Delhi District Court
State vs Suraj Etc(4) on 23 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC - 01) (SOUTH), SAKET,
NEW DELHI
SC No. : 6601/2016
FIR No. : 75/2013
PS : Ambedkar Nagar
State Vs. : Suraj etc.
JUDGMENT
(a) Name of complainant : Smt.Arti
(b) Name, parentage & : (1) Suraj
address of accused(s) S/o Sh.Tangwel
R/o H.No.H-1st/233, Madangir,
New Delhi
(2) Dharma
S/o Sh.Fakir Chand
R/o H.No.D-2nd/321, Madangir,
New Delhi
(3) Raghu
S/o Sh.Kanaklingam
R/o H.No.D-1st/267, Madangir,
New Delhi
(Declared P.O. vide order dated 10.10.2019)
(4) Kanaklingam
S/o Sh.Kuppu Swami
R/o H.No.C-1st/888, Madangir,
New Delhi
(c) Offence complained off : 302/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act
(d) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(e) Final order : Acquitted
(f) Date of such order : 23.08.2023
FIR No.75/2013
PS Ambedkar Nagar
State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.1 of 18
Date of Institution : 07.03.2014
Final arguments heard : 04.08.2023
Date of Judgment : 23.08.2023
BRIEF FACTS :
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.02.2023 at about 01.00 p.m. near Shop No.C-1st/860, Madangir, New Delhi, accused persons namely Suraj, Dharma, Kanaklingam alongwith accused Raghu (stated to be P.O.), in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of (deceased) Muniya by stabbing him with knives. It is further alleged that while committing murder of deceased Muniya, accused Suraj used a knife in contravention of Notification issued by DAD, Delhi. Consequently, Charge-sheet for the offence U/s 302/34 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act was filed against accused persons i.e. accused Suraj, Dharma, Raghu and Kanaklingam.
After the compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, matter was committed to the Court of Sessions by Ld. MM vide order dated 30.05.2013.
Charge:-
2. On the basis of material placed on record by the prosecution, charge was framed against accused Suraj, Dharma, Raghu and Kanaklingam for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC and for the offences punishable under Section 25/27 Arms Act against accused Suraj vide order dated 01.08.2013 passed by Ld.Predecessor, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence :-
3. In order to bring home the guilt of accused persons, prosecution had examined twenty two witnesses in the prosecution evidence i.e. PW1 Smt.Arti FIR No.75/2013 PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.2 of 18 (Complainant), PW6 Raju (Son of deceased Muniya), PW18 Sh.Dinesh Kumar (to prove Notification issued by Delhi Administration), PW2 Mr.Rajender Singh (to prove the MLC), PW10 Dr.Manjul Bijrania (to prove postmortem report of deceased Muniya), PW22 Dr.Indresh Kumar (to prove the FSL report), police witnesses i.e. PW3 Ct.Dalip Singh, PW4 HC Keshav Kumar, PW5 Ct.Sonu, PW7 Ct.Rockey, PW8 Ct.Pawan, PW9 Ct.Mahesh, PW11 SI Sanjay Kumar, PW12 Ct.Gauree Shankar, PW13 HC Bansi Lal, PW14 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, PW15 Ct.Harinder Singh, PW16 SI Liyaqat Ali, PW17 SI Varun Kumar, PW19 SI P.K.Jha, PW20 ASI Sunil Gaur and PW21 Retired ACP Abhay Singh Yadav.
Summary of prosecution evidence :-
4. In the prosecution evidence, eye-witness/complainant Smt.Arti was examined as PW1. However, in her examination-in-chief, PW1 Smt.Arti deposed that she did not know anything about the present case and police had asked her to sign on certain papers, but she did not know anything about the same. Since, the said witness had resiled from her earlier statement given to police, Ld.Addl. PP, sought permission of the Court to cross-examine the said witness.
5. In her cross-examination conducted by Ld.Addl. PP, PW1 Smt.Arti deposed that deceased Munia was not related to her in any manner. She further deposed that she could not recollect the date when she was made to sign on some papers but it was a Sunday of February. She denied the suggestion given by Ld.Addl. PP that in her statement given to the police on 17.02.2013 i.e. Ex.PW1/A, she had stated that deceased Munia was her distant relative and that he lived at H-I, Madangir.
She also denied that in the said statement, she had also stated that deceased Munia was the informer of the police and that accused persons Suraj and Dharma, who used to show their 'daadagiri' in the 'Mohalla' and were criminals, used to FIR No.75/2013 PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.3 of 18 threaten to kill deceased Munia. She further denied the suggestion that she had stated in the said statement that on 17.02.2013 at 1.00 p.m., a quarrel had taken place between deceased Munia and accused Suraj on the issue of being a secret informer of the police. She denied that she had stated therein that the said fight had taken place in front of a shop or that at that time, accused Kanaklingam had a knife in his hand and accused Dharma and accused Raghu were also standing there. She also denied that she had mentioned therein that accused Dharma had stated that "Munia hamari mukhbari karta hai, aaj isse jinde nahi chhorna" or that accused persons Dharma and Raghu had caught hold of legs and hands of deceased Munia and accused persons Suraj and Kanaklingam had given knife blows on the body of deceased Munia, with the intention to kill him. She also denied that she had stated that consequently, deceased Munia became unconscious and fell down on the floor and blood started oozing out. She also denied that after seeing the same, PW1 Smt.Arti ran to intervene, however, she was pushed away by accused Suraj and his associates or that they all fled away from the spot. She further denied the suggestion that she had stated in his statement Ex.PW1/A to the police that PW6 Raju, son of deceased Munia came there and he took injured Munia in an auto to AIIMS Trauma Centre or that later on, she came to know that Munia had expired in the hospital.
6. In her cross-examination conducted by Ld.Addl. PP, she denied the suggestion that she had stated in her statement dated 17.02.2013 given to the police i.e. PW1/X that at the place of incident i.e. in front of shop No.C-I/859-850, blood was lying and that 1-2 steps ahead of the said blood, one handle of knife with holes (brass colour), (without blade) with blood on it, was also lying, or that one pair of chapple and one brown coloured shoe were also lying there. She further denied that she had also stated (in her statement Ex.PW1/X given to the police) that the spot was also photographed at her instance. She, however, affirmed the FIR No.75/2013 PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.4 of 18 suggestion that she knew all the four accused persons namely Suraj, Dharma, Raghu and Kanaklingam, prior to the incident, as they were residing in the same vicinity. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely as she had been won over by the accused persons.
7. PW6 Raju (son of deceased Munia) deposed that on 17.02.2013 at about 12.45 p.m., he received a call of his friend, who told him that someone had given knife blows to his father at C-1st, Madangir, New Delhi. He further deposed that he immediately went there and found that his father was lying in a pool of blood. He further stated that he took his father to Trauma Centre, AIIMS in an Auto, where Doctor declared him 'Brought Dead'. He further testified that in the said hospital, he came to know that the accused persons had killed his father. As per his testimony, on the same day at about 7.00 p.m., he went to PS Ambedkar Nagar, where he was shown one shoe, which he identified to be that of his father. As per his testimony, police seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. He further deposed that on the next day, after postmortem, he received the deadbody of his father from the hospital.
8. In his cross-examination, PW6 Raju deposed that he had reached at the place of incident from his 'Naani's' house within 7-8 minutes and that at that time, no one was present near the deadbody of his father. He further deposed that he did not notice whether at that time, shoe of his father was lying near the dead body of his father or not.
9. PW19 SI P.K.Jha deposed that on 17.02.2013, he was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar as SI and at about 1.00 p.m., he received an information regarding an assault on a person with a knife. He further deposed that he alongwith HC Sunil Gaur reached at C-1/860, Madangir, where PW 17 SI Varun, PW13 HC Bansi Lal, FIR No.75/2013 PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.5 of 18 PW15 Ct.Harinder and PW3 Ct.Dalip were already present. He further stated that he saw blood stain, two pairs of slippers, one pair of shoes and handle of a knife (without blade) at the spot. He further deposed that in the meantime, SHO Inspector Abhay Singh Yadav also reached there and he called the Crime Team. He further testified that he alongwith PW21 Inspector Abhay Singh Yadav reached at AIIMS Trauma Centre, where they came to know that injured Munia was declared 'brought dead'. He further deposed that they collected his MLC from the hospital and came back at the spot. He further testified that one eye witness Ms.Arti met them and PW17 SI Varun recorded her statement, prepared rukka and got registered the present FIR through PW13 HC Bansi Lal. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, PW13 HC Bansi Lal came back to the spot alongwith copy of FIR and rukka and handed over the same to the IO. As per his testimony, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Arti and collected blood from the spot by a cotton gauze and kept the same in a plastic container. The same were stated to have been seized vide Ex.PW19/A, while handle of knife (having blood stain) was stated to have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B alongwith two pairs of slippers and one shoe of deceased vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/C and Ex.PW6/A respectively. He further deposed that he had gone to AIIMS Trauma Centre where IO gave him inquest papers and he had got postmortem of deceased Munia conducted.
10. PW19 SI P.K.Jha further testified that on 19.02.2013 at about 5.30 PM, when he alongwith IO and HC Sunil Gaur were conducting investigation near Pushpa Bhawan, one secret informer came there and informed them that accused Suraj and Dharma would go to Saket Court to meet an advocate and if raided, they could be apprehended. He further deposed that IO requested some public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and left the place without disclosing their identities. He further testified that the IO formed a raiding party and they took FIR No.75/2013 PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.6 of 18 positions near Amity School, while IO remained in a private car. He further deposed that at about 6.15 PM, secret informer pointed out towards two persons who were seen coming from the side of BRT and on an indication from the informer, they apprehended the said two accused persons i.e. accused Suraj and Dharma. As per his testimony, the said accused persons were arrested vide memo Ex.PW19/F and PW19/G respectively. He further deposed that both the accused were taken to PS where they were interrogated and they made disclosure statements vide Ex.PW19/K and PW19/L respectively. He further stated that they went to the spot from the PS alongwith accused persons, where IO prepared pointing out memo of place of occurrence at the instance of accused persons vide Ex. PW19/M and both the accused persons also took them behind Pushpa Bhawan shopping complex, from where they got one knife recovered. Sketch of knife was prepared by the IO vide Ex.PW19/N and after measuring knife, the same was seized vide Ex.PW19/P. He further deposed that thereafter, they went to Sector 4 Pushp Vihar, where accused Suraj pointed out towards a dustbin, where he had thrown his clothes after the incident. He also stated that thereafter, they went to Block no.13, Dakshinpuri, where accused Dharma pointed out the place where he had thrown his clothes after the incident. IO prepared the pointing out memo of the said spots.
11. PW19 SI P.K.Jha further deposed that on 07.03.2013, he again joined the investigation of this case alongwith IO and PW20 HC Sunil Gaur and at about 5.45 PM, IO/PW 21 Inspector Abhay Pratap Singh received an information from a secret informer that other accused persons would come from Block no.10 and would go towards Mahila Mangal. He further stated that the IO formed a raiding party and they took their positions at the spot. As per his testimony, at about 6.15 PM, on an indication from the secret informer, they apprehended accused Raghu (since P.O.) and he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW19/Q. His disclosure FIR No.75/2013 PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.7 of 18 statement was stated to have been recorded vide memo Ex.PW19/S. He further deposed that they went to the spot from the PS alongwith accused Raghu and at C-1/860 Madangir, he identified the place of occurrence; pointing out memo was prepared by the IO vide Ex. PW19/T. PW19 Sh.P.K.Jha further deposed that on 29.03.2013, he again joined the investigation of the case alongwith IO and PW20 HC Sunil Gaur and when they were present at Pipalwala Chowk, Khanpur at about 7.30 AM, one informer came there and informed them that one of the other accused would come from the side of Mehrauli and would go towards Khanpur. He further deposed that thereafter, IO formed a raiding party and at about 8 AM, on an indication of secret informer, they apprehended accused Kanaklingam. The said accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW19/U and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW19/W. He further deposed that thereafter, they went to the spot from the PS, alongwith accused Kanaklingam and at C-1/860 Madangir, he identified the place of occurrence and Pointing out memo was prepared by the IO vide Ex.PW19/X. He further deposed that accused Kanaklingam also took them to sector 7 Pushpa Vihar, where he identified a dustbin, where he had thrown his clothes and blade of knife after the incident.
12. In his cross-examination, PW19 Inspector P.K.Jha deposed that he reached at the place of incident at about 1.15 p.m. by a personal vehicle and IO/SHO reached at the place of incident between 1.30 - 2.00 p.m. He further deposed that eye witness Arti was found at the spot by the IO, when he and the IO/SHO came back to the spot from AIIMS Trauma Center and the statement of eye witness Smt.Arti was recorded by PW17 SI Varun at the spot. He further deposed that he did not make any DD entry that an eye witness was found at the spot. He affirmed the suggestion given by ld.defence counsel that on information of the secret informer, they had arrested the accused persons on three different dates. He further deposed that he could not say whether the secret informer was the same in all the arrests FIR No.75/2013 PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.8 of 18 made on three different dates. He further denied the suggestion that the accused persons were lifted from their houses and that the accused persons belonged to marginalized community and were easy targets for arrest.
13. PW21 Retired ACP Sh.Abhay Singh Yadav deposed that on 17.02.2013, he was posted as SHO of PS Ambedkar Nagar and on that day, he had received DD No.19A at about 1.25 p.m. regarding stabbing at C-1/860, Madangir, New Delhi. He further deposed that he reached at the spot where PW19 SI P.K.Jha, PW 17 SI Varun Kumar, PW13 HC Banshi Lal, PW20 HC Sunil Gaur and PW15 Ct.Harender were found present and he came to know that injured Munia had already been removed to the hospital. PW21 Retired ACP Sh.Abhay Singh Yadav further deposed that he called the crime team at the spot and he alongwith PW19 SI P.K.Jha and PW20 HC Sunil Gaur left the spot for AIIMS Trauma Centre. He further testified that he collected the MLC of deceased Munia, who was declared 'brought dead' at the said hospital and that no eye witness met them at the hospital. He further deposed that when he returned back from the hospital, one lady i.e. Smt.Arti met him at the spot and she claimed herself to be an eye witness. He recorded her statement vide Ex.PW1/A, prepared rukka vide Ex.PW21/A and got the present FIR registered through PW13 HC Bansi Lal. He further deposed that scene of crime was inspected by the Crime team and scene of crime report was prepared vide Ex.PW11/A. He further stated that at the instance of PW1 Smt.Arti, he prepared rough site plan vide Ex.PW21/B and he lifted exhibits from the place of incident i.e. blood from the cemented floor, blood stain concrete after breaking the same, blood stained earth contral, two pair of chappal having brand 'Flite' and 'lotto', one broken handle of knife of brass. He further deposed that he prepared the sketch of broken handle of knife of brass vide Ex.PW20/A. He further testified that one shoe of left foot of brown colour (with FIR No.75/2013 PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.9 of 18 blood stains) was also found lying at the spot and the same was identified by PW6 Raju (son of deceased), which was seized vide Ex.PW6/A.
14. PW21 Retired ACP Abhay Pratap Singh further deposed that he prepared the inquest papers vide Ex.PW21/C and moved an application for postmortem on the body of deceased vide Ex.PW21/D and after postmortem, dead body of deceased was handed over to the family of deceased. PW21 Retired ACP Abhay Pratap Singh further deposed that on 19.02.2013, he received a secret information that accused Suraj and Dharma would go to meet their counsel at Saket Court, from the side of Amity Public School, Saket and they could be apprehended. He further testified that he constituted a raiding team consisting of PW19 SI P.K.Jha, PW20 HC Sunil and at about 5.45 p.m., at the instance of secret informer, accused Dharma and Suraj were apprehended and were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW19/G & Ex.PW19/F and their disclosure statements were recorded. He further deposed that accused Suraj led them to a local shopping centre and he pointed towards the bushes behind liquor shop and got recovered one knife used by him in commission of the said offence. He further testified that sketch of knife was prepared vide Ex.PW19/N and the same was seized vide Ex.PW19/P and he prepared site plan of the place of recovery of knife vide Ex.PW21/H. He further testified that accused Suraj led them to a dustbin in the area of Sector 4, Pushp Vihar, where he had thrown his blood stained clothes, however, the said clothes were not found there. He further stated that he prepared pointing out memo of the said place and accused Dharma also pointed out the place where he had thrown his blood stained clothes, in a dustbin near Bikaner Sweet House but the said clothes also could not be recovered from there. He prepared the pointing out memo of the same.
FIR No.75/2013PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.10 of 18
15. PW21 ACP Abhay Singh Yadav further testified that on 07.03.2013, when he alongwith PW19 SI P.K. Jha and PW20 HC Sunil Gaur, were present at Virat Chowk, at about 6 PM, one secret informer met him and gave information about accused Raghu. He further deposed that after receiving the said information, he requested some public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. Thereafter, he constituted a raiding team with PW19 SI P.K. Jha and PW20 HC Sunil and at about 06:40 PM, secret informer pointed out towards a person coming from Madangir and at his instance, they apprehended accused Raghu. The said accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW19/Q and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide Ex. PW19/S. He further testified that accused pointed out the place of incident and also pointed out towards a drain (ganda nala) near Mount Carmal School, where accused had thrown blood stains clothes, which could not be found there.
16. PW21 ACP Abhay Singh Yadav further testified that on 29.03.2013, he alongwith PW19 SI P.K. Jha and PW20 HC Sunil Gaur were present in the area of PS Ambedkar Nagar near BRT at about 07:15 AM, he where received information from a secret informer about accused Kanaklingam and that the said accused would come from the side of Mehrauli road towards BRT through Khanpur Chowk. He further stated that he had asked some public persons to join the police team but none of them agreed to join the same. Thereafter, he constituted a raiding team with PW19 SI P.K.Jha and PW20 HC Sunil. As per his testimony, at about 07:45 AM, accused Kanak Lingam was apprehended at the instance of secret informer near first bus stop of BRT and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW19/U; his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW19/W. PW21 ACP Abhay Singh Yadav further stated that accused Kanaklingam pointed out the place of incident and also pointed towards a dustbin lying in the area of Sector-7 Pushp Vihar, where he had thrown his blood stained clothes and broken blade of the FIR No.75/2013 PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.11 of 18 knife, however, the same could not be found there. He further testified that on 23.04.2013, the exhibits were sent to FSL through Ct. Sonu. He further stated that during investigation he also obtained subsequent opinion from the doctor about the weapon of offence.
17. In his cross-examination, PW21 ACP Abhay Singh Yadav deposed that there was no eye witness present at the place of occurrence at that time. He further deposed that the DD no. 19A i.e. Ex. PW4/A did not mention about the presence of eyewitness Arti. He affirmed the suggestion that he assisted the mobile crime team in conducting the inspection. He further affirmed that a knife handle was recovered from the place of incident and there were no fingerprints present on the knife handle that was recovered from the place of incident. He voluntarily stated that the knife handle was soaked in blood. He further testified that he did not remember if the said knife handle was sent to the forensic laboratory for detecting fingerprints on it. He further affirmed the suggestion that as per his statement, all the accused persons had thrown the blood stained clothes in the dustbin except accused Raghu, who had thrown the blood stained clothes in a running drain/'naala'.
18. Other police witnesses i.e. PW 13 HC Bansi Lal, PW15 Ct.Harinder Singh, PW17 SI Varun and PW20 ASI Sunil Gaur also deposed on the lines of the aforesaid witnesses.
19. The present FIR was placed on record vide Ex.PW16/A alongwith endorsement on the ruqua vide Ex.PW16/B. DD No.19A dated 17.02.2013 (regarding information of stabbing a person with knife) was placed on record vide Ex.PW4/A. Notification dated 17.02.1979 issued by Mr.Jaishree Raghuraman, the FIR No.75/2013 PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.12 of 18 then Under Secretary Home (General), Delhi Administration, Delhi was placed on record vide Ex.PW18/A.
20. MLC of deceased Munia was placed on record vide Ex.PW2/A and as per the opinion given by examining Doctor, deceased had suffered the following injuries "(i) Incised wound 5x2 cms over the right side of neck in tehe jugular area, (ii) Incised wound 5x2 cm over the trachea near the thyroid cartilate deep to trachea,
(iii) Stab (at the level of sternal angle bone deep 5x4 cm, at the level of mid- sternum over the right side three in number of 2x2 cm, 3x2 cm, 4x2 cm., just below the right nipple 3x2 cm, stab injury of 5x3 cm over the right costal margin and just above the umbulicus on the left side of 3x3 cm), (iv) Stab (in the left hypochondrium of 5x5 cm with omentum protruding through), (v) Stab (over the left lumbar area of 5x5 cm with intestine protruding through the wound) (vi) Stab (over the back left side of 10x5 cm and 3x2 cm muscle deep)".
21. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 03.06.2022. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded vide order dated 08.07.2023. The accused Kanaklingam and Dharma chose not to lead evidence in defence, however, accused Suraj led evidence in his defence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
22. Sh.Shiv Kumar, neighbour of accused Suraj was examined as DW1. DW1 Shiv Kumar deposed that on 17.02.2013, he was at home as there was Pooja at Kali Mandir (also known as Marayamma Mandir) located in his 'gali' and accused Suraj was with him. He further deposed that on that day, accused Suraj had helped him with the preparations of Pooja and that accused Suraj was with him till the end of Pooja/Langar.
FIR No.75/2013PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.13 of 18
23. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld.Addl. PP, DW1 Sh.Shiv Kumar deposed that he had been asked by the accused Suraj to depose in the Court. He also affirmed the suggestion that accused was his friend since childhood. He denied the suggestion that on 17.02.2013, accused Suraj was not present with him at the said 'Pooja'.
24. DW2 Ms.Anjali, deposed that she knew accused Kanaklingam since birth and accused Kanaklingam had a shop of 'Idli-dosa' in the year 2013. She further deposed that the shop of accused Kanaklingam was located two houses away from her shop. She further stated that on the day of murder, she and the accused were at their shop and there was hue and cry regarding the said murder. She further deposed that at that time, accused Kanaklingam was at her shop and she was also present there.
25. In her cross-examination conducted by Ld.Addl. PP, she deposed that she had been asked by accused Kanaklingam to depose in the Court. She further deposed that she did not remember the time, when she was present at the shop of accused Kanaklingam. She denied the suggestion that she was not present at the shop of the accused as deposed by her.
26. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed vide order dated 21.07.2013.
Appreciation of Evidence
27. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.02.2013 at about 1.00 p.m. near shop C- 1/860, Madangir, new Delhi accused persons Suraj, Dharma, Kanaklingam and FIR No.75/2013 PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.14 of 18 Raghu (since P.O.) stabbed one Munia (deceased) with knives and committed his murder.
28. It is the case of the prosecution that since deceased Munia was a Secret Informer of the police and used to give secret information about the accused persons, therefore, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed his murder.
29. The only eye witness in the present case was stated to be a relative of deceased Munia namely Ms.Arti. In order to prove the aforesaid allegations, prosecution had produced the sole eye witness i.e. Ms.Arti as PW1. However, when PW1 Ms.Arti appeared in the witness box, she completely turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. In fact, in her testimony she deposed that she had no knowledge about the present case and that she was made to sign on some papers by the police. Conspicuously, as per the complaint which was alleged to have been made by her to the police Ex.PW1/A, it had been mentioned that PW1 Arti was related to deceased Munia, however, when she appeared before the Court, she even denied that she was related to deceased Munia in any manner. Furthermore, the said witness also denied that she had given any such statement (Ex.PW1/A) to the police on 17.02.2013 or that on the day of the incident, there was a quarrel between deceased Munia and accused Suraj on the issue of being a secret informer of the police and consequently, the accused persons had stabbed him.
30. Thus, a material witness, who could have thrown some light on the aforementioned incident which was alleged to have taken place, had chosen to remain silent for reasons best known to her and the possibility of witness being threatened or influenced by the accused persons cannot be ruled out.
FIR No.75/2013PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.15 of 18
31. Prosecution had also relied upon the disclosure statement of accused Suraj i.e. Ex.PW19/P alongwith consequent, alleged recovery of knife, to prove that the accused persons had used the same in the commission of the said offence. It is well settled that the disclosure statement of accused is not admissible in evidence under Section 26 Indian Evidence Act, and only disclosure of a new fact pursuant to the said disclosure statement is admissible in evidence under Section 27 Indian Evidence Act.
32. Be that as it may, prosecution had laid emphasis on the recovery of the said knife, being the weapon of offence. However, the said knife was also sent for forensic examination and the FSL report qua the same dated 31.07.2013 was placed on record as Ex.PW21/J. Perusal of the said report shows that the knife which was alleged to have been recovered from at the instance of accused Suraj did not show any reaction to any human blood group. Thus, even the forensic evidence failed to yield any conclusive results and to connect the alleged recovery of knife with the said offence.
33. Moreover, as per the case of the prosecution, handle of knife was also recovered from the place of incident and prosecution had alleged that the said blood soaked handle of knife was also used in the commission of the alleged offence. Perusal of the Crime Team report dated 17.02.2013, placed on record as Ex.PW11/A shows that no chance prints could be developed from the said handle of knife, which was alleged to have been recovered from the place of incident.
34. Furthermore, even as per the said FSL report dated 31.07.2013 placed on record, the said handle, also did not give any reaction to any human blood group. Thus, the said handle also could not be linked to the commission of the alleged offence.
FIR No.75/2013PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.16 of 18
35. Moreover, PW19 SI P.K.Jha had deposed that on 19.02.2013, accused Suraj & Dharma had also led the police party to the places at Sector 4, Pushp Vihar and Dakshin Puri respectively, where they had thrown their clothes after the incident. However, as per the testimony of PW19 SI P.K.Jha, the said material pieces of evidence also could not be recovered.
36. Moreover, no other witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the alleged motive for commission of the said offence by the accused persons i.e. to take revenge from deceased Munia for being a secret informer and for passing on secret information to the police. No such public witness was produced by the prosecution to substantiate the said fact. Infact, the son of the deceased i.e. PW6 Raju was also produced by the prosecution. However, even he did not disclose any such motive or prior quarrel between his father and the accused persons to prove the existence of animosity with the accused persons, due to the secret activity of his father. Thus, it could not be proved by the prosecution that the accused persons had any such avowed object/motive for the commission of the said offence. In fact, defence witnesses have deposed that accused Suraj and Kanaklingam were not present at the spot of occurrence at the time of the incident.
37. The other witnesses produced by the prosecution were police witnesses, who had reached at the spot after the alleged incident.
38. Prosecution had also alleged that accused Suraj had used a knife for committing murder of deceased Munia which was recovered at his instance. As per the case of the prosecution, accused Suraj and Dharma were apprehended and arrested from near Amity School, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi vide Ex.PW19/F and FIR No.75/2013 PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.17 of 18 Ex.PW19/G on 19.02.2013 and at the instance of accused Suraj, a knife was recovered from behind Pushpa Bhawan shopping complex, which was seized vide Ex.PW19/P. However, it is a matter of record that no public witness was made to join investigation at the time of alleged recovery of knife from Pushpa Bhawan which is stated to be a shopping complex. Moreover, as already stated, the knife did not give any reaction to any human blood and the same could not be linked with the commission of alleged offence. Therefore, the possibility of planting of the said knife on the accused Suraj cannot be ruled out.
39. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, the prosecution has failed to connect the trajectory of events and material eye-witness had also turned hostile. Even scientific evidence failed to aid the case of the prosecution as aforesaid. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove it's case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. They are hereby acquitted.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT on 23.08.2023 (MANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR) ASJ (FTC) - 01, SOUTH DISTRICT SAKET: NEW DELHI/23.08.2023 FIR No.75/2013 PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Suraj etc. Page No.18 of 18