81. In This Respect, I Rely Upon Kapoor ... vs State Of on 20 July, 2007

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

81. In This Respect, I Rely Upon Kapoor ... vs State Of on 20 July, 2007

                                 1


IN THE COURT OF SH V.K. GOYAL, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: DELHI.
SESSION CASE NO. 59/06.
                   DATE OF INSTITUTION OF CASE :- 07.12.2001.
                   DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN
                   RESERVED :-                    12.07.2007.
                   DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN
                   DELIVERED:-                    17.07.2007.

                                        FIR NO. 523/01
                                        PS PATEL NAGAR.
                                        U/S 302/201/34 OF IPC.
                                        & 25/54/59 OF ARMS ACT.


STATE

VERSUS

1. AJAY @ LUDI,
   S/O NAGA RAM @ CHHANGA RAM,
   R/O E-13, JHUGGI DDA FLATS,
   NEW RANJEET NAGAR,
   DELHI.
2. SANJAY,
   S/O AMAR SINGH,
   R/O E-131, DDA FLATS,
   NEW RANJEET NAGAR,
   DELHI.
3. PREM KUMAR @ LALA,
   S/O RAMESHWAR DAYAL,
   R/O E-6, JHUGGI DDA FLATS,
   NEW RANJEET NAGAR,
   DELHI.
JUDGMENT:

1. This case was started with the recording of DD no. 38A dated 2 11-12.08.2001 of Police Station Patel Nagar, which was recorded at 01.05 AM night. Constable Satpal on duty from RML hospital informed on telephone to the duty officer that one Amit S/O Satpal Singh, R/O C-24, DDA flats, New Ranjeet Nagar, Delhi, was admitted in the hospital by his mother Vimla Rani, in a quarrel after sustaining injuries. After recording the above DD, it was handed over to HC Yashpal for necessary action with constable Rama Kant. Thereafter HC Yashpal reached at RML hospital and obtained MLC of injured Amit. In the MLC, alleged history was stabbing of injured in abdomen and injured was found unfit for statement. Injury was shown as sharp. Neither at the spot nor in the hospital, he met with any eye witness. Injured was admitted in the hospital by his mother. From the MLC, he found the committal of offence under section 307 of IPC and requested for registration of a case under section 307 of IPC. On the basis of this rukka, FIR no. 523/01 was registered and further investigation was handed over to SI Kashmere Lal, Additional SHO.

2. During the investigation, on 12.08.2001, HC Yashpal seized one pullanda containing one shirt of injured Amit sealed with the seal of doctor, RML hospital, alongwith the sample seal. During the 3 investigation, SI Kashmere Lal tried to record the statement of injured but could not succeed. Statements of the mother and father and one Vijender S/O Mange Ram were recorded. On the pointing of Smt. Vimla Rani, site plan was prepared on 14.08.2001. Injured died on 14.08.2001 and the case was converted under section 302 of IPC. DD no. 17A was recorded in this respect. Information was given by duty constable Harender from RML hospital at about 2.15 PM day and the DD was handed over to SI Kashmere Lal, who alongwith constable Sunil Kumar went to the hospital.

3. Further investigation was carried out by Inspector Ravinder Grewal. He visited the hospital and also the house of the deceased. On 15.08.2001, he got conducted the postmortem of deceased Amit from DDU hospital and after the postmortem, dead body was handed over to his father Satpal.

4. On 16.08.2001, accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay, who were wanted in this case, were arrested from Satya Park and were interrogated. They admitted their guilt and made disclosure statements separately. It was also revealed that the knife with which injuries were caused to the deceased, was handed over by the 4 accused persons to their friend, who resides at Udaypur, Rajasthan. Accused persons also disclosed that they could get recovered the knife and pointed out the place, where the incident took place.

5. Accused Ajay @ Ludi, during the PC remand led the police party to Udaypur but from there, they came to know that their friend had gone back to Delhi on 18.08.2001, hence the police party with accused came back to Delhi.

6. On 19.08.2001, accused Prem Kumar @ Lala was arrested in this case under section 201 of IPC and knife i.e. weapon of offence was recovered. Same was seized. Section 25 of Arms Act was also added. Postmortem report was obtained. He got prepared the scaled site plan. Exhibits were sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar and result was obtained. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.

7. After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed under section 302/201/34 of IPC against the accused persons before the court of concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It was committed to the court of sessions and was assigned to this court.

8. On 04.05.2002, after hearing the arguments, charge was framed against the accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay under section 5 302/34 of IPC and charge under section 201 of IPC and section 25 of Arms Act against accused Prem Kumar @ Lala, to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

9. To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW-1 to 19 in all.

10. Material witnesses are PW-2,3 and 12.

11. PW-2 is Smt. Vimla, mother of the deceased. She has stated that on 11.08.2001, her son Amit @ Bittoo had gone to Satyam Complex for parking the tempo at about 10 PM and when he did not return for a long time, she became perplexed. At about 11.30 PM, she heard a noise outside her house that Amit had been stabbed by someone with a knife. On hearing this, she immediately came down from her house and reached at the chowk. A large crowd was gathered at the chowk. Her son Amit @ Bittoo was lying on the ground in the pool of blood. A large quantity of blood was oozing from his stomach. He was unconscious. She immediately took Amit to the RML hospital in a private vehicle and got him admitted there. In the way, her son regained some consciousness and told her that he had been stabbed by Ajay @ Ludi with a knife on the stomach and Sanjay 6 had caught hold of him from his waist. She does not know if there was any altercation of her son with Sanjay or Ajay. Her son had also told her that Sanjay and Ajay had demanded money from him for liquor and when he refused they had stabbed him. From the hospital, she informed her husband on the telephone and after sometime her husband had also arrived in the hospital. She has identified accused Sanjay and Ajay @ Ludi in the court, as they are the residents of their mohalla. On 14.08.2001, her son expired in the hospital.

12. PW-3 is Satya Pal, father of the deceased. On the night of 11-12.08.2001, he was present at his house. He was sleeping in the night. At about 11-11.30 PM, his son and other children awoke him and told him that they had heard a noise that someone had inflicted a knife blow to Amit at the Chowk and their mother had gone there. He immediately came down from the house after wearing the clothes. His wife had already taken Amit to the hospital. He was not aware in which hospital she had taken Amit. Thereafter, he returned to his house as it was not known to him to which hospital Amit @ Bittoo had been taken. After 40-50 minutes, his wife informed him on the telephone that Bittoo had been admitted in the RML hospital. He then 7 reached RML hospital on his scooter. In the hospital, Doctor on duty told him that Amit required operation and as such his signatures were obtained by the Doctor. HC Yashpal also arrived in the hospital. At about 4 AM, Amit was brought from the Operation Theatre after the operation and he was shifted in a room. Thereafter, he came back to his house.

13. On 12.08.2001, he again reached RML hospital at 4 PM. His wife told him the facts disclosed by Amit. He also inquired from his son Amit @ Bittoo, who told him very slowly that he was returning to the house after parking the tempo and accused Sanjay and Ajay called him at the chowk and they demanded money from him for taking the liquor. When he refused to give the money, they started beating him. Amit had also told him that Sanjay had caught hold of him from back side and Ajay @ Ludi had caused injuries on his stomach with the knife. He does not know about any previous dispute of his son with the accused. He has identified both the accused Sanjay and Ajay in the court as they are the residents of their mohalla. His son has been murdered by the accused persons.

14. He had identified the dead body of his son Amit in the 8 mortuary of RML hospital vide his statement Ex. PW-3/A. Police had not recorded the statement of his son Amit although he was in a position to speak.

15. PW-12 is Vijender Kumar. He has stated that Amit was his nephew. He was residing at C-24, Patel Nagar. On 12.08.2001 and 13.08.2001, he went to see Amit at RML hospital, where he was admitted after sustaining injuries on the night of 11.08.2001. On 13.08.2001, Amit was conscious and he told him that on 11.08.2001 at about 10/11 PM, accused Sanjay caught hold of him and one Ajay stabbed at his abdomen by a knife and this fact, he has told to the IO.

16. Witnesses to the Initial investigation are PW-4 and 6.

17. PW-4 is HC Yashpal Singh. On the night of 11/12.08.2001, on receipt of copy of DD no. 38A, he alongwith constable Ramakant reached at the RML hospital. He obtained the MLC of injured Amit @ Bittoo. On the MLC, the alleged history was given as stab injury on abdomen and the injured was unfit for the statement and the injuries were of sharp object. No eye witness met him in the hospital and on the spot. The injured was admitted in the hospital by his mother. He made endorsement Ex. PW-4/B on DD no. 38A Ex. PW-4/A for the 9 registration of the case under section 307 of IPC. On the basis of his endorsement, case was registered and further investigation was handed over to SI Kashmere Lal.

18. In the hospital, constable Satpal had produced to him one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of CMO, RML and one sample seal which he had taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-4/C. His statement was recorded by the IO.

19. PW-6 is constable Satpal. On the night of 11/12.08.2001, he was posted at RML hospital as DO. At about 12/12.30 PM, one Amit S/O Satpal R/O C-24, DDA flats, New Ranjit Nagar, Delhi was admitted in the hospital in an injured condition by his mother Smt. Vimla Rani. He gave this information to the local police vide DD no. 35A Ex. PW-4/A.

20. Witnesses to the further investigation are PW-11,13,15,17,18 and 19.

21. PW-18 is SI Kashmere Lal. On 12.08.2001, after the registration of the case, further investigation was handed over to him. On the same night, he reached RML hospital. The injured Amit was unfit for making the statement. He returned to the Police Station. On 10 the next day, he again reached RML hospital to enquire about the condition of the injured Amit. He was unfit for making the statement on that day also. On 13.08.2001, he visited the place of occurrence. Smt. Bimla mother of injured Amit was also joined by him. On the instance of Smt. Bimla, he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex. PW-18/A. The marginal notes from serial no. 1 to 7 are in his handwriting. From the place of occurrence, he reached RML hospital, where Satpal, father of Amit met him. He recorded his statement under section 161 of Cr. P. C. One relative of Amit also met him in the hospital and his statement was also recorded by him in the hospital.

22. On 14.08.2001, injured Amit died in the hospital, then he added section 302 of IPC in the record. After the offence was converted to Section 302 of IPC, further investigation was handed over to SHO Inspector Ravinder Singh Grewal of Police Station Patel Nagar. On 15.08.2001, he was joined in the investigation of the case by the SHO.

23. SHO Inspector Ravinder Singh had conducted the inquest proceedings in the death of Amit as required under section 174 of Cr. 11 P. C. He had accompanied the SHO to mortuary DDU, where the postmortem on the dead body of Amit was got conducted. The dead body of Amit was identified by his father. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the father of deceased Amit vide receipt Ex. PW-18/B.

24. In the mortuary of DDU, doctor has given one sealed pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of LKB, SMO, Civil Hospital and one sample seal of LKB, SMO, Civil Hospital to the SHO after the postmortem examination. It were taken into possession by the SHO vide memo Ex. PW-18/C. His statement was also recorded by the SHO in this regard.

25. PW-13 is constable Sunil Kumar. On 14.08.2001, he had accompanied SI Kashmere Lal in connection with DD no. 17A to RML hospital. The dead body of Amit was found in the mortuary of RML hospital. Dead body of Amit was taken to DDU hospital on 15.08.2001 for postmortem examination. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. As long as the dead body remained in his possession it was intact.

26. PW-11 is ASI Pushpa, who was posted as DO on 14.08.2001 12 in Police Station Patel Nagar. On that day, she received an information at about 2.15 PM from duty constable Narender of RML hospital on telephone and she lodged the information as DD no. 17A Ex. PW-11/A. The DD was conveyed to SI Kashmere Lal, who made departure alongwith constable Sunil Kumar vide this DD no. 17A.

27. PW-19 is Inspector Ravinder Grewal. He has stated that on 14.08.2001, while posted as SHO, Police Station Patel Nagar, an information was received from the duty constable Harender from the RML hospital about the death of injured Amit S/O Satpal and on this information a DD no. 17A Ex. PW-11/A, dated 14.08.2001 was recorded in Police Station Patel Nagar by the duty officer at 2.15 PM. The copy of the said DD was handed over to SI Kashmere Lal. After the death of Amit, further investigation was taken by him and the case was converted to Section 302 of IPC.

28. Thereafter, he reached RML hospital and the dead body of Amit was sent to mortuary RML. He had conducted the inquest proceedings as required under section 174 of Cr. P. C. on 15.08.2001. The application for conducting the postmortem is Ex. PW-19/A. He had also recorded the brief facts which are Ex. PW- 13 19/B. Death report form 25.35 Ex. PW-19/C was also filled up. The dead body of Amit was identified by Satyal Pal, father of deceased and Anand Madan, uncle of Amit. He had recorded their statements on the identification of the dead body and the same are Ex. PW-3/A and 1/A. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to his father Satyapal, vide handing over memo Ex. PW-18/B.

29. On 16.08.2001, accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay were apprehended from Satya Park on the basis of secret information. Both were interrogated by him and their disclosure statements Ex. PW- 15/A and 15/B were recorded. On the basis of the disclosure statement of accused Ajay @ Ludi, accused Prem Kumar @ Lala was apprehended from his house at E-6, Jhuggi, DDA Flats, New Ranjit Nagar, Delhi. He was also interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-15/E was recorded. The personal search memos Ex. PW- 15/C, 15/D and 15/F of accused were also prepared.

30. On the basis of the disclosure statement of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala and on his pointing out, dagger which was the weapon of offence was recovered from his house, which was found wrapped in a polythene paper from the back of the iron box. He had prepared 14 the sketch Ex. PW-15/G of the recovered dagger. It was sealed in a parcel with the seal of RG and the sealed parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-15/H. Seal of RG was handed over to SI Neki Ram Lamba.

31. From the mortuary, he had brought one sealed pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of LKB, SMO, Civil Hospital and one sample seal of LKB, SMO, Civil Hospital and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-18/C.

32. During the investigation, he also collected the scaled site plan Ex. PW-7/B from the Draftsman and on which the marginal notes in red ink is written by him and the same is Ex. PW-19/D. He had also prepared the site plan Ex. PW-19/E of the place of recovery of dagger. He had also sent the exhibits to FSL, Malviya Nagar and obtained the FSL report Ex. PX, PY and PZ. During the investigation, he had recorded the statements of the concerned PWs and after the completion of the investigation, he filed the challan in the court.

33. He has identified the accused persons and the case property before the court. Dagger as Ex. P-1, Polythene bag as Ex. P-2 and 15 akhbari kagaz as Ex. P-3.

34. PW-15 is SI N. R. Lamba. On 16.08.2001, while posted at Police Station Patel Nagar, he alongwith SHO Ravinder Grewal, ASI Partap Singh, were present in the Ranjit Nagar in connection with the investigation of this case. He had gone in official vehicle. At about 7.45 PM, they reached near the bushes of Satya Park. On the pointing out of the informer, accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay were apprehended from the bushes. Both the accused were interrogated and were brought to the police post. Their disclosure statements were recorded by the IO and the same are Ex. PW-15/A & 15/B. Their personal search memos Ex. PW-15/C and Ex. PW-15/D were prepared by the IO in his presence. The accused also pointed out to the place of occurrence.

35. On 19.08.2001, he again joined in the investigation of the case. On that day, on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused Ajay @ Ludi, accused Prem Kumar @ Lala was arrested from his house. He was also interrogated by the IO and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-15/E was recorded. Personal search memo Ex. PW-15/F of accused Prem Kumar was also prepared. 16 Accused Prem Kumar @ Lala disclosed to the IO in the disclosure statement that the dagger, which was used as a weapon of offence was lying in his residential room behind the iron box. On the basis of the disclosure of Prem Kumar @ Lala, one dagger wrapped in a akhbari kagaj was recovered, which was found in a blue panni, from his residential room. SHO prepared the sketch Ex. PW-15/G of the dagger. It was sealed in a parcel with the seal of RG and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-15/H. Seal of RG was handed over to him after its use.

36. On 23.08.2001, he returned the seal of RG to the SHO, which was used on 19.08.2001 on the pullandas by the IO. On 24.08.2001, he had taken the sealed parcel of dagger to DDU hospital and had produced the same before Dr. L. K. Barua for opinion but he did not give any opinion and returned the parcel to him intact. Then, he deposited the sealed parcel of dagger in the malkhana intact. So long as the sealed parcel remained in his possession on 24.08.2001 it remained intact.

37. He has identified the accused persons before the court and the case property. Dagger as Ex. P-1, blue polythene bag as Ex. P-2 17 and akhbari kagaj as Ex. P-3.

38. PW-17 is SI Partap Singh. On 16.08.2001, he was posted at Police Station Patel Nagar as ASI. On that day, he had joined an investigation by Inspector Ravinder Grewal, SHO, Police Station Patel Nagar. In his presence, accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay were apprehended from the bushes of Satya Park at about 7.45 PM at the pointing out of the informer. Both were brought to the police post and they were interrogated by the IO in his presence. Their disclosure statements were recorded and the same are Ex. PW-15/A & 15/B. They were arrested and their personal search memos Ex. PW-15/C and Ex. PW-15/D were prepared by the IO in his presence.

39. On the same day, accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay took them to the place of occurrence. The pointing out memos Ex. PW- 17/A and Ex. PW-17/B were prepared.

40. On 19.08.2001, he again joined in the investigation of the case. In his presence, accused Prem Kumar @ Lala was arrested and was interrogated by the IO and his disclosure statement Ex. PW- 15/E was recorded. Accused Prem Kumar @ Lala had taken them to his residential house at Ranjit Nagar and had produced one 18 polythene from an iron box from his room. It was checked by the IO. One dagger, which was wrapped in a piece of newspaper of English was recovered, from the polythene. Sketch Ex. PW-15/G of the dagger was prepared. The recovered dagger, the akhbari kagaz and the polythene were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-15/H. It was sealed with the seal of RG. Personal search memo Ex. PW-15/F of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala was also prepared.

41. He has identified the case property before the court. Dagger as Ex. P-1, blue polythene bag as Ex. P-2 and akhbari kagaj as Ex. P-

42. Witnesses to the MLC are PW-5,9 and 16.

43. PW-5 is Dr. Pradeep Saxena. On 12.08.2001, he was posted at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. On that day, he was on duty in the Casualty Ward. At about 12.05 AM, patient named Amit was brought to Casualty with alleged history of stab injury abdomen. On examination, he found the general condition of the patient poor. On local examination of the abdomen, a sharp wound about 3 CM long was found on right lumbar region of abdomen. He started the first aid treatment, got the X-ray of abdomen done and referred the patient to 19 surgical emergency department. He prepared MLC Ex. PW-5/A.

44. PW-9 is Dr. L. K. Barua. On 15.08.2001 at 12 noon, he conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased Amit @ Bittoo, aged about 24 years, male sent by SHO, Police Station Patel Nagar. On examination of dead body, the dead body was found to be naked. Rigor mortis was complete all over the dead body. The postmortem staining was present on the back side of the dead body except on pressure points. The following injuries were found on the dead body on examination:-

One mid line vertically placed stitched wound of length 12 inches was observed.

The incised wound mentioned in the MLC might have been included by the operating surgeon while operating and hence could not be detected externally.

On internal examination, the neck and chest were normal after opening the abdominal cavity. The periponial cavity found to have contained about 200 ml. of purulant straw coloured fluid. The intestine, mesemtly was inflamed in pinkish in colour. Two stitched wound were observed in the intestine and it was infected. Stomach was empty. 20

Opinion:- The injury to the intestine / illium was ante- mortem caused by sharp edged weapon and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The death was due to peritonitis (toximia) sufficient to injury to intestine. The sample of blood was sealed and handed over to police. The time of death has already been given by the hospital doctor and the findings was found consistent. His report is Ex. PW-9/A.

45. PW-16 is Dr. V. Parsi. He has seen the death summary report related to patient Amit, 24 years, which is prepared by Dr. M. S. Mann. He has also seen the death report form of Amit. The same is also filled up by Dr. M. S. Mann and Dr. Deepak Ghulyani. He identified their writing and signatures as he and both doctors were working together in RML hospital in the year, 2001 and both the doctors had left the services of the hospital. He identified the signatures of Dr. M. S. Mann on the death summary and death report Ex. PW-16/A at point A. Dr. Deepak Ghulyani has signed at point A on the death report.

46. Formal Witnesses are PW-1,7,8,10 and 14.

47. PW-1 is Anand Madan. On 15.08.2001, he had seen the 21 dead body of Amit @ Bittoo S/O Sh. Satpal at RML hospital, New Delhi and he had identified the dead body of Amit. His statement Ex. PW-1/A was also recorded by the police.

48. PW-7 is Tirth Raj Singh. On 25.08.2001, he was summoned in the Police Station Patel Nagar by the Local Police. From the Police Station, he reached at the place of occurrence at Ranjit Nagar. He took rough notes and measurements at the spot on the direction of Smt. Bimla W/O Satya Pal. On 25.08.2001, he prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW-17/A on the basis of those rough notes and measurements. After the preparation of the scaled site plan, he destroyed the rough notes and measurements. The scaled site plan on tracing paper is also in his handwriting except marginal note in writing Ex. PW-7/B.

49. PW-8 is H. C. Mumtaj Ali. On 12.08.2001, he was posted at Police Station Patel Nagar as Malkhana Muharar. On that day, HC Yashpal Singh had deposited one sealed parcel, which was sealed with the seal of Dr. RML hospital and one sample seal with him. He made the entry at serial no. 4039 in register no. 19.

50. On 15.08.2001, Inspector Ravinder Grewal, SHO Police 22 Station Patel Nagar had deposited two sealed parcels, which were sealed with the seal of LKB, CMO Civil hospital. He made the entry on serial no. 4049.

51. On 19.08.2001, Inspector Ravinder Grewal had again deposited one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of RG. He had made the entry at serial no. 4062.

52. On 14.09.2001, the exhibits of the case alongwith the sample seal were sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar through constable Satish Kumar vide RC no. 194/21. On 08.01.2003, result from FSL was received through constable Lal Babu. He has brought the original register no. 19 and original RC no. 194/21. The relevant entries are Ex. PW-8/A, 8/B and 8/C. Photocopy of original RC no. 194/21 is Ex. PW-8/D. So long the exhibits remained in his custody, they were intact.

53. PW-10 is ASI Satbir. On 11.08.2001, he was posted as DO from 5 PM to 2 AM in Police Station Patel Nagar. At about 1.05 AM, he received an information through telephone from constable Satpal of RML hospital. The information was lodged as DD no. 38A. Copy of the same is Ex. PW-4/A. This DD was assigned to HC Yashpal for 23 investigation and DD was sent through constable Amarkant.

54. On 12.08.2001, at about 6.58 PM, he received a rukka through HC Yashpal. The entry was made by DD o. 22A Ex. PW- 10/C and he recorded the FIR Ex. PW-10/A. He made endorsement Ex. PW-10/B on the rukka. After registration of the case, investigation was assigned to SI Kashmere Lal.

55. PW-14 is constable Satish Kumar. On 14.09.2001, he was posted at Police Station Patel Nagar. On that day, he had taken three sealed parcels, one sample seal and one FSL form to FSL Malviya Nagar vide RC no. 194/21. After depositing the pullandas in the office of the FSL, he handed over the copy of the same to Malkhana Muharar. So long as the pullandas remained in his possession they were intact.

56. After completion of the evidence, statements of the accused persons were recorded. They all have denied the evidence brought on record. They all have stated that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Sanjay has submitted that all the documents were fabricated. Accused Ajay @ Ludi has stated that the police of Police Station Patel Nagar insisted number of times at 24 his house and as such he surrendered on 14.08.2001 at Police Station and he was illegally detained till 16.08.2001 and during that period 15-20 persons of locality were also arrested but they were released by them and innocent person like him had been roped in this case. Accused Prem Kumar @ Lala has stated that he was lifted from his house and his signatures were obtained forcefully on some performas and papers. He has further stated that no dagger was recovered from him or from his house.

57. In defence, only accused Prem Kumar @ Lala has examined DW-1 Puran, who has stated that on 19.08.2001, he was present at his jhuggi. Two police officials came to his jhuggi and they took Prem Kumar @ Lala with them. They were saying that Prem Kumar has been called by the Saheb in the Police Station and there, Prem Kumar was falsely arrested in this case. In his presence, no search of the jhuggi was conducted and nothing was recovered from the jhuggi. He has brought the ration card to prove his residence. Copy of the same is Ex. DW-1/A.

58. I have heard the learned APP for the State and counsels Sh. G. S. Sharma for accused Ajay @ Ludi, Sh. Pradeep Chaudhary for 25 accused Sanjay and Ms. Komal Sharma for accused Prem Kumar @ Lala and also gone through the material placed on record. Written submissions have also been filed by counsel Sh. G. S. Sharma for accused Ajay @ Ludi.

59. It is contended by the learned defence counsel that the so called dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased to his mother i.e. PW-2 Vimla Devi, in the way from the spot to RML hospital and also to his father i.e. PW-3 Satya Pal in the hospital in the evening time and to PW-12 namely Vijender on 13.08.2001 in the noon time, are suspicious and are liable to be rejected.

60. It is also contended by the learned defence counsel that the so called dying declaration made by deceased to his mother in the way has been improved by his mother in the evidence and she has been confronted with the same. It is further contended by the learned defence counsel that PW-3, father of the deceased, did not inform to HC Yashpal about the so called dying declaration. Similarly, PW-12 Vijender can also not been relied upon in this respect. The evidence of all these three witnesses regarding the dying declaration of the deceased can not be relied upon because deceased was 26 unconscious and could never make any dying declaration.

61. The learned defence counsel has contended that there is a delay in recording the statements of the witnesses by the IO, which has not been explained. The witnesses have also not explained as to why they told the fact to the IO at later stage and not in the starting. The statements of all these witnesses are contradictory to each other, hence are liable to be rejected.

62. According to the deposition of PW-2 Vimla Devi, on 11.08.2001, her son Amit @ Bittoo had gone to Satyam Complex for parking the tempo at about 10 PM and when he did not return for a long time, she became perplexed. At about 11.30 PM, she heard a noise outside her house that Amit had been stabbed by someone with a knife. On hearing this, she immediately came down from her house and reached at the chowk. A large crowd was gathered at the chowk. Her son Amit @ Bittoo was lying on the ground in the pool of blood. A large quantity of blood was oozing from his stomach. He was unconscious. She immediately took Amit to the RML hospital in a private vehicle and got him admitted there. This fact has been corroborated with the MLC Ex. PW-5/A, wherein it is mentioned that 27 Amit was admitted in the hospital by his mother Vimla Devi on 12.08.2001 at 12.05 AM. PW-5 has not been cross examined either in respect of the fact that Smt. Vimla Rani had not got admitted her son in RML hospital on that day nor that deceased was not examined by PW-5.

63. DD no. 38A Ex. PW-4/A also corroborate this fact that Smt. Vimla Devi had got admitted her son in RML hospital. PW-4 has also stated that the injured was admitted in the hospital by his mother. This witness has not been cross examined by the learned defence counsels for any of the accused persons.

64. Now the question which is to be seen and ascertain whether injured Amit was unconscious in the way while he was being removed by his mother to RML hospital.

65. PW-5 has nowhere stated that when he examined injured Amit at about 12.05 AM on 12.08.2001, the patient was unfit for the statement. He has stated that the general condition of the patient was poor and on local examination of abdomen, he found a sharp wound about 3 CM long on right lumbar region of abdomen.

66. First time, it came in the rukka Ex. PW-4/B written by HC 28 Yashpal that injured was unfit for the statement. There is noting "unfit for statement on 12.08.2001 at 1.30 AM" on the MLC Ex. PW-5/A. Before this noting and time, there is nothing on record that prior to that in between 11.30 PM to 1.30 AM injured Amit was unfit for the statement.

67. In the cross examination, PW-2 has been confronted with the fact that she had stated in her statement to the police that her son had told her about the assailants in the way to RML hospital but it is not so recorded in her statement Ex. PW-2/DA. Simultaneously, she has denied the suggestion that her son had not told to her anything in the way to hospital and she has deposed falsely. PW-2 has also denied the suggestion that she did not take her son to the hospital and she was informed later on.

68. She has also been confronted with her statement Ex. PW- 2/DA that she rang to her husband from the hospital. She has stated that she had returned from the hospital on 12.08.2001 at 7 PM in the evening. Police had met her on the chowk in the evening and on 13.08.2001 police again met her in the hospital in the morning. She had given her statement to the police on 12.08.2001. The police 29 official told her that since he was on leave due to Janmashtami, hence he could not record her statement. The Janmashtami was on the night of 12.08.2001. This fact itself has clarified the position as to why the statement of PW-2 was recorded on 13.08.2001 although she told the facts to the police on 12.08.2001. As per her explanation, the concerned police official was on leave, hence her statement could not be recorded and the same was recorded on 13.08.2001. The delay in recording the statement of the witness can not be attributed at her part because the police official was on leave due to Janmashtami. It was the duty of the police official to record the statements. If one police official was on leave then it could have been recorded by some other police officials.

69. In the way, while PW-2 was removing her son to RML hospital, injured Amit told that he was stabbed by Ajay @ Ludi with a knife on the stomach and Sanjay had caught hold of him from his waist. Her son had also told her that Sanjay and Ajay had demanded money from him for liquor and when he refused, they stabbed him.

70. PW-3 is Satya Pal. He is father of the deceased. On the night of 11-12.08.2001, he was present at his house. He was 30 sleeping in the night. At about 11-11.30 PM, his son and other children awoke him and told him that they had heard a noise that someone had inflicted a knife blow to Amit at the Chowk and their mother had gone there. He immediately came down from the house after wearing the clothes. His wife had already taken Amit to the hospital. He was not aware in which hospital she had taken Amit. Thereafter, he returned to his house as it was not known to him to which hospital Amit @ Bittoo had been taken. After 40-50 minutes, his wife informed him on the telephone that Bittoo had been admitted in the RML hospital. He then reached RML hospital on his scooter. In the hospital, Doctor on duty told him that Amit required operation and as such his signatures were obtained by the Doctor. HC Yashpal also arrived in the hospital. At about 4 AM, Amit was brought from the Operation Theatre after the operation and he was shifted in a room. Thereafter, he came back to his house.

71. On 12.08.2001, he again reached RML hospital at 4 PM. His wife told him the facts disclosed by Amit. He also inquired from his son Amit @ Bittoo, who told him very slowly that he was returning to the house after parking the tempo and accused Sanjay and Ajay 31 called him at the chowk and they demanded money from him for taking the liquor. When he refused to give the money, they started beating him. Amit had also told him that Sanjay had caught hold of him from back side and Ajay @ Ludi had caused injuries on his stomach with the knife.

72. In the cross examination, PW-3 has stated that he reached in the hospital at about 12.15 in the night on 11.08.2001 and remained in the hospital till 6.30 AM on 12.08.2001. At about 4 in the hospital neither the police officials nor any doctor was present near the bed of Amit. He has denied the suggestion that his son was not conscious and he had not told him anything about the assailants or about the incident. He has further denied the suggestion that he did not reach in the hospital on 12.08.2001 and he had been informed later on.

73. Twice observations have been given by the doctor on MLC Ex. PW-5/A that Amit is unfit for the statement. Firstly on 12.08.2001 at 1.30 AM and secondly on 13.08.2001 at 8.45 AM. The timings of dying declaration given by deceased Amit to PW-2 and 3 are different from both these times when the doctor observed that Amit was unfit for the statement. It has not been suggested to PW-5 that injured 32 Amit was continuously unfit for the statement from the day and time of his admission till his death. As per deposition of PW-5, the general condition of the injured Amit was poor. He was also operated. Even then within two days i.e. from the day of admission of injured Amit till the day of his death, twice only the police visited the doctor in the hospital for recording the statement of the injured. In these circumstances, it can not be said that when injured Amit told about the incident to his mother PW-2 and his father PW-3 he was not conscious at all.

74. PW-12 Vijender has stated that on 12.08.2001 and 13.08.2001, he went to see Amit at RML hospital, where he was admitted after sustaining injuries in the night of 11.08.2001. On 13.08.2001, Amit was conscious and he told him that on 11.08.2001 at about 10/11 PM, accused Sanjay caught hold of him and one Ajay stabbed at his abdomen by a knife and he told this fact to the IO.

75. In cross examination, he has stated that again on 13.08.2001, he went to see Amit during lunch hours i.e. at 12 noon. At that time, mother and father of Amit were present there. His statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. Statements of 33 father and mother of Amit were also recorded. PW-12 has also corroborated with PW-2, who has stated that her statement was recorded on 13.08.2001 in the hospital. PW-12 has also denied the suggestion that Amit was unconscious on 13.08.2001.

76. As per observation of doctor on MLC Ex. PW-5/A, injured Amit was unfit for statement on 13.08.2001 at about 8.45 AM whereas PW-12 talks about his presence in the hospital in the lunch hours on 13.08.2001.

77. PW-12 has also stated that statements of parents of injured Amit and his statement were recorded by the IO. PW-18 IO has also corroborated this fact and has stated that he recorded the statements of father of the injured and one relative of Amit. In the cross examination, PW-18 has confirmed this fact and has stated that he met the mother of deceased Amit at 11.30/12.00 AM (noon) and recorded her statement.

78. Now let us see the confrontation of PW-2 with her previous statement Ex. PW-2/DA.

79. PW-2 has been confronted with the fact that she had stated in her statement that her son told her in the way about the assailants. 34 Admittedly, it has not so in her statement . In Ex. PW-2/DA, she has stated that she had narrated the fact to the police as told by her son on 12.08.2001 in the evening. She has been confronted with the fact that she rang her husband from the hospital but in Ex. PW-2/DA it is mentioned that after sometime her husband also reached in the hospital. But this fact has been corroborated by PW-3, who has stated that he reached at the hospital when his wife informed him on telephone that injured Amit was admitted in RML hospital.

80. In respect of the confrontation regarding the facts as told by her son to her in the way, PW-2 has stated that she told this fact to the police. She has not stated that she did not tell this fact to the police in any manner, hence if such part is not appearing in her statement confronted with Ex.PW-2/DA then witness can not be said to be unreliable in any manner nor it can be said that she had not told this fact to the IO because she has also denied the suggestion that her son had not told to her anything in the way to the hospital.

81. In this respect, I rely upon Kapoor Singh Rana Vs State of Delhi, ILR (2005) II Delhi 961, wherein it has been held that it is important that all the material facts given by a witness during 35 investigation should be recorded under section 161. But the statement under section 161 is obtained by the investigating officer on interrogation. Therefore, certain aspects may not find their place in a statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. In the present case the evidence of the mother of the victim, PW-1, says that she arrived at the spot immediately after the occurrence. She being the mother of the victim, the natural sequence of events on her arrival at the spot and on finding her daughter in distress will be an enquiry as to what had happened and as to who did it. The natural reaction of the mother would be first to ask as to what had happened and having got the answer to this question would be to ask as to who has done it. Although, the immediate concern will be to get medical aid to the daughter, the mother's anxiety to know these details will be equally urgent. The statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. makes no mention as to any talk between the two.

82. It has been further held that it is clear that the statement has not been recorded in respect of the important fact of any talk with the daughter altogether. At the same time, it cannot be believed that the mother and the daughter did not talk about this detail at all. Perhaps 36 the investigating officer felt assured with the statement of the victim herself and, therefore, did not require another witness to give these facts. Obviously, he did not put this question to the witness and, therefore, the statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. is lacking in these details. Such omissions as in the present case should not be taken as contradiction.

83. Deposition of PW-2 also contains some part which is admissible and can be relied upon under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. She has deposed that at about 11.30 PM, she heard a noise outside her house that Amit had been stabbed by someone with a knife. On hearing this, she immediately came down from her house and reached at the chowk. A large crowd was gathered at the chowk. Her son Amit @ Bittoo was lying on the ground in the pool of blood. A large quantity of blood was oozing from his stomach. He was unconscious. She immediately took Amit to the RML hospital in a private vehicle and got him admitted there.

84. Similarly, PW-3 has stated that at about 11-11.30 PM, his son and other children awoke him and told him that they had heard a noise that someone had inflicted a knife blow to Amit at the Chowk 37 and their mother had gone there. He immediately came down from the house after wearing the clothes. His wife had already taken Amit to the hospital.

85. In support of this, I again rely upon the judgment Kapoor Singh Rana Vs State of Delhi, ILR (2005) II Delhi 961, wherein it has been held that suffice it to say that the statement is a part of the res gestae as codified in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. It has come to be a rule of exception to the hearsay evidence. A fact or a statement of fact or opinion, which is so closely associated in time, place and circumstances with some act or event, which is in issue, that it can be said to form a part of the same transaction as the act or event in issue, is itself admissible in evidence. The justification given for the reception of such evidence is that the light that it sheds upon the act or event in issue is such that in its absence, the transaction in question may not be fully or truly understood and may even appear to be meaningless, inexplicable or unintelligible. The testimony of the mother in respect of what the victim told her immediately on her arrival at the spot can, therefore, safely be read in evidence.

86. It has been further held that there is no suggestion of any 38 kind raising any doubt on the truthfulness of PW-1. There is no reason why PW-1 would try to implicate the appellant and save the real culprit. We find her a truthful witness. We have no hesitation to accept her testimony.

87. It has been also held that it is a well settled principle of law that it is not the quantum of evidence that matters. If the evidence of the prosecution is sufficient to convince the court about the culpability of the accused he can be convicted even on the testimony of one witness. The rule of corroboration as it is commonly said, is a rule of prudence only, not a mandatory rule for acceptance of any evidence.

88. From this part of the evidence of PW-2 and 3, it is proved as the same is admissible in evidence that on that day, injured Amit was stabbed by someone at about 11/11.30 PM. It is also proved that Amit was found lying in a pool of blood and a large quantity of blood was oozing out from his stomach.

89. The second part of deposition of PW-2 and 3 is that their son regain consciousness for sometime and told that accused Ajay @ Ludi had stabbed with knife on the stomach and Sanjay had caught hold of him from his waist. Accused Sanjay and Ajay had demanded 39 money from him for liquor and when he refused, they stabbed him.

90. It has already been discussed above that the facts were told by injured Amit to PW-2 in the way of the hospital and to PW-2, 3 and 12 in the hospital. The learned defence counsel has contended that such dying declaration is not admissible in evidence because the same is suspicious and without corroborating the evidence. The learned defence counsel has further contended that the dying declaration is suffered from infirmity and the same can not form the basis of conviction of the accused persons. The learned defence counsel has also contended that the witnesses did not try to inform the Nurse, Doctor and Police, who were available in the hospital during that period .

91. The contentions of the learned defence counsel are not tenable in any manner because the facts which were narrated by injured Amit to PW-2,3 and 12 comes within the ambit of the dying declaration. It is well settled that the declaration is admissible only in so far as it points or relates directly to the fact constituting the Res- Gestae in homicide i.e. to say the act of killing and to the circumstances immediately attendant thereon. 40

92. Such dying declaration can be proved by oral evidence of the witnesses as to the statements made by the injured who dies subsequently. PW-2,3 and 12 have specifically stated that injured Amit told them above facts of stabbing by the accused Sanjay and Ajay @ Ludi to him. PW-2 and 3 have corroborated each other regarding the fact that on 12.08.2001 at about 4 PM both were present in the hospital and injured Amit told them about the stabbing by the accused persons.

93. PW-2 has admitted in the cross examination that she had returned from the hospital on 12.08.2001 at 7 PM. Whereas PW-3 has stated that on 12.08.2001 he again reached RML hospital at 4 PM. It means that both were present at 4 PM on 12.08.2001 when again injured Amit told them about the fact. PW-3 has also clarified in the cross examination that at about 4 in the hospital, neither police official nor any doctor was present near the bed of Amit.

94. PW-3 has also stated that on the next day, their statements were recorded while PW-12 was also present in the noon in the hospital. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the facts disclosed by the injured to PW-2 in the way and again to PW-2 and 3 on 41 12.08.2001 at 4 PM and on 13.08.2001 to PW-12 alongwith PW-2 and 3 in the noon, can be accepted as dying declaration and the same is admissible in evidence. It is stated by PW-12 that on 12.08.2001, he had not noticed the presence of any police official. On 13.08.2001, he went to see injured Amit during lunch hours i.e. at 12 noon and at that time, police came there after his arrival. Father and mother of the injured Amit were also present there. Their statements were recorded on that day by the police. The objections as raised by learned defence counsel are not affecting the dying declaration made by the injured Amit to PW-2,3 and 12 in any manner because whenever the facts were told by the injured Amit to the witnesses, neither the doctor nor the police officials were present nearby. It is also important to consider that on 12.08.2001, there was Janmashtami and police official was on leave, hence even otherwise there was no possibility of presence of any police official in the hospital on that day.

95. PW-4 is HC Yashpal Singh, who in the night of 11/12.08.2001, on receipt of copy of DD no. 38A, alongwith constable Ramakant reached at the RML hospital. He obtained the MLC of injured Amit @ Bittoo. In the MLC, the alleged history was given as 42 stab injury on abdomen, which corroborated with the fact which was told by injured Amit that he was stabbed by accused Ajay @ Ludi on his stomach. The injuries were of sharp object. He made endorsement Ex. PW-4/B on DD no. 38A Ex. PW-4/A for the registration of the case under section 307 of IPC. On the basis of his endorsement, case was registered and further investigation was handed over to SI Kashmere Lal. He also took one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of CMO, RML and one sample seal, which he had taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-4/C. His statement was recorded by the IO. This witness has not been cross examined by any of the learned defence counsels, hence his testimony went unrebutted and unshaken.

96. PW-6 is constable Satpal, who in the night of 11/12.08.2001, was on duty at RML hospital and at about 12/12.30 PM, gave information about the admission of one Amit S/O Satpal R/O C-24, DDA flats, New Ranjit Nagar, Delhi in the hospital in an injured condition by his mother Smt. Vimla Rani.

97. PW-10 is ASI Satbir. On 11.08.2001, he was posted as DO from 5 PM to 2 AM in Police Station Patel Nagar. He recorded the FIR 43 of this case and DD no. 38A and 22A. No material question has been put to PW-10 in any manner.

98. PW-18 is SI Kashmere Lal. He has deposed that on 12.08.2001, after the registration of the case, further investigation was handed over to him. On the same night, he reached RML hospital. The injured Amit was unfit for making the statement, hence he returned to the Police Station. On the next day, he again reached RML hospital to enquire about the condition of the injured Amit. He was unfit for making the statement on that day also. On 13.08.2001, he visited the place of occurrence and at the instance of Smt. Vimla, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW-18/A. The marginal notes from serial no. 1 to 7 are in his handwriting. From the place of occurrence, he reached RML hospital, where Satpal, father of Amit met him. He recorded his statement under section 161 of Cr. P. C. One relative of Amit was also met him in the hospital and his statement was also recorded by him in the hospital.

99. The learned defence counsel has contended that as per cross examination of PW-18, he reached in the hospital on 12.08.2001 at about 1.30 AM in the night and the parents of the 44 deceased or his relative did not meet him in the hospital at that time. It is clear from the deposition of PW-2 and 3 that when PW-3 father of the injured reached at the hospital, it was told by doctor to him that Amit was requiring operation and his signatures were obtained. At about 4 AM, Amit was brought from the Operation Theatre after the operation and he was shifted in a room. This shows that the parents of injured Amit were busy in the operation of injured Amit and IO might have not gone there because IO has nowhere stated that he also went to Operation Theatre at that time. Thereafter, PW-18 went to the hospital only on 13.08.2001 and met with PW-12 and parents of injured Amit. On that day, he recorded their statements.

100. PW-7 is Tirth Raj Singh, who has also corroborated that on 25.08.2001, he prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW-17/A at the instance of PW-2. This witness has not been cross examined by any of the learned defence counsel, hence his testimony went unrebutted and unshaken.

101. PW-11 is ASI Pushpa, who was posted as DO on 14.08.2001 in Police Station Patel Nagar and she recorded DD no. 17A Ex. PW- 11/A. 45

102. PW-13 is constable Sunil Kumar. He has also corroborated that on 14.08.2001, he had accompanied SI Kashmere Lal in connection with DD no. 17A to RML hospital. The dead body of Amit was found in the mortuary of RML hospital. Dead body of Amit was taken to DDU hospital on 15.08.2001 for postmortem examination. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. As long as the dead body remained in his possession it was intact. Both these witnesses have not been cross examined by any of the learned defence counsel, hence their testimonies went unrebutted and unshaken.

103. PW-1 is Anand Madan. On 15.08.2001, he had seen the dead body of Amit @ Bittoo S/O Sh. Satpal at RML hospital, New Delhi and he had identified the dead body of Amit. His statement Ex. PW-1/A was also recorded by the police.

104. PW-8 is H. C. Mumtaj Ali. On 12.08.2001, he was posted at Police Station Patel Nagar as Malkhana Muharar. On that day, HC Yashpal Singh had deposited one sealed parcel, which was sealed with the seal of Dr. RML hospital and one sample seal with him. He made the entry at serial no. 4039 in register no. 19. 46

105. On 15.08.2001, Inspector Ravinder Grewal, SHO Police Station Patel Nagar had deposited two sealed parcels, which were sealed with the seal of LKB, CMO Civil hospital. He made the entry at serial no. 4049.

106. On 19.08.2001, Inspector Ravinder Grewal had again deposited one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of RG. He had made the entry at serial no. 4062.

107. On 14.09.2001, the exhibits of the case alongwith the sample seal were sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar through constable Satish Kumar vide RC no. 194/21. On 08.01.2003, result from FSL was received through constable Lal Babu. He has brought the original register no. 19 and original RC no. 194/21. The relevant entries are Ex. PW-8/A, 8/B and 8/C. Photocopy of original RC no. 194/21 is Ex. PW-8/D. So long the exhibits remained in his custody, they were intact.

108. In the cross examination, this witness has denied the suggestion that the exhibits were not sent at the earliest by him and they had been sent after a long delay and had been kept in the malkhana.

109. PW-14 is constable Satish Kumar. On 14.09.2001, he was posted at Police Station Patel Nagar. On that day, he had taken three sealed parcels, one sample seal and one FSL form to FSL Malviya Nagar vide RC no. 194/21. After depositing the pullandas in the office of the FSL, he handed over the copy of the same to Malkhana Muharar. So long as the pullandas remained in his possession they were intact. This witness has not been cross examined by any of the learned defence counsels, hence his testimony went unrebutted and unshaken.

110. To prove the death summary and cause of death, PW-9 and PW-16 have been examined.

111. PW-9 is Dr. L. K. Barua. On 15.08.2001 at 12 noon, he conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased Amit @ Bittoo, aged about 24 years, male sent by SHO, Police Station Patel Nagar. According to the opinion of the doctor, the injury to the intestine / illium was ante-mortem caused by sharp edged weapon and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The death was due to peritonitis (toximia) sufficient to injury to intestine.

112. In the cross examination, PW-9 has denied the suggestion that he formed his opinion by seeing the documents submitted by the police before conducting the autopsy.

113. PW-16 is Dr. V. Parsi, who has seen the death summary report related to patient Amit, 24 years, which was prepared by Dr. M. S. Mann. He has also seen the death report form of Amit. The same was also filled up by Dr. M. S. Mann and Dr. Deepak Ghulyani. He has identified their writing and signatures as he and both doctors were working together in RML hospital in the year, 2001 and both the doctors had left the services of the hospital. In the cross examination, PW-16 has denied the suggestion that both the doctors and he never worked together.

114. Witnesses to the further investigation and arrest of the accused persons are PW-15, 17 and 19.

115. PW-19 is Inspector Ravinder Grewal, who has stated that on 14.08.2001, while posted as SHO, Police Station Patel Nagar, an information was received from the duty constable Harender from the RML hospital about the death of injured Amit S/O Satpal and on this information a DD no. 17A Ex. PW-11/A, dated 14.08.2001 was 49 recorded in Police Station Patel Nagar by the duty officer at 2.15 PM. The copy of the said DD was handed over to SI Kashmere Lal. After the death of Amit, further investigation was taken over by him and the case was converted into Section 302 of IPC.

116. Thereafter, he reached at RML hospital and the dead body of Amit was sent to mortuary RML hospital. He had conducted the inquest proceedings as required under section 174 of Cr. P. C. on 15.08.2001. The application for conducting the postmortem is Ex. PW-19/A. He had also recorded the brief facts which are Ex. PW- 19/B. Death report form 25.35 Ex. PW-19/C was also filled up. The dead body of Amit was identified by Satyal Pal, father of deceased and Anand Madan, uncle of Amit. He had recorded their statements on the identification of the dead body and the same are Ex. PW-3/A and 1/A. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to his father Satyapal, vide handing over memo Ex. PW-18/B.

117. On 16.08.2001, accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay were apprehended from Satya Park on the basis of secret information. Both were interrogated by him and their disclosure statements Ex. PW- 15/A and 15/B were recorded. On the basis of the disclosure 50 statement of accused Ajay @ Ludi, accused Prem Kumar @ Lala was apprehended from his house at E-6, Jhuggi, DDA Flats, New Ranjit Nagar, Delhi. He was also interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-15/E was recorded. The personal search memos Ex. PW- 15/C, 15/D and 15/F of accused were also prepared.

118. On the basis of the disclosure statement of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala and on his pointing out, dagger which was the weapon of offence was recovered from his house, which was found wrapped in a polythene paper from the back of the iron box. He had prepared the sketch Ex. PW-15/G of the recovered dagger. It was sealed in a parcel with the seal of RG and the sealed parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-15/H. Seal of RG was handed over to SI Neki Ram Lamba.

119. From the mortuary, he had also brought one sealed pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of LKB, SMO, Civil Hospital and one sample seal of LKB, SMO, Civil Hospital and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-18/C.

120. During the investigation, he also collected the scaled site plan Ex. PW-7/B from the Draftsman and on which the marginal notes in 51 red ink is written by him and the same is Ex. PW-19/D. He had also prepared the site plan Ex. PW-19/E of the place of recovery of dagger. He had also sent the exhibits to FSL, Malviya Nagar and obtained the FSL report Ex. PX, PY and PZ. During the investigation, he had recorded the statements of the concerned PWs and after the completion of the investigation, he filed the challan in the court. He has identified the accused persons and the case property before the court. Dagger as Ex. P-1, Polythene bag as Ex. P-2 and akhbari kagaz as Ex. P-3.

121. PW-15 is SI N. R. Lamba. On 16.08.2001, while posted at Police Station Patel Nagar, he alongwith SHO Ravinder Grewal, ASI Partap Singh, was present in the Ranjit Nagar in connection with the investigation of this case. He had gone in official vehicle. At about 7.45 PM, they reached near the bushes of Satya Park. On the pointing out of the informer, accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay were apprehended from the bushes. Both the accused were interrogated and were brought to the police post. Their disclosure statements were recorded by the IO and the same are Ex. PW-15/A & 15/B. Their personal search memos Ex. PW-15/C and Ex. PW-15/D were 52 prepared by the IO in his presence. The accused also pointed out the place of occurrence.

122. On 19.08.2001, he again joined in the investigation of the case. On that day, on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused Ajay @ Ludi, accused Prem Kumar @ Lala was arrested from his house. He was also interrogated by the IO and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-15/E was recorded. Personal search memo Ex. PW-15/F of accused Prem Kumar was also prepared. Accused Prem Kumar @ Lala disclosed to the IO in the disclosure statement that the dagger, which was used as a weapon of offence was lying in his residential room behind the iron box. On the basis of the disclosure of Prem Kumar @ Lala, one dagger wrapped in a akhbari kagaj was recovered, which was found in a blue panni, from his residential room. SHO prepared the sketch Ex. PW-15/G of the dagger. It was sealed in a parcel with the seal of RG and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-15/H. Seal of RG was handed over to him after its use.

123. On 23.08.2001, he returned the seal of RG to the SHO, which was used on 19.08.2001 on the pullandas by the IO. On 24.08.2001, 53 he had taken the sealed parcel of dagger to DDU hospital and had produced the same before Dr. L. K. Barua for opinion but he did not give any opinion and returned the parcel to him intact. Then, he deposited the sealed parcel of dagger in the malkhana intact. So long as the sealed parcel remained in his possession on 24.08.2001 it remained intact.

124. He has identified the accused persons before the court and the case property. Dagger as Ex. P-1, blue polythene bag as Ex. P-2 and akhbari kagaj as Ex. P-3.

125. PW-17 is SI Partap Singh. On 16.08.2001, he was posted at Police Station Patel Nagar as ASI. On that day, he joined investigation with Inspector Ravinder Grewal, SHO, Police Station Patel Nagar. In his presence, accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay were apprehended from the bushes of Satya Park at about 7.45 PM on the pointing out of the informer. Both were brought to the police post and they were interrogated by the IO in his presence. Their disclosure statements were recorded and the same are Ex. PW-15/A & 15/B. They were arrested and their personal search memos Ex. PW-15/C and Ex. PW-15/D were prepared by the IO in his presence. 54

126. On the same day, accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay took them to the place of occurrence. The pointing out memos Ex. PW- 17/A and Ex. PW-17/B were prepared.

127. On 19.08.2001, he again joined the investigation of the case. In his presence, accused Prem Kumar @ Lala was arrested and was interrogated by the IO and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-15/E was recorded. Accused Prem Kumar @ Lala had taken them to his residential house at Ranjit Nagar and had produced one polythene from an iron box from his room. It was checked by the IO. One dagger, which was wrapped in a piece of newspaper of English was recovered, from the polythene. Sketch Ex. PW-15/G of the dagger was prepared. The recovered dagger, the akhbari kagaz and the polythene were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-15/H. It was sealed with the seal of RG. Personal search memo Ex. PW-15/F of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala was also prepared. He has identified the case property before the court. Dagger as Ex. P-1, blue polythene bag as Ex. P-2 and akhbari kagaj as Ex. P-3.

128. The learned defence counsel has contended that it was a blind murder because the accused persons have been falsely 55 implicated in this case as the police was unable to solve the case and to save their skin, they falsely implicated the accused persons in this case.

129. From the depositions of PW-2,3 and 12, it is clear that injured made dying declaration and named both the accused persons as assailants, who stabbed him with a knife in his abdomen because he refused to give money for liquor to them. It is not disputed by the accused persons that they are not the same persons, who were named by the deceased Amit because both are the residents of the same area. No motive has been brought on record by the accused persons to show and prove their false implication in this case.

130. In the cross examination, PW-15 has denied the suggestion that accused Ajay surrendered in the Police Station on 14.08.2001 early in the morning. He has further denied the suggestion that accused Ajay was kept in illegal confinement from 14.08.2001 to 16.08.2001. He has also denied the suggestion that accused Ajay @ Ludi was not arrested from the bushes of Satya Park on 16.08.2001. He also denied the suggestion that accused Sanjay was not arrested from the bushes of Satya Park.

131. Similarly, PW-17 has also deposed the same facts in the cross examination. PW-17 has denied the suggestion that he was not the person who was the member of the raiding party and he has no personal knowledge about the arrest of the accused persons. He has also denied the suggestion that accused Ajay @ Ludi had surrendered before the Police Station Patel Nagar on 14.08.2001 and he was confined illegally till 16.08.2001. He has also denied the suggestion that accused Ajay had been falsely implicated in this case.

132. PW-19 has also corroborated with both these witnesses i.e. PW-15 and 17. In the cross examination, he has stated that he had requested 4-5 passersby but none joined the raiding party. He has also denied the suggestion that he did not get any secret information at Ranjit Nagar regarding the presence of accused persons at Satya Park. He has also denied the suggestion that accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay were not apprehended by him and they had not made any disclosure statements. He has also denied the suggestion that accused Sanjay and Ajay @ Ludi were not arrested from Satya Park .

133. Even otherwise, the arrest has not been disputed by the accused persons. Their pleas are that they have been falsely 57 implicated in this case. Accused Ajay @ Ludi has stated that the police of Police Station Patel Nagar insisted number of times at his house and as such he surrendered on 14.08.2001 at Police Station and he was illegally detained till 16.08.2001 and during that period 15- 20 persons of locality were also arrested but they were released by them and innocent person like him had been roped in this case but this fact has not been substantiated with any material brought on record and no such evidence brought on record by the accused Ajay in his defence. Witnesses of the prosecution have also not been cross examined on these aspects.

134. Regarding the arrest of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala and recovery of dragger from his possession, PW-19 has stated that on the basis of the disclosure statement of accused Ajay @ Ludi, accused Prem Kumar @ Lala was apprehended from his house at E- 6, Jhuggi, DDA Flats, New Ranjit Nagar, Delhi. He was also interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-15/E was recorded. The personal search memos Ex. PW-15/C, 15/D and 15/F of accused were also prepared.

135. On the basis of the disclosure statement of accused Prem 58 Kumar @ Lala and on his pointing out, dagger which was the weapon of offence was recovered from his house, was found wrapped in a polythene paper from the back of the iron box. He had prepared the sketch Ex. PW-15/G of the recovered dagger. It was sealed in a parcel with the seal of RG and the sealed parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-15/H. Seal of RG was handed over to SI Neki Ram Lamba. He has also identified the dagger as Ex. P-1, Polythene bag as Ex. P-2 and akhbari kagaz as Ex. P-3 before the court.

136. Similarly, PW-17 has stated that on 19.08.2001, he again joined the investigation of the case. In his presence, accused Prem Kumar @ Lala was arrested and was interrogated by the IO and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-15/E was recorded. Accused Prem Kumar @ Lala had taken them to his residential house at Ranjit Nagar and had produced one polythene from an iron box from his room. It was checked by the IO. One dagger, which was wrapped in a piece of newspaper of English was recovered, from the polythene. Sketch Ex. PW-15/G of the dagger was prepared. The recovered dagger, the akhbari kagaz and the polythene were taken into possession vide 59 memo Ex. PW-15/H. It was sealed with the seal of RG. Personal search memo Ex. PW-15/F of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala was also prepared. He has identified Dagger as Ex. P-1, blue polythene bag as Ex. P-2 and akhbari kagaj as Ex. P-3 before the court.

137. PW-15 has also deposed the same facts as deposed by PW- 17 and 19. He has also identified Dagger as Ex. P-1, Polythene bag as Ex. P-2 and akhbari kagaz as Ex. P-3 before the court.

138. In the cross examination, PW-15 has denied the suggestion that no dagger was recovered at the instance of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Similarly, PW-17 has also denied the suggestion that he did not accompany the IO to the house of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala. He has also denied the suggestion that no recovery of dagger from the iron box wrapped in a newspaper effected from the house of accused Prem Kumar. He has further denied the suggestion that he did not prepare the sketch and other related papers regarding the dagger.

139. PW-19 has also denied the suggestion that no dagger was recovered from and at the instance of Prem Kumar @ Lala and the same was planted on him.

140. Accused Prem Kumar @ Lala has examined one DW Puran in his defence, who has stated that on 19.08.2001, he was present at his jhuggi. Two police officials came to his jhuggi and they took Prem Kumar @ Lala with them. They were saying that Prem Kumar has been called by the Saheb in the Police Station and there, Prem Kumar was falsely arrested in this case. In his presence, no search of the jhuggi was conducted and nothing was recovered from the jhuggi.

141. In the cross examination, PW-19 has stated that he had asked the public witnesses and neighbourers to join the proceedings but none agreed to join the investigation. Brothers and sisters of the accused were present in the office. He had asked from the brother of the accused to sign the memos but he refused to sign the same.

142. Similarly, PW-17 has denied the suggestion that he did not accompany the IO to the house of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala. He has also denied the suggestion that no recovery of the dragger was effected from the house of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala. From the cross examination of PW-15,17 and 19, it is clear that on 19.08.2001, they visited the house of the accused Prem Kumar @ Lala and recovery of dagger was effected from his house. In such 61 circumstances, considering the corroboration of depositions of PW- 15,17 and 19 regarding the arrest of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala and the recovery of dagger from the house of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala, DW-1 can not be believed in any manner that accused Prem Kumar @ Lala has been falsely implicated in this case.

143. According to the report Ex. PX of FSL, Malviya Nagar, the T- shirt which the deceased was wearing at the time of incident was found having human blood stains of 'B' group. Gauze piece clothwas also found having human blood stains of 'B' group.

144. According to the report Ex. PY of FSL, Malviya Nagar, the blood was detected on exhibit 1 and 2 i.e. one half sleeve T-shirt having dark brown stains with fungal growth and a piece of gauze cloth having dark brown stains. Ex. 3a and 3b were also examined but the blood could not be detected on these exhibits. Opinion was also taken. According to the report Ex.PZ, the cut edges of the cut mark Q1 were not clear due to flexibility the cloth. The maximum width of the dagger and the size of the cut mark were found of the same order. It has been further opined that the cut mark Q1 on exhibit 1 could have been caused by the dagger Exhibit 3a. 62

145. PW-15 has stated that on 24.08.2001, he had taken the sealed parcel of dagger to DDU hospital and had produced the same before Dr. L. K. Barua for opinion but he did not give any opinion and returned the parcel to him intact. Then, he deposited the sealed parcel of dagger in the malkhana intact. So long as the sealed parcel remained in his possession on 24.08.2001 it remained intact.

146. Similarly, in the cross examination, PW-19 has also stated that he had sent the dagger for asking for the opinion of the doctor, but the doctor returned the same by giving comments that since the wound had already been operated and stitched so no opinion could be given.

147. PW-15,17 and 19 have corroborated each other regarding the fact that accused Prem Kumar @ Lala made disclosure statement and on the basis of his disclosure statement and on his pointing out, dagger which was the weapon of offence was recovered from his house, which was found wrapped in a polythene paper from the iron box. The same was taken into possession in this case. But at the time of recovery of dagger from the possession of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala, accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay were not present. 63 No blood was found either on the newspaper or on the dagger. No opinion has been given by the doctor that the injury was caused by the said dagger Ex. P-1, which was recovered from the possession of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala. The only connecting evidence of the dagger with the incident is that as per report Ex. PZ, the cut mark Q1 on exhibit 1 could have been caused by the dagger exhibit 3a. But in my opinion, only this evidence is not sufficient to connect the dagger with the incident and it can not be said that this dagger was used in the incident even no efforts were made by the police to lift the finger prints from the dagger.

148. Prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts the recovery of dagger from the possession of accused Prem Kumar @ Lala. Judicial notice of the notification is taken. Accused Prem Kumar @ Lala was possessing the said dagger Ex. P-1 without any permission or licence and in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration.

149. In view of the above discussion, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts from the depositions of PW-2 and 3, who have corroborated each other that both heard that someone 64 stabbed their son Amit. It is also proved beyond reasonable doubts that when PW-2 mother of the deceased reached at the spot, she saw her son Amit @ Bittoo was lying on the ground in the pool of blood. A large quantity of blood was oozing from his stomach. It is also proved from the depositions of the witnesses that PW-2 immediately removed Amit to RML hospital in a private vehicle and got him admitted there. PW-3 also heard that someone stabbed his son at the chowk. He also reached at the hospital. This fact has also been corroborated by PW-4 and 5.

150. The prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts the dying declaration of the deceased, which he made to PW-2 i.e. his mother in the way while he was being removed by his mother to RML hospital. Deceased again made the dying declaration before PW-2 i.e. his mother and PW-3 i.e. his father on the next day i.e. 12.08.2001 at 4 PM and further on the next day i.e. 13.08.2001 in the noon time in presence of PW-2 and 3 to PW-12. In the dying declaration, deceased had told that he was stabbed by Ajay @ Ludi with a knife on the stomach and Sanjay had caught hold of him from his waist. Deceased had further told that Sanjay and Ajay 65 had demanded money from him for liquor and when he refused they stabbed him. From the dying declaration of the deceased, it is clear that both the accused acted in furtherance of their common intention while accused Sanjay caught hold the deceased from his waist, accused Ajay @ Ludi stabbed the deceased with a sharp weapon on his stomach and the injury caused was sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature.

151. The prosecution has also been able to prove beyond the reasonable doubts that the deceased Amit remained in the hospital from 11.08.2001 to 14.08.2001. He expired on 14.08.2001. According to the postmortem report prepared by PW-9 Dr. L. K. Barua, who conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased Amit @ Bittoo, has opined that the injury to the intestine / illium was ante-mortem caused by sharp edged weapon and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The death was due to peritonitis (toximia) sufficient to injury to intestine.

152. The prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that during the investigation, T-Shirt and Gauze cloth have brown stains were seized and were examined by the FSL, 66 Malviya Nagar and the same were containing human blood of 'B' group. From this, it is proved that the deceased was wearing the T- Shirt at the time of incident. It is also proved that the sealed parcels were deposited with the MHC(M) and were sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar. The samples and pullandas were never tempered with by any of the official.

153. The prosecution has been also able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that on the DD entry, FIR of this case was registered under section 307 of IPC, which was later on converted into 302 of IPC and during the investigation, accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay were arrested. Their disclosure statements were recorded. On the basis of disclosure statements, co-accused Prem Kumar @ Lala was also arrested and dagger was also recovered.

154. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the said dagger was used by the accused Ajay @ Ludi in this incident to stab the deceased Amit. Accordingly, accused Prem Kumar @ Lala is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 201 of IPC.

155. The accused persons have not been able to brought on record any fact to prove their false implication in this case. Identity of 67 the accused persons is not in dispute in any manner. They are resident of the same area. Deceased Amit named both the accused persons in his dying declaration made before PW-2,3 and 12.

156. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions, prosecution has been able to complete the chain of evidence against accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay and has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts, the offence punishable under section 302/34 of IPC against the accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay for which they are held guilty and convicted for the same.

157. The prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts, the offence punishable under section 25 of Arms Act against the accused Prem Kumar @ Lala, for which he is held guilty and convicted for the same.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.07.2007.

(V. K.GOYAL) ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, DELHI.

17.07.2007.

Present :- Sh. S. C. Sharma, substitute APP for the State.

Accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay produced from JC. Counsel Sh. G. S. Sharma for accused Ajay @ Ludi. Accused Prem Kumar @ Lala present on bail.

Vide judgment announced on even date on separate sheets, accused Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay are held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under section 302/34 of IPC. Accused Prem Kumar @ Lala, is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under section 25 of Arms Act. Accused Prem Kumar @ Lala be taken into custody and produced on 19.07.2007.

Adjourned for order on sentence on 19.07.2007.

(V. K.GOYAL) ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, DELHI.

IN THE COURT OF SH V.K. GOYAL, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: DELHI.

SESSION CASE NO. 59/06.

FIR NO. 523/01

PS PATEL NAGAR.

U/S 302/34 OF IPC.

& 25/54/59 OF ARMS ACT.

STATE VERSUS

1.AJAY @ LUDI, S/O NAGA RAM @ CHHANGA RAM, R/O E-13, JHUGGI DDA FLATS, NEW RANJEET NAGAR, DELHI.

2. SANJAY, S/O AMAR SINGH, R/O E-131, DDA FLATS, NEW RANJEET NAGAR, DELHI.

3. PREM KUMAR @ LALA, S/O RAMESHWAR DAYAL, R/O E-6, JHUGGI DDA FLATS, NEW RANJEET NAGAR, DELHI.

ORDER ON SENTENCE:-

Present :- Sh.S.C.Sharma, Substitute APP for the State.

Convicts all produced from J.C. Counsel, Sh.G.S.Sharma for convict Ajay @ Ludi. 70 Counsels, Sh.Vineet Jain and Sh.Pardeep Chaudhary for convict Sanjay.

Counsel, Ms.Komal Sharma for convict Prem Kumar @ Lala. Heard on sentence.

It is contended by the learned defence counsel for convict Ajay @ Ludi that convict Ajay @ Ludi is a young boy and is aged about 26 years. He is not previously involved in any other case. It was not a pre-planned cold blooded murder. It is further contended that the present case cannot be treated as rarest of rare case. It is prayed that a lenient view be taken.

It is contended by the learned defence counsel, Sh.Pardeep Chaudhary for convict Sanjay that convict Sanjay is a young boy aged about 29 years. It is his first case. Neither he is a previous convict nor involved in any other case. It is prayed that a lenient view be taken.

It is contended by the learned defence counsel for convict Prem Kumar @ Lala that convict Prem Kumar @ Lala is a young boy and is aged about 23 years. He is not a previous convict. He is the sole bread earner of his family. He had already undergone imprisonment for approximately six months. It is prayed that a lenient view be taken and he be released on already undergone imprisonment.

On the other hand, the learned APP has urged to the contrary and prayed for maximum punishment.

I have considered the submissions of the ld.defence counsels and also gone through the case file. Convicts Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay had committed murder of deceased Amit on a very small issue. Deceased Amit was not at fault in any manner. He died within two days 71 from the day injuries were caused to him by convicts Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay. His parents lost one earning hand and their sufferings cannot be compensated in any manner.

Considering the above facts and circumstances and the contentions on behalf of the convicts and on behalf of State, sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on convicts Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay each for offence punishable under section 302/34 of IPC with a fine of Rs.50,000/- each. In case of default, convicts to undergo further three years RI each. If fine is deposited, then compensation of Rs.75,000/- be given to the family members of deceased Amit out of the fine after the expiry of the period of appeal.

Sentence of one year RI is imposed on convict Prem Kumar @ Lala for offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In case of default, convict to undergo further six months RI.

Benefit of section 428 of Cr.P.C. be given to the convicts. Fine not deposited. Convicts are remanded to serve the sentence. File be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.07.2007.

(V. K.GOYAL) ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, DELHI.

20.07.2007.

Present :- Sh.S.C.Sharma, Substitute APP for the State.

Convicts all produced from J.C. Counsel, Sh.G.S.Sharma for convict Ajay @ Ludi. Counsels, Sh.Vineet Jain and Sh.Pardeep Chaudhary for convict Sanjay.

Counsel, Ms.Komal Sharma for convict Prem Kumar. Heard on sentence.

Vide order on sentence announced of even date on separate sheets, sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on convicts Ajay @ Ludi and Sanjay each for offence punishable under section 302/34 of IPC with a fine of Rs.50,000/- each. In case of default, convicts to undergo further three years RI each. If fine is deposited, then compensation of Rs.75,000/- be given to the family members of deceased Amit out of the fine after the expiry of the period of appeal.

Benefit of section 428 of Cr.P.C. be given to the convicts. Fine not deposited. Convicts are remanded to serve the sentence. File be consigned to record room.

(V. K.GOYAL) ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE/DELHI.

20/07/2007

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

81. In This Respect, I Rely Upon Kapoor ... vs State Of on 20 July, 2007