Delhi District Court
State vs Chunbuda Page 1 Of 25 on 20 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS): NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
SC No.130/2011
FIR No.259/2011
PS Bawana
U/S 302 IPC
State
Vs.
Chunbuda,
S/o Raja Ram,
R/o Village Agarhunda,
PS Pahari, Distt. Chitrakoot,
Uttar Pradesh.
Date of Institution:05.11.2011
Date of conclusion of Arguments:18.02.2014
Date of pronouncement of Judgment:20.02.2014
Appearance: Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP for the State.
Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Counsel for accused.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused has been forwarded by the police to face trial u/s 302 IPC.
2. Deceased Devi Dayal and accused are real brothers. Complainant Ram Sanjeevan is their real uncle i.e. elder brother of their father Raja Ram. Complainant made statement to the police State Vs.Chunbuda page 1 of 25 that he was working as mason for last one year at factory No.A13, Sector1, D.S.I.D.C., Bawana. 810 labourers and masons were also working there and they used to sleep in the factory premises itself in the night. On 23.07.2011 at about 9.00 P.M., he slept on the first floor whereas Om Prakash, Dharamraj and Devi Dayal went upstairs to sleep on the roof of bathroom of second floor. Due to drizzling in the night, Om Prakash and Dharamraj came downstairs but Devi Dayal kept on sleeping there. He sent a labourer Raju on 24.07.2011 at 6.00 A.M. to awaken Devi Dayal. Raju came downstairs and told that Devi Dayal was lying in a pool of blood. Complainant expressed apprehension that he was killed by his younger brother Chunbuda because Chunbuda had illicit affair with Premawife of Devi Dayal due to which there was a quarrel between both in the village also but the matter was compromised by the village elders. Both brothers were bearing grudge against each other due to that reason.
3. Charge u/s 302 IPC was framed against the accused on 02.12.2011 to which he claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined twenty two witnesses to prove the allegations. Accused did not examine a single witness in defence.
5. PW6 lady Ct. Nivedita was posted in CPCR, PHQ, New Delhi on 24.07.2011. On that day, at 8.54 A.M., she received information from one Pappu Singh from his mobile phone State Vs.Chunbuda page 2 of 25 No.7838948330 to the effect that a male dead body of 3233 years was lying on the roof of house No.A13, Sector1, Bawana. She recorded the information in PCR form Ex.PW6/A. PW10 HC Chander Prakash registered DD No.10A on 24.07.2011 at 8.54 A.M. on receipt of information from wireless operator that a male dead body was lying on the roof of house No.A13, Sector1, Bawana. On the same day, at 12.50 P.M., he registered FIR Ex.PW10/E on receipt of rukka brought by Ct. Brahm Pal sent by SI Ramesh Chander and also made endorsement Ex.PW10/F on the rukka. Initiation process of registration of FIR was vide DD No.19A Ex.PW10/B and process was complete vide DD No.20A Ex.PW10/C. He had recorded DD No.17 Ex.PW10/D also regarding departure of Insp. Rakesh Kumar PW21 for spot.
PW9 HC Karamvir was posted as photographer in mobile crime team. He deposed that he along with PW8 SI Anil Kumar and finger print proficient reached the under construction factory at A13, Sector1, D.S.I.D.C., Bawana on 24.07.2011 and found Insp. Rakesh Kumar and staff there. A male dead body was lying on the roof of the building. He took nine photographs Ex.PW9/A1 to Ex.PW9/A9 of the spot and the body from various angles. Negatives are collectively Ex.PW9/A10. The mobile crime team was being headed by PW8 SI Anil Kumar who prepared report Ex.PW8/A of the crime scene and handed over the same to the IO.
State Vs.Chunbuda page 3 of 25 PW4 Chhote is the brother of deceased Devi Dayal and he identified his dead body in BSA hospital, Rohini on 26.07.2011.
PW19 SI Mahesh Kumar is the draftsman. He deposed that on the requisition of PW21 Insp. Rakesh Kumar, he reached PS Bawana on 23.08.2011 and from there, he along with PW21 and SI Ramesh Chand reached second floor roof of factory No.A13, Sector1, Bawana and took rough notes and measurements, and thereafter, prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW19/A. PW18 Ct. Brahm Pal deposed that on 24.07.2011, he along with SI Ramesh, after receipt of DD No.10A, reached factory No.A13, second floor and found a male dead body lying on the roof. Body had injury marks on the stomach and face. In the meantime, PW21 and other police officials including crime team reached the spot. He accompanied the body to mortuary of BSA hospital. He further deposed that postmortem was conducted on 26.07.2011, and thereafter, the body was handed over to the relatives. The duty clerk of the hospital handed over one plastic dibba and sealed envelope to the IO which were seized vide memo Ex.PW18/A. PW20 SI Ramesh Chand deposed all the facts which have been deposed by PW18. His additional deposition is that the mattress under which the body was lying was also having blood stains. A piece of brick was lying near right shoulder. Few strands of hair stained with blood were also lying near the body. He State Vs.Chunbuda page 4 of 25 further deposed that he found public witness Ram Sanjeevan at the spot and recorded his statement Ex.PW11/A, prepared rukka Ex.PW20/A on the statement and sent the same to PS through Ct. Subhash for registration of FIR. Before it, Insp. Rakesh Kumar along with HC Vijay Kumar and Ct. Subhash had also reached the spot and during inquiry, the body was identified to be of Devi Dayal son of Raja Ram. After registration of FIR, further investigation was handed over to PW21 Insp. Rakesh Kumar who prepared pullanda of dirty old mattresses of white and blue colour stained with blood. He further deposed that a half brick stained with blood was also converted into sealed pullanda. In the same way, hair strands were also sealed in plastic container. Blood stained earth and earth control were also lifted. In all, eight pullandas were prepared and were sealed with the seal of RK and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW11/B. Accused Chunbuda was also present at the spot and on intensive interrogation at the ground floor, he confessed involvement in the crime, and hence, was arrested vide arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW11/D and Ex.PW11/E. Mobile phone of Lemon company was recovered from his personal search. He made disclosure statement Ex.PW11/F that he can get recovered the weapon of offence i.e. balli with which he had attacked Devi Dayal. Further disclosure was that he can get recovered the towel also with which he had wiped his hands. He further deposed that State Vs.Chunbuda page 5 of 25 accused led the police party to the second floor of the roof near the wall in Southern direction where a heap of ballies was lying. He picked up one balli from the heap and it was found stained with the blood. It was sealed with the seal of RK and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW11/G. Thereafter, accused led the police party to the first floor room and produced a yellow towel stained with the blood and it was also sealed with the seal of RK and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW12/C. He identified both mattresses as Ex.P1, half piece of brick as Ex.P2, towel as Ex.P3, nicker of the deceased as Ex.P4, balli of 146 cms. having three rusted nails on one edge as Ex.P5, cemented pieces lifted from the spot as Ex.P6, blood stained cemented piece as Ex.P7, piece of wood as Ex.P8, strands of hair as Ex.P12 and Ex.P13.
PW13 Dr. Vijay Dhankar had conducted postmortem on 26.07.2011 and found following injuries on external examination :
i. Laceration "Y" shaped 3.5x3 cms. x bone deep present on right frontal region of head with underlying fracture of skull.
ii. Laceration, cruciate, 4x3 cm x bone deep present on left frontal region of head with underlying fracture of skull.
iii. Laceration 4x1.5 cms x bone deep present on right side of top of head with underlying fracture of skull.
State Vs.Chunbuda page 6 of 25 iv. Laceration 5x1.5 cm. x bone deep present on left side of top of head with underlying fracture of skull. v. Contusion, bluish in colour 22 x 10 cm. present on the upper third of front of left side of chest.
vi. Contusion 25 x 18 cms. present on the front of abdomen extending from the inner aspect of right side of abdomen across the midline upto the outer aspect of left side of abdomen.
On internal examination, the doctor found that there was extravasation of blood over the bilateral fronto parieto temporal region of head. There were multiple fractures of the skull, patchy subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhages were also present in the whole brain. The doctor opined cause of death as craniocerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact to the head. All the injuries were fresh in duration and antemortem in nature and were caused by a blunt object. Injuries on the head were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Postmortem report is Ex.PW13/A. PW12 Dr. J.V. Kiran gave opinion on 20.08.2011 on the application Ex.PW12/A of Insp. Rakesh Kumar regarding injuries mentioned in postmortem report. He deposed that on that day, the IO brought two packets before him. One packet was found sealed with eight seals of RK and on opening the same, he found it containing a balli. The other packet sealed with the seal of RK was State Vs.Chunbuda page 7 of 25 found containing a piece of brick. The length of balli was 146 cms. and circumference was 18 cms. Three rusted nails were present in the balli on one end. The other end was having reddish stains. The half brick measured 8.5x11x7 cms. A transparent tape was wound around the brick under which hair were seen sticking. PW12 opined that injuries mentioned in the PMR were possible by those weapons of offence. He sealed brick and balli with the seal of doctor, BSA department of FM, Delhi and handed over the same to the IO with opinion Ex.PW12/B. Testimony of PW17 and 21 is identical to some extent. PW21 Insp. Rakesh Kumar is the second IO to whom the investigation was assigned after registration of FIR. He deposed that on 24.07.2011 on receipt of DD No.10A Ex.PW10/A, he left the PS at 11.35 A.M. vide DD No.17A Ex.PW10/D with HC Vijay and Ct. Subhash and reached under construction factory No.A13 and found a male dead body lying in a pool of blood on the roof of bathroom on the second floor. He further deposed that SI Ramesh Chand recorded statement Ex.PW11/A of Ram Sanjeevan, made rukka Ex.PW12/A and sent Ct. Subhash for registration of FIR. Identity of the body was revealed to be of Devi Dayal. After assignment of investigation to him, he prepared rough site plan Ex.PW21/A at the instance of SI Ramesh Chand. In the meantime, crime team accompanied by photographer also reached there and took snaps of the body and spot which he collected from the State Vs.Chunbuda page 8 of 25 photographer. He collected report Ex.PW8/A from crime team Incharge. Then, he deposed about the lifting of exhibits from the spot and arrest of accused and that part of testimony has already been discussed in the evidence of PW20 SI Ramesh Chand. After return to the PS, he deposited the case property with the MHCM. On the same day, he recorded the statements of witnesses.
PW16 Ct. Subhash deposed that SI Ramesh Chand handed him over rukka on 24.07.2011 at the spot at 12.30 P.M. He reached PS and gave rukka to D.O. who registered case FIR. He returned to the spot at 2.00 P.M. and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to PW21 Insp. Rakesh Kumar.
PW7 Mr. Israr Babu is Nodal Officer in Vodafone Mobile Company and he brought CAF, CDR, etc. of telephone No.9654753683 from 01.07.2011 to 24.07.2011. The connection was found in the name of Gaya Prasad son of Dharamraj obtained on the strength of Voter Icard Ex.PW7/A2. CAF and CDRs are Ex.PW7/A1, Ex.PW7/C1 and Ex.PW7/C2.
PW14 Mr. Kaushik Ghoshal is again a Nodal Officer in Vodafone Company and he brought the CAF and CDR of mobile phone No.9161166235 from 01.07.2011 to 24.07.2011. That phone connection was in the name of one KalKa Prasad son of Anusuya Prasad. The SIM connection was obtained by furnishing photocopy of ration card Ex.PW14/C. CAF is Ex.PW14/B and CDRs are Ex.PW14/A. State Vs.Chunbuda page 9 of 25 PW15 Gaya Prasad is the uncle of accused Chunbuda. It is pertinent to mention that accused Chunbuda was using phone number obtained on his ID. He deposed that Chunbuda is son of his elder brother Raja Ram. He was working in Delhi as beldar for 67 years prior to the incident. Accused also used to work with him at Bawana. He further deposed that 56 months prior to the incident, he handed over copy of his voter Icard to accused Chunbuda to obtain a mobile phone connection. He made it clear that he had accompanied accused to the mobile shop when he purchased SIM on his identity. He pinpointedly deposed that he did not purchase any mobile connection in his name and rather, it was accused Chunbuda who had used his ID paper. Customer Application Form Ex.PW7/A1 to Ex.PW7/A3 was put to him and he identified his signatures at points A, B, C, D and E encircled red. He deposed that his photograph was appearing at point X on CAF. A leading question was asked from him by the APP regarding telephone No.9654753683 and he answered that due to illiteracy, he was not knowing whether that SIM number was given to accused by the owner of mobile shop on his ID.
6. PW2 Dharamraj and PW3 Om Prakash are witnesses to the same fact. They were working in under construction factory No.A13. Deceased's father is the Mausa of PW2. As per the testimony of these two witnesses, accused and deceased were brothers and were also working in the same factory. PW2 and PW3 State Vs.Chunbuda page 10 of 25 along with Devi Dayal went to the roof of bathroom of second floor to sleep on 23.07.2011. There was drizzling in the night and so, PW2 and PW3 came downstairs but Devi Dayal kept on sleeping there saying that if there was more rain, he would come downstairs. Next day, at 6.00 A.M., PW1 came to them and told that Devi Dayal was lying in a pool of blood. At that time, accused Chunbuda was also present with them. PW1 is nephew of PW11 Ram Sanjeevan. He deposed that he along with other labourers including PW2 and PW3, PW11, accused and deceased used to reside in the factory premises itself. PW1 used to sleep on the first floor whereas deceased used to sleep on the upper floor of the building. He deposed that on 24.07.2011, they all had got up but Devi Dayal did not wake up. He went to the roof of the bathroom in order to awake Devi Dayal but he was lying dead in a pool of blood. He further deposed that he came down immediately and informed PW11. Simultaneously, police also came there and at that time, accused Chunbuda was also present.
PW5 and PW11 are the father and real chacha of accused and deceased. PW5 deposed that accused Chunbuda is younger to his son Devi Dayal who was married with a lady, namely, Prema. Devi Dayal became ill and he was caught by tuberculosis about 78 years prior to the incident. Accused developed illicit affair with Prema during the illness of Devi Dayal and on this issue, there used to be quarrels between accused and State Vs.Chunbuda page 11 of 25 deceased. On many occasions, he, his wife and covillagers had tried to make understand Prema and Chunbuda that relations between them were not acceptable to the society but they continued. Initially, Devi Dayal used to reside in village at Bihar but after treatment, he came to Delhi and started working in a factory at Bawana. Accused Chunbuda was also working in the same factory and both brothers were residing in the factory premises itself. He further deposed that Chunbuda visited village last year and gave a mobile phone to Prema. She used to talk to Chunbuda on that phone. He expressed apprehension that it was Prema who was behind the murder of Devi Dayal committed by Chumbuda as he was the main hindrance in their illicit affair. PW11 Ram Sanjeevan deposed that accused and deceased were his real nephews and they used to work with him and sleep in factory No.A13. On the night of 23.07.2011, he along with one Mishra and some other labourers slept on the first floor of the factory. PW2, PW3 and deceased went on the terrace of the bathroom of second floor to sleep. There was rain in the night due to which PW2 and PW3 came downstairs but Devi Dayal kept on sleeping there. He further deposed that PW1 came to him on 24.07.2011 at 6.00 A.M. and told that he had gone to the second floor to awake Devi Dayal but he was lying in a pool of blood. He further submitted that accused Chunbuda was having illicit relations with his bhabhi Prema and on this issue, there had been quarrels State Vs.Chunbuda page 12 of 25 between both brothers several times in the village but they(PW11 etc.) had patched up the matter. There was no talking term between both brothers for last long time as both were bearing grudge against each other. He claimed that police recorded his statement Ex.PW11/A at the spot and also took the photographs of the spot and seized exhibits. He further deposed that two old mattresses, half brick, strands of hairs, blood stained earth, earth control, blood sample and one wooden piece soaked in blood were lifted by the police from the spot. In all, eight parcels were sealed by the IO and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW11/B bearing his thumb impression at point A. He was told by the police that accused Chunbuda had got recovered a towel which was seized in his presence vide memo Ex.PW11/C. Accused was arrested vide arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW11/D and Ex.PW11/E respectively and on interrogation, his disclosure statement Ex.PW11/F was recorded. He further deposed that police seized one wooden balli on the edge of which there were blood stains and on the other edge, there were three old nails. He claimed that balli was shown to him by the police saying that it was the same balli with which Devi Dayal was murdered and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW11/G bearing his thumb impression at point A. He identified both mattresses as Ex.P1, brick piece with strand of hair as Ex.P2, towel as Ex.P3 and nicker of deceased as Ex.P4. He could not identify remaining articles State Vs.Chunbuda page 13 of 25 saying that those articles were shown to him by the police and that he was not present at the time of their recovery. In cross examination by APP, he deposed that he had not stated to the police that accused led the police party to the room of first floor of A13, Sector1, D.S.I.D.C., Bawana and produced a yellow towel. He retracted from his previous statement in writing Ex.PW11/H saying that Chunbuda had not led the police party to the second floor of the factory to recover wooden balli.
7. Ld. APP argued that accused was hooked with Prema, wife of deceased and due to that reason, there were frequent quarrels between brothers in the village but the matter was compromised by the elders including PW5father and PW11uncle. He further submitted that when accused visited his village lastly, he gave Prema mobile No.9161166235 on which he used to take to her regularly. He was feeling that his elder brother Devi Dayal was the main hindrance in their relations, and hence, he was liquidated by him. The APP further contended that Devi Dayal, PW2 and PW3 slept on the second floor of under construction factory on 23.07.2011 whereas accused was sleeping with other labourers on the first floor. PW2 and PW3 came downstairs due to drizzling and Devi Dayal kept on sleeping there. Accused woke up in the night and killed his elder brother with the help of balli and brick. Last contention is that the accused got recovered balli and it was found smeared with blood groupA of the deceased. He also got State Vs.Chunbuda page 14 of 25 recovered a yellow towel with which he had wiped blood stained hands and the towel was also found stained with blood groupA of the deceased.
On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel argued that prosecution has failed to prove motive because it has been admitted by PW11 that in his presence, there was no physical fight between both brothers in Delhi. He drew the attention of the Court towards deposition of PW5 in which he stated that there was only verbal altercation between brothers. The defence counsel next argued that prosecution has failed to prove that mobile phone No.9161166235 was being used by Prema. About last seen, the counsel submitted that ten other labourers were also sleeping in the same premises and it is very much possible that murder might have been committed by other labourers. Regarding recovery, the counsel argued that recovery proceedings have not been supported by PW11 Ram Sanjeevan.
MOTIVE
8. PW11 Ram Sanjeevan deposed that accused and deceased were his real nephews being the sons of his elder brother Raja Ram. Accused Chunbuda was having illicit relations with his bhabhi Prema wife of Devi Dayal and on this issue, there were quarrels between both brothers many times in the village. He further deposed that he and other elders patched up the matter State Vs.Chunbuda page 15 of 25 between them. Due to that reason, both brothers were not eying each other. PW5 Raja Ram, father of accused and deceased deposed that Devi Dayal was married to Prema. Prema gave birth to a daughter, and thereafter, Devi Dayal was caught by tuberculosis and during that illness, she developed affection and affair with Chunbuda and that fact gradually, came to his knowledge also. He further deposed that on that issue, there were quarrels between both brothers many times. He, his wife and co villagers tried to make understand Prema and Chunbuda that they were doing the wrong thing but instead of understanding the gravity of matter, they continued their relations. He further deposed that when Chunbuda visited village last year, he gave Prema a mobile phone on which she used to have conversation with him. He expressed strong apprehension that Devi Dayal was murdered by Chunbuda at the instigation of Prema as he was the main hindrance in their affair. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused has also admitted that Prema was wife of Devi Dayal. So, it has been established from the evidence of PW5 and PW7 beyond reasonable doubt that there was an affair between accused and Prema.
9. PW7 Israr Babu, Nodal Officer of Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. proved that mobile phone No.9654753683 was issued in the name of Gaya Prasad on the strength of his voter Icard Ex.PW7/A2. CAF is Ex.PW7/A1. CDRs from 01.07.2011 to State Vs.Chunbuda page 16 of 25 24.07.2011 are Ex.PW7/A3. CAF is bearing the photograph of Gaya Prasad. Gaya Prasad deposed as PW15 that accused Chunbuda is son of his elder cousin brother Raja Ram who used to work with him at Bawana. He handed over copy of his voter Icard to accused Chunbuda 56 months prior to the murder of Devi Dayal. He accompanied accused to a mobile shop from where Chunbuda obtained SIM on his identity and the phone was being used by Chunbuda in Delhi. He further made it clear that he never purchased any mobile connection in his name in Delhi and rather, it was purchased by accused. He identified his signatures at points A, B, C, D & E on CAF and voter Icard Ex.PW7/A1 and Ex.PW7/A
2. Due to illiteracy, he could not recollect the mobile number obtained by accused on his identity. So, it has been proved by PW7 and PW15 that mobile phone No.9654753683 was being used by accused Chunbuda.
PW14 Mr. Kaushik Ghoshal, Nodal Officer of Vodafone Company Ltd. deposed that mobile phone No.9161166235 was released in the name of Kalka Prasad, Tehsil Mau, District Chitrakoot, U.P. on the identity of his ration card Ex.PW14/C, CAF is Ex.PW14/B and CDRs from 01.07.2011 to 24.07.2011 are Ex.PW14/A. Prosecution did not examine said Kalka Prasad and in this respect, Insp. Rakesh Kumar made statement on 08.05.2013 that his staff tried several times to serve the witness but failed. He further stated that his village was far away where there was no State Vs.Chunbuda page 17 of 25 means of transport. His house is situated quite inside the village and whenever any police official visited his village for service of summons, the villagers would tell him about the presence of police and always the witness ran away. Question No.19 was put to the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC that phone No.9161166235 was being used by Prema and his answer is that he was not knowing. CDRs of that phone number from 01.07.2011 to 24.07.2011 show that that phone had received calls from the mobile phone of accused more than 320 times. That phone had received the calls only from the mobile phone of accused. It is again made clear that only SMS were received on that number from other phone number but no voice call was received from other numbers. It shows that that number was available with the person who was very close to the accused. Some calls are running into more than 1000 seconds and this fact suggests that accused was having very close intimacy with the holder of that phone. Even on 23.07.2011, they had talked to each other for 23 times. On that day, at 9.52 P.M., the call was for 1000 seconds. The other call at 10.23 P.M. was for 630 seconds and the call at 11.25 P.M. was for 682 seconds. He talked with the person holding that number on 24.07.2011 at 7.30 A.M. and 7.47 A.M. Frequency of the calls suggests that the accused was well aware of the name with whom that phone number was. He was required to disclose the name of that person in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC but he became ignorant by saying that he was not State Vs.Chunbuda page 18 of 25 knowing that fact. Moreover, PW5 stated on oath that when accused visited his village last year, he gave Prema a mobile phone on which she used to talk to Chunbuda. In this background, this Court is presuming u/s 114, Evidence Act that the mobile phone No.9161166235 was being used by Prema. CDRs show that they were in touch with each other even on the night of incident. So, prosecution has successfully proved the motive.
LAST SEEN
10. PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW11 deposed that they along with accused and deceased used to work in factory No.A13, D.S.I.D.C., Bawana and used to sleep in the factory premises in the night. On 23.07.2011, PW5 and others along with accused slept on the first floor at 9.00 P.M. and Devi Dayal, PW2 and PW3 went upstairs to sleep on the roof of bathroom of second floor. PW2 and PW3 came down as it was drizzling but Devi Dayal remained there saying that he would come down only if the rain was heavy. When Devi Dayal did not return till 6.00 A.M. on 24.07.2011, PW1 Raju went upstairs and found him lying in a pool of blood. Accused has also admitted u/s 313 Cr.PC that he, deceased, PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW11 used to sleep in the factory No.A13 itself. He further admitted that on 23.07.2011, he slept on the first floor and his brother Devi Dayal slept on the second floor. It has come in the deposition of police witnesses when they visited the spot in the State Vs.Chunbuda page 19 of 25 morning, accused was found there. So, prosecution has established that accused, deceased, PW1, PW2, PW3, PW11 and some other labourers were sleeping in the factory premises in the night of 23/07.2011. It has not been disputed by the accused that Devi Dayal died in the night intervening 23.07.2011 and 24.07.2011. He did not attribute any motive to PW1, PW2, PW3, PW11 and other colabourers to kill Devi Dayal and rather, PW5 and PW11 have deposed specifically that he(Chunbuda) had specific motive to kill Devi Dayal. So, the presence of 910 other labourers is not taken otherwise.
RECOVERY
11. Recovery witnesses are PW11 Ram Sanjeevan, PW20 ASI Ramesh Chand and PW21 Insp. Rakesh Kumar. As per seizure memo Ex.PW11/B, two old mattresses, one piece of brick, blood stained hair lying on the right side of the body, blood strands hair lying on the right side of the body at some distance, blood stained earth, earth control, one piece of wood and blood sample were lifted from the spot. Disclosure statement is Ex.PW11/F consequent to which blood stained towel of yellow colour was produced by the accused which was seized vide memo Ex.PW12/C. In the same way, wooden balli was got recovered by the accused from the second floor and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/G. PW22 MHCM Mahi Lal deposed that on State Vs.Chunbuda page 20 of 25 24.07.2011, PW21 deposited ten sealed pullandas with him and he made entry in register No.19 as PW22/A. On 26.07.2011, two pullandas sealed with the seal of BSA hospital were also deposited with him by the SHO and these pullandas were bearing the seal of BSA hospital. On 15.09.2011, twelve sealed pullandas were sent to FSL for opinion.
As per FSL report Ex.PW21/G, both mattresses, half brick, few strands of hair, cement pieces, small piece of wood, a wooden piece, towel and nicker of the deceased were found stained with blood. As per report Ex.PW21/H of Biology Division, mattresses, wood piece, cotton wool swab, wooden piece, towel and nicker were found stained with the blood of A group. The wooden balli has been wrongly exhibited as Ex.P5 and rather, it should have been Ex.P9 because on the day of seizure, it was sealed with the seal of RK, and thereafter, the said balli was taken from malkhana by PW21 and was produced before Dr. J.V. Kiran for opinion on the injuries. It is clear from the evidence of PW12 that wooden piece measuring 146 cms. having three rusted nails on one edge was produced by the IO in a pullanda sealed with the seal of RK. After opinion, he sealed the balli with the seal of Dr. BSA, Department of FM, Delhi Govt. and handed over to the IO. As per FSL report Ex.PW21/G, the four parcels reaching to FSL were found sealed with the seal of Dr. BSA hospital, Department of FM, Delhi Govt. One of the parcel was of the nicker of the deceased State Vs.Chunbuda page 21 of 25 and other was of his blood sample. Both these articles were seized by the doctor who did postmortem. The other two parcels reaching the FSL were of brick and wooden balli. Also, as per seizure memos, only one small wood piece was recovered from the spot but two wood pieces have been exhibited and one of them is Ex.P9 and other is Ex.P8. Ex.P8 is related to the small piece of wood recovered from the spot and Ex.P9 refers to the other wooden piece and that wooden piece is nothing else than balli recovered at the instance of accused.
Ld. Defence counsel raised objection on the recovery of towel and balli saying that both these articles were produced by the police before PW11 after recovery. He means to say that PW11 was not joined in recovery proceedings. It is the consistent stand of PW20 and PW21 that accused was present at the spot when police reached there. He was apprehended and he made disclosure statement Ex.PW11/F consequent to which he got recovered balli and towel which were seized vide memo Ex.PW11/G and Ex.PW12/C respectively. Also, it has been deposed by PW11 that accused was interrogated in his presence, and thereafter, his disclosure statement Ex.PW11/F bearing his thumb impression at point A was recorded. Nonjoining of PW11 in the recovery proceedings is not denting the prosecution case because it is corroborated by the evidence of PW20 and PW21. Prosecution has failed to connect the brick Ex.P2 with the crime because FSL could State Vs.Chunbuda page 22 of 25 not detect the blood group on it though it was found stained with blood. Prosecution has established connection of towel Ex.P3 and Balli Ex.P9 with the crime because these were found stained with blood groupA which was the blood group of the deceased as is reflected in FSL reports.
CONCLUSION
12. Prosecution has established a strong motive against accused. It has also established that towel Ex.P2 and balli Ex.P9 were got recovered by the accused in pursuance to his disclosure statement. These two articles were found stained with the blood group of the deceased. Prosecution has also established that on the night intervening 23.07.2011 & 24.07.2011, accused was sleeping on the first floor with other labourers and deceased Devi Dayal was sleeping on the roof of bothroom of second floor. Though 910 other labourers were also sleeping in the same premises but they were not bearing any grudge against Devi Dayal. Also, they did not get recovered any article related to the offence. So, other labourers cannot be suspected to have committed the crime. Establishment of all these facts is pointing towards the only one logical conclusion that Devi Dayal was murdered by his younger brother Chunbuda. So, he is held guilty u/s 302 IPC. He shall be heard on point of sentence separately.
Announced in the open Court On this 20th day of February, 2014.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL)
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
North:Rohini Courts:Delhi
State Vs.Chunbuda page 23 of 25
IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS): NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
SC No.130/2011
FIR No.259/2011
PS Bawana
U/S 302 IPC
State
Vs.
Chunbuda,
S/o Raja Ram,
R/o Village Agarhunda,
PS Pahari, Distt. Chitrakoot,
Uttar Pradesh.
Date of Institution:05.11.2011
Date of conclusion of Arguments:18.02.2014 Date of pronouncement of Judgment:20.02.2014 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP for the State.
Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Counsel for accused.
Convict produced from JC.
1. The accused has already been held guilty u/s 302 of IPC.
2. Counsel for convict argued that convict is a first offender and is a young man of 2728 years. He has is to maintain his wife and two daughters of 8 and 45 years.
State Vs.Chunbuda page 24 of 25
3. There is no allegation against the convict that he acted with cruelty. Minimum punishment provided for murder is life imprisonment.
4. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances, the convict is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand only) is imposed, in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo SI for three years for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the convict.
5. Fine not deposited.
6. Let a copy of Judgment and Order on Sentence be given to convict.
7. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court on 20th day of February, 2014.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL)
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
North Distt: Rohini Courts: Delhi
State Vs.Chunbuda page 25 of 25