs State of Punjab, FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 20/49 wherein the court observed that the first information report not showing date and time of dispatch of FIR to the Magistrate indicates that FIR was drawn actually much later. However, with due deference each case has to be decided on its own merits and the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are totally different from the case referred to. No doubt the requisite details should have been indicated in the FIR, however, it only shows 'dispatched by special messenger' but the failure to mention such details are inconsequential.
16. It has further been contended by Ld. defence Counsel that the arrest, disclosure and recovery of the weapon are dependent upon one and another and if arrest fails, then disclosure fails and consequently recovery fails. He has pointed out the discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses regarding arrest of the accused and recovery of weapon from him. He has pointed out that PW3 Ashok Kumar Sharma stated that when he reached the spot accused was not at his house. He was standing in a street at some distance from his house. Accused was standing alone. He did not know for how much time the accused remained standing in the street. At that time, FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 21/49 the knife was in the hand of the accused. ASI apprehended the accused and took the accused to the police station in his presence. He also stated that accused was taken to the police station at about 6.15 p.m. or 6.30 p.m, whereas PW15 Const. Ashok Kumar stated that accused was arrested by ASI Ahmed in his presence from inside his house but he could not tell the time. PW6 ASI Habib Ahmed testified that the accused was apprehended on the basis of a secret information that the accused was standing near nala (drain). Thereafter he alongwith Inspector Sukhbir Singh, SI Satender Tomar and one Ashok Kumar and secret informer went to nala road, Ankur Enclave and from there the accused was overpowered. PW6 also stated that accused was apprehended between 11.00 p.m. to 12 midnight and the place where the accused was standing was a thoroughfare. This is corroborated by the arrest memo of the accused wherein the time of arrest is shown as 11.55 p.m. PW4 Poonam also stated that when the police brought accused Shiv Lal in the street her devar was present in the house which means that PW3 Ashok Kumar Sharma did not accompany the police at the time of arrest. However, PW11 SI Satender Pal Singh FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 22/49 supported the prosecution case stating that at about 11.15 p.m. a secret information was received that Shiv Lal who stabbed his bhabhi Mamta was standing on the patri of nala, Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar. Thereafter he alongwith Inspector Sukhbir Singh, ASI Habib Ahmed and one public witness Ashok Kumar went to nala, Ankur Enclave and accused Shiv Lal who was standing there was apprehended at the instance of public witness Ashok Kumar. Accused Shiv Lal was searched and from his search one kitchen knife in closed condition was recovered from the right pocket of his wearing pants. Thereafter sketch of the knife Ex.PW3/E was prepared by Inspector Sukhbir Singh. He also stated in his cross examination that no public person was present there where the accused was found standing. There were no residential houses near the place where the accused was arrested. The residential houses were 100 meters from the place where the accused was arrested. They remained at the place of arrest for about 30 to 45 minutes. He also stated that he noticed bloodstains on the pants of the accused. He did not notice as to whether there was any blood stains inside the pocket from where knife was FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 23/49 recovered.
17. PW13 H.C. Jitender stated that on the basis of secret information accused Shiv Lal was apprehended near nala and from his search one knife was recovered. He also stated that there was an electric pole but no houses closed to the spot where the accused was apprehended. One knife was recovered from the possession of the accused from right dub of his pants. He had seen the clothes of the accused worn at the time of incident and his pants were bloodstained. After personal search was conducted, a knife was recovered from the accused and it was seized vide seizure Ex.PW3/F. PW14 Inspector Sukhbir Singh stated that accused was arrested from near his house who was standing near a nala at a distance of 100 meters from his house. He did not remember the number of houses in that distance. Ashok was with him at the time of arrest. He did not remember the exact distance of the house of Ashok from the place of occurrence. It has been contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that in view of the discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses a doubt is raised regarding the arrest and recovery of the knife from the accused. However, Ld. FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 24/49 Prosecutor submits that undue weight cannot be attached to such minor discrepancies and there would be no case where such discrepancies are not found. However, the court is required to separate the grain from the chaff and may rely on the part of the testimony which is found credible. I find strength in the submissions canvassed by Ld. Prosecutor. While appreciating the evidence of the witnesses, the approach must be whether the evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case do not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. Some technical error committed by police officials do not go to the root of the matter and minor omissions in the statements are never considered to be fatal. The main thing to be seen is to whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to the insignificance aspects thereon. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., a specific question was put to the accused as under: "Q. It is in evidence against you that you were arrested near nala road, Ankur Enclave and on your random search one kitchen knife Ex.P1 was recovered from the right side pocket of your pants in the presence of PW3 Ashok Kumar Sharma, FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 25/49 public witness. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. "
The accused did not say that he was arrested from any other place or the knife was planted upon him. All the witnesses examined are in unison that the accused was arrested from near nala road, Ankur Enclave and a kitchen knife was recovered from him except PW15 Const. Ashok Kumar wherein he stated that the accused was arrested by ASI Habib Ahmed in his presence from inside his house. The testimony of all police witnesses cannot be put aside in view of the incongruent statement of one particular witness. Therefore, I am of the view that the prosecution has proved that the accused was arrested from near nala road, Ankur Enclave and kitchen knife Ex.P1 was recovered from his possession.
18. It has also been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW6 ASI Habib Ahmed, PW3 Ashok Kumar Sharma and PW11 SI Satender Pal Singh have stated that a knife (folded) was recovered from the right side pocket of the pants of the accused when his search was taken, however, PW13 H.C. Jitender stated that the knife was recovered from the possession of the accused FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 26/49 from the right dub of his pants which creates a doubt in the prosecution story. However, Ld. Prosecutor submits that dub is the most misunderstood word. Police officials use the word 'dub' and 'pocket' as synonyms, however, it is not disputed that the knife was recovered from the pants of the accused. I am also of the view that this discrepancy is of trivial nature and only because one of the witnesses has used the word 'dub' recovery of knife from the accused cannot be doubted.
19. It is further contended by Ld. defence counsel that on the knife blood group is not specified and there is nothing to correlate the murder of the deceased and the knife recovered. However, Ld. Prosecutor submits that it has already been established by the serological report Ex.C1 that human blood was found on the knife in possession of the accused and since the accused did not have any injury on his person the evidence on record points only to the fact that the human blood on the knife belonged to the deceased.
20. It is further submitted by Ld. defence Counsel that as per the sketch of the knife Ex.PW10/B it is a small kitchen knife and the blade of the knife is of 7 cms. and the handle of the FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 27/49 knife is about 10.1 cms. while the depth of the injury is 10.5 cms. and therefore, from such a small knife the kind of injury reflected in Ex.PW10/A is not possible. In this respect, statement of PW10 Dr. Sumit Tellewar is very relevant who proved the postmortem report as Ex.PW10/A and stated that the cause of death was shock as a result of antemortem injury to the heart produced by a sharp cutting /stabbing weapon. Injury No. 1 as mentioned in the P.M. Report Ex.PW10/A is antemortem in nature and is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He prepared sketch of the knife Ex.PW10/B. After examining the given knife and going through the P.M. Report No.197/08 he had opined the injury No.1 was possible by the given knife. In his cross examination PW10 Dr. Sumit Tellewar stated that 'if the knife, sketch of which is Ex.PW10/B penetrates to the depth of 10.5 cm as mentioned in injury No.1 in the postmortem report, the possibility of bloodstains present on the depth till which the knife penetrates is there. When the pullanda containing knife was opened the handle of the said knife was not bloodstained'. No doubt, on the blade of the knife bloodstains were found but no bloodstains could be found on FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 28/49 the handle as the blood from the handle might have been wiped out when the accused put the knife in his pocket. Since the metallic portion i.e blade of the knife was inside after being folded, so the blood remained present on the blade while it got wiped out from the handle.
21. It has been further argued by Ld. defence counsel that PW14 Inspector Sukhbir Singh did not hand over the seal to anyone after sealing the pullanda containing knife and bloodstained pants which reflects that there was manipulation on the part of the investigating agency. However, Ld. Prosecutor submits that handing over of the seal to some other person is a rule of caution and not a rule of law and only because seal remained with IO PW14 Inspector Sukhbir Singh it cannot be said that there was manipulation. I find force in the contention of Ld. Prosecutor that non handing of the seal to some third person does not dent the prosecution case in any manner.
22. PW1 Vedwati fully supported the prosecution case specifically stating that when accused Shiv Lal started quarreling with her, deceased Mamta tried to intervene and save FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 29/49 her from the accused, the accused Shiv Lal stabbed her with the kitchen knife. She identified the knife as Ex.P1 with which the deceased Mamta was stabbed by accused Shiv Lal. Her examination in chief was recorded on 2.1.2009. At the request of the Amicus Curiae representing the accused, the cross examination was deferred and on the next date i.e. 31.1.2009 the witness completely changed the stand stating that the accused did not stab Mamta with knife in her presence. Someone told her that the knife injury came on the person of her daughter in law in a commotion. She was reexamined on 5.12.2011 on an application moved by the prosecution u/s 311 Cr.P.C. and she was asked if the statement given by her in the court on 2009 was a true statement or on that day she had lied in the court. She answered that her statement on 2.1.2009 was recorded at the instance of an Advocate who was present in the court. From the whole testimony of PW1 Vedwati it is clear that during those 29 days that elapsed since the recording of her examination in chief something transpired which made her shift her stand. It is clear that she was trying to wriggle out of her previous statement to save her son. Though the witness was FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 30/49 never declared hostile as she supported the prosecution case in examination in chief, however, her statement is contradictory and the court can rely upon the part of the statement which is found credible and trustworthy. Even the testimony of a hostile witness is not treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether. Even part of the evidence of a hostile witness can be acted upon which is found acceptable. It is well settled by the decisions of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh vs State of Haryana, (1976) 2 SCR 921, Syed Akbar Vs State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848, that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. I am also supported by Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs State of M.P., AIR 1991 SC 1853.
23. In the present case the presence of PW1 Vedwati is not disputed at the place of occurrence. She has nowhere said even in cross examination that she was not present at the scene of FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 31/49 occurrence. The dispute arose between PW1 Vedwati (the complainant) and her son Shiv Lal (the accused). The deceased being daughter in law of the complainant intervened to save her which enraged the accused and in a fit of anger he stabbed her with a kitchen knife. There is no reason as to why the complainant Vedwati would falsely implicate her own son, had the culprit been someone else. It was she who lodged the first information report. It is true that the first information report is not substantive evidence but the fact remains that immediately after the incident and before there was any extraneous intervention she narrated the incident to the police. The first information report is a detailed report and it is not possible to believe that it was result of some fertile thinking on the part of the IO or the investigating officer imagined those details and prepared the document Ex.PW2/C on his own. The detailed narration about the incident in the first information report coupled with the examination in chief before the court goes to show the subsequent attempt of the complainant to disown the version after she had a change of heart because the accused Shiv Lal was her own blood while the daughter in law had FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 32/49 already expired. Therefore, I am of the view that her entire testimony need not be rejected and her examination in chief recorded on 2.1.2009 is true and correct.
24. The testimony of PW3 Ashok Kumar Sharma, PW6 ASI Habib Ahmed (Ist IO), PW11 SI Satender Pal Singh, PW13 H.C. Jitender, PW14 Inspector Sukhbir Singh clearly show that when the accused was arrested his pants had bloodstains. The knife with bloodstains was also recovered from him. These articles were sent to the chemical analyzer and serologist for examination and report. As stated earlier, the report Ex. C1 revealed that the bloodstains on the pants worn by the accused were of human origin. The accused has not offered any plausible explanation for the existence of human blood on his pants. This too is a circumstance against the accused particularly when there was no injury on the person of the accused. This is another link in the chain of circumstances on which the prosecution has placed reliance. The presence of human blood on the weapon and pants of the accused lends corroboration to the prosecution case.
25. Though no written dying declaration of the deceased was FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 33/49 recorded, however, PW6 ASI Habib Ahmed who immediately reached the spot states that when he enquired from the said injured lady who was bleeding from the wound in her stomach, she disclosed her name as Mamta and she further told that she had been stabbed by her brother in law (jeth) in her stomach. In his cross examination he stated that when he reached the spot PW4 Poonam was sitting in the rickshaw and was holding the injured in her lap. The injured was in senses and was speaking at a lower pitch. He asked the injured as to what happened to which she replied that her jeth had stabbed her. Ld. defence counsel has contended that there were two jeths of the deceased Mamta. One was accused Shiv Lal and another was Krishan Kumar who identified the dead body of deceased Mamta. However, it has been clarified by PW4 Poonam who immediately reached the spot after hearing the noise. She stated that when she reached the spot, the persons who were present there were saying that Shiv Lal had stabbed his bhabhi Mamta. Accused Shiv Lal was present there with a knife in his hand. Thereafter accused Shiv Lal fled from the scene. Since the witness was not testifying on some material aspects, PW4 FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 34/49 Poonam was cross examined by the State. In her cross examination by State, she admitted that Vedwati (mother in law of deceased Mamta) was also present there. She admitted that Vedwati was saying that accused Shiv Lal had stabbed his bhabhi Mamta. She admitted that when police reached the spot while they were taking Mamta to the hospital in the cycle rickshaw police officials asked Mamta and Mamta told that Shiv Lal had stabbed her. Therefore, the testimony of this witness clarifies that the jeth who stabbed Mamta was Shiv Lal. PW3 Ashok Kumar Sharma also corroborates PW4 Poonam (his bhabhi) that after hearing the noise when they came out from the house they saw the Vedwati was crying 'SHIV LAL NAI APNI BHABHI KO CHAKU MAAR DIYA'. Accused Shiv Lal was also standing there with a knife in his hand. PW13 H.C. Jitender also stated that ASI Habib made enquiries from injured Mamta and she disclosed that her jeth had stabbed her.
26. Here I would like to refer to Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act which is as under: "Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction - Facts which, though not in issue, are FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 35/49 so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Illustrations:
(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact."
From the testimony of the above witnesses it is clear that immediately after the incident complainant Vedwati was shouting that 'SHIV LAL NAI APNI BHABHI KO CHAKU MAAR DIYA' which is a relevant fact and is part of the same transaction. Before her death, the deceased also disclosed to the first IO regarding cause of her death and the person who stabbed her which is a very valuable piece of evidence.
27. At the time of incident, the accused Shiv Lal was present at his residence. He has no where taken the plea of alibi. A specific question was put to the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as under: Q. It is further in evidence against you that when Mamta (deceased) wife of your brother Pawan, tried to save PW1 Vedwati from you, you stabbed her with a kitchen knife. What FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 36/49 do you have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect.
The accused has simply denied the suggestion and has furnished no explanation as to how deceased Mamta got a stab injury and who stabbed her. Ld. Prosecutor has contended that even if this case is treated as one based on circumstantial evidence even then the chain of circumstances is complete. It has been submitted that simple denial of the accused is an additional link in the chain of circumstances. I find force in the contention of Ld. Prosecutor that the principle of law is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. Here I would like to refer to the case of Ganesh Lal vs State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106, where:
the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred inside the house, the appellant was under an obligation to give a plausible FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 37/49 explanation for the cause of her death in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife.
28. The crime was committed inside the house of the accused. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house then in such circumstances it is extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. Section 106 of the Evidence Act deals with the facts especially within a knowledge and is as FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 38/49 under: Section 106: "Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge When any fact is especially within knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there is a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation.
29. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland Vs Director of Public Prosecution, 1944 AC 315 - quoted with approval by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat in State of Punjab Vs Karnail Singh ( 2003) 11 SCC 271). The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 39/49 or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
30. The other cardinal principle having an important bearing on the incidence of burden of proof is that sufficiency and weight of the evidence is to be considered according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to prove, and in the power of the other to have contradicted. Since it is exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible by the prosecution to prove facts which are especially within the knowledge of the accused, it is not obliged to prove that as part of its primary burden. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs State of Maharashtra, 2007 Cri.L.J. 20, the Apex Court noted : "the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule.
On the other hand, a traditional rule relating to the burden of proof of the prosecution is FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 40/49 allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty".
31. From the above discussion, it is proved that it was the accused Shiv Lal who stabbed his sister in law Mamta with a kitchen knife. Now the question arises if the offence would fall u/s 299 or Section 300 IPC. It has been argued by Mr. Dasa Ram, Amicus Curiae with much circumlocution that the facts set out above do not disclose offence of murder punishable u/s 302 IPC and at best accused can be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304 IPC as there was no intention of the accused to commit murder of deceased Mamta. There was no premeditation and no preparation by the accused to commit murder of the deceased. I find the contention of Ld. defence counsel to be misplaced. To my mind the case falls within clause (3) of Section 300 IPC as it is clear from the circumstances that though the accused did not intend to cause death, however, he used a knife with such force to inflict injury upon the deceased that it cut through the pericardium and through the apex of the heart, thus, made a total depth of 10.5 FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 41/49 cm. Section 300 'thirdly' is as under: "If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death."
In the instant case the cause of death was 'shock as a result of antemortem injury to the heart produced by a sharp cutting / stabbing weapon. The injury No.1 is antemortem in nature and is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.'
32. Before holding an accused guilty of having committed murder u/s 300 'thirdly' IPC it must be found that the bodily injury was caused and the nature of injury must be established, that is to say whether the injury was intended on any vital part of the body and the force or pressure exerted by the accused while inflicting such injuries. There is sufficient ocular and circumstantial evidence on record which prove beyond doubt that bodily injury was caused by the accused.
33. To bring a case within the ambit of section 300 'thirdly' it is not enough to prove that the injury found to be present is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 42/49 must in addition be shown that the injury is of the kind that falls within the earlier clause namely that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted. Whether it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature is a matter of inference of deduction from the proved facts about the nature of the injury and has nothing to do with the question of intention. In considering whether the intention was to inflict the injury found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarily proceeds on broad lines as, for example, whether there was an intention to strike at a vital or a dangerous spot, and whether sufficient force was used to cause the kind of injury found to have been inflicted. In Virsa Singh Vs State of Punjab, 1958 AIR (SC) 465 it was observed that 'the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case u/s 300 'thirdly':
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 43/49 that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and;
Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under section 300 'thirdly'. It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death.
34. There is no evidence or explanation that is being given by the defence as to why such force was exerted by the accused while inflicting the injuries. In the absence of any evidence or reasonable explanation that the accused did not intend to put those injuries with the degree of force exerted the case would not be that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 44/49 totality of the circumstances justify only one inference that the intent of the accused was to cause injuries which he inflicted. Once the existence of the injury is proved the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion.
35. According to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh case (Supra) even if the intention of the accused was limited to the infliction of bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder. Illustration (c) appended to Section 300 clearly brings out this point which is as follows: "A intentionally gives Z a swordcut or clubwound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z's death."
36. There was profuse bleeding which is clearly reflected from the photographs Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/D which shows the amount of force with which the injuries were inflicted. In the instant case, the accused used a kitchen knife with such a force FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 45/49 that it cut through the pericardium i.e. membranous sac enclosing the heart and when the deceased was taken to the hospital she was declared dead. In these circumstances, the intention to cause such injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature can be certainly attributed to the accused.
37. In view of the foregoing reasons, I convict the accused for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. Let he be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in open court (Nisha Saxena)
th
dated 17 day of September, 2012 Addl. Sessions Judge03(NE):
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 46/49 IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA: ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE03(NE): KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI. SC No. 170/10
State Vs Shiv Lal @ Lala s/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan R/o C98, Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar, Delhi110094. FIR No. 37/08 PS Karawal Nagar U/s 302 IPC
Pr: Mr. Atul Kumar, Substitute Addl. PP for the State.
Convict in custody with Mr. Dasa Ram, Amicus Curiae. ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1. Arguments have been addressed on the point of sentence.
It has been contended by Counsel for the convict that convict is aged about 35 years. He has contended that there was no pre planing or motive of the convict for commission of the crime. He is not a previous convict and therefore he has urged the court to take a lenient view. He has also contended that the convict belongs to a poor family and minimum fine be imposed upon him.
2. On the other hand, Ld APP has requested for maximum sentence stating that the convict is guilty of killing his own FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 47/49 bhabhi (sister in law).
3. Section 302 IPC prescribes that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. It has been propounded by the apex court time and again that for the offence of murder, life imprisonment is a general rule while death sentence is an exception. The death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances. The Supreme Court has given certain guidelines in cases enlisted below to ascertain as to which case falls in the category of rarest of rare case.
(i) Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898
(ii) Machi Singh Vs State of Punjab (1983) 4 SCC 470.
4. I have gone through the mandates of apex court in aforesaid two cases. After ruminating over facts and circumstances of this case, I do not think that case in hand FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 48/49 comes within the category of such rarest of rare case.
5. Every murder is a heinous crime. Apart from personal implications, it is also a crime against the society but in every case of murder death penalty is not to be awarded. Under the present legal position, imprisonment for life is the normal rule for punishing crime of murder and sentence of death is to be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be subserved if the convict is sentenced U/s 302 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ in default of payment of fine to undergo one year's simple imprisonment more.
7. The period of detention already undergone by him during investigation, inquiry or trial may be set off against the sentence awarded in this case, in view of section 428 Cr.PC.
8. A copy of this order as well as of judgment be given to convict free of cost.
Announced in open court (Nisha Saxena)
th
dated 18 day of September, 2012 Addl. Sessions Judge03(NE):
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
FIR NO. 37/08, PS Karawal Nagar 49/49