Delhi District Court
State vs . Ranjeet Mukhiya on 31 August, 2015
FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 116/14 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0001932014 State Vs. Ranjeet Mukhiya S/o Sh. Lakhan Mukhiya R/o Village Sevka, Post Tilkeswar, P.S. Kusheshar, Ashtan, District Darbhanga, Bihar. FIR No. : 363/13 Police Station : Bawana Under Sections : 302 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court : 03.01.2013 Date on which judgment was reserved : 28.08.2015 Date on which Judgment pronounced : 31.08.2015 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The facts and circumstances of the case as borne out from the record are as under:
(i) That on 08.09.2013 at 10.47 am, intimation was received in PS Bawana that dead body of one labourer was lying in factory no.
B5, Sector2, Industrial Area, Bawana. Said information was recorded vide DD No. 12PP and same was entrusted to SI Jitender Joshi for necessary action;
State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 1 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015
(ii) That on receipt of DD No. 12PP, SI Jitender Joshi alongwith HC Vinod and Ct. Satpal went to the place of information. In the meantime, Inspector Satish Kumar posted as SHO of PS Bawana, also reached there. Dead body of one male having injuries on his face and backside of the head, was found lying over there. HC Sukhdev, Incharge PCR Van Libra 40 was also present there. Crime team was also called there, which carried out inspection and scene of crime was got photographed. In the meantime, one Jagdish Kumar who was owner of said factory, also reached there and made statement before SI Jitender Joshi. On the basis of said statement, FIR in question was got registered for offence U/s 302 IPC and investigation was entrusted to Inspector Satish Kumar;
(iii) During the course of investigation, IO Inspector Satish Kumar prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence; conducted personal search of dead body of deceased Laxman Mukhiya, during which cash amount of Rs. 60/ and Voter ICard were recovered and lifted relevant exhibits from the spot. The dead body was shifted to Mortuary of BSA Hospital and statements of witnesses including that of thekedar Lalu Mukhiya were recorded by him;
(iv) It is further case of prosecution that accused Ranjeet Mukhiya was found absconding from the factory premises. After getting postmortem examination on dead body of deceased conducted, State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 2 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 his dead body was handed over to his relatives;
(v) On 04.10.2013, accused Ranjeet Mukhiya was arrested from Village Ferozpur Bangar, District Sonepat, Haryana, when he had visited said place in order to meet his brother Sanjay @ Khurkhur. After his interrogation, accused was arrested in this case and he made disclosure statement before IO confessing his involvement in the murder of Laxman Mukhiya. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused got recovered one iron rod and his wearing clothes from inside the bushes situated in vacant plot in front of factory no. B11 to B20. After carrying out relevant proceedings with regard to seizure of said articles and preparing site plan of the said place, accused also led the police to labour contractors at Gurgaon with whom he had worked after the incident in question; and
(vi) It is further case of prosecution that IO obtained subsequent opinion with regard to weapon of offence from Autopsy Surgeon; got the scaled site plan prepared; collected call details record of mobile SIM no. 9212095708 and 9968783114 and got the relevant exhibits deposited in FSL for expert opinion. IO also recorded statements of relevant witnesses during investigation. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court.
2. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this Court. State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 3 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015
3. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, this Court was pleased to frame the charge against accused for offence punishable U/s 302 IPC vide order dated 19.02.2014, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as twenty eight witnesses namely PW1 Sh. Chander Shekhar Mukhiya, PW2 Sh. Jumman Paswan @ Jeewan Lal, PW3 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, PW4 ASI Yogendra Singh, PW5 ASI Pramod Kumar, PW6 ASI Karambir, PW7 Dr. Siddarth, PW8 Inspector Anil Kumar, PW9 Sh. Jagdish Kumar, PW10 Sh. Israr Babu, PW11 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, PW12 Ct. Anand Singh, PW13 HC Ram Nihor, PW14 HC Sukhdev, PW15 WCt. Archana Yadav, PW16 Sh. Soti Lal, PW17 Sh. Laxman Rai, PW18 HC Ramesh Chand, PW19 Sh. Lalu Mukhiya, PW20 Amarjeet Mukhiya, PW21 HC Vinod, PW22 Ct. Rajbir, PW23 Dr. Vijay Dhankar, PW24 Ct. Satyapal, PW25 HC Dharampal Singh, PW26 SI Jitender Joshi, PW27 Dr. Dhruv Sharma and PW28 Inspector Satish Kumar during trial.
5. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to note that accused made statement during trial on 25.02.2015 that he was not disputing the contents of FSL result dated 26.09.2014 relied by prosecution in this case and he had no objection in case said FSL result is read in evidence. In view of said statement, said FSL result was exhibited as Ex. PZ and the relevant prosecution witness namely Sh. Jitender Kumar, SSO (Chemistry) of FSL Rohini was dropped from the list of witnesses.
State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 4 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015
6. Thereafter, statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of accused was recorded during which all the incriminating evidence were put to him. However, accused denied the same and claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also opted to lead defence evidence and examined one witness i.e. DW1 Sanjay Mukhiya towards DE.
7. I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of State and Sh. Ram Raghvendra, Adv. on behalf of the accused. I have also gone through the material available on record.
8. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record in order to see as to how the prosecution story has been unfolded by the prosecution witnesses during the course of trial. The said testimonies are detailed as under: PUBLIC WITNESSES
9. PW1 Sh. Chander Shekhar Mukhiya: He is the younger brother of deceased. He deposed that on 12.09.2013, he had identified the dead body of his elder brother Laxman Mukhiya in BSA Hospital vide his statement Ex.PW1/A. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to him vide receipt Ex.PW1/B. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
10. PW2 Sh. Jumman Paswan @ Jeewan Lal: This witness was employed as one of the labourers alongwith accused Ranjit Mukhiya, deceased Laxman Mukhiya and Lalu Mukhiya in factory premises No. B5, State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 5 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 Sector 2, DSIDC, Bawana Delhi. He deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 2.30 pm, he had left the said factory as his son was ill. When he had left the factory, deceased Laxman Mukhiya, Lalu Mukhiya and Ranjit Mukhiya were present in the factory. On next day, he came to know that accused Ranjit Mukhiya was absconding from the factory and Laxman Mukhiya had been murdered. He duly identified the accused during trial.
In his cross examination, he deposed that he alongwith Lalu Mukhiya were detained by police concerning this case after murder of Laxman Mukhiya and his statement was also recorded by the police.
11. PW9 Sh. Jagdish Kumar: This witness was owner of factory being run in the name of J.P. Enterprises at B5, Sector 2, DSIDC, Bawana Delhi. He deposed that in the year 2013, he had employed three workers namely Laxman Mukhiya (deceased), accused Ranjit Mukhiya and Juman Paswan. One Lalu Mukhiya was his Thakedar (contractor) who at that time also used to work in the said factory. On 07.09.2013 at about 4.00 pm, he had made payment of Rs. 1800/ as labour charges which was to be distributed amongst his Thakedar Lalu Mukhiya, accused Ranjit Mukhiya and deceased Laxman Mukhiya. His employee Jumman Paswan had left the factory as his son was admitted in hospital.
He further deposed that on 08.09.2013 at about 7.00 am, he had made call from his mobile phone no. 9212095708 on mobile phone no. 97180335231 of accused Ranjit Mukhiya, who did not pick up the phone despite the fact that he tried to contact him 1015 times. Thereafter, he made State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 6 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 phone call to Thakedar Lalu Mukhiya and asked him to visit the factory premises to verify as to why accused had not been picking up his phone. At about 9.00/9.15 am, said Lalu Mukhiya telephonically informed him that factory was lying locked. On his asking, Lalu Mukhiya went inside the factory and again telephonically informed him that murder of his worker Laxman Mukhiya had taken place inside the factory and his dead body was lying on Chabutra situated near the stair case. Lalu Mukhiya had also informed him that accused Ranjit Mukhiya was absconding from the factory but mobile phone of accused was lying in the bucket available at mumty of the factory premises. Accordingly, he made PCR call at 100 number and rushed to the aforesaid factory premises, where police had already reached. He noticed that there was huge blood lying near the dead body of Laxman Mukhiya, who was having injury marks on his face as also on back side of his head. Police official recorded his statement Ex. PW9/A and also prepared site plan at his instance.
He further deposed that Inspector Satish Kumar who was posted as SHO in PS Bawana, also reached the spot and conducted search of deceased Laxman Mukhiya during which cash amount of Rs. 60/ and Voter ICard were recovered. Same were seized vide memo Ex.PW9/B. He also deposed that Crime Team officials also reached the spot, where photographer took photographs of the place of occurrence. He identified those photographs as Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A21 to be that of the place of occurrence and of deceased Laxman Mukhiya.
He further deposed that IO Inspector Satish Kumar had lifted State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 7 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 certain exhibits including blood stains lying near dead body of deceased, blood stained earth and earth control and kept them in separate plastic containers and sealed them with the seal of SK and thereafter, he had seized the said pullandas vide memo Ex.PW9/C. He also deposed that IO had seized mobile phone make Nokia of black colour alongwith lead used for hearing purposes and one railway ticket dt. 11.06.13 from Khangriya Junction to New Delhi, present in plastic bucket kept on mumty/chabutra of second floor of his factory, vide memo Ex. PW9/D. He claimed that said mobile phone was belonging to accused Ranjit Mukhiya.
He further deposed that one quarter bottle liquor was also found lying over the bed sheet besides two match boxes and one open packet of bidi of make Lagaan. After preparing their separate cloth pullandas which were sealed with the seal of SK, same were seized vide memo Ex.PW9/F. This witness identified the relevant exhibits as also accused Ranjit Mukhiya during trial.
In his cross examination, he deposed that IO had recorded his statement Ex. PW9/A in his factory on 08.09.2013 as per his dictation. He denied the suggestions that he had signed all the relevant memos/documents at PS and no such exhibits were lifted or sealed or seized in his presence.
12. PW16 Sh. Soti Lal Yadav: This witness deposed that on 08.09.13 when he had gone to Labour Chowk, Gurgaon for hiring labours for loading goods in the vehicles, accused Ranjit Mukhiya met him and State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 8 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 requested for looking some job for him. Accordingly, he hired accused for loading goods. The accused worked with him for about one week. Subsequently, he took him to Thakedar/Contractor Laxman Rai.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
13. PW17 Sh. Laxman Rai: This witness deposed that on 08.09.13, accused Ranjit Mukhiya was brought before him by Contractor Soti Lal for providing job and accordingly, accused worked under him as casual labour from 18.09.13 to 01.10.13 after which accused did not report for duty.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
14. PW19 Sh. Lalu Mukhiya: This witness was Thakedar/Labour Contractor. He deposed that he had provided accused Ranjit Mukhiya, Laxman Mukhiya (deceased) and Jumman Paswan as labourers in the factory premises no. B5, Sector 2, DSIDC, Bawana Delhi belonging to Sh. Jagdish Kumar. All the said three workers used to reside in the said factory premises itself. Due to shortage of labours, he also sometimes used to work in the factory of Jagdish Kumar, who used to pay a sum of Rs. 50/ per round to them.
He further deposed that on 07.09.13, Jagdish Kumar had made payment of Rs. 1800/ as labour charges to accused Ranjit Mukhiya in his presence and said amount was to be distributed amongst accused, Laxman State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 9 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 Mukhiya (deceased) and this witness. On the same day i.e. 07.09.13 at about 6.00 pm, accused paid a sum of Rs. 350/ to him and a sum of Rs. 350/ to Laxman Mukhiya and kept a sum of Rs. 340/ with himself. Out of remaining amount, a sum of Rs. 100/ was handed over to accused for purchasing chicken and a sum of Rs. 200/ was given to Laxman Mukhiya (deceased) for purchasing liquor. Accordingly, deceased Laxman Mukhiya purchased eight quarter bottles whereas accused had brought chicken. Thereafter, chicken was cooked up inside the factory premises. They all three consumed liquor and also ate the chicken. Thereafter, he left the factory premises and at that time, accused alongwith Laxman Mukhiya (deceased) were present inside the room of the said factory premises.
He also deposed that on the next day morning, he had received phone call from factory owner Jagdish Kumar who informed him that labourers were not picking up his phone call. He also tried to contact accused on his mobile phone but he did not pick up the phone. Accordingly, he went to the said factory premises which was found locked from outside. He informed said facts to Jagdish Kumar who instructed him to enter inside the factory either by breaking open the lock or otherwise. He entered inside the factory by scaling its main gate. When he went to first floor towards mumty, he found Laxman Mukhiya lying dead having injury on his face. Blood was also lying near the dead body. Accordingly, he informed factory owner in this regard, who also reached at the spot. Police officials had also reached at the spot. Since the key of lock appearing on man gate of the factory was not traceable, police broke open lock of the factory and entered State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 10 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 inside it. Accused Ranjit Mukhiya was found absconding from the factory.
In his cross examination, he deposed that police had recorded his statement on his dictation. He became perplexed on seeking the scene of crime and due to said reason, there was complete darkness in his eyes. Whatever he had deposed during chief examination, had happened in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was tutored by IO outside the Court premises or that he alongwith accused and deceased had not consumed liquor inside the said factory premises. He also denied the suggestion that it was he who had committed murder of Laxman Mukhiya and got the accused falsely implicated in this case.
15. PW20 Sh. Amarjeet Mukhiya: This witness is the nephew (son) of deceased Laxman Mukhiya, who had identified dead body of deceased in Mortuary of BSA hospital vide identification statement Ex.PW20/A and had also received dead body after its postmortem examination, vide receipt Ex. PW1/B. He deposed that on 04.10.2013, he had joined investigation of this case on request of IO Inspector Satish Kumar, when he met them near B Block DSIDC Bawana. He deposed that accused Ranjit Mukhiya had already been apprehended by the police. The accused led them to one vacant place in front of factory nos. B11 to B20, Sector 2, DSIDC, Bawana Delhi, wherefrom accused got recovered one iron pipe, one sky blue TShirt having blood stains and one half pant from inside those bushes and confessed that said iron pipe was used by him in the commission of offence and said State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 11 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 recovered clothes were worn by him at that time. Accordingly, IO prepared cloth pullandas of those articles and sealed them with the seal of SK and then seized the same vide memo Ex.PW20/B. IO had also prepared site plan of the said place vide memo Ex.PW20/C. He identified said iron pipe as Ex.P20/1 and those clothes as Ex.P20/2 (colly.) during trial.
In his cross examination, he deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on 05.10.2013 as it was already late night hours on 04.10.2013 when the aforesaid proceedings had taken place. IO had recorded his both the statements as per his dictation. No other public person had joined the proceedings at the time of recovery of those articles on 04.10.2013. He denied the other relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused.
POLICE WITNESSES:
16. PW3 Inspector Mahesh Kumar: This witness being draftsman, visited the place of occurrence alongwith IO on 23.10.2013 and after taking measurements and preparing rough notes, he had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW3/A at the instance of PW Jagdish Kumar and Inspector Satish Kumar. Nothing material has come on record during cross examination of this witness.
17. PW4 ASI Yogendra Singh: This witness was posted as Duty Officer in PS Bawana on 08.09.2013. He has proved factum regarding registration of FIR in question by him on the basis of rukka sent by SI Jitender Joshi through HC Vinod. He proved computerized copy of FIR in State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 12 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 question as Ex.PW4/A and his endorsement as Ex.PW4/B made on the rukka. He also recorded kayami DD entry regarding registration of FIR in question vide DD No. 27A. He also deposed that copies of FIRs were sent to Area MM and senior officers through special messenger Ct. Kuldeep.
Nothing material came on record during cross examination of this witness.
18. PW5 ASI Pramod Kumar: This witness was working as DD Writer in PS Bawana on 08.09.2013. He deposed that on that day at about 10.47 am, he received an information from PCR that dead body of a labourer was found lying at factory no. B5, Industrial Area, Sector2, Bawana, Delhi. He recorded the said information vide DD no. 12PP and handed over copy thereof to SI Jitender Joshi for appropriate action. He proved attested copy of said DD entry as Ex.PW5/A. This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
19. PW6 ASI Karambir: This witness was posted as photographer in Mobile Crime Team (OD) as on 08.09.2013. He deposed that he alongwith Crime Team Incharge and other staff, had visited the place of occurrence, where one male dead body was found lying. He had taken 21 photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles. He exhibited said photographs as Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A21 and their negatives as Ex.PW6/B1 to Ex.PW6/B21.
During cross examination, he testified that they had reached at State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 13 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 the spot at about 12 noon. Only police officials were present there in the factory at that time. No public person was available in the factory.
20. PW8 Inspector Anil Kumar: This witness was posted as In charge Mobile Crime Team, Outer District on 08.09.2013. He deposed that on receipt of information through wireless set, he alongwith other staff reached at the place of occurrence i.e. B5, Sector2, DSIDC, Bawana, Delhi. He deposed that he had inspected the spot and photographer had taken the photographs. He proved his inspection report as Ex.PW8/A. This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
21. PW12 Ct. Anand Singh: He is a formal witness. He deposed that on 27.12.2013 on the instructions of IO Inspector Satish Kumar, he had collected one wooden viscera box, 10 sealed pullandas and two sample seals from concerned MHC(M) vide R.C. No. 322/21/13 and had deposited the same at FSL, Rohini. After deposit of said exhibits, he had handed over copy of acknowledgment issued by the FSL, Rohini to concerned MHC(M). He further deposed that there was no tampering with said sealed pullandas by anyone till they remained in his custody.
He denied the relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused.
22. PW13 HC Ram Nihor: This witness produced original Call Book of PCR Van Libra 40 containing record of official on duty in said Van on 08.09.2013. He deposed that HC Sukhdev Singh alongwith gunman Ct. Raj Kumar and driver Ct. Kanwar Lal were on duty from 8 am to 8 pm on State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 14 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 said PCR Van. He proved copy of relevant page of Call Book as Ex.PW13/A. He deposed that as per record of PCR, call was received through Control Room by Incharge of PCR Van Libra 40 on 08.09.2013 at about 11.29 pm from caller Lalu Mukhiya. Said caller had informed that he was informed by factory owner namely Jagdish that Chowkidar of his factory was not picking up phone and when he went to see Chowkidar in the factory, said Chowkidar was found lying dead in the staircase of second floor of said factory. It was also informed by him that HC Vinod had broken open the lock of the factory premises and had found one person lying dead having severe injury marks on his face. The said information was recorded in the Call Book maintained. He proved copy of relevant entry in said Call Book as Ex.PW13/B. In his cross examination, he admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the facts of the present case as also that entries Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B were neither in his handwriting nor were prepared in his presence.
23. PW14 HC Sukhdev: This witness was posted as Incharge PCR Van Libra 40 and was on duty alongwith gunman Ct. Raj Kumar and driver Ct. Kanwar Lal on 08.09.2013. He deposed on identical lines as stated by PW13 regarding receipt of PCR call through Control Room.
He also deposed that on receipt of said call, he alongwith other staff of PCR van reached the place of information, where main gate of the factory was found locked from outside. One public person namely Lalu State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 15 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 Mukhiya met them. In the meantime, SI Jitender Joshi alongwith local staff also reached there. On the direction of SI Jitender Joshi, HC Vinod had broken open main gate of his factory after which all of them had gone inside the factory, where dead body of one male person was found lying on the staircase of the second floor. There were severe injury marks on the face of dead body. He made relevant entry in Call Book in this regard.
In his cross examination, he deposed that they were present near Aditi College, Main Road, Bawana when call was received through Control Room. 45 persons had gathered at the said place on seeing the police officials. Lock was broken with the help of hammer and chaini which were brought by HC Vinod. No enquiry was made from those 45 public persons by SI Jitender Joshi or by any other police official in his presence.
24. PW15 WCt. Archana Yadav: This witness deposed that on 08.09.2013, she was on duty from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm at Police Control Room. At about 10:45:58 am, she had received a call in Control Room from the caller namely Jagdish Kumar who stated that "at Bawana Industrial Area, Sector2, Factory No. B5, ek Mazdoor mara pada hai". She filled up the said information in PCR form and transmitted the same. She proved copy of said PCR form as Ex.PW15/A. This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
25. PW18 HC Ramesh Chand: This witness was working as MHC(M) in PS Bawana during the relevant period. He deposed that on State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 16 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 08.09.2013, IO Inspector Satish Kumar had deposited one mobile phone make Nokia in unsealed condition alongwith lead of the mobile phone and seven sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of SK in malkhana, vide entry at serial no. 561 of Register no. 19. He proved copy of said entry as Ex.PW18/A. He further deposed that on 14.09.2013, HC Dharam Pal had deposited one pullanda containing blood sample and sample seal, another sealed pullanda containing blood in gauze, one pullanda containing clothes and and sample seal and one pullanda containing viscera alongwith sample seal of Department of FM BSAH, in malkhana, vide entry at serial no. 575 of Register no.19. He proved the copy of said entry as Ex. PW18/B. He further deposed that on 04.10.2013, Inspector Satish Kumar had deposited one sealed pullanda containing pipe/rod, another sealed pullanda containing clothes of accused, blood sample and sample seal in malkhana, vide entry at serial no. 633 of Register no. 19. He proved copy of said entry as Ex.PW18/C. He further deposed that on 16.10.2013, the aforesaid sealed pullanda containing pipe/rod was sent to BSA Hospital through Ct. Ishwar Singh for subsequent opinion vide RC No. 274/21/13. He had made endorsement in register no. 19 at portion A to A1 against entry Ex. PW18/C. He proved copy of RC No. 274/21/13 as Ex. PW18/D. He further deposed that on 27.12.2013, he had handed over 10 sealed pullandas and two sample seals to Ct. Anand vide RC no. 323/21/13 for being deposited in FSL Rohini. He proved copy of said RC as Ex. State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 17 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 PW18/E. He also proved copy of acknowledgment of FSL as Ex. PW18/F. He further deposed that on 27.12.2013, one sealed pullanda containing viscera alongwith sample seals were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Anand vide RC No. 322/21/13. He had made endorsement in this regard against entry Ex. PW18/B in register no. 19. He proved copy of said RC as Ex PW18/F and copy of acknowledgment issued by FSL as Ex. PW18/G. This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
26. PW21 HC Vinod, PW24 Ct. Satyapal and PW26 SI Jitender Joshi: All these three witnesses had visited the place of occurrence i.e. factory no. B5, Sector2, Industrial Area, Bawana on receipt of DD No. 12PP (Ex.PW5/A) on 08.09.2013 at about 10.47 am. All these three witnesses have deposed on identical lines to the effect that when they reached the aforesaid factory premises, its main gate was found locked. PCR officials were also found present there besides one public person namely Lalu Mukhiya who informed them that Laxman Mukhiya (deceased) was lying dead on the staircase of said factory premises. Accordingly, lock of main gate of the factory premises was broken by PW21 with the help of hammer and chaini, which he had brought from PP DSIDC. Thereafter, all three of them alongwith PCR officials and public witness Lalu Mukhiya went inside the said factory and found dead body of Laxman Mukhiya lying on the staircase leading towards mumty.
They also deposed that body of deceased was having injury State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 18 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 mark over his face and head and blood was also lying near his dead body. Mobile Crime Team was called at the spot Accordingly, Mobile Crime Team carried out inspection of the spot and also took photographs of the scene of crime from different angles. In the meantime, Inspector Satish Kumar and owner of the factory namely Jagdish Kumar also reached there.
PW26 further deposed that he had recorded statement (Ex.PW9/A) of said Jagdish Kumar on the basis of which, he prepared rukka Ex.PW26/A and got the FIR registered through HC Vinod (PW21).
PW24 also deposed that he had taken dead body of Laxman Mukhiya in government vehicle to Mortuary of BSA Hospital where dead body was got deposited and he remained in the said Mortuary. On 12.09.2013, dead body of Laxman Mukhiya was handed over to his relatives vide receipt Ex.PW1/B in his presence after getting its postmortem examination conducted by the concerned doctor.
PW26 also deposed about the relevant proceedings carried out by IO Inspector Satish Kumar including seizure of articles i.e. cash amount of Rs. 60/ and Voter ICard recovered during personal search of deceased vide memo Ex.PW9/B, lifting of blood stained earth, earth control and blood stains and seizing those exhibits after preparing their sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of SK. He also deposed that mobile phone make Nokia alongwith lead used for hearing purposes and one railway ticket dated 11.06.2013 were also recovered from plastic bucket kept on mumti of second floor of factory premises and same were seized vide memo Ex. PW9/D. He also deposed about the seizure of two match box make Ship, one open packet State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 19 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 of bidi make Lagaan and one quarter bottle found lying on the bedsheet available on the floor of the roof and their seizure vide memo Ex.PW9/F, after preparing their sealed cloth pullandas.
PW26 also deposed that he had again joined investigation of this case on 04.10.2013, when accused Ranjeet Mukhiya was arrested. He deposed on identical lines with regard to investigation carried out on 04.10.2013 as deposed by PW20 Amarjeet Mukhiya. He further deposed that on same day i.e. 04.10.2013, he alongwith Ct. Rajbir (PW22) had got the accused medically examined from M.V. Hospital and blood sample of accused was also taken by concerned doctor. The said blood sample in sealed parcel alongwith sample seal were handed over to him and same were subsequently handed over to IO, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW26/C. PW21 also deposed that on 12.11.2013, he had visited Mortuary of BSA Hospital and had collected subsequent opinion besides sealed pullanda, out of which subsequent opinion were handed over by him to the IO and sealed pullanda was handed over by him to concerned MHC(M).
In their respective cross examination, PW21 and PW24 deposed that Lalu Mukhiya and 57 public persons were present at the time of breaking open the lock of main gate of the factory premises.
In his cross examination, PW26 deposed that factory premises no. B5, Sector2, Industrial Area, Bawana, was constructed upto 1½ storied during the relevant period. He had requested public persons present to join the proceeding at the time of breaking open lock of main gate of the said State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 20 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 factory, but except Lalu Mukhiya, no other public person joined the proceedings. He admitted that plastic bucket from which mobile phone of accused, lead and railway ticket were recovered, was not seized in this case. He deposed that public persons were requested to join the investigation before effecting arrest of accused but none agreed and they all left expressing their inabilities. The accused was apprehended at about 7 pm and after his interrogation, he was formally arrested at about 7.45 pm. He admitted that iron rod (Ex.P20/1) was easily available in the open market. He denied the other relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused.
27. PW22 Ct. Rajbir: This witness had also joined investigation of this case alongwith IO Inspector Satish Kumar and SI Jitender Joshi on 04.10.2013 when accused is claimed to have been arrested in this case. He also deposed on similar lines as deposed by PW26 whose testimony has been discussed in the preceding paras.
In his cross examination, he deposed that independent public witnesses were requested to join the proceedings before effecting arrest of accused, but none agreed and they all left showing their inability. He further deposed that accused was apprehended at about 7 pm and after interrogation, he was formally arrested after about 30 minutes or so. He denied the other relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused.
28. PW25 HC Dharampal Singh: This witness had joined investigation of this case on 14.09.2013 alongwith IO Inspector Satish Kumar. He deposed that on that day, he had visited BSA Hospital alongwith State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 21 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 Authority Letter on the basis of which, he collected one sealed container having blood sample of deceased, one sealed envelope containing sample seal, one sealed box containing clothes of deceased, one sealed envelope containing blood on gauze, one sealed envelope containing sample seal in respect of aforesaid clothes and blood on gauze, one sealed plastic box containing viscera of deceased Laxman Mukhiya and one sealed envelope containing sample seal in respect of viscera, all of which were sealed with the seal of BSA Hospital, from concerned official of said hospital. Thereafter, he gave serial no. 1 to 7 to said sealed pullandas and seized them vide memo Ex.PW25/A to Ex.PW25/C and deposited them in Malkhana and handed over its seizure memos to IO. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
29. PW28 Inspector Satish Kumar: He is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has deposed about the entire investigation carried out by him from the date of occurrence i.e. 08.09.2013 till filing of the chargesheet before the Court. He deposed about the relevant proceedings carried out by SI Jitender Joshi (PW26) on 08.09.2013 from recording statement (Ex.PW9/A) of Jagdish Kumar till seizure of aforesaid articles recovered during personal search of deceased and their seizure vide memo Ex.PW9/B. He also deposed that he had prepared site plan Ex.PW28/B at the instance of factory owner namely Jagdish Kumar. He also deposed about the relevant proceedings carried out by him at the scene of crime State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 22 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 concerning lifting of various exhibits as stated above, preparing their separate pullandas and sealing them with his seal of SK and their seizure vide memos Ex. PW9/C to Ex.PW9/G. He also deposed that lock and broken kunda of main gate of the factory were also sealed by him with the seal of SK and same were seized vide memo Ex.PW26/B. He further deposed that on 12.09.2013, postmortem examination on dead body of deceased was got conducted in Mortuary of BSA Hospital vide his application Ex.PW28/C and thereafter, dead body was handed over to relatives vide receipt Ex.PW1/B. He also deposed the relevant exhibits were got collected by HC Dharam Pal from BSA Hospital on 14.09.2013. He also deposed about the investigation and relevant proceedings carried out by him on 04.10.2013 with regard to arrest of accused and recovery of weapon of offence i.e. iron rod (Ex.P20/1) and wearing clothes i.e. one sky blue Tshirt having blood stains and one half pant (Ex. P20/2 colly.) at the instance of accused from inside the bushes in the presence of public witness namely Amarjeet Mukhiya. He further deposed that blood sample of accused was got collected from concerned doctor of M.V. Hospital through SI Jitender Joshi (PW26) and Ct. Rajbir (PW22) on 04.10.2013 itself.
He also deposed that he got collected subsequent opinion with regard to weapon of offence from concerned doctor of BSA Hospital and also got the relevant exhibits deposited in FSL Rohini through Ct. Anand Singh on 27.12.2013 and getting scaled site plan prepared through Draftsman Inspector Mahesh Kumar on 23.10.2013. He also identified the relevant State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 23 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 exhibits as also the accused during the trial.
In his cross examination, he admitted that recovery of weapon of offence and clothes were effected from industrial area. He claimed that recoveries of those articles were effected from 8.30 pm to 9 pm. He deposed that 78 workers of nearby factories were requested to join the investigation at that time but said workers refused to join the investigation. Efforts were made to lift chance prints from the scene of crime but no chance prints could be lifted by finger print proficient. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE:
30. PW7 Dr. Siddharth: He deposed that on 04.10.2013, accused Ranjit Mukhiya was brought by Ct. Rajbir for medical examination at M.V. Hospital. He further deposed that Ct. Rajbir had also produced written request made by concerned IO for taking blood sample of said patient. He examined accused Ranjit Mukhiya and had taken his blood sample vide MLC No. 4313/13. He proved said MLC as Ex.PW7/A. This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
31. PW23 Dr. Vijay Dhankar: This witness had conducted postmortem examination of body of deceased Laxman Mukhiya S/o Sh. Ram Prasad on 12.09.2013 in BSA Hospital. He proved his detailed postmortem report as Ex.PW23/A. On examination, he found 16 external injuries and corresponding internal injuries as described in his detailed postmortem report.
State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 24 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 He deposed that after carrying out postmortem examination, he had opined that death was due to combined effect of hemorrhagic shock and craniocerebral damage consequent to multiple injuries caused to the deceased. All the injuries were antemortem in nature and fresh before death caused by blunt force and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He had preserved the viscera at the request of IO. He had also taken blood sample on gauze piece, blood sample in vial, had sealed the viscera alongwith blood sample and had also sealed the wearing clothes of deceased with the seal of Department and had handed over the same to IO.
He further deposed that on 07.11.2013, he had received a parcel sealed with the seal of SK. Seals over the said parcel were found intact. He opened the said parcel and found it containing a steel pipe, which was examined by him. He deposed that after carrying out examination, he had opined that the injuries mentioned in postmortem report Ex.PW23/A, could be caused by the steel pipe examined by him. He proved his report in this regard as Ex.PW23/B. This witness also identified said steel (iron) pipe as Ex.P20/1 shown to him during trial, to be the same object which was examined by him.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
32. PW27 Dr. Dhruv Sharma: He is the FSL expert who had State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 25 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 examined relevant exhibits of this case, which were sent to FSL, Rohini during the course of investigation. He deposed that all the 10 parcels were duly sealed and after opening those sealed parcels, same were marked as Ex. '1', '2', '4', '5a', '5b', '5c', '5d', '6', '7', '8a', '9' & Ex. '10'. On examination, blood was detected on Ex.1 i.e. blood stained gauze, Ex.2 i.e. blood stained cemented material, Ex.4 i.e. iron pipe, Ex.5a i.e. shirt of deceased, Ex.6 i.e. blood sample of deceased, Ex.8a i.e. Tshirt of accused, Ex.9 i.e. blood sample of accused and Ex.10 i.e. one pair of chappals. However, blood could not be detected on Ex. 3 and 8b. He further deposed that exhibits '1', '2', '4', '5a', '6', '8a', '9' and '10' were subjected to DNA isolation, out of which DNA profiles were generated from source of exhibits i.e. Ex.1( blood stained gauze), 4 ( iron pipe), 5a (shirt of deceased), 6( blood sample of deceased) , 8a( Tshirt of accused) & 9(blood sample of accused ). He deposed that on examination of DNA profiles generated from the aforesaid source of exhibits i.e. '1','2','4','5a' and '8a' were found to be similar to the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit '6'. He prepared his detailed report Ex.PW27/A in that regard.
In his cross examination, he deposed that the kit used by him during examination of relevant exhibits, was highly full proof. He further deposed that two persons in the population of entire world, cannot have same profile and the technique employed by him during examination of relevant exhibits, is widely used in India. He denied the suggestion that he had not properly examined the exhibits or that his report Ex.PW27/A is not the correct report based upon actual facts.
State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 26 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE:
33. PW10 Sh. Israr Babu, Nodal Officer Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.: He produced call details record of SIM number 9968783114 for the period between 08.09.2013 to 10.09.2013 alongwith Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He deposed that said number was issued to Sh. Jagdish Kumar S/o Sh. Ghanshyam Dass. He exhibited copy of Customer Application Form (CAF) as Ex.PW10/A, copy of identification document i.e. Election ICard as Ex.PW10/B, copy of call details record of said SIM number for the aforesaid period as Ex.PW10/C and Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW10/D. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused.
34. PW11 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services Ltd.: He produced call details record of SIM number 9212095708 for the period between 08.09.2013 to 08.09.2013 alongwith Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He deposed that said number was issued to Sh. Jagdish Kumar S/o Sh. Ghanshyam Dass. He exhibited copy of Customer Application Form (CAF) as Ex.PW11/A, copy of identification document i.e. Voter ICard as Ex.PW11/B, copy of call details records of said SIM number for the aforesaid period as Ex.PW11/C, copy of Cell ID Chart as Ex.PW11/D, Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW11/E and covering letter dated 19.12.2013 as Ex.PW11/F. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 27 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 accused.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED
35. While opening the arguments, Ld Additional PP vehemently argued that all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution in this case. In order to buttress the said argument, he also referred to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses more particularly that of PW2 Jumman Paswan, PW9 Jagdish Prasad, PW19 Lalu Mukhiya and PW20 Amarjit Mukhiya. He also referred to the medical evidence in the form of testimony of PW23 Dr. Vijay Dhanker and postmortem report Ex PW23/A. He also submitted that there is recovery of weapons of offence i.e iron pipe/rod (Ex. P4) at the instance of accused and subsequent opinion (Ex.PW23/B) given by Autopsy Surgeon that injuries sustained by deceased could have been caused by the said weapon. He also pointed out that as per DNA Reports dated 13.05.14 ( Ex PW27/A & PW27/B), DNA profiles generated from sources of exhibits i.e. blood stained cemented earth, shirt of deceased and Tshirt of accused are found to be similar to the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit i.e. blood of deceased which clearly points out that it was the accused who had committed murder of Laxman Mukhiya and had fled away from the spot. Ld Additional PP, therefore, urged that accused should be convicted in respect of offence U/s 302 IPC.
36. Per contra, Ld defence counsel of accused vehemently argued that prosecution has failed to establish the charge levelled against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. In this regard, he submitted that no State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 28 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 independent public witness was joined at the time of arrest of accused and thus, the arrest of accused in the manner claimed by prosecution witnesses becomes doubtful. Consequently, alleged recovery of weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe/rod (Ex P4) and blood stained Tshirt and half pant at the instance of accused also becomes doubtful. He further argued that the prosecution has failed to attribute any particular motive due to which accused could have committed murder of Laxman Mukhiya and in the absence of any motive, accused should not be convicted in this case.
37. The accused has been charged with offence punishable U/s 302 IPC which reads as under:
302. Punishment for Murder : Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
38. In order to appreciate the evidence available on record in the light of offence charged against the accused, it would be appropriate to refer to the provision contained in Section 300 IPC which reads as under: Section 300 IPC Murder: Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly: If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 29 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 Thirdly:If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly: If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
39. The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 302 are as follows:
1. Death of a human being was caused;
2. Such death was caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused;
3. Such act was done
(a) with the intention of causing death, or
(b) that the accused knew it to be likely to cause death, or
(c) that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
40. In the landmark judgment of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1958) 1 SCR 1495, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the following are the four steps of inquiry involved in the offence of Murder under section 300 IPC, clause thirdly:
"i. First, whether bodily injury is present;
ii. second,what is the nature of the injury;
State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 30 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 iii. third, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended; and iv. fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature."
41. In Section 300 IPC, the definition of culpable homicide appears in an expanded form. Each of the four clauses requires that the act which causes death should be done intentionally, or with the knowledge or means of knowing that death is a natural consequence of the act. An offence cannot amount to murder unless it falls within the definition of culpable homicide; for this section merely points out the cases in which culpable homicide is murder. Putting it shortly, all acts of killing done:
i) with the intention to kill, or
ii) to inflict bodily injury likely to cause death, or
iii) with the knowledge that death must be the most probable result, are prima facie murder, while those committed with the knowledge that death will be a likely result, are culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
42. In order to bring home the guilt of accused in respect of offence of murder, the prosecution was required to prove as under: i. That the death of Laxman Mukhiya was homicidal in nature; ii. That it was the accused who had caused bodily injury to the deceased Laxman Mukhiya;
State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 31 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 iii. That the accused had intention to cause the death of deceased Laxman Mukhiya or that the accused knew it to be likely to cause death or that the accused was well aware that the injury caused to deceased, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
43. It goes without saying that in this case, the case of prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence even alleged by prosecution in this case. It is settled law that criminal jurisprudence begins with the presumption that unless otherwise proved the person facing the trial would be deemed to be innocent. The burden to prove the charge against the accused is on the prosecution and not on the accused. The prosecution, if fails to connect the act of the accused with the ultimate crime and where the material links constituting the evidence are found missing then the benefit of the same goes in favour of the accused. Also, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled legal position is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.
44. As observed by the Apex Court in SharadBirdhichandsarda Vs. State of Maharashtra,(1984), 4 SCC 116, the following five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 32 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved as was held by this Court in ShivajiSahebraoBobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1973 CriLJ 1783 where the following observations were made:
Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict, and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
The death of deceased Laxman Mukhiya was homicidal in nature
45. In order to prove the fact that death of deceased Laxman Mukhiya was homicidal in nature, the prosecution has led medical evidence in the form of testimony of PW23 Dr. Vijay Dhanker and has proved PM report dt. 12.09.13 as Ex PW23/A. It may be noted here that as per the case of prosecution, the death of Laxman Mukhiya had taken place somewhere during the intervening night of 07.09.13 and 08.09.13 and postmortem State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 33 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 examination of dead body of deceased was got conducted on 12.09.13 from 12.30 pm to 2.00 pm.
46. After noting down the injuries in PM report supra, PW23 Dr. Vijay Dhanker gave his opinion that death of Laxman Mukhiya was due to combined effect of hemorrhagic shock and cranio cerebral damage consequent to multiple injuries to the body. He further opined that all injuries were ante mortem, fresh before death, caused by blunt force and were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature.
47. Not only this, diagram of deceased Laxman Mukhiya showing various parts of his body on which injuries no. 1 to 16 had been caused, is also annexed at page no. 7 of said PM report.
48. Nothing has come on record during cross examination of the aforesaid witness so as to discard the testimony of PW23 or to create any doubt upon the opinion given by him in his report Ex PW23/A.
49. In view of the discussion made herein above and the medical evidence which has come on record, there is no iota of doubt that the death of deceased Laxman Mukhiya was homicidal in nature.
LAST SEEN EVIDENCE
50. It stands duly proved from the testimony of PW9 Jagdish Kumar that deceased Laxman Mukhiya alongwith Lalu Mukhiya (PW19) and accused were present inside factory premises No. B5, Sector2, DSIDC, Bawana up till 4.00 pm on 07.09.2013 when he had paid labour charges amounting to Rs. 1800/ to the accused and had left the factory thereafter. It State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 34 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 is also proved from the testimony of PW19 Lalu Mukhiya that he alongwith deceased Laxman Mukhiya and accused had consumed liquor and had also ate chicken together during evening hours on 07.09.2013 in the same factory premises, after which he had left the said factory premises while leaving deceased in the sole company of accused herein. The relevant portion of the testimony of PW19 in this regard, has gone unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of accused and thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the said testimony.
51. As per PM report Ex. PW23/A which was conducted on 12.09.2013, the probable time since death of deceased Laxman Mukhiya was about four days and his dead body was got preserved in cold storage within about two to four hours of the last meal. The fact that death of deceased occurred just within few hours after having his meal, stands corroborated from the report of Autopsy Surgeon who has mentioned therein that during internal examination of dead both of deceased, he found that about 500 cc of yellowish coloured semi digested food. Small intestine was found containing fluids and gases and large intestine was found containing fecal matter and gases.
52. The presence of fluid in the small intestine and semi digest food in the body of deceased at the time of his autopsy as mentioned in report Ex. PW23/A duly corroborates the ocular version of the relevant prosecution witness i.e PW19 Lalu Mukhiya that he alongwith deceased Laxman Mukhiya and accused had consumed liquor and had also ate chicken before the said witness left the factory premises leaving deceased in the company of State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 35 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 accused herein.
53. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy (2006) 10 SCC 172, Hon'ble Apex Court opined that even in the cases where time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased was found dead is too small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes possible, the court should look for some corroboration. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case.
54. Now adverting back to the facts of the present case. It has already been established on record that deceased Laxman Mukhiya was in the sole company of accused herein during late evening hours of 07.09.2013 after PW19 Lalu Mukhiya left them present inside the room of factory no. B5, Sector 2 Industrial Area Bawana, Delhi. It also proven fact that death of Laxman Mukhiya occurred during intervening night of 07/08092013. The facts and circumstances of the present case as established from the State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 36 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 testimonies of prosecution witnesses suggest that accused was found missing from the said factory premises in the next morning at about 7.00 am. The main gate of the said factory was found locked from outside and it was only after breaking open the said lock of the main gate, entry could be made inside the said factory by relevant police witnesses alongwith PW19 Lalu Mukhiya who had initially went inside the factory after scaling main gate of the factory and noticed dead body of Laxman Mukhiya lying in the stair case.
55. No doubt, the key of lock (Ex.P28/1) found appearing on main gate of the said factory could not be recovered from the possession of accused as submitted by Ld defence counsel but nevertheless, there is nothing on record to suggest the possibility of any other person having visited inside the said factory during that intervening night or any person being author of the crime other than the accused. This is more so when it has been consistently deposed by public witnesses namely Jagdish Kumar (PW9) and Lalu Mukhiya (PW19) that deceased Laxman Mukhiya, Juman Prasad (PW2) and accused alone used to reside inside the factory premises and Juman Prasad had left the factory premises much earlier as his son was admitted in the hospital.
56. Moreover, it is not explained by accused as to what had happened between him and deceased Laxman Mukhiya after Lalu Mukhiya (PW19) had left the factory premises after taking dinner with both of them. The accused although admitted that he alongwith Lalu Mukhiya (PW19) and deceased Laxman Mukhiya alone were present inside the factory premises State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 37 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 after factory owner Jagdish Kumar (PW9) left from there after paying labour charges of Rs. 1800/ to him and also that all three of them had consumed liquor and had also eaten chicken before Lalu Mukhiya left both of them inside the said factory but he failed to explain as to under what circumstances, murder of Laxman Mukhiya had been committed.
57. The heavy reliance placed by Ld. defence counsel on the testimony of DW1 is of no relevance at all for several reasons. Firstly, DW1 is none else but real brother of accused and thus, he has every reason to depose falsely in order to save his brother from punishment. Secondly, DW1 could not disclose any particular date, month or year when he was telephonically informed by accused that on the preceding night accused had consumed liquor with deceased and thereafter, accused had gone outside factory for purchasing food and on his return to the factory, he found Laxman Mukhiya lying dead. Thirdly, the testimony of DW1 is contrary to the defence raised by accused. Accused took plea in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he had gone to the market for purchasing vegetables during the fateful night when murder of Laxman Mukhiya was committed. However, DW1 deposed having been told by accused that he had gone for purchasing the food despite the fact that it stood established on record by the testimonies of relevant public witness that accused had already had dinner with deceased. Fourthly, the testimony of DW1 stood demolished during his cross examination when he could not disclose the phone number from which accused had made a call to him or even his phone number on which he had State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 38 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 attended the said call. Fifthly, DW1 admitted during cross examination that he did not inform either to the police or to any other higher police official that accused had made any such telephone call to him and he also did not file any complaint before any Court in that regard. Same clearly shows that a false defence was tried to be established by accused through his said defence witness. However, accused could not substantiate the said defence in any manner.
58. In view of aforementioned reasons, Court also agrees with the submission made on behalf of prosecution that the possibility of any other person having visited inside the said factory premises during the intervening night of 07/08092013 stands ruled out and thus, it was the accused alone who was in the company of deceased Laxman Mukhiya soon before the commission of his murder. The said fact stands duly corroborated from the relevant portions of the testimonies of recovery witnesses who, in same echo, have testified that mobile phone ( Ex.P2) of accused had been recovered from plastic bucket lying at the place of occurrence. Had it been the case where accused would have fled away on seeing the dead body of Laxman Mukhiya when he had returned back to the spot after purchasing vegetables from market, his mobile phone would have been in his possession and he would have taken the said mobile phone with him while running away from the spot. The accused has failed to explain as to how his mobile phone had been found lying in the plastic bucket and was recovered from near the dead body of deceased. Moreover, the relevant portion of the testimony of PW9 Jagdish State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 39 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 Kumar that he repeatedly made calls on mobile phone no. 97180335231 of accused in the morning hours on 08.09.13 but accused did not pick up his phone, also lends credence to the case of prosecution that accused was the author of crime, otherwise there was no reason as to why accused did not respond to the phone calls made by his factory owner (PW9) at that time. Again, no explanation has been furnished by accused on the said aspect.
59. There is another reason in support of arriving at the aforesaid conclusion by the Court. It has come on record in the testimonies of PW16 Soti Lal Yadav and PW17 Laxman Rai that accused met them on 08.09.2013 and had worked with them initially for one week with PW16 and thereafter, from 18.09.13 to 01.10.13 with PW17 at Gurgaon. There was no occasion for accused to leave the job of PW9 Jagdish Kumar without any information and without any cause or reason and to work as casual labour with PW16 and PW17. This affords another circumstance against accused as he has failed to furnish any explanation in this regard.
FALSE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY ACCUSED IN HIS STATEMENT U/S 313 CR.PC.
60. It is also relevant to refer to the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of accused. In his said statement, accused came forward with a new story that after consuming liquor with deceased and PW19 Lalu Mukhiya and thereafter, taking dinner with deceased, he had gone to purchase vegetables during said night and when he returned back to factory premises after purchasing vegetables, he found Laxman Mukhiya lying dead inside the said State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 40 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 factory premises. He also claimed that due to fear, he had run away while leaving behind his mobile phone at the spot.
61. However, the accused has failed to substantiate the said defence either during cross examination of relevant prosecution witnesses or otherwise. By applying the test of conduct to be adopted by reasonable prudent person, the first act which was expected from the accused in such a situation, was to intimate either Thekedar Lalu Mukhiya or factory owner Jagdish Kumar that Laxman Mukhiya was lying dead when he had returned back after purchasing vegetables from the market. The aforesaid explanation furnished by accused cannot be accepted by the Court as it is not believable that he would have gone to purchase vegetables during late night hours or that any vegetable vendor would have been available during late night hours. It is important to note that no such suggestion was put to relevant prosecution witnesses from the side of accused on the lines of aforesaid defence raised by him in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC. Rather, suggestions have been given on his behalf to PW19 that accused did not consume any liquor alongwith deceased and the said witness inside the factory premises during said night. On the contrary, suggestion was given on behalf of accused to PW19 that it was he who had infact committed murder of Laxman Mukhiya and got the accused falsely implicated in this case. Same clearly shows that he has taken false defence in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. for the first time.
62. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 41 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 "T.P Divetia Vs. State of Gujrat" reported at AIR 1997 SC 2193 that even if the accused in his statement takes a false plea that by itself would not take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. Such false plea may be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances have been proved and establish the guilt of the accused.
CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED
63. It is also relevant to note about the conduct of the accused immediately after the commission of murder of deceased Laxman Mukhiya.
64. As already noted, the accused fled away from the spot during the intervening night of 07/08092013 when either factory owner namely Jagdish Kumar or Thakedar Lalu Mukhiya. Not only this, he shifted from Delhi to Gurgaon immediately after murder of Laxman Mukhiya. This fact is duly established from the testimonies of PW16 Soti Lal Yadav and PW17 Laxman Rai as both of them have consistently deposed that on 09.08.2013, accused met PW16 and requested him to provide some job and accordingly, PW16 hired accused for the purpose of loading goods. It has also come on record that accused worked with PW16 for about one week and thereafter, accused was engaged as casual labour on the recommendation of PW16 by PW17 Laxman Rai, where accused worked from 18.09.2013 to 01.10.2013. PW17 has categorically deposed that accused did not report for duty after 01.10.2013. It is a matter of common knowledge that 02.10.2013 was holiday on account of Gandhi Jayanti and accused is shown to have been arrested in this case on 04.10.2013 from brick bhatta (eit bhatta), Village Firozpur State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 42 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 Bangar, District Sonepat, Haryana where his brother Sanjay Mukhiya had been working. The testimonies of both the aforesaid witnesses i.e. PW16 and PW17 have remained unassailed from the side of accused and thus, the said conduct of accused that he absconded from the scene of crime immediately after murder of Laxman Mukhiya, is another important circumstantial piece of evidence proved against him by the prosecution. All these facts pointing out towards the unnatural conduct of the accused, are material facts and are admissible pieces of evidence in terms of Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act which reads as under: "8. MOTIVE, PREPARATION AND PREVIOUS OR SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT: Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto".
65. In AIR 1970 SC 400, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the conduct of an accused during the course of investigation post crime is relevant and admissible U/s 8 of the Evidence Act.
66. There is no force in the argument raised on behalf of accused that there is absence of motive on the part of accused. Ld Amicus Curiae contended that prosecution has failed to prove as to why the accused would State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 43 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 kill his coworker due to which the case of prosecution should be viewed with suspicion.
67. It is well settled law that motive is not always material in order to prove the case of prosecution. In the matter titled as State Vs. David Rozario reported at AIR 2002 SC 3272, it has been observed as under: "xxxxx ''motive behind the crime is a relevant of which evidence can be given a ............ proof of motive satisfy the judicial mind about the authorship of the crime but the absence does not ipso facto result in the acquittal of accused. Motive is not sinequanun to prove the cases of the prosecution. Absence of proof only demands deeper forensic search and can not do or undo the effect of evidence if otherwise is reliable and sufficient. Xxxxx"
68. In the matter titled as "State of U.P. V Babu Ram" reported at SC 2000 (11) AD 285, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : "xxxxx No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental imposition of an offender towards the person whom he offered.
Xxxxxx"
State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 44 of 52
FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015
69. In the matter titled as "Dr. Tarseem Kumar Vs. Delhi Admn." reported at (1994) Supp (3) SCC 767, it has been held as under: "Normally there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is why investigating agency as well as the Court while examining the complicity of an accused try to ascertain as to what was the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime in question. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of the materials produced before the Court the motive loses its importance. But in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance. Of course, if each of the circumstances proved on behalf of the prosecution is accepted by the Court for purpose of recording a finding that it was the accused who committed the crime in question, even in absence of proof of a motive for commission of such a crime, the accused can be convicted. But the investigating agency as well as possible as to what was the immediate impelling motive on the part of the accused which led him to commit the crime in question."
RECVOERY OF WEAPON OF OFFENCE
70. As per the case of prosecution, the weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe/rod ( Ex P4) had been recovered at the instance of accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement ( Ex. PW22/C) from inside the bushes present in vacant place at B Block, Sector 2, DSIDC, Bawana Delhi for the said purpose, the prosecution has examined four witnesses i.e. PW20 Amarjit Mukhiya, PW22 Ct. Rajbir, PW26 SI Jitender Joshi and PW28 Inspector Satish Kumar. All these four witnesses have deposed on identical lines and have duly corroborated each other with regard to recovery of said iron pipe at State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 45 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 the instance of accused.
71. There is no substance in the argument of Ld defence counsel that no independent public witness had been joined by police officials at the time of recovery of said iron pipe or that the testimony of PW20 should be disbelieved merely because he was related to deceased. Firstly, there is nothing on record to show that the testimony of PW20 is unbelievable or unnatural as accused has not been able to discard the testimony of said public witness through litmus test of cross examination. Secondly, the remaining three police witnesses have also successfully with stood the test of cross examination and accused could not impeach their testimonies on the aspect of recovery of said weapon of offence. Thirdly, it has been duly explained by police witnesses that efforts were made to join view workers of nearby factories to join the proceedings but none of them agreed to join the proceedings.
72. In the matter titled as "Ambika Prasad & Anr. Vs. State"
reported at 2002 (2) CRIMES 63 (SC), it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is known fact that independent persons are reluctant to be a witness or to assist the investigation. Reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, in cases where injured witnesses of the close relative of the deceased are under constant threat and they dare not depose the truth before the Court, independent witnesses believe that their safety is not guaranteed. That belief cannot be said to be without any substance. Other reason may be the delay in recording the evidence of independent witnesses and repeated adjournments State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 46 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 in the Court. In any case if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, prosecution cannot be blamed at and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses. It was also held that non examination of investigating officer of the case is no ground to discard the evidence of eye witnesses.
73. There is no merit in the other argument of Ld defence counsel that recovery of said iron pipe is doubtful as same is claimed to have been recovered from vacant plot which was accessible to public at large. All the recovery witnesses have consistently deposed that the iron pipe was got recovered from inside the bushes present at vacant piece of land. Thus, it is nowhere case of accused that the said iron pipe was visible to one and of or that said place of recovery was accessible to the public persons.
74. In the matter titled as "Tahir & Ors. Vs. State" reported at 2000 (56) DRJ 566, Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under: "xxxxxxx
15. It is also pleaded by learned counsel for accused that the nylone rope was discovered from a place easily accessible on 28.3.1988 i.e. after about two weeks of alleged occurrence on the basis of information given atleast 24 hours earlier i.e. on 27.03.1988. There is nothing in Section 27 of the Evidence Act which renders statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of the article was made from any place which is "open or accessible to others". It is a fallacious notion that when recovery of any incriminating article was made from a place which is open or accessible to others it would vitiate the evidence under section 27 of the State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 47 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 Evidence Act. Any object can be concealed in places which are open or accessible to others. For example, if the article is buried on the main road side or if it is concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public places or kept hidden in a public office the article would remain out of the visibility of others in normal circumstances. Until such article is discovered its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person who had hid it alone know where it is until he discloses that fact to any other person. Hence the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the place of concealment is accessible to others. Xxxxxxx"
RECOVERY OF BLOOD STAINED TSHIRT AND MATCHING OF BLOOD GROUP OF BLOOD SAMPLE OF DECEASED WITH THE BLOOD GROUP OF THE BLOOD STAINS APPEARING ON SAID TShirt
75. It has been consistently deposed by all the aforesaid four recovery witnesses i.e. PW19 Lalu Mukhiya, PW21 HC Vinod, PW24 Ct. Satyapal and PW26 SI Jitender Joshi that accused had also got recovered blood stains sky blue Tshirt (Ex.8a) and one half pant (Ex. P20/2 colly.) from inside the aforesaid bushes in pursuance to his disclosure statement Ex. PW22/C. As per the case of prosecution and the confessional statement made by accused himself, as accused was wearing the said sky blue Tshirt and half pant at the time of committing murder of Laxman Mukhiya. The said Tshirt alongwith other exhibits including blood sample of deceased on gauze were sent to FSL Rohini for examination. The said exhibits were State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 48 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 examined by PW27 namely Sh. Dhruv Sharma Assistant Director (Biology) of FSL, Rohini who has proved his report dt. 13.05.14 as Ex. PW27/A. According to the said report, the gauze cloth piece having brown stains lifted from the scene of crime was given Exhibit 1, pieces of cemented material described as blood stained pieces of earth was given Exhibit 2, pieces of cemented material described as pieces of earth (earth control) was given Exhibit 3, one iron pipe was given Exhibit 4, one shirt having brown stains was given Exhibit 5a, one lower having small brown stains was given Exhibit 5b, one underwear having darker stains was given Exhibit 5c, one thread with locket was given Exhibit 5d, Light brown gauze cloth piece described as blood sample was given Exhibit 6, Dark brown liquid kept in a tube described as blood was given Exhibit 7, one Tshirt having small brown stains was given Exhibit 8a, one half pants was given Exhibit 8b, dark brown liquid kept in a tube described as blood sample was given Exhibit 9 and one pair of chappals was given Exhibit 10. After examining the said exhibits, it has been opined by Forensic Expert that blood was detected on exhibits '1', '2', '4','5a','5b','5c','5d','6','7','8a','9' &'10'.
76. Out of these exhibits, profiles were generated from source of exhibits on '1','2','4','5a','6','8a' and '9' and after subjecting those exhibits to DNA profiles, it was found that DNA profiles generated from the source of exhibits i.e. '1' (blood stains gauze), '2' (blood stains cemented material), '4' (iron pipe), '5a'( shirt of deceased) and '8a' (Tshirt of accused) were similar to the DNA profile generated from source of exhibit '6' i.e. blood gauze of deceased. In other words, the FSL result Ex. PW27/A clearly State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 49 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 prove the fact that blood stains found appearing on wearing Tshirt of accused were matching with the blood group of the deceased. Same is also another important link evidence in the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of accused in this case. Besides that, the DNA profile of blood gauze appearing on weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe (Ex. P4) is also found to be similar of the DNA profile of blood of deceased which also corroborates the ocular testimonies of prosecution witnesses as well as the case of prosecution that accused had committed murder of Laxman Mukhiya with the said weapon.
77. The last limb of argument raised on behalf of accused was that the act of accused in committing murder of Laxman Mukhiya was protected by Section 85 IPC. Ld defence counsel contended that as per the case of prosecution, accused had consumed liquor alongwith deceased just before committing his murder. Thus, the accused should be given the protection provided in Section 85 IPC. On the other hand, Ld. Additional PP argued that the exception provided in Section 85 IPC cannot be claimed by accused as it was not ininvoluntary intoxication of accused against his will.
78. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to refer to the provision contained in Section 85 IPC, which is reproduced as under: "Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 50 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will."
79. It is quite evident from the bare reading of provision contained in Section 85 IPC that General Exception contained therein is applicable only when it is shown to the Court that accused was administered some substance without his knowledge or against his will and by reason of his intoxication under such a situation, he committed an offence being incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him.
80. Two things emerges out of the said propositions of law. Firstly, the accused has to show that his mental state of mind due to intoxication, was such that he was incapable of knowing the exact nature of his act or that he was not knowing that his act was wrong or contrary to law. Secondly, the accused has to show that he was administered some substance without his knowledge or against his will.
81. In the case in hand, both the aforesaid ingredients are found missing. The testimonies of public witnesses as discussed above, clearly shows that accused had consumed liquor voluntarily out of his own free will and thus, it is not a case where liquor was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. In the matter of "Mirza Ghani Baigh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh" reported at (1997) 2 Crimes 19 (AP), it has been held that voluntarily drunkness is not an excuse for commission of an offence. It has also been held in the same decision that Court must attribute State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 51 of 52 FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 to the intoxicated man the same knowledge as if he was quite sober unless he was besides his mind altogether at the time of incident. The accused has also failed to bring any material on record showing or even suggesting that due to consumption of liquor, his mental state of mind was incapacitated to the extent that he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act in committing murder of Laxman Mukhiya. For all these reasons, I am of the view that defence in the form of General Exception provided in Section 85 IPC is not available to the accused in this case.
82. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that accused Ranjeet Mukhiya had committed murder of Laxman Mukhiya S/o Sh. Ram Prasad during the intervening night of 08/090913 inside factory no. B5, Sector2, Industrial Area, Bawana. Consequently, he stands convicted for the offence punishable U/s 302 IPC.
Announced in open Court today
On 31.08.2015 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State V/s Ranjit Mukhiya ("convicted") Page 52 of 52