Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Himanshu @ Ashu S/O Late Sh. Arun on 16 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 : NORTH EAST /
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0149472009
Sessions Case No. 57/2011
Assigned to Sessions. 22.05.2009
Arguments heard on 12.09.2013
Date of judgment 16.09.2013
FIR No. 38/2009
State Vs. 1. Himanshu @ Ashu S/o Late Sh. Arun
Kumar Sharma,
R/o H. No.1/2777, Gali No.2, East
Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi.
2. Sunil @ Lucky, S/o Late Sh. Subhash
Sharma,
R/o H. No.1/10040, West Gorakh Park,
Shahdara, Delhi.
Police Station Welcome
Under Section 302/201/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act.
JUDGMENT:
1. Story of prosecution is that on 12.02.2009 a DD No.38A was recorded at police station Welcome regarding stabbing of a person behind community centre, DDA Flat, Gorakh Park, Delhi and same DD entry was assigned to HC Radhey Shyam. On receipt of DD, HC Radhey Shyam along with Ct. Arvind had reached at the spot i.e. DDA Park, behind Community Park, West Gorakh Park, Delhi and SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 1/36 Inspector Ramdhan Singh had also reached at the spot. Inspector Ramdhan Singh had come to know that the injured had been shifted to GTB Hospital. Thereafter, he along with his rider Ct. Sandeep Kumar reached at GTB Hospital and collected the MLC of unknown injured who was declared as brought dead in the casualty and he had got the photographs of the deceased taken in GTB Hospital. No eyewitness was present in GTB Hospital and he had come back at the spot and he found a lot of blood was lying at the spot. On the basis of the inspection of the spot, MLC and the circumstances, he had concluded that deceased had been murdered and therefore, he put his endorsement Ex.PW18/A on DD No.38A and got the present case registered through Ct. Arvind vide FIR Ex.PW4/B. I.O. had got the scene of crime inspected and photographed through crime team and obtained the SOC report Ex.PW9/A and he had lifted the bloodstained earth, earth control and blood on gauze and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A and he had also lifted blood stained chappal from the spot and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. The dead body was identified by Sonu and Suresh and I.O. had recorded the statement of Sonu Ex.PW3/A and that of Suresh Ex.PW18/B. I.O. had got the postmortem conducted upon the dead body vide his application Ex.PW18/C and he had also filled up the inquest paper Ex.PW18/D and after postmortem the dead body of deceased Manish @ Monu @ Tundi was handed over to his relatives vide memo Ex.PW3/B and had seized the exhibits, collected during the postmortem of deceased vide Ex.PW18/E. Accordingly, during the course of investigation police had arrested accused persons namely Himanshu and Sunil and a challan was filed vide FIR No. 38/2009 dated 13.05.2009 u/s 302/201/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act for the prosecution of accused persons namely Himanshu @ Ashu SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 2/36 and Sunil @ Lucky in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Ld. MM after compliance of section 207 Cr. PC. committed this case before the court of Sh. B.S. Chumbak, Ld. ASJ and thereafter, this case was transferred to this court by Ld. District & Sessions Judge01, Delhi vide order dated 12.09.2011. CHARGE:
2. On the basis of material available on record ld. predecessor of this court framed a charges vide order dated 08.07.2009 against the accused Himanshu @ Ashu for the offences punishable u/s 302/201/34 IPC and u/s 27 of Arms Act and on 20.08.2009 a separate charge u/s 302/34 IPC was framed against accused Sunil @ Lucky to which accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
3. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 18 witnesses namely PW1 Pardeep, PW2 Ct. Vinay Kumar, PW3 Sonu, PW4 ASI Raj Pal, PW5 HC Radhey Shyam, PW6 Ct. Shyam Lal, PW7 S.I. Mukesh Kumar, PW8 HC Arvind Kumar, PW9 S.I. U. Balashankaram, PW10 Dr. P.K. Saha, PW11 Ct. Sunil Kumar, PW12 Lady Ct. Poonam, PW13 ASI Satbir Singh, PW14 ASI A.K. Panwar, PW15 Dr. Arvind Kumar, PW16 HC Nirdesh Kumar, PW17 WHC Anjubala and PW18 Inspector Ramdhan Singh.
4. PW1 Pardeep. This is a material witness being last seen witness. This witness SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 3/36 has deposed that on 10.02.2009 at about 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. he along with deceased Monu went for smoking and Lucky and Himanshu, present in the court, met them behind the nala and Himanshu gave him Rs.70/ or 80/ for purchasing of liquor from Babbarpur and he had purchased two quarters of Bonne Scott bottles from Babbar Pur and handed over to Himanshu and Monu. Himanshu called lucky on telephone for the purpose of consuming liquor and for money and Lucky reached at a stipulated place, Himanshu also reached there and he, Himanshu, Lucky and Monu had taken liquor, thereafter, he left the spot and he also insisted Monu to return to his house with him but he refused by saying that he will return lateron and then he returned to his home.
5. This witness has further deposed that in the night, mother of deceased Monu came to his house and asked about whereabouts of Monu and he disclosed to mother of Monu that Monu was left with Himanshu @ Ashu and Lucky and one another person was also with them who was not known to him.
6. This witness has further deposed that in the morning, brother of Monu came to him and asked about the whereabouts of his brother Monu and he disclosed before the brother of Monu that he had left Monu in the night but he does not remember whether he had disclosed the name of Himanshu @ Ashu and Lucky to his brother or not. This witness further deposed that when he came to know through the public persons that Monu died, he became perplexed and run away from his house due to fear that he would have been murdered by the family members of deceased and when police arrested his brother in this case then he disclosed the fact that he SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 4/36 had left the deceased Monu in the company of Himanshu and Lucky and one third persons whose name is not known to him telephonically to one Tara (male).
Thereafter, he went to the house of his maternal uncle and from there they produced him to the police station and handed over to the I.O. of this case.
7. In his cross examination by Sh. R.K. Kochar, ld. counsel for accused Himanshu, this witness had stated that he had good relations with Monu (deceased) as he was his relative and on the day of incident, deceased Monu and himself took liquor with accused persons and accused Himanshu gave him Rs.70/ or 80/ for purchasing liquor. This witness admits that accused Lucky was not present when he along with Himanshu and Monu took the liquor which he had purchased. This witness had stated voluntarily that Lucky was called by accused Himanshu after they finished their first of two quarters.
8. This witness had stated that deceased Monu was under the influence of liquor when he asked him to return to his house with him. This witness had stated that at the time of taking liquor there was no dispute between them and they were taking liquor freely. This witness had denied to the suggestion to the counsel for accused Himanshu that deceased Monu was not present with the Himanshu and other person and due to fear he disclosed their name to the police. This witness had further denied to the suggestion that due to the pressure of family member of deceased he disclosed the name of accused persons. This witness further stated that his father and brother let out after his arrest whatever he had stated to police at police station same was written by police officials. This witness further admits SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 5/36 that he was mentally ill prior to this incident and also remained admitted in hospital from 24.10.2008 to 04.11.2008. This witness had admitted that he had stated to the police officials he had made a call to one Tara informing thereby the name of accused persons with whom deceased was present. This statement have been confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C.
9. In his cross examination by Sh. Trilok Chand, counsel for accused Lucky, this witness had stated that he was known to deceased Monu since childhood. This witness had denied to the suggestion put by ld. counsel that accused Lucky had not joined them for taking liquor in his presence or that he had not seen lucky on the day of incident or that he was deposing falsely.
10.PW2 Ct. Vinay Kumar. This witness had taken six sealed pullandas and one sample seal from MHC (M) HC Ashok Kumar vide RC No.47/21 and deposited the pullandas at FSL Rohini on 12.05.2009.
11.PW3 Sonu. This witness is the brother of deceased and he had identified the dead body of deceased vide memo Ex.PW3/A and on 16.02.2009 he had produced Pradeep before the police who recorded his statement.
12.In his cross examination by Sh. R.K. Kochar, Ld. counsel for accused Himanshu @ Ashu, statement of this witness Ex.PW3/A was confronted on the fact that he had told to the I.O. in his statement dated 14.02.2009 that Pradeep had told him that he had left her brother Monu with Lucky and Ashu in the night of 12.02.2009. SC No.57/2011
State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 6/36
13.PW4 ASI Raj Pal. This is a formal witness being duty officer. This witness has recorded DD No.38A and he proved the same vide Ex.PW4/A. This witness has proved copy of FIR Ex.PW4/B and he had made endorsement on the same vide Ex.PW4/C.
14.PW5 HC Radhey Shyam. This witness on 12.02.2009 at about 10:25 p.m. on receipt of an information with regard to causing injury to a person with knife behind Community Centre DDA flat Gorakh Park vide DD No.38A along with Ct. Arvind reached at the spot and there he came to know that injured had already been taken to GTB Hospital by PCR Van. Inspector Ram Dhan Singh also reached at the spot and he directed him and Ct. Arvind to guard the spot and he went to GTB Hospital. In his presence, I.O. had taken the blood sample, blood stained earth and sample earth and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A.
15.This witness has proved arrest memo of accused Himanshu vide Ex.PW5/B, personal search memo vide Ex.PW5/C and disclosure statement of accused Himanshu vide Ex.PW5/D. In his presence, accused had got recovered one dagger from his house and handed over the same to the I.O. and I.O. had prepared the sketch of dagger vide Ex.PW5/E and seized the same vide Ex.PW5/F.
16.In his presence, I.O. had prepared the pointing out memo of the spot vide Ex.PW5/G. This witness has correctly identified the dagger as Ex.PW5/P1 which was got recovered by the accused Himanshu.
SC No.57/2011
State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 7/36
17.In his cross examination by Sh. Trilok Chand, ld. counsel for accused Sunil, this witness stated that no public person was present at the time of recovery of dagger and at the time of dagger, mother of the accused Himanshu was present in the house but her statement was not recorded. This witness had denied to the suggestion put up by ld. counsel that neither the knife was recovered from the house of accused Himanshu nor it was sealed by the I.O. at the spot or that disclosure statement Ex.PW5/D was not made by accused Himanshu in his presence.
18.PW6 Ct. Shyam Lal. This witness is the photographer who had taken photographs of the spot from different angle at the direction of I.O. This witness has proved 10 photographs Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A10 & 10 negatives of photographs vide Ex.PW6/B1 to Ex.PW6/B10.
19.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness had denied to the suggestion that he did not visit the spot of this case or that he did not take photographs of this case or that he did not deposit a negatives in the photo section of their department.
20.PW7 S.I. Mukesh Kumar is the draftsman who had prepared scaled site plan at the instance of I.O. and proved the same vide Ex.PW7/A. SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 8/36
21.PW8 HC Arvind Kumar. This witness has deposed on the same footings as deposed by PW5 HC Radhey Shyam. In his presence, I.O. had prepared rukka Ex.PW4/C on the basis of DD entry Ex.PW4/A and he had taken the rukka to police station and got typed the FIR through computer operator and registered the same for offence u/s 302 IPC.
22.This witness has proved photographs Ex.PW6/A1 to A10 and in his presence, had I.O. picked up blood as sample from the spot with the help of cotton, blood smeared concrete and earth control from the spot and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. This witness has also proved seizure memo Ex.PW8/A of seizing of one pair of plastic chappal from the spot. In his presence, I.O. had inspected the spot and prepared the site plan.
23.PW9 S.I. U. Balashankaram is the crime team incharge. This witness has proved SOC report vide Ex.PW9/A.
24.In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, this witness had denied to the suggestion that he had not inspected the spot or that finger expert, driver besides the photographer Ct. Shyam Lal were not the member of his team or that entire work had been done while sitting at police station or that he had filed false SOC report Ex.PW9/A.
25.PW10 Dr. P.K. Saha. This witness has proved MLC Ex.PW10/A on behalf of Dr. SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 9/36 Rahul Sapea. This witness has deposed that as per the MLC alleged history is mentioned as assault. Patient was unconscious and his pulse were not palpable, B.P. not recordable, not respiratory sound and heart sound, pupils B/Lfixed and dilated, reflexes - cannot be elicited, ECGshowing flat isoelectric line.
26.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness stated that neither patient was examined nor his MLC was prepared in his presence and he has no personal knowledge about the aforesaid MLC.
27.PW11 Ct. Sunil Kumar. This witness was posted as duty constable in GTB Hospital and during his duty at about 10:00 or 10:20 p.m., PCR police officials had got admitted one injured in GTB Hospital. This witness has passed on aforesaid information to police station Welcome upon which DD No.41A was recorded. This witness has deposed that he had noticed stab injury on the person of injured and unknown injured had been declared brought dead by the doctor on duty.
28.PW12 Lady Ct. Poonam. This witness on 12.02.2009 was posted at CPCR, Police Headquarter, Delhi and during her duty hours at about 22:18:31 hours she received a call to the effect that one person has been stabbed behind community centre, DDA Park/Flats, Gorakhpark and she had sent this information to police station Welcome at about 10:25 p.m. This witness has proved computer generated PCR form vide Ex.PW12/A.
29.PW13 ASI Satbir Singh. This witness is the PCR Van Incharge. On 12.02.2009, SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 10/36 at about 10:25 p.m. on receipt of a call to the effect that one person had been stabbed behind community centre, DDA flats, Gorakhpark, Delhi, they had reached there and found one injured lying there with stab injury and got him admitted in GTB Hospital where he was medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW10/A.
30.PW14 ASI A.K. Panwar was posted as MHC(M) at P.S. Gokal Puri with whom the case property of the present case was deposited by the I.O. He proved the relevant entries in Register No.19 regarding depositing of the case property which are Ex. PW14/A to Ex.PW14/D. On 13.5.2009, he had sent seven exhibits vide RC No.49/21 through Ct. Vinay to FSL, Rohini, Delhi. This witness has proved photocopy of RC vide Ex.PW14/E and the receipt of FSL vide Ex.PW14/F.
31.In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness had denied to the suggestion that all the entries are antedated and antetime and the same are manipulated at the instance of the IO.
32.PW15 Dr. Arvind Kumar, Asst. Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, UCMS & GTB Hospital, Delhi. This witness has proved postmortem report No. 173/2009 vide Ex.PW15/A on behalf of Dr. Raghvendra Bagla.
33.This witness has also proved subsequent opinion Ex.PW15/B on behalf of Dr. Raghvendra Bagla and he deposed that as per subsequent opinion Dr. Raghvendra Bagla had opined that injury mentioned on the body of deceased in postmortem SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 11/36 report Ex.PW15/A is not possible with the produced weapon as both the edges of the weapon were sharp but the one end of the injury was blunt.
34.PW16 HC Nirdesh Kumar. This is the witness of arrest of accused Sunil @ Lucky. This witness has proved arrest memo Ex.PW16/B and personal search memo Ex.PW16/C of accused Sunil @ Lucky. This witness has also proved disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW16/A. This witness has also proved kalandara vide Ex.PW16/D.
35.PW17 WHC Anjubala. This witness has proved DD No.18B dated 28.05.2009 of police station Welcome. This witness has stated that on 28.05.2009, she was working as D.O. and on that day, at 4:00 p.m. an information was received in the police station from HC Nirdesh Kumar of Special Branch that a person namely Sunil @ Lucky S/o Subhash had been arrested u/s 41.1 Cr. P.C. and that he has confessed his involvement in case FIR No.29/2009 and that he would be produced in Tis Hazari Court on 29.05.2009 and she had entered this information in DD No. 18A vide Ex.PW17/A.
36.In her cross examination by ld. counsel for accused Sunil @ Lucky, this witness had denied to the suggestion that HC Nirdesh Kumar had not disclosed about the confession of accused Sunil @ Lucky regarding his involvement in this case or that she is deposing falsely.
SC No.57/2011
State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 12/36
37.PW18 Inspector Ramdhan Singh is a material witness being Investigating Officer. This witness had reached at the spot i.e. DDA Park, behind Community Park, West Gorakh Park, Delhi, on 12.02.2009 and found HC Radhey Shyam and Ct. Arvind at the spot where he had come to know that injured had been shifted to GTB Hospital. Thereafter, this witness along with his rider Ct. Sandeep Kumar reached at GTB Hospital and had collected the MLC of unknown injured who was declaerd as brought dead in the casualty at 11:00 p.m. This witness had got the photographs of the deceased taken in GTB Hospital. No eyewitness met him in GTB Hospital. Thereafter, this witness had come back at the spot and found a lot of blood was lying at the spot and on the basis of the inspection of the spot, MLC and the circumstances, this witness had concluded that deceased had been murdered and therefore, this witness had put his endorsement Ex.PW18/A on DD No.38A and got the present case registered through Ct. Arvind vide FIR Ex.PW4/B.
38.During the course of investigation, this witness had got the scene of crime inspected and photographed through crime team and obtained the SOC report Ex.PW9/A. This witness has also proved photographs vide Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A10. This witness had lifted the bloodstained earth, earth control and blood on gauze and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. This witness had also lifted blood stained chappal from the spot and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A.
39.During the course of investigation, on 13.02.2009, the dead body was identified by Sonu and Suresh. This witness had recorded the statement of Sonu Ex.PW3/A and SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 13/36 of Suresh Ex.PW18/B in this regard.
40.During the course of investigation, on 14.02.2009, this witness had got the postmortem conducted upon the dead body vide his application Ex.PW18/C. This witness had also filled up the inquest paper Ex.PW18/D and after postmortem the dead body of deceased Manish @ Monu @ Tundi was handed over to his relatives vide memo Ex.PW3/B. This witness had seized the exhibits collected during the postmortem of deceased vide memo Ex.PW18/E.
41.This witness has deposed that on 15.02.2009, he was present in the police station and on that day, Sonu, brother of deceased had come in police station along with Pradeep @ Parro and told him that Pradeep @ Parro had seen the deceased in the company of accused Himanshu and Sunil on 12.02.2009 at about 10:00 p.m. and that they all were under the state of intoxication at that time and that they were quarreling with one another. This witness had recorded the statement of Pradeep @ Parro.
42.During the course of investigation, this witness has arrested accused Himanshu @ Ashu vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/B, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW5/C and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW5/D. In pursuance to his disclosure statement, accused Himanshu @ Ashu had got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. dagger and he had drawn the sketch of dagger vide Ex.PW5/E and converted the dagger into a cloth parcel and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW5/F. This witness has also prepared pointing out memo Vide SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 14/36 Ex.PW5/E on the pointed out the place of incident at the instance of accused Himanshu @ Ashu.
43.During the course of investigation, this witness had also prepared the site plan on 12.02.2009 of his own vide Ex.PW18/F and subsequently got the scaled site plan prepared through draughtsman vide Ex.PW7/A. This witness had also collected the postmortem report of this case vide Ex.PW15/A and sent the exhibits to FSL. This witness had also collected the subsequent opinion on the weapon of offence used in the commission of crime vide Ex.PW15/B.
44.This witness had moved an application before Ld. MM vide Ex.PW18/G for the interrogation of accused Sunil Kumar and same was allowed. This witness has proved arrest memo Ex.PW18/H, personal search memo Ex.PW18/I and disclosure statement Ex.PW18/K of accused Sunil Kumar. This witness had also prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW18/L of the place of incident at his instance of accused Sunil @ Lucky. This witness has also proved FSL reports vide Ex.PW18/M and Ex.PW18/N respectively. This witness has correctly identified the dagger vide Ex.PW5/P1.
45.In his cross examination by Sh. R.K. Kochar, Ld. counsel for accused Himanshu @ Ashu, this witness stated that on 12.02.2009, when he had reached at the spot, there was no crowd gathered at the spot and he could not find any eyewitness at the spot on his first visit. This witness further stated that he had not noticed any evidence at the spot showing the presence of any persons there and of consuming SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 15/36 liquor there. This witness further stated that he had not requested to postmortem conducting doctors to preserve the viscera to examine the presence of the alcohol. This witness admits that neither Pradeep @ Parro nor father and brother of the deceased were the eyewitness in this case. This witness further admits that the father and brother of the deceased had not shown suspicion against any person.
46.This witness denied to the suggestion put by ld. defence counsel that Pradeep @ Parro was illegal detained at police station for two days and he was given beating or that he is planted witness in this case.
47.In his cross examination by Sh. Trilok Chand, this witness admits that the deceased was a criminal person and about 20 criminal cases were registered against the deceased in question with the police station Welcome. This witness further admits that there is no any statement that the offence in question was committed by accused Sunil or that no recovery of any weapon was effected from the possession of accused Sunil by which the offence in question was committed. This witness further admits that in the medical examination of accused Sunil, doctors has not given such findings which shows that the accused Sunil was of habit of taking the liquor. This witness had denied to the suggestion that accused Sunil has been arrested in the present case at the instance of brother of deceased namely Sonu.
48.This witness was again recalled for cross examination after allowing application u/s 311 Cr. P. C. vide order dated 27.08.2013. In his cross examination by Sh. SC No.57/2011
State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 16/36 R.K. Kochar, Ld. counsel for accused Himanshu @ Ashu, this witness stated that he had not prepared site plan of place of recovery of knife and he had not put any identification mark on recovered knife and he had also not lifted finger print from there and he had not obtained the signature of family members of accused or neighbours on seizure of knife. This witness had denied to the suggestion that no recovery of knife has been effected at the instance of accused Himanshu @ Ashu or that knife has been planted upon him. This witness admits that doctor by giving subsequent opinion refused to give any opinion on knife that knife produced before him has been used in commission of crime. This witness had denied to the suggestion that case was blind or that he had investigated the case just to work out or that he has not conducted fair and proper investigation.
49.After closing of prosecution evidence, case was fixed for arguments. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.:
50.After prosecution evidence, statement of both the accused persons u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded where both accused persons denied all the allegations and circumstances put to them. Accused Himanshu @ Ashu claimed that he was lifted by the police from his house and wrongfully detained at police station and during the police custody police had forcibly taken his signatures on a number of blank paper and subsequently written the same as per his case and nothing incriminating has been recovered at his instance or from his possession and he has not committed any offence as alleged against him and police have falsely introduced PW Pradeep @ Parro in this case as witness.
SC No.57/2011
State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 17/36
51.Accused Sunil Kumar @ Lucky claimed that he was not in the company either of Himanshu or Monu and he had not committed any offence as alleged against him and during the police custody police had obtained his signatures on some blank papers. Accused persons had not preferred to lead any defence evidence.
52.Thereafter, case was listed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
53. Ld. APP for State has argued that charge was framed against accused persons namely Himanshu @ Ashu and Sunil Kumar @ Lucky for the offences u/s 302/201/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act.
54.Ld. APP for the State has argued that statement of PW1 Pradeep @ Parro is reliable and sufficient to prove the case of prosecution. PW Pradeep @ Parro in his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. clearly stated that he had seen the deceased in the company of accused persons on the day of incident. Ld. APP further submitted that there is recovery of weapon of offence i.e. dagger/knife at the instance of accused Himanshu @ Ashu.
55.On these grounds, ld. APP for the State has prayed that prosecution has proved its case against both the accused persons namely Himanshu @ Ashu and Sunil Kumar @ Lucky u/s 302/201/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act.
56.On the other hand, Sh. Trilok Chand, ld. counsel for accused Sunil @ Lucky and SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 18/36 Sh. R.K. Kochar, Ld. counsel for accused Himanshu @ Ashu submitted that PW Pradeep was detained in police station for about two days and cited as the witness falsely and he was pressurized to give false statement in the present case against accused persons.
57.Ld. counsel further argued that this case was registered on DD No.28A on the information flashed by mobile No.9868776847 but the prosecution is failed to produce that person before the court who had flashed the information. After receipt of DD, Inspector reached at the spot but he did not find any eyewitness at the spot and when he reached at hospital he also did not find any eye witness.
58.Ld. counsel further submitted that the as per MLC of deceased the name and the other particular of the deceased were not known and after two days of alleged incident police had informed to the parents of the deceased and they have identified the dead body and till that time PW Pradeep @ Parro has not come forward before the police. He himself did not inform to the police. He did not take the injured to the hospital or any other place. Police has recorded the statement of one Pradeep @ Parro in the present case after the two days of the alleged incident, in fact the Pradeep had not seen the deceased in the company of the applicant but the police has falsely produced him as a last seen evidence.
59.Ld. counsel further submitted that statement of PW Pradeep @ Parro are contradictory. PW1 Pradeep @ Parro had mentioned in his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. that he came to know that Monu @ Tundi has received injuries in a quarrel SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 19/36 but in his testimony before the court he has not mentioned the same. PW1 in his cross examination admits that he had stated to the police officials that he had made a call to one Tara informing thereby the name of the accused persons with whom deceased was present but same fact is not mentioned in his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C.
60.Ld. counsel further submitted that Tara is neither accused nor cited as witness in this case.
61.Ld. counsel further submitted that it is not mentioned in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW Pradeep @ Parro that in the night of the day of incident, mother of deceased Monu had come to his house and asked about whereabouts of Monu. Further, mother of deceased has also not been examined.
62.ld. counsel further submitted that no recovery of any weapon was effected from the possession of accused Sunil by which the offence in question was committed.
63.Ld. counsel further submitted that in postmortem report Ex.PW15/A cause of death is 'shock due to antemortem injuries to femoral artery produced by single edged sharp weapon' but the weapon of offence which had been recovered by I.O. is double edged sharp weapon. It is mentioned in the subsequent opinion that injury mentioned on the body of deceased Manish in postmortem report is not possible with the produced weapon as both the edges of weapon are sharp but one end of injury is sharp and others end is blunt. Hence, said weapon of offence is not SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 20/36 linked with the alleged crime.
64.On these grounds, ld. counsel for both accused persons has prayed for acquittal of accused persons from the charges.
PERUSAL OF RECORD AND OPINION
65.Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record it is revealed that on 12.02.2009 a DD No.38A Ex.PW4/A was recorded at police station Welcome regarding stabbing of a person behind community centre, DDA Flats, Gorakh Park, and same DD was assigned to HC Radhey Shyam and he proceeded to spot. Inspector Ram Dhan Singh was also informed about the abovesaid call and he also reached at the spot and found HC Radhey Shyam and Ct. Arvind Kumar and came to know that injured had been shifted to GTB Hospital and thereafter, he went to GTB Hospital and collected the MLC of unknown injured person who was declared as brought dead in the casualty at about 11:00 p.m.
66.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that Inspector Ram Dhan had got the photographs of the deceased taken in GTB Hospital and came back at the spot and after inspection of the spot he had put his endorsement Ex.PW18/A on DD No.28 A and got the present case registered vide FIR Ex.PW4/B.
67.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that Inspector Ram Dhan Singh had got the scene of crime inspected and photographed and collected the SOC report vide Ex.PW9/A and the photographs vide Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A10. SC No.57/2011
State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 21/36
68.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that I.O. Inspector Ram Dhan Singh had lifted bloodstained earth, earth control and blood from the spot and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A and Inspector Ram Dhan Singh had also seized the bloodstained chappal vide memo Ex.PW8/A.
69.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that on 13.02.2009 the dead body of unknown injured person was identified by the brother of deceased Sonu and Suresh and their statement Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW18/A were recorded in this regard.
70.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that Inspector Ram Dhan Singh had got the postmortem conducted on the dead body of Monu vide his application Ex.PW18/C and before that he had also filled up the inquest paper Ex.PW18/D and the exhibits collected during the postmortem of the deceased were seized vide memo Ex.PW18/E.
71.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that I.O. had arrested accused Himanshu @ Ashu vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/B, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW5/C and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW5/D. In pursuance to his disclosure statement, accused Himanshu @ Ashu had got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. dagger and he had drawn the sketch of dagger vide Ex.PW5/E and converted the dagger into a cloth parcel and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW5/F. I.O. has also prepared pointing out memo Vide Ex.PW5/E on the pointed out the place of incident at the instance of accused Himanshu @ Ashu. SC No.57/2011
State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 22/36
72.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that HC Nirdesh Kumar had apprehended accused Sunil @ Lucky wanted in the present case and recoded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW16/A in which had disclosed his involvement in the present case and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW16/B and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW16/C and informed to police station Welcome vide DD Ex.PW18/A and HC Nirdesh Kumar had also prepared a kalandara Ex.PW16/D regarding apprehending of accused Sunil @ Lucky being involved in a cognizable offence in the present case and to this effect DD No.7 at police station Welcome on 28.05.2009 was also recorded. Thereafter, on coming to know about the information of arrest of accused Sunil @ Lucky, Inspector Ram Dhan had reached in the court where he had moved an application Ex.PW18/G for interrogation of accused Sunil @ Lucky. Inspector Ram Dhan Singh has proved arrest memo Ex.PW18/H and personal search memo Ex.PW18/I of accused Sunil @ Lucky and pointing out memo Ex.PW18/L prepared at the instance of accused Sunil @ Lucky.
73.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that PW10 Dr. P.K. Shaha had proved MLC of the deceased vide Ex.PW10/A.
74.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that PW15 Dr. Arvind Kumar had proved the postmortem report of deceased Monu Ex.PW15/A and as per this report report the cause of death was 'shock due to antemortem injuries to femoral artery produced by single edged sharp weapon' and PW15 had also proved the subsequent SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 23/36 opinion Ex.PW15/B regarding the injuries found on the dead body of Monu visa vis weapon of offence.
75.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that Inspector Ram Dhan Singh had proved the FSL reports Ex.PW18/M and Ex.PW18/N respectively.
76.Before reaching at any conclusion let the relevant sections i.e. 302/201/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act be reproduced which are as under : Section - 302 IPC:
"302 Punishment for murder - Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or (Imprisonment for life), and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 201 IPC "Causing disappearance of evidence o offence, or giving false information to screen offender. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
if a capital offence. shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life. and if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life] , or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to then years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to onefourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both."
SC No.57/2011
State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 24/36
Sec.34 IPC
"When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959:
27. 1[ Punishment for using arms, etc. (1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death.]
77.Case of prosecution is that on 12.02.2009 a telephone call from mobile phone No. 9868776847 was received at PCR on which one DD entry No.38A was registered at police station Welcome regarding stabbing a boy behind DDA Flats, Gorakhpark, Community Centre. Police had investigated the matter and accordingly, registered the case vide FIR Ex.PW4/B. During the course of investigation, police had arrested accused persons namely Himanshu @ Ashu and Sunil @ Lucky.
78.On perusal of DD entry, it does not reveal the name of any eyewitness. Accordingly, case was based on circumstantial evidence.
79.Prosecution had examined as many as 18 PWs to prove its case. PW1 Pradeep @ Parro who is the witness of last seen. As per the testimony of this witness, he had SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 25/36 taken liquor along with accused Himanshu @ Ashu, Lucky @ Sunil and Monu (since deceased), thereafter, he had left the spot and reached to his house. This witness had stated that in the night on the day of incident, mother of Monu had come to his house and asked about whereabouts of deceased and he disclosed that Monu was left with Himanshu and Lucky and one another person was also with them who was not known to him. This witness had come to know through public persons that Monu had died and he became perplexed and run away from his house due to fear that he would have been murdered by the family members of deceased. This witness has further stated that when police had arrested his brother in this case then he disclosed the fact that he had left the deceased Monu in the company of Himanshu, Lucky and one third person whose name was not known to him and telephonically told to one Tara (Male). He was interrogated by the I.O. and when he told the police that he had left the deceased with Himanshu @ Ashu and Lucky and one third person then police had released him from their custody.
80.This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State and this witness had admitted that date of incident was 12.02.2009.
81.In his cross examination by Sh. R.K. Kochar, ld. counsel for accused Himanshu, this witness had stated that he had good relations with Monu (deceased) as he was his relative. On the day of incident, deceased Monu and himself took liquor with accused persons. Accused Himanshu gave him Rs.70/ or 80/ for purchasing liquor. This witness admits that accused Lucky was not present when he along with Himanshu and Monu took the liquor which he had purchased. This witness had SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 26/36 stated voluntarily that Lucky was called by accused Himanshu after they finished their first of two quarters.
82.This witness had stated that deceased Monu was under the influence of liquor when he asked him to return to his house with him. This witness had stated that at the time of taking liquor there was no dispute between them and they were taking liquor freely. This witness had denied to the suggestion put by ld. counsel for accused Himanshu @ Ashu that deceased Monu was not present with the Himanshu and other person and due to fear he had disclosed their name to the police. This witness had further denied to the suggestion that due to the pressure of family member of deceased he had disclosed the name of accused persons. This witness further stated that his father and brother let out after his arrest whatever he had stated to police at police station same was written by police officials. This witness further admits that he was mentally ill prior to this incident and also remained admitted in hospital from 24.10.2008 to 04.11.2008. This witness had admitted that he had stated to the police officials that he had made a call to one Tara informing thereby the name of accused persons with whom deceased was present. This statement have been confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C.
83.In his cross examination by Sh. Trilok Chand, counsel for accused Lucky, this witness had stated that he was known to deceased Monu since childhood. This witness had denied to the suggestion that accused Lucky had not joined them for taking liquor in his presence or that he had not seen lucky on the day of incident or that he was deposing falsely.
SC No.57/2011
State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 27/36
84.PW5 HC Radhey Shyam. This witness had joined the investigation with I.O. Inspector Ram Dhan Singh.
85.PW6 Ct. Shyam Lal who is the photographer of Crime Team, North East District who had taken 10 photographs of spot from different angles at the direction of Inspector Ram Dhan Singh.
86.PW7 SI Mukesh Kumar, draughtsman, Crime Branch. This witness had reached at the spot i.e. gali, in front of DDA flats, Pocket B New Jafrabaad on 05.05.2009 on the request of Inspector R.D. Singh and he took rough notes and measurements at his instance and on the basis of aforesaid rough notes and measurement scaled site plan Ex.PW7/A was prepared.
87.HC Arvind Kumar who had been examined as PW8. This witness had joined investigation with Inspector R.D. Singh and reached at the spot and no eye witness met him.
88.PW10 Dr. P.K. Saha, Chief Casualty Officer, GTB Hospital deputed by M.S. for Dr. Rahul Sapea. This witness had stated that as per the MLC alleged history is mentioned as assault (stabbed). Patient was unconscious and his pulse were not palpable, B.P. not recordable, not respiratory sound and heart sound, pupils B/L fixed and dilated, reflexes - cannot be elicited, ECG - shouring flat isoelectric line. Patient was brought dead in casualty at about 11:00 p.m. SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 28/36
89.ASI Satbir Singh who is examined as PW13. On 12.02.2009, this witness was on duty in PCR in North East District and he was incharge on PCR Baker58. This witness has received a call on 12.02.2009 at about 10:25 p.m. that one person had been stabbed behind Community centre, DDA Flats, Gorakhpark, Delhi. This witness has shifted the injured in PCR van with the help of driver and taken him to GTB Hospital and got him admitted there. This witness had not noticed any injury.
90.PW15 Dr. Arvind Kumar, Asst. Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, UCMS and GTB Hospital, Delhi deputed by M.S. for Dr. Raghvendra Bagla. This witness had stated that postmortem report No. 173/2009 was prepared by Dr. Raghvendra Bagla and as per postmortem report cause of death was shock due to antemortem injury to femoral artery produced by single edged sharp weapon and time since death was about two days. He had seen subsequent opinion and he had identified his signature at point A and as per subsequent opinion of Dr. Raghavender Bagla the injury mentioned on the body of deceased in postmortem report Ex.PW15/A was not possible with the produced weapon as both edges of the weapon were sharp but the one end of the injury was sharp and other end was blunt.
91.PW16 HC Nirdesh Kumar. This witness on 28.05.2009 was posted with Special Cell, Southern Range, Delhi and he had left the office of Special Cell for going to police station Welcome with Ct. Anil and Ct. Rajesh Sharma. At about 01:40 p.m. they reached at ISBT, Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi, there one secret informer met them SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 29/36 and informed them that accused Sunil @ Lucky wanted in amurder case of PS Welcome vide FIR No.38/2009 would come at the entrance gate of aforesaid ISBT. He had organized a raiding party and at about 2:15 p.m. one boy seen coming towards the entrance gate and the secret informer pointed out towards him as being Sunil @ Lucky. They apprehended him and interrogated. He had made disclosure statement and informed to police station Welcome by DD No.18A. This witness had arrested accused Sunil vide arrest memo Ex.PW16/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW16/C and had also prepared kalandara vide Ex.PW16/D. This witness had stated that Ct. Anil and Ct. Rajesh Sharma was with him but neither Ct. Anil and Ct. Rajesh Sharma had been examined nor they have cited as witness.
92.PW18 Inspector Ram Dhan Singh who is the I.O. of this case. This witness stated that on 12.02.2009 he was posted with police station Welcome and on that day, DD No.38A was lodged at police station which was assigned to HC Radhey Shyam. HC Radhey Shayam along with Ct. Arvind reached at the spot. This witness had also reached there and come to know that injured had been shifted to GTB Hospital. As per this witness no eyewitness was present either at the spot or in the GTB Hospital. This witness on the basis of inspection of spot, MLC and circumstances had concluded that deceased had been murdered. Hence, he had called crime team and got inspected the spot and photographed through crime team the same.
93. On 14.09.2009, this witness had got conducted the postmortem of dead body and SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 30/36 after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives vide memo Ex.PW3/B.
94.On 15.09.2009, when this witness was present at police station, Sonu, brother of deceased had come at police station along with PW Pradeep @ Parro and told him that Pradeep had seen the deceased in the company of Himanshu and Sunil on 12.09.2009 at about 10:00 p.m. and that they all were in the state of intoxication and they were quarreling with one another.
95.On 16.09.2009, he had searched for accused Himanshu @ Ashu and Sunil but they could not be found.
96.On 17.09.2013, accused Himanshu @ Ashu was arrested on the pointing out of secret informer from his house at East Gorakh Park. He had interrogated accused Himanshu @ Ashu and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/B and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW5/C. This witness had stated in pursuance of his disclosure statement accused Himanshu had got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. dagger and he had drawn the sketch of dagger vide Ex.PW5/E and converted the dagger into a cloth parcel and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW5/F. Accused Himanshu also led him to spot i.e. DDA Park, West Gorakh Park and pointed out the place of incident and he had prepared a pointing out memo Ex.PW5/E.
97.On 29.05.2009, this witness had arrested accused Sunil @ Lucky vide arrest memo SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 31/36 Ex.PW18/H from Karkardooma Courts and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW18/I who was being produced before Ld. MM. This witness had obtained the custody remand of accused Sunil. During police custody, he had interrogated accused Sunil and recorded his disclosure statement and pursuant of disclosure statement, accused Sunil had also led them to the place of incident and pointed out the same and he had prepared pointing out memo vide Ex.PW18/L at the instance of accused Sunil @ Lucky. This witness had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and on the completion of investigation he had filed supplementary charge sheet in respect of accused Sunil @ Lucky.
98.In his cross examination by Sh. R.K. Kochar, Ld. counsel for accused Himanshu @ Ashu, he had stated that he had reached at GTB Hospital at 10:50 p.m. and admit that no eyewitness of this case was met at GTB Hospital and no clue come forward and he had not found any empty whiskey bottles or glass and eatables and he had not noticed any evidence at the spot showing the presence of any persons there and of consuming the liquor there. He had moved an application to doctor for conducting the postmortem but he had not requested to postmortem conducting doctors to preserve the viscera to examine the presence of the alcohol. This witness further stated that on 12.09.2009 when he reached at the spot no public persons were present there. This witness had further admitted that by 15.02.2009 he could not found any clue and evidence into the facts of present case.
99.In his cross examination by Sh. Trilok Chand, ld. counsel for accused Sunil @ Lucky, this witness had admitted that deceased was a criminal person and about 20 SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 32/36 criminal cases were registered against the deceased with police station Welcome. This witness had further admitted that there was no statement that offence in question was committed by accused Sunil @ Lucky and that no recovery of any weapon was effected from the possession of accused Sunil @ Lucky and that in the medical examination of accused Sunil, doctors has not given such findings which shows that the accused Sunil was of habit of taking the liquor.
100.This witness was again recalled for cross examination after allowing application u/s 311 Cr. P. C. vide order dated 27.08.2013. In his cross examination by Sh. R.K. Kochar, Ld. counsel for accused Himanshu @ Ashu, this witness had stated that he had not prepared site plan of place of recovery of knife and that he had not put any identification mark on recovered knife and he had also not lifted finger print from there. He had not obtained the signature of family members of accused or neighbours on seizure of knife. This witness had denied to the suggestion that recovery of knife had been planted upon accused Himanshu @ Ashu. This witness had admitted that doctor by giving subsequent opinion refused to give any opinion on knife that knife produced before him has been used in commission of crime.
101.Thereafter, statement of accused persons was recorded wherein they have claimed to be innocent and accused Himanshu @ Ashu stated that he was lifted from his house and wrongfully detained at police station and during the police custody police had forcibly taken his signatures on a number of blank paper and subsequently written the same as per his case and nothing has been recovered from his possession. Accused Sunil had claimed to be innocent and he was not in the SC No.57/2011 State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 33/36 company of either Himanshu or Monu as alleged against him. During the police custody, police had obtained his signatures on some blank papers.
102.Since from the testimony of PW1 who is claimed to be eyewitness, this witness had deposed nothing against any of the accused persons Even, this witness was not the witness of recovery. Now after perusal of testimony of this witness the case of prosecution rest upon the circumstantial evidence.
103.In cases based on circumstantial evidence Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Ramareddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2006 (1) JCC 541," has held that :
"Circumstantial EvidenceBasic conviction on Requirement forProsecution must establish all pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidenceCircumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of accusedCircumstances cannot be on any other hypothesisSuspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proofCourts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on basis of circumstantial evidence."
"Motive Importance of Motive by itself is not sufficient to prove guilt."
104.Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Charan Singh v State AIR 1967 SC 520" wherein it has held that :
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved.
(2) The circumstances should be conclusive in nature. SC No.57/2011
State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 34/36 (3) All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence. (4) The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than that of the accused.
105.Since from the close scrutiny of I.O. and recovery. Firstly, the case of prosecution is that accused Himanshu @ Ashu and Sunil @ Lucky had been seen in the company of Monu along with PW1 Pradeep @ Parro is not sustainable. Since I.O. PW18 had admitted that he had not requested to doctor to preserve the viscera. Hence, viscera could not be sent for examination for ascertaining the presence of alcohol on relevant day.
106.Further, close scrutiny of testimony of PW18, I.O. himself admitted that he had not noticed/collected evidence from the spot and no eyewitness of case had met either at GTB Hospital or at the spot.
107.Further, postmortem which suggest that cause of death is 'shock due to antemortem injuries to femoral artery produced by single edged sharp weapon'.
108.Further, subsequent opinion on recovered knife sent to doctor who had conducted postmortem and on perusal of subsequent opinion it clearly establish that injury mentioned on the body of the deceased, as per his postmortem report, is not possible with the said weapon as both the edges of the said knife is sharp and other end of the injury is blunt.
SC No.57/2011
State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 35/36
109.Since it is the settled law in the case of circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances proving the guilt of accused must be consistent. As into the fact of present case chain of circumstantial evidence of prosecution is not consistent towards the guilt of accused on the evidence placed on record.
110.Since it has been settled principle of law prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to convict the accused persons. Accordingly, as into the facts of present case facts and circumstances of case, this court is of the view that prosecution has been failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused persons. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient evidence against accused persons, at this stage, this court acquit accused Himanshu @ Ashu from the charges u/s 302/201/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act and accused Sunil @ Lucky from the charges u/s 302/34 IPC by giving them benefit of doubt.
111.In terms of Section 437 (A) Cr. P.C. accused persons namely Himanshu @ Ashu and Sunil Kumar @ Lucky are directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.20,000/ each with one surety in the like amount for the period of six months. File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16.09.2013.
(RAMESH KUMARII) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE01/NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
SC No.57/2011
State v. Himanshu @ Ashu and another 36/36