Delhi District Court
State vs Robin Massey @ Monu on 7 May, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-3, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No : DLST01-000842-2015
SC No. 7141/2016
FIR No. 1883/2014
Under Section 302 IPC
Police Station Mehrauli
STATE
Vs.
Robin Massey @ Monu
Robin Massey @ Monu
S/o Sh. Yakub Massey,
R/o D-94, Gali No. 1,
Ambedkar Colony,
Chattarpur, New Delhi.
.....Accused
Date of Committal : 27.01.2015
Final arguments heard on : 03.05.2024
Judgment pronounced on : 07.05.2024
Final Judgment : Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall decide the Sessions Case no. 7141/2016, FIR No. 1883/2014, Police Station Mehrauli registered regarding allegation for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:45:16 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 2
2. Brief allegations against the accused as per charge sheet and complaint is that in the intervening night of 06/07.10.2014, in between 01.45 am to 02.00 am, on the Chattarpur Road, T-Point/MCD Park, accused Robin Messey @ Monu had caused injuries with intention to kill the victim Dharmender @ Dharmu by hitting him with the bricks/stones which resulted into his death.
3. The police was informed in the intervening night of 06/07.10.2014 and DD No. 5-A was lodged with the PCR regarding the incident and subsequently, another information was received through the PCR and DD No.6-A was recorded. After the information to the police, police officials/Incharge of PCR Van E-30 HC Mange Ram had reached at the spot and he had shifted the injured/victim as well as the accused to the Fortis Hospital.
4. It is alleged that when the Investigating officer (IO) had reached at the Fortis Hospital, he obtained the MLC of the victim as per which the injured/ victim was declared as brought dead.
5. As per the charge sheet, HC Mange Ram had produced the accused Robin Messey @ Monu to the IO and gave the statement to the IO which is reproduced as under:-
"On the date of incident, he was posted at PCR Van Eagle -20 having registration number DL-IC-J-7180 along with Ct. Jaideep and Ct. Parveen. While they were on petrolling duty at Chattarpur 60 feet road, at about 02.00 am and when they reached at Chhattarpur Road, T-point Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 15:45:25 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 3 near corner of MCD park, they met a boy standing there. On enquiry, his name was revealed as Arvind Kumar Tripathi. He told them while pointing out towards Chattarpur road that at some distance ahead, one person was hitting another person with the bricks and stones. Thereafter, they immediately went to the spot near Pillar No. 27 in the front of Electric Pillar near the chemist shop, on the road from Chhattarpur towards MG road and one person was found lying in the injured condition and another person whose name was revealed as Robin Massey @ Monu was standing near the said injured person. On enquiry, the said person had stated the name of the injured person as Dharmu whom he had hit with stones and bricks. The injured person was lying on the ground in the unconscious condition and there was head injury and blood was scattered on the ground. The injured person along with Robin Massey were taken to the Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and the police control room was informed about this incident. Injured was got admitted in the hospital where he was declared as brought dead."
6. The background of the incident as per the charge sheet is that prior to the incident, accused Robin Messey @ Monu and victim Dharmender @ Dharmu had consumed liquor and Ganja in the MCD Park, Chattarpur near the place of incident and after that they went towards the Chattarpur Road where one auto Rikshaw was standing and Dharmender @ Dharmu had started Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:45:35 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 4 scuffling with the auto rikshaw driver and in the meantime, a quarrel took place between accused Robin @ Messey and Dharmender @ Dharmu (victim) and during that quarrel, accused Robin @ Messey had hit with bricks and stones to the victim Dharmender @ Dharmu due to which he fell down on the road.
7. It is also alleged that the said auto rikshaw driver flee away from the spot. It is also alleged that at the time of said incident, two persons namely Rohit @ Sunil @ Chindi Chor and Kunal were also present who were known to the accused Robin Messey @ Monu and victim Dharmender @ Dharmu and after the incident they also flee away from the spot.
8. On the basis of statement of the HC Mange Ram, the FIR of the present case bearing no. 1883/2014 dated 07.10.2014 was registered regarding commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the court against the accused Robin Massey @ Monu in regard to the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by the IO. After committal of the charge sheet, the case was assigned to this court on 27.01.2015.
9. Vide order dated 10.02.2015, the charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused. The accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed for the trial.
10. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, in which all the Digitally incriminating evidence which came on the record, were put to the signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:45:52 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 5 accused. The accused denied the same and claimed that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. However, the accused opted to lead evidence towards his defence but vide order dated 06.04.2021, the accused opted not to lead defence evidence and accordingly, his defence evidence was closed.
11. I have heard Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Ld. counsel for accused. I have also gone through the material available on record of the chargesheet.
12. 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 examined during trial. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are detailed as under:-
S.No. Name of the Role of the witnesses witnesses 1 Complainant To prove his statement and HC Mange Ram the record of wireless log (PW1) and Diary Book provided by him.
2 Ct. Jaideep To prove the apprehension (Driver) (PW2) of accused from the spot on dated 06/07.10.2014 and his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC.
3 Ct. Parveen To prove the apprehension
(PW3) of accused from the spot on
dated 06/07.10.14 and the
facts disclosed in his
statement recorded under
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu Digitally signed
FIR No. 1883/2014 by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
PANDEY
KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07
15:46:02
+0530
6
Section 161 Cr.PC.
4 Akash @ Ishu To prove the facts stated in
S/o Sh. his statement recorded under
Rajkumar Section 161 Cr.PC and to
(PW4) prove the arrest of the
accused Robin Massey @
Monu and his signatures on
the arrest memo.
5 HC Tejpal To prove his statement
(PW5) recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC.
6 Ct. Gajiram To prove his signature on
(PW6) the pointing out memo dated
07.10.2014.
7 SI Shriram To prove the DD No. 5-A
(PW7) Ex. PW7/A and DD No. 6-A
Ex. PW7/B and registered
FIR of the present case.
8 Sh Rahul To prove the facts in his
(PW8) statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.PC and to
prove the arrest of accused
Robin Massey @ Monu and
his signatures on the arrest
memo.
9 Sh. Arvind To prove the facts stated in
(PW9) his statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.PC and to
prove the arrest of the
accused Robin Massey @
Monu and his signatures on
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu RAVINDRA KUMAR
FIR No. 1883/2014 KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07
15:46:17
+0530
7
the arrest memo.
10 Sh Jitender To prove the identification
(PW10) of dead body and its
receiving from AIIMS
Mortuary after the post
mortem.
11 HC Roop To prove DD no. 8B lodged
Kishore by him.
(PW11)
12 Laxman Singh To prove the installation of
S/o Het Ram CCTV Camera at his house
and FIR the recording of
(PW12)
camra no. 2 for dated
07.10.2014 for the time 01.
FIR40 am to 02.00 am and
the seizure memo dated
14.11.2014 and hard disk
and the CD.
13 Ct. Sandeep To prove his signature on
(PW13) the handing over memo of
dead body and to prove his
statement.
14 Ct. Harkesh To prove the facts stated in
(PW14) his statement under Section
161 Cr.PC and seizure
memo dated 07.10.2014.
15 SI Gopal Singh To prove his statement
(PW15) recorded under Section 161
Cr.PC and the application
moved by him to preserve
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu RAVINDRA KUMAR
PANDEY
FIR No. 1883/2014 KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07
15:46:26
+0530
8
the dead body etc.
16 Dr. C.P. Singh, To prove the report of FSL
regarding video footage.
Assistant
Director, FSL
Rohinit (PW16)
17 Dr. Geetesh To prove the FSL result
Patel (PW17) regarding video footage.
18 Sh. Ajay To prove the FSL report of
Kumar, the CCTV footage
Sr. Scientific
Assistant, FSL
Rohini (PW18)
19 HC Jaivir Singh To prove the photographs
(PW-19) taken by him on 07.10.2014
at place of occurrence and
their developed printouts.
20 Inspector To prove scaled site plan.
Mahesh Kumar
(PW-20)
21 Dr. B. K. To prove the FSL report
Mohapatra, regarding biological
Scientific examination and DNA
Officer, CFSL, Profiling
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi
(PW-21)
22 SI Bijender To prove the postmortem of
Singh the deceased which as got
conducted through him and
Digitally
signed by
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu RAVINDRA
FIR No. 1883/2014 RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07
15:46:38
+0530
9
(PW22) handing over of the dead
body, seizure memo dated
08.10.2014 and his
statement under Section 161
Cr.PC.
23 IO/ Inspector To prove the investigation
Sunil Kumar carried out of this case.
(PW23)
24 Ms. Kavita To prove the FSL report
Goel, Assistant regarding the blood sample
Director, report, viscera report.
Chemistry, FSL
Rohini (PW-24)
25 HC Dinesh To prove the delivery of
copy of FIR to senior
(PW-25)
officers and the area
Magistate.
26 Dr. Hari Prasad, To prove the post mortem
Sr. Resident report no. 1327-2014,
(PW26) AIIMS Hospital, New
Delhi.
27 Inspector To prove the supplementary
Upender Singh final report/ charge sheet in
(PW27) regard to the FSL result.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES EXAMINED DURING THE TRIAL PUBLIC WITNESSES/OFFICIAL WITNESSES
13. PW-1 HC Mange Ram:- He deposed that on the intervening night of 06/07.10.2014, he was posted at PCR South Digitally signed by RAVINDRA SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR FIR No. 1883/2014 PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:46:49 +0530 10 District. He further deposed that he was on duty from 08.00 pm to 08.00 am at PCR Van Eagle 30 alongwith Ct. Praveen and Ct. Jaideep. He further deposed that at about 02.00 am, while they were on patrolling in the area and when they reached at Chattarpur Road, T-point near MCD Park, one person whose name was revealed as Arvind Kumar Tripathi met them and informed them that one person was being hit by another person with bricks and he pointed towards a turn leading to Chattarpur Mandir.
13.1 He further deposed that they immediately reached towards the direction pointed out by Arvind Kumar Tripathi. He deposed that on reaching at the spot, they found that one person was lying in the injured condition on the side of the road and one another person was standing nearby whose name was revealed as Robin Massey @ Monu i.e. accused who was correctly identified by the witness during his examination in the Court. 13.2 He further deposed that after making enquiries from the accused, the accused told that he had killed that person with the bricks. He deposed that he had noticed that the blood was oozing from the head of the person lying on the ground. He further deposed that accused was apprehended and they took the accused and injured to the Fortis Hospital. He further deposed that he immediately informed the police Control Room about this incident.
13.3 He further deposed that the injured was admitted in the hospital. He further deposed that after examination, the doctor declared the injured as brought dead. He deposed that Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07 15:46:59 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 11 thereafter, SI Govind of Police Station Mehrauli had also reached to the hospital. He further deposed that he narrated the whole facts to SI Govind and his statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded by SI Govind.
13.4 He further deposed that thereafter, accused was handed over to SI Govind. He deposed that thereafter, he left for his duty and he did not join the investigation further with the IO.
He again said that he had handed over the photocopy of logbook to the SI Govind. He further deposed that he had proved the logbook as Ex. PW1/B (running into three pages). 13.5 He was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and he replied that he had joined the investigation with the IO Inspector Sunil Kumar and he had pointed out the place where he saw the deceased was lying and accused was standing or that at his instance, the site plan without scale was prepared by the IO. He further replied that he had handed over the copy of logbook of PCR Van Eagle-30 to the IO in the Police Station on 07.10.2014.
13.6 He denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded by the Inspector Sunil Kumar and not by SI Govind and Inspector Sunil Kumar had come to Fortis Hospital. He further denied that he deliberately did not tell true facts in that regard. He further denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not disclose those facts voluntarily due to lapse of time or he forgot to mention about these facts.
13.7 During cross examination made on behalf of
accused, he replied that Ct. Jaideep was the driver of the PCR Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07
15:47:08 +0530
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu
FIR No. 1883/2014
12
Van. He further replied that he was sitting on the front seat. He further replied that Ct. Praveen was sitting on the rear seat. He further replied that he had received the information about the incident at the corner of MCD Park from one Arvind Tripathi. 13.8 He further replied that when the injured was being taken to the hospital, he was sitting in the rear seat along with Ct. Praveen. He further replied that he had shown the place of occurrence to the IO.
14. PW-2 Ct. Jaideep Narwal:- He deposed that on the intervening night of 06/07-10-2014, he was posted in PCR, South Zone as a driver. He further deposed that he was on duty from 08.00 pm to 08.00 am at PCR Van Eagle 30 alongwith Ct. Praveen (gunman) and HC Mange Ram, Incharge of PCR Van. 14.1 He further deposed that at about 02.00 am, while they were patrolling on 60 feet road and had reached at T-point near MCD Park, one person whose name was revealed as Arvind Kumar Tripathi, had met them and informed them that one person was being hit by another person with bricks. 14.2 He further deposed that on receipt of this information, they immediately reached towards the direction pointed out by said Arvind Kumar Tripathi. He deposed that on reaching at the spot, they found that one person was lying in an injured condition on the side of the road and one person was standing nearby whose name was revealed as Robin Massey i.e. accused. He had correctly identified the accused during his examination in the Court.
14.3 He further deposed that they immediately lifted the Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
PANDEY
KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07
15:47:17
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530
FIR No. 1883/2014
13
injured and shifted him in their PCR and accused was also apprehended and they took the injured and accused to the Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj. He further deposed that on the way to hospital, HC Mange Ram had made inquiries from Robin Massey and he told that he had a quarrel with the injured and he had beaten him with bricks.
14.4 He deposed that the injured was admitted in the hospital. He further deposed that after examination, the doctor declared the injured as brought dead. He deposed that later on, his statement was recorded by Inspector Sunil Kumar, IO of this case in the police station and he had narrated the whole said facts to him.
14.5 During cross examination on behalf of the accused, he replied that when they were going to the Fortis Hospital, the gunman Ct. Praveen were with him in the PCR Van. He replied that HC Mange Ram was sitting on the front seat with him. He further replied that when they reached the hospital, no other person had reached the hospital. However, the police officials had reached the hospital after they had reached there.
15. PW-3 Ct. Praveen:- He deposed that in the intervening night of 06/07-10-2014, he was posted at PCR Van Eagle 30, as Constable gunman alongwith HC Mange Ram and Ct. Jai Deep. He further deposed that at about 02.00 am, when they reached at Chhatarpur T point near MCD park, one bike came there and made a signal to stop their vehicle. He further deposed that that person told them by indicating towards Chhatarpur road that one another person had given beatings to other person by bricks and Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 2024.05.07 15:47:26 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 14 stone.
15.1 He deposed that on that information, they went to Chhatarpur road near electric pillar Metro Store, where they saw that one person was lying on the road in an injured condition and another person namely Robin Massey was standing near him. 15.2 He deposed that after interrogation, the said Robin Massey told them that he gave beatings to said injured person by stones and bricks. He deposed that injured person was lying in conscious condition and blood was oozing from his hand and mouth. He deposed that they have removed the said injured person alongwith Robin Massey in their PCR Van and they went to the Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj.
15.3 He further deposed that they informed to the control room about the incident and got admitted the injured in the hospital. He deposed that after the medical examination, the injured was declared as brought dead by the doctors. 15.4 He further deposed that in the meantime, IO alongwith other police officials had reached in the hospital and they had handed over the accused Robin Massey to him. He deposed that thereafter, IO took them to the spot of occurrence and recorded his statement. He had correctly identified the accused during his examination in the Court. 15.5 The said witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite grant of opportunity.
16. PW-4 Sh Akash:-He is the eye witness to the incident and he deposed that in the intervening night of 06/07.10.2014, he was sleeping on the ground floor. He deposed that the said house was Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2024.05.07 15:47:39 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 15 under construction at that time and their building material was at the site, therefore, he along with his maternal uncle namely Jitender used to sleep there. He further deposed that at about 01.30 am - 02.00 am, he woke up as he was having urge to pass urine.
16.1 He further deposed that he went outside near the MCD park and after passing urine, when he was returning, he saw 3-4 persons were standing near an auto, two persons were smoking and one of them was agitating for money. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, accused present in the court, who was amongst those 3-4 persons started arguing with the other persons, who were present with them near the TSR. 16.2 He further deposed that the accused and the other persons with whom accused was arguing were having half piece of brick in their hands.
16.3 He further deposed that accused had hit the piece of brick on the head of that person and said person fell down on the ground. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, one boy namely Rahul, who used to run tea stall had also reached at the spot after crossing the road to see the incident and out of curiosity as to what was going on there. 16.4 He further deposed that thereafter accused picked up a big stone and again hit the boy, who was lying on the ground. He further deposed that he had hit the said person with the stone continuously for 4-5 times on his head. 16.5 He further deposed that thereafter, on seeing them, Digitally accused picked up a piece of plywood lying near the spot and RAVINDRA signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:47:48 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 16 came towards them. He further deposed that on seeing that accused was coming towards him, he ran from the spot and reached his home. He further deposed that after sometime, PCR van arrived at the spot and the PCR officials took the accused and the injured boy, who was lying in the injured condition. 16.6 He further deposed that one another person namely Arvind also met them across the road. He also noticed a lot of blood at the spot. He further deposed that out of fear, he did not sleep in the aforesaid house and went to his house where they were residing on rent which was at a walking distance of 5-7 minutes from the house which was under construction. 16.7 He further deposed that in the morning at about 10.00 am - 11.00 am, when he was present in his house, where they were residing on rent, he had received a phone call of his father and who called him at the house which was under
construction as some policemen had come to their house to inquire about the incident of previous night. 16.8 He further deposed that thereafter, he went to police station Mehrauli, where he found accused in the police station.
He further deposed that he had narrated the aforesaid facts regarding the incident of previous night to the police and also identified the accused in the court as the person who had beaten the other boy.
16.9 He further deposed that he came to know the name of the injured boy as Dharmender in the police station from the police. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the Digitally signed by RAVINDRA police. RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07 15:48:30 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 17 16.10 He further deposed that after some days of his said visit to the police station, some policemen came to his house and he was taken to the police station along with Rahul. He further deposed that thereafter, one video clip was played in a laptop and was shown to him and Rahul.
16.11 He further deposed that on seeing the said video clip, they confirmed that it was the same clip of incident that took place in the intervening night of 06/07.10.2014 which happened in his presence and in the presence of Rahul. He further deposed that his statement was recorded in that regard on the same day. 16.12 During cross examination on behalf of the accused, he replied that he had gone to pass urine just after crossing the road. He further replied that he saw the incident from the distance of about 12-15 feet and he was standing on the road divider. He further replied that there was sufficient street light on the road. He further replied that he could identify other persons, who were standing with the accused near the TSR, if shown to him.
16.13 He further replied that the said altercation between those 3-4 persons with the TSR took place for about 1-2 minutes.
He further replied that one of those 3-4 persons were shouting for money to the TSR driver and other 02 persons were also talking to the TSR driver.
16.14 He further replied that the TSR driver drove towards Chhatarpur mandir on seeing that the two of those 3-4 persons started quarreling. He further replied that he knew the name of Rahul as he used to run tea stall near their house. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07 15:48:39 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 18 16.15 He replied that the quarrel between accused and the boy (deceased Dharmender) remained continued for 02-3 minutes. He further replied that he and Rahul left the spot simultaneously. He further replied that he saw the PCR arrived at the spot when he had crossed the road.
16.16 He further replied that he went inside his house which was under construction and picked up his phone which was lying there and thereafter he went to his house which was on rent and he did not visit the spot where the quarrel took place. 16.17 He further replied that he along with Rahul and Arvind went upto the chauraha together and from that chauraha, he went to his home. He further replied that he had narrated the incident to his parents on reaching home. 16.18 He further replied that he did not sign any paper in the police station perhaps he had signed his statement. He further replied that he again visited the police station after about 7-10 days. He replied that he was not aware of the name of the police officials who had played the CD before him. 16.19 He replied that he, Rahul and Arvind were present when the CD was played. He further replied that he did not tell his Maternal Uncle Jitender about the incident as he was sleeping at that time.
16.20 He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of incident or that he had not witnessed the incident or that because of this reason, he did not inform his maternal uncle Jitender who was sleeping in the house.
17. PW 5 HC Tejpal Singh:- He deposed that on the Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 15:48:53 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 19 intervening night of 06/07.10.2014, he was posted at Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. He further deposed that HC Mange Ram met them in the hospital and he had produced the accused to him. He deposed that the statement of HC Mange Ram was recorded. He further deposed that accused Robin Messey was also interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded as Ex. PW5/A.
17.1 He further deposed that on the statement of HC Mange Ram, a rukka was prepared and FIR was got registered through the witness. He further deposed that thereafter he returned to the spot along with copy of FIR and rukka and same were handed over to the Inspector Sunil Kumar. 17.2 He further deposed that while Inspector Sunil Kumar was inspecting the place of incident, one person namely Arvind Kumar Tripathi had arrived at the spot who had identified the accused who was present at the spot alongwith Inspector Sunil Kumar as the same person, who had beaten the boy. He deposed that accused was arrested on the identification of Arvind and arrest memo Ex.PW5/B was prepared. He further deposed that personal search of the accused was conducted and memo was prepared as Ex.PW5/C. 17.3 He deposed that thereafter exhibits were lifted from the spot i.e. one piece of half brick, one stone, one piece of stone slab, blood stained building material (roddi) etc. which were taken into police possession and seizure memo Ex.PW5/D was prepared. He deposed that blood sample was also lifted from the spot. He further deposed that blood stained earth and earth Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:48:59 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 20 control were also lifted and seized and seizure memo Ex.PW5/E was prepared.
17.4 He deposed that some hairs lying at the spot and some hairs sticked on the piece of half brick were also taken into police possession. He further deposed that seizure memo of hair Ex.PW5/G was prepared. He deposed that one slipper of left foot having blood stains was also lying at the spot and was seized and seizure memo Ex.PW5/H was prepared.
17.5 He deposed that seizure memo of building material (roddi) blood stained as Ex.PW5/I was prepared and building material without blood stains was seized and seizure memo Ex.PW5/J was prepared. He further deposed that thereafter, they returned to police station and the aforesaid parcels were deposited in the malkhana.
17.6 He deposed that on the instructions of IO, he took accused to the AIIMS hospital for his medical examination and thereafter, accused was brought to the police station. He further deposed that one boy namely Akash, found present in the police station and he had identified the accused as the same person, who was involved in the incident which took place on the previous night.
17.7 He deposed that the statement of Akash was recorded. He further deposed that the person namely Arvind Kumar Tripathi who met them at the spot during night also came to the police station at about 12.00 noon and his statement was also recorded in the police station.
17.8 He deposed that on the same day, accused was Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 15:49:09 +0530
FIR No. 1883/2014
21
produced in Saket court and his one day police custody was obtained. He deposed that during police custody, accused disclosed some facts which were recorded vide his supplementary statement as Ex.PW5/K. He further deposed that on the same day, Ct. Harkesh brought parcels containing exhibits sealed by the Doctor after the postmortem on the body of deceased to the police station which were taken into police possession and seizure memo Ex.PW5/L was prepared. 17.9 He further deposed that on 08.10.2014, SI Bijender Singh handed over to IO sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of Department of Forensic Medicines, AIIMS which were taken into police possession and seizure memo Ex.PW5/M was prepared.
17.10 He deposed that during investigation, it was revealed that one CCTV camera was installed outside the house of Shri Laxman Singh and on 14.11.2014, the said CCTV footage which was recorded in DVR and a hard disc of DVR was taken from Laxman Singh and from that hard disc, one CD was prepared in police station which was taken into police possession and seizure memo Ex.PW5/N was prepared. 17.11 He identified the case property i.e. one piece of half brick wrapped in transparent polythene which was taken into possession from the spot itself as Ex.PW5/P1. He also identified one big stone as Ex.PW5/P2. He also identified one flat stone (silli / tukri) as Ex.PW5/P3. He had also identified one blood gauge piece kept in transparent plastic jar as Ex.PW5/P4 as the Digitally signed by RAVINDRA same which was lifted from the spot and blood was lifted from RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07 15:49:16 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 22 the spot with its help.
17.12 He had further identified the small pieces of stone (roddi) kept in transparent plastic jar as Ex.PW5/P5. He further identified a bunch of black hairs wrapped in paper and kept in transparent plastic jar as Ex.PW5/P6. He further identified the rubber slippers of left foot as Ex.PW5/P7.
17.13 This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel, however, the opportunity was granted to the counsel.
18 PW 6 Ct. Gajiram:- He deposed that on the intervening night of 06/07.10.2014, he was posted at police station Mehrauli and he was on night duty. He along with Ct. Sandeep went to the spot i.e. Chattarpur road near MCD Park, on the request of Inspector Sunil Kumar.
18.1 He deposed that when they reached at the spot, they noticed that some stones having blood stains were lying at the spot. He further deposed that they were deputed to safeguard the same. He deposed that after sometime of their reaching at the spot, Inspector Sunil Kumar along with PCR Van reached at the spot and one person i.e. accused as told by him was also with Inspector Sunil Kumar.
18.2 He had identified the pointing out memo of the place of incident as Ex. PW6/A. He further deposed that later on, his statement was recorded by the IO.
18.3 This witness was not cross examined by the Ld.
Defence counsel, however, the opportunity was granted to the Digitally
signed by
counsel. RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA
KUMAR
PANDEY
KUMAR
PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07
15:49:24
+0530
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu
FIR No. 1883/2014
23
19. PW-7 SI Shri Ram:- He deposed that on 07.10.2014, he was posted at police station Meharuli as Duty Officer from 12 mid night to 08.00 am, he received an information from Police Control Room regarding lying of an injured person who was taken to the Fortis Hospital and it was requested that IO be sent to the Fortis Hospital.
19.1 He further deposed that he had recorded the said information vide DD No.5A as Ex. PW 7/A and it was marked to SI Gopal. He further deposed that at about 02.30 am, he had received another information which was recorded by him vide DD No.6-A as Ex. PW7/B. 19.2 He further deposed that the information brought to the notice of SI Gopal and Insp. Sunil Dhaka. He deposed that at about 04.10 am, HC Tejpal brought one rukka which was sent by Insp. Sunil Dhaka for registration of FIR. He further deposed that on the basis of that rukka, he got registered the FIR No.1883/2014 through computer operator. He proved the print out of the said FIR as Ex. PW7/C. 19.3 He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he also made endorsement on the original rukka as Ex.PW7/D. He further deposed that thereafter, copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to HC Tejpal to deliver the same to Insp. Sunil Dhaka. He deposed that he had also handed over the copy of FIR to Ct. Dinesh to deliver the same to Ilaka Magistrate and Senior police officers. He further deposed that he had also issued requisite certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW7/E to the IO.
Digitally signed SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu by RAVINDRA FIR No. 1883/2014 RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date: PANDEY 2024.05.07 15:49:33 +0530 24 19.4 This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence
Counsel wherein this witness replied that information regarding DD no.5A dated 07.10.2014 was received by the wireless operator in the police station through intercom, who forwarded the same to him. He further replied that the name of said wireless operator was not written by him in the said DD. He replied that the information recorded in DD no.6A was also received by him through wireless operator. 19.5 He replied that the name of said wireless operator was not mentioned in the said DD. He voluntarily replied that he had mentioned the number i.e. S54 of said wireless operator in the DD.
20. PW 8 Sh. Rahul :- He deposed that in the month of October 2014, he was selling tea on a handcart (rehri) from 08:00 am to 10:00 pm. He deposed that he used to sell tea near MCD Park. He deposed that he used to park his handcart at a plot of Chander Kiran Tyagi and used to sleep in a room constructed there.
20.1 He further deposed that on 07.10.2014, at about 01:30-2:00 am, he was suffering from stone pain therefore, he was going to buy medicine from Rajdhani Medical Store near MCD park. He further deposed that when he was going on 60 feet road, one boy was lying in an injured condition on the ground and he saw one boy was hitting him on his head with a stone. He further deposed that he had pointed out towards accused and he had stated that he was the same person who had hit the injured person on his head with a stone on the relevant Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu KUMAR PANDEY FIR No. 1883/2014 PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:49:44 +0530 25 date and time.
20.2 He further deposed that when he tried to save the injured, accused came towards him with the stone in his hand and he threatened that in case he would interven, he would hit him also with the stone. He further deposed that at the time of incident, the watchman of the area of 60 feet road namely Arvind and Akash were also present and they had also seen the incident. 20.3 He deposed that he knew Akash as he was his friend and he was present there as his house was just in front of place of incident was under construction. He further deposed that the said Arvind was also working with Kuldeep to look after his workshop. He further deposed that thereafter, one PCR van arrived at the spot and PCR officials lifted the injured from the ground and took him alongwith them.
20.4 He further deposed that on the next day, at about 07:00 pm, two policeman came to him at his tea stall and they took him to the police station Mehrauli. He deposed that police made inquiries from him about the previous night incident and he had narrated the aforesaid facts to the police. 20.5 He further deposed that on the next day of incident, he came to know from police that the injured had expired. He deposed that when he was called in the police station next day, he had also seen the accused who was also present in the police station and he had identified him in the police station and told the police that he was the same person who had caused injuries to the deceased on the date of incident. He deposed that he was never called again by the police for the purpose of investigation. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:49:53 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 26 20.6 He was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he had replied that on 10.12.2014, he was again called by the police to the police station. He further replied that when he reached at the police station, he was shown CCTV footage in which the incident of 07.10.2014 between 01:40 am to 02:00 am was recorded and after watching the incident, he confirmed to the police that it was the recording of same incident which took place in his presence.
20.7 During cross examination made on behalf of accused, he replied that he was residing with his uncle (Fufa) at house no. 174, Gali no.7, house of Santosh at Chattarpur Pahari.
He further replied that he told the police that he had been running his said tea stall about 4-5 months prior to the date of incident. 20.8 He replied that his uncle and his cousin also used to sleep in the said room which was constructed in the plot of Chander Kiran Tyagi, where he used to reside and on the said night, they were sleeping in the same room. He replied that the stone pain started about 4-5 days for the first time prior to the date of incident and he was taking treatment from a clinic at Gali no.5, Chattarpur Pahari.
20.9 He replied that there were three more boys with the boy who had hit the deceased, at the time of incident. He further replied that however, other three boys ran away from the spot when the accused started hitting the deceased. He replied that he did not know who were the other three boys. He further replied that he did not see the three boys conversing with the accused at Digitally the time of incident. signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:50:02 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 27 20.10 He replied that he did not know whether the accused and the deceased had any quarrel with any TSR driver. 20.11 He replied that the deceased was hit by the accused in his presence. He further replied that when he saw the deceased being hit by the accused, he was lying on the ground.
He replied that when he first saw the deceased, he was already lying on the ground. He replied that he saw the incident from the distance of about 15-20 feet.
20.12 He further replied that the medical store was at two minutes walking distance from the plot of Chander Kiran Tyagi. He further replied that the place from where they witnessed the incident was also 15-20 feet away from the plot of Chander Kiran Tyagi. He replied that between the plot of Chander Kiran Tyagi and the transformer from where they witnessed the incident, there was 60 feet road.
20.13 He further replied that the Rajdhani Medical Store was situated on the main road and not on 60 feet road. He replied that he did not know whether the distance between the medical store and transformer was about 100 feet. 20.14 He denied the suggestion that he was present at the distance of about 100 feet from the place of incident. He further denied the suggestion that he did not watch the incident from 15- 20 feet. He replied that the accused hit the deceased on his head with the stone 2-3 times. He further replied that the injured (deceased) as well as the accused were taken from the spot by the PCR van and thereafter, he also left the spot.
20.15 He replied that he remained at the spot for about 10 Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 15:50:28
FIR No. 1883/2014 +0530
28
minutes. He further replied that PCR van reached the spot within two minutes of the occurrence.
20.16 During further cross examination, he replied that the the actual name of his father was Sarvesh Kumar. He replied that he had not told his father's name as Rajesh Kumar to the police.
20.17 He replied that IO had asked him to depose as per his instructions. He further replied that he was shown the same CD in the police station. He voluntarily replied that however, the same does not have his pictures. He replied that he had not seen any such incident as recorded in the aforementioned CCTV footage shown to him during examination in the Court. He replied that he was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. He further replied that Akash was not his friend. 20.18 He replied that he did not know whether Aakash and Arvind were present on the spot. He voluntarily replied that as he was not present at the spot, he did not know about the presence of said persons.
20.19 He further replied that he had not given any statement to police. He voluntarily replied that he was forcibly lifted by the police from the road where he had come to take tea. He further replied that he never used to run any tea stall. He further replied that he never stayed at the house of Chander Kiran Tyagi. He replied that in his deposition recorded before the court on 28.03.2017, he had deposed as per the instruction of the IO who had put pressure on him and had also threatened him. 20.20 He replied that the IO had threatened him that if he Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu KUMAR PANDEY FIR No. 1883/2014 PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:50:37 +0530 29 would not depose as per his instructions, he would send him to jail. He further replied that when he was called in the police station, the statement of other witnesses namely Arvind and Aakash were already recorded by the IO. 20.21 He replied that he did not know whether Akash and Arvind were also threatened similarly by the IO to stand as a witness in this case. He replied that at the time of incident, none of his relative were living in the locality where the incident had happened. He replied that his address of Chattarpur Pahari given by the police in this case was not his correct address. 20.22 During the further cross examination of this witness, on court question this witness stated that at the time of incident, he was residing at Mata Chowk, Tyagi Mohalla, Chattarpur Village, New Delhi. He replied that he did not have any problem of stone on the date of incident. He denied the suggestion that the accused was shown to him in the police station.
20.23 He was again cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as the new facts were emerged out in the cross examination of this witness. He replied that his examination in chief, he had pointed out towards the accused and had deposed that he had caused injuries to the deceased in his presence. 20.24 He voluntarily replied at the instance of IO. He replied on the same lines even in the cross examination conducted on the same day. He voluntarily replied that he was under the pressure and threat of the IO. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the family of accused therefore, he Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
FIR No. 1883/2014 2024.05.07
15:50:58
+0530
30
had given contrary version today in the court in favour of the accused. He replied that he did not make any complaint to the senior police officers against the IO. He denied the suggestion that he did not make any complaint against the IO because he was never threatened by the IO.
20.25 This witness was not again/further cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel, however, the opportunity was granted to the counsel.
21. PW-9 Arvind:- He deposed that he did not remember the month and year of incident but the date was 7th of that month, and about 2-3 years back, at about 01.30 am, he was present at the tea stall of his maternal uncle namely Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi which was situated at 60 feet road, near transformer. He deposed that he was doing the job of watchman at the shop of Kuldeep Kumar Tyagi in the absence of his maternal uncle as he was employed with the said job.
21.1 He further deposed that on the date of incident, his maternal uncle was not on duty as he was at home and he was deputed by him to watch the shop of Kuldeep Kumar Tyagi. He further deposed that while he was present at the chowk on 60 feet road, a TSR came there and four boys got down from the TSR. 21.2 He deposed that one of those boys started beating another boy who was amongst them and all of them were seemed to be under the influence of liquor. He further deposed that when one boy was beating the other one with stone, firstly he hit him with a small stone, then with the big stone and thereafter with the silli (flat slab like stone) and other boys ran away from the spot. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 15:51:07 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 31 He had identified the accused in the court during his examination.
21.3 He further deposed that one Rahul and other boy whose house was under construction near the place of incident were also present there. He deposed that they had also witnessed the incident. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, he saw a police gypsy was coming. He further deposed that he stopped the gypsy and told the police officials about the incident and pointed out to the spot.
21.4 He deposed that police officials lifted the injured and caught the accused and took both of them in gypsy. He deposed that thereafter, he went to his tea stall. 21.5 He further deposed that the said police gypsy again came there after two hours and took him to police station and where he narrated the aforesaid facts to the police. He further deposed that thereafter, he was never called by the police. 21.6 This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Addl.
PP for the State wherein he replied that the date of incident was the intervening night of 06/07.10.2014. He replied that on 10.12.2014, he was again called by the police to the police station.
21.7 He replied that when he had reached the police station, he was shown CCTV footage in which the incident of 07.10.2014 between 01.40 am to 02.00 am was recorded and after watching the said incident, he confirmed to the police that it was the recording of the same incident which took place in his presence. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:51:15 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 32 21.8 This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel wherein he replied that during the relevant time, he was working with his maternal uncle at his tea stall. He replied that he had been working at the said tea stall even prior to the date of incident.
21.9 He further replied that he had also been doing the work of watchman at the place of his maternal uncle whenever he was not available. He replied that earlier his maternal uncle was employed as a worker in the shop of manufacturing of iron table run by Kuldeep and later on due to old age of maternal uncle, he was deputed as watchman by Kuldeep.
21.10 He further replied that he did not tell the police about the said shop of Kuldeep.
21.11 He replied that the front portion of said shop was used by Kuldeep for running auto spare parts and the rear portion was used for manufacturing of iron table. He replied that his maternal uncle was getting salary of Rs. 6000/- per month from Kuldeep for aforementioned work. He replied that Kuldeep used to maintain the register of persons employed at his workshop. 21.12 He replied that on the date of incident, about 10 scooters and motorcycles were standing on the kuldeep's workshop. He replied that Kuldeep never used to maintain the record of the vehicles lying on the workshop but he used to count the vehicles in the night and next day morning. 21.13 He further replied that on the date of alleged incident, his duty was during the period from 10:00 pm to 6:00 am. He replied that he had told the police that he had opened the Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu PANDEY 2024.05.07 15:51:24 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 33 tea stall at 04:00 am on that day. He further voluntarily replied that he used to open the tea stall at 04:00 am daily. 21.14 He replied that the TSR came from the side of 100 feet road and was going towards Chattarpur temple. He replied that he was standing in front of gate of plot of Chander Kiran Tyagi. He further replied that the property where the shop of Kuldeep was situated does not belong to Kuldeep and same was owned by Chander Kiran Tyagi.
21.15 He denied that Kuldeep did not had any workshop on said property belonging to Chander Kiran Tyagi. He replied that the workshop of Kuldeep was at a distance of 10 paces from the place where he was standing. He further replied that the TSR stopped across the road where he was standing. 21.16 He replied that there was no quarrel among all the four boys who de-boarded the TSR. He replied that a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased. He replied that the accused and deceased were not abusing each other but they were shouting and scuffling with each other. 21.17 He replied that he did not tell the police about the fact of accused and deceased shouting and abusing on each other. He further replied that he did not hear what they were shouting. 21.18 He further replied that at that time, accused was having a big stone in his hand. He replied that deceased was not carrying anything in his hand. He replied that the accused picked up the stone from the nearby construction site. 21.19 He replied that he did not remember whether he told the police about the fact that four boys had got down from Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu PANDEY Date: 2024.05.07 15:51:34 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 34 the TSR. He further replied that he did not remember whether he had told the police that only two persons had got down from the TSR.
21.20 He replied that he did not tell the police that one auto was already standing there. He denied the suggestion that he was not standing outside the gate of plot of Chander Kiran Tyagi or that he was not present at the spot. 21.21 He further replied that Rahul and other boy came later on. He replied that he remained present at the spot for about half an hour. He replied that Rahul and other boy also remained there for half an hour. He replied that the PCR van was coming from the side of Chattarpur temple.
21.22 He denied the suggestion that since the PCR was coming from the side of Chattarpur temple therefore, PCR personnel must have first seen the place of incident and therefore, there was no occasion for him to point out the place of incident to PCR.
21.23 He replied that there were four police personnel in the PCR. He replied that he did not remember about the clothes worn by the accused on the said date. He replied that he did not go near the accused therefore, he could not say if his clothes were blood stained or not. He replied that he did not raise alarm or tried to save the injured (deceased) from the accused. 21.24 He replied that he did not know the cause of quarrel between them. He replied that accused did not help the police to lift the deceased from the ground. He denied that PCR van was Digitally signed stopped by the accused himself and not by him. by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:52:10 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 35 21.25 He replied that he did not know any of the four boys who got down from the TSR. He denied the suggestion that he was not on his duty as a watchman at the said workshop. He denied the suggestion that he never saw the alleged incident. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of police.
22. PW 10 Jitender :- He deposed that on 07.10.2014, he came to know from a policeman who had come to his house and informed him about the murder of his younger brother Dharmender @ Dharmu. He deposed that he alongwith his mother Smt. Sarita @ Farida reached at Police Station Mehrauli.
He further deposed that on reaching there, one photograph was shown to him and on seeing the photograph, he had identified the person in the photograph as of his brother Dharmender.
He deposed that thereafter he was taken to mortuary of AIIMS Hospital. He further deposed that there he saw the dead body of his brother Dharmender and he had identified the same. He identified the identification memo as Ex. PW10/A bearing his signature at point A. 22.1 He further deposed that on 22.11.2014, he was again called by the police at police station Mehrauli and on reaching there, a video clip was shown to him. He further deposed that he had seen the said video clip and saw 4/5 persons were present and one person was hitting his brother Dharmender with the stone.
22.2 He deposed that he had told the police this fact.
Digitally
signed by
This witness was shown the CD and displayed in the court RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07
15:52:26
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530
FIR No. 1883/2014
36
computer system and the witness had identified the same as shown to him by the IO. During the deposition of this witness, court had also given its observation which is as under:-
"in CCTV footage played in the court, though the incident is visible but the faces of the assailant or the victim or the witnesses who were present at the spot are not visible as the camera where the footage was recorded was installed at some distance from the place of occurrence and the incident is of night."
22.3 This witness has also been cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he denied that he had told the police in his statement that he had identified his brother Dharmender @ Dharmu on seeing the CCTV footage shown to him in the police station. He voluntarily deposed that he was shown the photograph of his brother in the mobile phone of police official in the hospital.
22.4 He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely that he was told by the IO that the person seen in the incident who was being beaten was Dharmender @ Dharmu and the one who was beating as Robin Messey.
22.5 He denied the suggestion that he had told the police that he was satisfied with the video clipping and on the basis of that he had identified his brother Dharmender @ Dharmu. 22.6 This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he replied that he was not aware if his mother had given any complaint to the police that she had suspicion that her son had been killed by her Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 2024.05.07 FIR No. 1883/2014 15:52:44 +0530 37 husband ( father of the accused).
22.7 He replied that he did not know since how long his father expired as he was kid at that time. 22.8 He replied that in the year 2012, his brother Dharmender was also attacked by some persons with knives and he sustained knife injuries in the said incident and a case was registered at police station Mehrauli. He further replied that two
- three boys were arrested in that case by the police, perhaps one of them was namely Vinay.
22.9 He replied that he did not know the names of other boys. He further replied that the said case was still pending against those persons. He denied the suggestion that the said boys had also threatened his brother to kill him. 22.10 He further denied the suggestion that his brother was a quarrelsome person or that he was a drug addict. He further denied the suggestion that in the CCTV footage, even the object used to hit on the victim was not visible. He voluntarily replied that some big stone/slab had been used for hitting the victim. He further replied that he could not say with certainty whether the object used was a brick or a stone or a slab. He denied the suggestion that the CCTV footage shown to him by the police in the police station, no recording was there or that it was blank.
23. PW-11 HC Roop Kishore:- He deposed that on 07.10.2014, he was posted as DD writer from 12.00 midnight to 08.00 am. He deposed that at about 03.50 am, he had received information from the Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj regarding an unknown person brought dead to the hospital. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 FIR No. 1883/2014 15:52:53 +0530 38
23.1 He further deposed that the said information was recorded by him vide DD no. 8-B and the same was assigned to SI Gopal through telephone and inspector Sunil Kumar was also informed accordingly. He produced the DD Register and proved the copy of DD No. 8-B as Ex. PW 11/A. 23.2 The said witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
24. PW-12 Sh. Laxman Singh:- He deposed that he was the public witness regarding the CCTV footage provided to the police during the course of investigation. He deposed that he was having some disputes regarding property with his brothers therefore, he had installed CCTV cameras outside his house and inside his house. He deposed that an incident took place in the front of his house in which a boy was killed by another boy. He further deposed that on the next day of the said incident, his children were scanning the CCTV footage to find out whether any such incident got recorded in their CCTV and it was found captured in their CCTV camera.
24.1 He further deposed that after three- four days of incident, he noticed that some policemen were making enquiries from the neighbourers about the said incident, then, he informed those policemen about the capturing of the incident in his CCTV camera.
24.2 He further deposed that after getting verified the said fact of recording the incident in CCTV camera, he had provided his DVR to the police and the same was taken to the Digitally police station by the police officials. He further deposed that he RAVINDRA signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:53:02 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 39 had also accompanied the police to the police station. He proved the seizure memo of his DVR seized by the police as Ex. PW 5/N. 24.3 He further deposed that the DVR was also sealed by the police in a parcel in his presence. He further deposed that no CD of the footage recorded in DVR got prepared by the police in his presence as he was in a hurry to go to his office. 24.4 He further deposed that the DVR was removed from the system installed at his house by a person who accompanied the police to his house, however, he did not remember the name of said person. He further deposed that he did not remember the exact time of incident recorded in his CCTV camera, perhaps, it was around 01:30 AM. 24.5 This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Addl.
PP for the State wherein he denied that four CDs of footage were prepared by the police in his presence. He voluntarily replied that the police had prepared the CD in the police station in his presence but he was in a hurry to go to his office, so he left the police station by requesting that he might be called if his presence would be required.
24.6 He denied the suggestion that he told the police that one copy of four CDs were sealed in a yellow envelope with the seal of SK and three copies of CDs were kept separately by the police for the purpose of investigation. He voluntarily replied that something was sealed by the police in a yellow colour envelope. He further denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not disclose the fact of preparation of four CDs of footage Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07 15:53:10 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 40 recorded in his DVR in his presence or he forgot about that fact. 24.7 During his further deposition, he had identified the CCTV footage contained in the CD as Ex. PW17/P-1 prepared at FSL as the same footage which was recorded in his DVR of CCTV camera and which was given by him to the police. 24.8 This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused wherein this witness replied that after about 20-25 days of the incident, when he saw that the police persons while making inquiries pertaining to this case and they were asking about the installation of any CCTV cameras, he then told the police officials that CCTV camera was installed outside his house.
24.9 He further replied that the whole system of CCTV camera i.e., DVR and its cable were taken away by the police and the DVR from the system was removed by the police at the police station in his presence. He further replied that the CD of the CCTV footage was not prepared by the police in his presence. 24.10 He denied the suggestion that he was not aware about the sealing of his DVR and the CD prepared by the police.
He replied that later on he was informed by the police about this fact of preparing CD from the DVR.
24.11 He further replied that he was unable to identify the person visible in the CCTV footage who was attacking and the person who was being attacked. He further replied that he could not identify even the other two boys who were witnessing the incident in the aforesaid footage.
24.12 He denied the suggestion that he was not shown any Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 2024.05.07
15:53:18
FIR No. 1883/2014 +0530
41
footage in the police station by the IO as the CD prepared by the IO from DVR was a blank CD.
25. PW 13 Ct. Sandeep :- He deposed that on the intervening night of 06/07.10.2014, he was posted at police station Mehrauli. He further deposed that on that day, he had received a phone call of Inspector Sunil Kumar and he was instructed to reach Chattarpur Road, near MCD Park to safeguard the place of incident.
25.1 He deposed that thereafter, he along with Ct. Gajiram reached the spot and Inspector Sunil Kumar also reached there after some time when they reached. He deposed that they were further instructed by Inspector Sunil Kumar to find out the details of the deceased Dharmender @ Dharmu like his parentage, address etc., however, they could not find the details of deceased. He further deposed that thereafter, on 08.10.2014, he along with ASI Bijender went to the AIIMS mortuary for the proceedings in respect of postmortem on the body of deceased. 25.2 He deposed that after the postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to his brother Jitender and memo Ex. PW13/A was prepared.
25.3 This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel wherein he replied that he did not remember the time when he had received the call from Inspector Sunil Kumar to reach at the spot. He replied that he along with Ct. Gajiram had reached at the spot within fifteen minutes after receiving the call and remained for about 15-20 minutes at the spot. He further Digitally replied that no other work except to safeguard the place of signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 2024.05.07 15:53:48 FIR No. 1883/2014 +0530 42 incident was assigned to him.
25.4 He replied that he did not remember the time when he had reached at AIIMS Hospital on 08.10.2014, however, he had remained at AIIMS Hospital for about 2-3 hrs.
26. PW-14 Ct. Harkesh:- He deposed that on 07.10.2014, he was posted at police station Mehrauli. He further deposed that on the said date, he was on emergency duty and on receipt of DD No. 5-A, which was recorded on the basis of information that one injured was being taken to the Fortis Hospital and IO be sent there, he alongwith Ct. Harkesh went to the Fortis Hospital.
26.1 He further deposed that on reaching there, he came to know that one unknown person brought dead to the hospital. He further deposed that the Incharge of PCR HC Mange Ram who had brought the deceased to the hospital was also present there and the accused Robin Massey was in the custody of HC Mange Ram.
26.2 He further deposed that in the meantime, Inspector Sunil Kumar had also reached at the hospital and on the directions of Inspector Sunil Kumar, he had prepared a request letter for taking blood sample from the blood stains present in the hand of accused and blood sample of accused. 26.3 He further deposed that the photocopy of said application was mark as PW15/A. He further deposed that thereafter, the blood sample of accused, blood stains scrapping from the hands of accused and a handkerchief having blood stains were sealed by the doctor in the three separate parcels and Digitally signed handed over the same to Inspector Sunil Kumar after sealing the by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:53:57 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 43 same with the seal of hospital.
26.4 He further deposed that thereafter, the dead body of deceased was shifted to AIIMS Hospital from the Fortis Hospital.
He deposed that the name of deceased was revealed as Dharmender @ Dharmu and the name of accused was revealed as Robin Massey. He deposed that his statement to this effect was recorded.
26.5 During cross examination made on behalf of accused, he replied that he had reached at the Fortis Hospital at about 02.35 am. He further replied that he did not make any inquiries from the accused on reaching at the Fortis Hospital. He further replied that the aforesaid parcels containing the blood sample of accused, blood stains scrapping from the hands of accused and a handkerchief having blood stains sealed by the doctor were not seized by the IO in his presence. 26.6 He replied that he did not remember the descriptions of clothes as well as colour worn by the accused. He replied that he did not remember if the clothes of accused were also blood stained at that time or not. He replied that he did not remember the colour of the handkerchief having blood stains. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely that the blood sample of accused, blood stains scrapping from the hands of accused and a handkerchief having blood stains were sealed by the doctor.
26.7 He replied that he did not remember if both the hands of the accused were blood stained or stains were having on his one hand only. He replied that the blood stains were noticed Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 FIR No. 1883/2014 15:54:06 +0530 44 by him on the forearm, palm and back sides of hand of accused. 26.8 He replied that he did not remember if there were blood stains on other parts of body of accused or not. He replied that he came to know the name of deceased from Inspector Sunil Kumar, IO of the case who had reached at the Fortis Hospital. 26.9 He replied that Inspector Sunil had reached after about 10-15 minutes of his arrival at the hospital. He replied that he did not know to whom or how many persons were examined by Inspector Sunil at the hospital as he had left the Fortis Hospital for AIIMS mortuary.
26.10 He replied that he had left the Fortis Hospital at about 04.00 am. He further replied that Ct. Harkesh had received sealed sample from the Fortis Hospital and handed over to Inspector Sunil Kumar.
26.11 He replied that he just moved an application Mark PW15/A and he did not notice if there were blood stains on the hands of HC Mange Ram, the Incharge PCR at that time. He denied the suggestion that there were no blood stains on the hands of accused or that he was not having any handkerchief with him. He replied that the statement of accused was not recorded by the IO in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
27. PW 15 SI Gopal Singh:- He deposed that on 07.10.2014, he was posted at police station Mehrauli on emergency duty. He further deposed that on receipt of DD No. 5-A, he alongwith Ct.
Harkesh reached at the Fortis Hospital, where they came to know that one unknown person was brought dead to the hospital. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 15:54:15
+0530
FIR No. 1883/2014
45
27.1 He deposed that the Incharge of the PCR HC Mange
Ram who had brought the deceased to the hospital was also present there and the accused Robin Massey was in the custody of the HC Mange Ram. He further deposed that on the directions of Inspector Sunil Kumar, he had prepared a request letter for taking blood sample from the blood stains present in the hand of accused and blood sample of accused. He proved the copy of the application of the same as Mark PW15/A. 27.2 He deposed that thereafter, the blood sample of accused, blood stains scrapping from the hands of accused and a handkerchief having blood stains were sealed by the doctor in three separate parcels and handed over the same to the Inspector Sunil Kumar after sealing the same with the seal of hospital. He deposed that thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was shifted to AIIMS hospital from the Fortis Hospital. 27.3 He deposed that the name of the deceased was revealed as Dharmender @ Dharmu and the name of the accused was revealed as Robin Massey.
27.4 This witness was put to the test of cross examination wherein he replied that he reached at the Fortis Hospital at about 02.35 am. He replied that he did not make any inquiries from the accused on reaching at the Fortis Hospital. 27.5 He further replied that the aforesaid parcels containing the blood sample of accused, blood stains scrapping from the hands of accused and a handkerchief having blood stains sealed by the doctor were not seized by the IO in his Digitally presence. signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 15:54:25 FIR No. 1883/2014 +0530 46 27.6 He replied that he did not remember the descriptions of clothes as well as colour worn by the accused. He further replied that he did not remember if the clothes of accused were also blood stained at that time or not. He replied that he did not know if the clothes of accused were seized by the IO or not. 27.7 He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely that the blood sample of accused, blood stained scrapping from the hands of accused and a handkerchief having blood stains were sealed by the doctor.
27.8 He replied that he did not remember if both the hands of the accused were blood stained or stains were having on his one hand only. He replied that the blood stains were noticed by him on the forearm, palm and back sides of hand of accused.
He replied that he did not remember if there were blood stains on the other parts of the body of accused or not. 27.9 He further replied that he came to know the name of the deceased from Inspector Sunil Kumar. He replied that Inspector Sunil Kumar reached after about 15 minutes of his arrival at the hospital. He replied that he did not know to whom or how many persons were examined by Inspector Sunil at the hospital as he left the Fortis hospital for AIIIMS mortuary at about 04.00 am.
27.10 He further replied that Ct. Harkesh received sealed sample from the Fortis Hospital and handed over to Inspector Sunil Kumar. He further replied that he just moved an application which is Mark PW15/A. He replied that he did not notice if there were blood stains on the hands of the HC Mangeram I/C PCR at Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 2024.05.07 15:54:36 FIR No. 1883/2014 +0530 47 that time.
27.11 He denied the suggestion that there were no blood stains on the hands of accused or that he was not having any handkerchief with him. He replied that the statement of the accused was not recorded by the IO in his presence.
28. PW-16 Dr. C.P Singh :- He deposed that on 27.03.2018, the exhibits were examined by his subordinate Sh. Geetesh Patel and he had prepared the report no. 2017/CFU-5471/PHY-
136/2018. He further deposed that the report was also countersigned by him to ensure the correctness of the process and report. He proved his report as Ex. PW16/A. 28.1 During cross examination made on behalf of the accused, he replied that the exhibit was not examined by his subordinate in his presence. He replied that after examination of exhibit, Mr. Geetesh Patel prepared the record and submitted before him and then he countersigned the same.
29. PW-17 Sh. Geetesh Patel:- He deposed that on 24.07.2017, the exhibits of case FIR No. 1883/2014 of police station Mehrauli were received to their office and same was marked to him for examination. He deposed that the parcel was duly sealed and the seal was intact. He further deposed that after opening the parcel, it was found containing one CD Mark as Data of HDD1 and it was marked by him as Exhibit 1. 29.1 He deposed that it was CD-R make of Sony having recording in video file. He further deposed that on examination of the CD1, he prepared his detailed report as Ex. PW 16/A. 29.2 He deposed that as per his opinion, the CCTV video Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07 15:54:45 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 48 recording in Exhibit 1, there was no indication of alteration in identified shot on the basis of frame by frame analysis and after preparing his report, the said CD was sealed by him with the seal of FSLGP Delhi and returned to the Computer Forensic Unit, FSL, Rohini.
29.3 During cross examination made on behalf of accused, he replied that the exhibit was assigned to him for examination on 22.03.2018 and he had prepared the report on 27.03.2018. He replied that hard disc was not sent to him for examination. He further replied that he had examined the CD to find out alteration and recording.
29.4 The said witness was again examined on 03.07.2018 and during examination, he deposed that in compliance of the direction of the Court, he had prepared three copies of CCTV footage, compatible with universal computing system.
29.5 He identified one sealed envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL GP Delhi bearing particulars of this case and report no. FSL-2017/CFU-5471/PHY-136/18 (supplementary job), containing three discs and one report i.e. Disc-I, Disc-II and Disc-III during his examination.
29.6 He had identified the three CDs as mentioned above alongwith one supplementary report during his examination in the Court and he deposed that the copies of three CDs i.e. Disc-1, Disc-II and Disc-III are the same which were prepared by him. He proved the Disc-1 as Ex. PW17/P1.
Digitally 29.7 He further deposed that he had also prepared his signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:55:21 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 49 supplementary report dated 04.05.2018 and proved his report as Ex. PW17/A and he deposed that it was also countersigned by HOD Dr. C.P Singh.
29.8 During cross examination made on behalf of accused, he replied that he had prepared the copies of disc-I, disc-II and disc-III from which CDs which were prepared and presented in the Court on 01.05.2018 which was returned back by the Court to prepare the CDs.
30. PW-18 Sh. Ajay Kumar Sr. Scientific Assistant (documents) FSL Rohini Delhi:- He deposed that on 24.07.2017, one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of SK and ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SOUTH containing one hard disc of SEAGAT of 250 GB capacity model no. ST3250310SV, Sr. No. 6RYCDJMG, was marked as HDD1. On examination, a CD of CCTV footage recorded in the said Hard Disc of dated 07.10.2014 from 01.40 am to 02.00 am by camera no. 2 and the said CD was marked by him as CD1 and it was forwarded to Physics Division for further examination. He proved his report as Ex. PW18/A and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW18/B.
30.1 The said witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
31. PW 19 HC Jaivir Singh :- He deposed that on 07.10.2014, he was posted as a Ct. Photographer in Crime Team, South District. He deposed that on that day, he had received the information through wireless and he had joined the investigation alongwith ASI Raj Singh proficient. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 15:55:29 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 50 31.1 He further deposed that they had visited the place of occurrence i.e. Electric pole no. 27 in front of Rajdhani Medical Store, Chhattarpur, New Delhi. He further deposed that at the place of occurrence, other police officials of local police station and senior officers were present.
31.2 He deposed that as per directions of IO Inspector Sunil Kumar and proficient ASI Raj Singh proficient, he took 14 photographs of the place of occurrence from different angle. He further deposed that after inspecting the place of occurrence, they came back to their office. He deposed that after developing the same, he had handed over the photographs to the IO and its negatives were kept with him. He proved the 14 photographs as Ex. PW19/P-1 to P-14 and he had also proved the negatives of the photographs as Ex. PW19/P-15 to P-28. 31.3 This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel wherein he replied that he had handed over the photographs to the IO on 30.12.2014 after developing the same.
However, he did not hand over the negatives of the same to the IO.
32. PW 20 Inspector Mahesh Kumar :- He deposed that on 01.11.2014, he was posted as Inspector Draftsman at Crime Branch, PHQ. He further deposed that on that day, at the request of Inspector Sunil Kumar of police station Mehrauli, he had reached at police station Mehrauli and from there he along with Inspector Sunil Kumar had visited the place of incident i.e. Chahatarpur Road, near Rajdhani Medical Store Chhatarpur, New Delhi where at the instance of Inspector Sunil Kumar, he SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu Digitally FIR No. 1883/2014 signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:55:45 +0530 51 took the measurements and prepared the rough notes. 32.1 He further deposed that on 28.01.2014, on the basis of rough notes and measurements, he had prepared scaled site plan and handed over the same to the IO. He proved the same as Ex. PW20/A. 32.2 The said witness was not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
33. PW 21 Dr. B.K. Mohapatra, Principle Scientific Officer, CFSL, Lodhi Road, New Delhi :- He deposed that on 04.03.2015, 14 sealed parcels were received in their office which were intact. He further deposed that the details of description of the parcels and the exhibits had been mentioned in his report bearing number CFSL-2015/B-275 dated 23.09.2015 (biological examination and DNA profiling report) and CFSL-2015/B-275 dated 23.09.2015 (serological examination report). He deposed that upon examination, his findings are are under:-
(I) DNA profile generated from the blood available on the source of exhibits 1 (brick and hair), 2 (stone), 2A (stone piece), 3 (blood stained gauge), 4. (stone pieces), 8(hair), 9 (slipper), 15 (hair) was found to be matching with the DNA profile of the deceased (source of Ex. 17) and 14 (blood stained gauge, which was stated to be blood stained scrapings of hands of Robin Massey.
33.1 He proved his detailed report as Ex. PW21/A. He also proved his report on serological examination as Ex. PW21/B. 33.2 During the cross examination made on behalf of Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07
15:55:54
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530
FIR No. 1883/2014
52
accused, he replied that Ex. No. 14 which was blood stained gauge did not answer for establishment of blood group. However, human blood was detected on the exhibit and DNA profile was generated from the same Ex. 12 which was stated to be handkerchief of Robin Massey was negative for the presence of blood and did not yield DNA for analysis.
34. PW-22 SI Bijender Singh:- He deposed that on 08.10.2014, he was posted at Police Station Mehrauli as ASI and on that day, he joined the investigation with Inspector Sunil Kumar, who had handed over to him the documents pertaining to postmortem of deceased Dharmender alongwith the identification statements of witnesses regarding deceased body alongwith the handing over memo. He deposed that thereafter, on the instructions of said IO, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep went to AIIMS mortuary where they got conducted the postmortem of deceased Dharmender.
34.1 He deposed that after postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to his brother Jitender vide handing over memo Ex. PW13/A and he had taken the signatures of Jitender and he had also signed on the said memo at point B. 34.2 He deposed that thereafter, concerned doctor had handed over to him four sealed pullandas which were duly sealed with the seal of Department of Forensic Medicine AIIMS New Delhi alongwith four sealed samples and he gave the said pullandas and sample seals to IO.
34.3 He deposed that IO had seized the same and seizure memo Ex. PW5/M was prepared and IO recorded his statement. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR RAVINDRA PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07
15:56:05
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530
FIR No. 1883/2014
53
34.4 The said witness was not cross examined on behalf
of accused despite grant of opportunity.
35. PW-23 Inspector Sunil Kumar:- He deposed that on the intervening night of 06/07.10.2014, he was working as Inspector Investigation at police station Mehrauli. He deposed that on that day at about 02.20 am in night, a PCR call was received in police station vide DD no.5A regarding shifting of an injured person to the Fortis hospital.
35.1 He deposed that PCR call was entrusted to SI Gopal for inquiry. He deposed that later on, one another PCR call was again received in the police station that injured was declared brought dead in the hospital. 35.2 He further deposed that in addition to it, it was informed that the person who was standing near the injured was also taken to the hospital. He deposed that on receiving this information, he went to the Fortis hospital, where Incharge of PCR van HC Mange Ram had handed over him one person namely Robin Massey.
35.3 He deposed that he had collected the MLC of injured from the hospital and interrogated the accused Robin Massey who had disclosed that he had killed the injured. He deposed that he had recorded his disclosure statement in the presence of HC Tejpal.
35.4 He deposed that thereafter, he had recorded the statement of HC Mange Ram as Ex PW1/A and he made his endorsement on the said statement and prepared rukka as Ex.PW23/A. Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2024.05.07 PANDEY 15:56:14 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 54 35.5 He further deposed that IO requested concerned doctor for the examination of the blood stains hands of accused Robin Massey and preservation of the blood stains. He deposed that he left Ct. Harkesh and SI Gopal in the hospital and he came at the spot alongwith HC Mange Ram and accused Robin Massey alongwith other police officials.
35.6 He deposed that in the meanwhile, he sent Ct. Gaji Ram and Ct. Sandeep to the spot for the safety of the spot. He deposed that before leaving the hospital, he had sent HC Tejpal to the police station alongwith rukka for registration of the FIR with directions to reach the spot after registration of the FIR. 35.7 He deposed that he also informed the crime team to reach the spot. He further deposed that when he reached the spot, he had inspected the spot where accused Robin Massey got recovered the piece of bricks and also pointed out the place of occurrence and he prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW6/A. 35.8 He deposed that he seized the piece of bricks and stones recovered at the instance of accused Robin Massey and memo Ex. PW5/D was prepared. He deposed that prior to that HC Tejpal arrived to the spot and handed over him copy of FIR and rukka.
35.9 He deposed that Crime team inspected the spot and clicked the photographs of the spot from various angles. He deposed that during the said proceedings, one person named Arvind also arrived to the spot and he told to them that he had seen the accused Robin Massey while he was giving beatings to Digitally the injured by bricks and stones. signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 15:56:24 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 55 35.10 He deposed that besides him, Rahul and Akash had also seen accused Robin Massey while giving beatings. He deposed that after interrogation, he arrested accused Robin Massey and memo Ex.PW5/B was prepared. 35.11 He deposed that the personal search of accused was carried out and memo Ex.PW5/C was prepared. He deposed that he had also recorded another disclosure statement of accused Robin Massey and memo Ex.PW5/K was prepared. 35.12 He further deposed that he had taken into possession the blood stains lying on the road and memo Ex.PW23/B was prepared. He deposed that he had also taken into possession the blood stains piece of stones and memo Ex.PW5/I was prepared and as well as sample piece of stones memo was prepared as Ex.PW5/J. He deposed that he had taken into possession the blood stains soil and earth control and memo Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F were prepared.
35.13 He further deposed that he had also found some hair on the spot and he had taken into possession of the same and seizure memo Ex.PW5/G was prepared. He deposed that he had also found slippers at the spot and he seized the same and seizure memo Ex. PW5/H was prepared.
35.14 He deposed that thereafter, he had prepared site plan at the instance of HC Mange Ram and memo Ex. PW23/C was prepared.
35.15 He deposed that he had made an effort to establish the identity of deceased in locality. He further deposed that Digitally signed during inquiry, he came to know that one person namely RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07 15:56:32 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 56 Dharmender was missing from his house, then he asked family members of Dharmender to reach in the police station. 35.16 He deposed that after giving instruction to HC Mange Ram and another police official, he came back to police station where he deposited the case properties in the malkhana and accused was sent for medical examination. 35.17 He deposed that in the meantime, family members of Dharmender @ Dharmu arrived at the police station. He further deposed that he saw the photo of deceased in his mobile to the mother of Dharmender as well as other family members of him and they had identified the deceased as Dharmender @ Dharmu.
35.18 He deposed that he came to know that the dead body of deceased was shifted to the AIIMS hospital from the Fortis hospital. He deposed that he sent brother of Dharmender to the mortuary of AIIMS to identify the dead body. He further deposed that he had prepared inquest report and memo Ex.PW23/D was prepared.
35.19 He deposed that he had deputed ASI Bijender for the post mortem of deceased. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, HC Tejpal had taken back accused Robin Massey after his medical examination to the police station. He deposed that in the meantime, Akash and Arvind had also reached the police station. He deposed that both of them had identified the accused Robin Massey as assailant.
35.20 He deposed that he had recorded the statement of Digitally Akash and Arvind U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that Ct. signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:56:41 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 57 Harkesh had handed over him the exhibits of this case collected from the Fortis hospital and he had taken into possession of the same and seizure memo Ex. PW5/L was prepared. 35.21 He deposed that he had taken into possession the copy of log book produced by HC Mange Ram and memo Ex.PW1/B was prepared. He further deposed that he had produced accused Robin Massey before the Court and obtained one day PC remand of him.
35.22 He deposed that on the next day, post mortem of deceased was got conducted by ASI Bijender and handed over him the exhibits and he seized the same and seizure memo Ex.PW1/M was prepared.
35.23 He further deposed that one person namely Rahul also came to police station and had identified the accused Robin Massey. He deposed that he had recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC.
35.24 He further deposed that during inquiry, he came to know that one CCTV was installed near the place of occurrence at the house of one Laxman. He deposed that he had physically seen the footage of the data of incident and found that the incident was captured in the camera no.2 from 01.40 am to 02.00 am.
35.25 He deposed that he had obtained hard disk and DVR and seized the same and seizure memo Ex.PW5/N was prepared.
He further deposed that he had got prepared four CDs of the incident through Subrat Kumar. Digitally signed by 35.26 He further deposed that during investigation, he had RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:56:52 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 58 instructed Insp. Mahesh Kumar to prepare the scaled site plan of the spot and he took the measurement of the spot. 35.27 He deposed that after post mortem dead body was handed over to the relative of deceased and handing over memo Ex.PW3/A was prepared. He deposed that the dead body was also identified by his relatives and identification memo Ex.PW10/A was prepared.
35.28 He further deposed that he had collected the post mortem report from the hospital. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses. He deposed that during investigation, he had sent the exhibits to the FSL for examination.
35.29 He further deposed after developing the photographs, the photographer had handed over him 14 photographs as Ex.PW19/P1 to P14.
35.30 He deposed that after completion of Investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed before the Court through SHO concerned.
35.31 He correctly identified the accused Robin Massey during his examination in the Court. He had also identified that case property as Ex. P1 to Ex. P7.
35.32 During cross-examination made on behalf of the accused, he replied that the PCR call was made by HC Mange Ram. He replied that the point Y mentioned in the page no.5A was near the place of occurrence. He replied that Yes Bank was not shown in the site plan.
35.33 He denied the suggestion that he had not prepared Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
PANDEY
KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07
15:57:09
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530
FIR No. 1883/2014
59
the site plan at the instance of HC Mange Ram. He further denied the suggestion that the site plan was not correct. 35.34 He replied that he did not see if the Yes Bank was situated at near the place of occurrence. He further replied that he did not record the statement of other PCR officials except HC Mange Ram in the hospital. He further replied that he had recorded the same later on.
35.35 He replied that PCR officials did not barricade the place of occurrence. He further replied that he had interrogated Sunil @ Rohit and Kunal during investigation but he did not place their statements on the record.
35.36 He denied the suggestion that he did not interrogate the said two boys. He further replied that the said two boys who were visible in CCTV footage could not be matched with Sunil @ Rohit and Kunal. He replied that he could not examine the two boys who were seen in the CCTV footage as they could not be recognized.
35.37 He denied the suggestion that he had not tried to trace the said two boys seen in the CCTV footage. He replied that HC Mange Ram did not see the incident. He further replied that HC Mange Ram (He) narrated to him the incident as was told by accused.
35.38 He replied that HC Mange Ram did not record the statement of accused Robin Massey. He denied the suggestion that HC Mange Ram fabricated the story. 35.39 He denied the suggestion that the version of HC Mange Ram regarding the alleged assault by the accused was not Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 2024.05.07 15:57:21 FIR No. 1883/2014 +0530 60 mentioned in DD nos. 5A and 6A.
35.40 He replied that he had asked HC Mange Ram from where he had removed the injured and he told him that he removed the injured near electric pillar no.27. 35.41 He replied that he did not remember about the clothes wearing by the accused at the time of incident. He replied that he did not remember if the clothes of accused were having blood stains or not.
35.42 He replied that accused was having blood stains on his hand from finger to his elbow on both hands. He replied that he did not remember if accused was having blood stains other than his hands or not.
35.43 He replied that the prosecution witnesses namely Arvind reached at the spot while investigation was going on at the spot. He replied that Arvind disclosed the name of other witnesses Akash and Rahul and it was also revealed in the local enquiry at the spot.
35.44 He replied that Arvind and Akash came in the police station on 07.10.2014 during day time whereas Rahul came on the next day and their statements were recorded accordingly.
35.45 He replied that he himself had shown the CCTV footage from his laptop to these witnesses. He denied the suggestion that the face of the accused Robin Messey was not visible to the extent that he can be identified in the CCTV Footage which was shown in the police station to the witnesses. 35.46 He denied the suggestion that despite the fact that Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu KUMAR PANDEY FIR No. 1883/2014 PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:57:32 +0530 61 the face of accused Robin Massey was not visible as above he wrongly recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C about the visibility of the accused in the CCTV footage shown to the witnesses.
35.47 He further denied the suggestion that he had asked the witnesses to identify the accused as Robin Massey in the CCTV footage in the court also.
35.48 He replied that he did not collect any evidence or document from Kuldeep Tyagi regarding the work/job of relative of witness Arvind Tripathi as a guard at his workshop near the spot.
35.49 He replied that he also did not collect any evidence or document to show that the said relative of the witness Arvind was on leave on that day and Arvind Tripathi was on duty as a Watchman in place of his relative. He denied the suggestion that Arvind was a planted witness as he was not present at the spot. 35.50 He replied that he did not collect any evidence or document to show that the house of the witness Akash was under
construction near the spot or that due to this reason, Akash was present there. He denied the suggestion that Akash was a planted witness as he was not present at or near the spot. 35.51 He denied the suggestion that he did not make any inquiry from witness Rahul in connection with this case or that he recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr. PC of his own.
He denied the suggestion that due to this reason, the name of the father of witness Rahul has been wrongly mentioned as he had Digitally not made any inquiry from him. He proved the statement of RAVINDRA signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:57:48 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 62 witness Rahul as Ex. PW-23/D1.
35.52 He denied the suggestion that the above-said three witnesses were threatened to depose falsely against the accused in order to prove the case.
35.53 He replied that during the local inquiry, the CCTV Cameras were spotted and thereafter he collected the CCTV footage from the owner Laxman Singh at later stage. 35.54 He replied that he did not remember if the CCTV footage was taken in the CD from the DVR in the presence of Laxman Singh, however, it was done at the police station. 35.55 He replied that the CD was prepared from the DVR through an expert namely Subodh. He further replied that he did not remember if the CD so prepared were sealed in the presence of Laxman Singh.
35.56 He replied that the DVR was seized and seizure memo was prepared at the house of Laxman Singh. He replied that the same was perhaps taken on 14.11.2014. 35.57 He denied the suggestion that a forged and doctored CD was prepared from the footage taken from the DVR seized from the house of Laxman Singh.
35.58 He denied the suggestion that the CDs prepared at the police station as shown to the witnesses were blank and there was no CCTV footage therein.
35.59 He replied that the mother of the deceased had given a complaint in the police station stating therein that her husband and others were involved in the death of her son. 35.60 He voluntarily replied that the inquiry was Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu KUMAR PANDEY FIR No. 1883/2014 PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:57:58 +0530 63 conducted on the said complaint but no evidence came on record to support the said allegations of mother of deceased. He replied that the said inquiry and the proceedings qua said complaint of mother of deceased was not filed with the charge-sheet in this case since it was not relevant in the absence of any evidence to connect. He replied that he did not remember if he had recorded the statement of mother of deceased.
35.61 He replied that the fact that the present husband of the mother of the deceased was the second husband and not the biological father of the deceased was disclosed to him by the mother and the brother of the deceased during investigation. 35.62 He denied the suggestion that no inquiry was conducted on the abovesaid complaint made by the mother of the deceased and it was filed without proper proceedings. 35.63 He replied that he did not remember if any fact was revealed during the investigation of this case, that the victim in this case was also previously attacked and a case was registered at police station Mehrauli.
35.64 He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted in depth inquiry or investigation in this case to ascertain the real offenders. He replied that he cannot say if the persons who had previously attacked upon the deceased are the real offenders who had caused the death of deceased. 35.65 He denied the suggestion that accused Robin Massey has been falsely implicated in this case or that he had planted false public witnesses.
Digitally
35.66 He further denied the suggestion that accused had signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 15:58:11
+0530
FIR No. 1883/2014
64
not committed any offence or that he had not conducted free and fair investigation in this case. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
36. PW 24 Ms. Kavita Goyal, Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL, Delhi:- She deposed that on 24.02.2015, she was working as Senior Scientific Officer, Forensic Laboratory, Rohini and on that day, two sealed parcels were received in the office alongwith forwarding documents.
36.1 She further deposed that they were allotted to him for examination. She deposed that it contains two parcels Mark 13 and 18. She further deposed that parcel 13 contained blood sample of Robin Massey which was marked as Ex.13, blood sample volume approx. 1.5 ml, parcel 18 contained viscera of Dharmender Prasad and it contained four exhibits. Ex. 18A (stomach and piece of small intestine with contents). Ex. 18B (piece of liver, spleen and kidney. Ex. 18C blood sample volume approx. 10 ml and Ex. 18D preservative sample saturated solution of common salt).
36.2 She further deposed that after detailed examination, she gave her final report on chemical microscopic TLC & GC- HS examination as under:-
1. Exhibits 13, 18A, 18B and 18C were found to contain ethyl alcohol.
2. Exhibits 13 & 18 C were found contain ethyl alcohol 113.5 mg/100 ml of blood and 12.7 mg/100 ml of blood respectively.Digitally signed by RAVINDRA
3. Exhibit 18D gave negative test for common poisons. RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07
15:58:21
+0530
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu
FIR No. 1883/2014
65
36.1 She deposed that after the examination, the remnants
of the exhibits have been sealed with the seal impression of KG FSL DELHI. She proved her report in this regard as Ex. PW24/A. 36.2 During cross examination made on behalf of accused, she replied that she cannot say how much quantity of alcohol was sufficient for intoxication or semi intoxication. She voluntarily replied that only the doctor can tell about it.
37. PW-25 HC Dinesh Kumar:- He deposed that in the intervening night of 06/07-10-2014, he was posted as constable at police station Mehrauli. He further deposed that on that day, he was on his petrolling duty from 11.00 pm to 05.00 am. He deposed that at about 05.00 am, Duty Officer called him at the said police station. He further deposed that he had reached there and Duty Officer had handed over him a copy of FIR bearing no.
1883/2014 with the direction to hand over the same to the senior officer and Illaqa Magistrate. He deposed that he had handed over the copy of the said FIR to the Illaqa Magistrate and the senior officer. He further deposed that he had returned to the police station on the Government motorcycle and later on, IO had recorded his statement in this regard. 37.1 During cross examination made on behalf of accused, he replied that he had handed over the copy of the FIR to Senior officer i.e. ACP/DCP, however, he did not recollect their names. Digitally signed by
38. PW 26 Dr. Hari Prasad :- He deposed that on RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 15:58:32 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 66 08.10.2014, he was working and posted at SR FMT, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi. He further deposed that on that day, he had conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased Dharmender Prasad and thereafter, he had prepared his detailed postmortem report no. 1327-2014 as Ex. PW 26/A. He further deposed that in his opinion, the cause of death in this case was shock due to head injury caused by blunt external force/impact. 38.1 He deposed that all the injuries are fresh and antemortem in nature. However, viscera was preserved to rule out any concomitant poisoning.
38.2 He has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
39. PW-27 Inspector Upender Singh:- He deposed that on 26.12.2015, he was posted as Inspector Investigation at police station Mehrauli. He deposed that MHC(M) had handed over him a FSL report in this case. He further deposed that he had perused the same and filed them in the Court in the form of supplementary chargesheet.
39.1 The said witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE THROUGH LD. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE
40. It is submitted on behalf of the State that three public witnesses of prosecution namely PW-4 Akash, PW-8 Rahul and PW-9 Arvind have supported the case of prosecution and had identified the accused as the same person who had committed the Digitally signed by RAVINDRA offence against the victim Dharmender @ Dharmu while hitting RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 15:58:48 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 67 him with bricks and resulted into death of the victim.
40.1 It is further submitted by Ld. Additional PP for the State that PW-1 PCR Incharge HC Mange Ram alongwith two other police staff had reached at the spot and accused was apprehended at the spot and accused had confessed his guilt before the police officials at that time also.
40.2 It is further submitted by Ld. Additional PP for the State that medical and FSL result corroborate the case of prosecution regarding the cause of death of the victim. It is further submitted that incident was captured in the CCTV footage which also duly proved in the statement of PW-11 Laxman, owner of the CCTV footage.
40.3 It is submitted by Ld. Additional PP for the State that PW-10 Jitender, brother of deceased had also identified the victim after seeing the CCTV footage. It is submitted that expert witness, serology, stone and blood also corroborate the case of prosecution regarding the cause of the death of the victim. It is further submitted that the expert witness i.e. PW-16 Dr. C.P Singh had proved his report as Ex. PW16/A. 40.4 It is further submitted by Ld. Additional PP for the State that PW-17 Jitesh Patel, had examined the CCTV footage and proved his report as Ex. PW17/A and as per his report, there was no tampering in the CCTV footage examined by him regarding the incident.
40.5 It is submitted by Ld. Additional PP for the State that PW-21 Dr. D.K Mahapatra had proved the biology and RAVINDRA by Digitally signed RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2024.05.07 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 15:59:03 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 68
serology report as Ex. PW21/A and Ex. PW21/B. It is further submitted that witness PW-26 Dr. Hari Parsad had conducted the postmortem of the victim and had proved the cause of death and his report as Ex. PW26/A. It is further argued that the said witness also deposed that multiple hitting was made upon the victim which resulted into his death.
40.6 It is further submitted that the weapon of offence, piece of brick/stone and silli was proved in the present case and total 27 prosecution witnesses have been examined in the present case.
40.7 It is further submitted that the case of prosecution against the accused regarding the charge of offence punishable U/s 302 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is liable to be convicted and sentenced as per law.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED THROUGH LD. DEFENCE COUNSEL
41. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that no motive was assigned by the prosecution and no fair investigation was conducted by the investigating agency. It is further submitted that two prosecution witnesses namely Rohit @ Sunny @ Chindi Chor and Kunal @ Babu had not been cited as prosecution witnesses and no valid reason was explained by the prosecution for the same.
41.1 It is further argued on behalf of accused that auto /TSR driver was not associated in the investigation nor he was Digitally signed by RAVINDRA traced out during the investigation. RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:59:14 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 69 41.2 It is argued on behalf of accused that Farida, the mother of deceased had given the complaint to the SHO regarding her husband that he was involved in the commission of offence against the victim and no inquiry was conducted on the complaint of mother of deceased.
41.3 It is further argued on behalf of accused that one of the eye witness i.e. PW8/Rahul during recording of his cross examination on 02.11.2018, did not support the aspect of his presence at the time of incident and he denied the whole statement given during his examination in chief and stated that he gave the statement on the basis of pressure put by the IO on 28.03.2017.
41.4 It is further argued that on 02.11.2018, PW-8/Rahul had not supported his earlier version on the pretext that IO had pressurized him.
41.5 It is argued on behalf of accused that PW-8 deposed that he did not know the public witnesses namely Akash and Arvind. It is further argued that as per the complaint, the accused was standing at the spot, when the PCR Van came and he did not try to flee away from the spot after the incident.
41.6 It is further submitted on behalf of accused that nowhere in the complaint or in the evidence came on record that accused was having any blood stained clothes or having any blood stains on his body.
41.7 It is further argued on behalf of the accused that as per prosecution case, the witness Arvind was standing at some Digitally signed by RAVINDRA SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY FIR No. 1883/2014 PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 15:59:24 +0530 70 distance and Akash was standing at a distance of 210 cms and Rahul was standing at a distance of 300 cms from the spot.
41.8 It is further argued that as per site plan, the stone having blood had fallen upto point E and accused was standing at point B. However, there was no mention in the exhibits that accused was having blood stains on his body or on his clothes.
41.9 It is further argued on behalf of the accused that accused was falsely apprehended and implicated in the present case and the prosecution witnesses namely Arvind and Akash were the planted witnesses and they made contradictory statement to each other.
41.10 It is argued on behalf of accused that deceased was not known to the accused prior to the incident and there was no link between the accused and deceased.
41.11 It is further argued that police had not tried to locate the auto driver nor he was associated as witness.
41.12 It is further submitted that case of prosecution against the accused Robin @ Massey is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.
42. Heard the submission of both the parties. Perused the record of the chargesheet including the statement of witnesses and other material placed and proved on record during the trial of the case.
43. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of eye witnesses, circumstantial evidence and last seen evidence in Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07 15:59:33 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 71 order to prove the charge of offence punishable U/s 302 IPC against the accused.
44. The legal position in regard to the circumstances of last seen and circumstantial evidence as settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various judgments are reproduced as under:-
CIRCUMSTANCE OF LAST SEEN:
45. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Nizam & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan", Crl. Appeal No. 413/2007, decided on 04.09.2015, discussed the law regarding last seen theory.
It was observed: - "Elaborating the principle of "last seen alive" in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, this Court held as under:- "23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu PANDEY Date: 2024.05.07 15:59:45 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 72 prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd., Re. (AIR 1960 Mad 218)" The above judgment was relied upon and reiterated in Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal, (2015) 5 Scale 319."
45.1. Further, in Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Appeal (Crl.) 997 of 2005, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held as follows:-
"It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well-settled that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. [See Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67 and Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P. (2005) 7 SCC 603].
The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case courts should look for some corroboration."Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu PANDEY Date: 2024.05.07 15:59:54 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 73 45.2 In case of State of U.P. v. Satish, Appeal (Crl.) 256-257 of 2005, with regard to last-seen theory following was held as under:-
"The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by witnesses."
LEGAL POSITION ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
46. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled as " Anwar Ali and Another Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh", Crl Appeal No. 1121/2016 dated 25.09.2020 has held as under:-
" 5.4 It is also required to be noted and it is not in dispute that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. As held by this Court in catena of decisions that in case of a circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 16:00:05 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 74 evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In the case of Babu (supra), it is observed and held in paragraphs 22 to 24 as under:
"22. In Krishan Vs. State (2008) 15 SCC 430, this Court after considering a large number of its earlier judgments observed as follows: (SCC p. 435, para 15) "15. ... This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra (1982) 2 SCC 351)"
46.1 In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 while dealing with Digitally circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 16:00:12 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 75 the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (SCC p. 185, para 153)
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned "must" or "should" and not " may be" established;
(ii) 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;
(iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
(v) 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.
46.2 A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in State of U.P Vs. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114 and Pawan Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2009) 15 SCC 259.
5.5 Even in the case of G. Parshwanath (supra), this Court has in paragraphs 23 and 24 observed as under:
"23. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the Digitally circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 16:00:20 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 76 should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the Court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although, there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts.
24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent Digitally only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 16:00:34 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 77 exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. 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, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court". 46.3 In Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No. 1348/2013 dated 02.03.2021, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"11. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been very well crystallized in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra:-
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicted 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 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 FIR No. 1883/2014 16:00:41 +0530 78 be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the observations were made: [ SCC para 10, p. 807; SCC (Cri) p. 1047.
"19.... 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.
154. These golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
46.4 Further, in State of Odisha Vs. Banabihari Mohapatra and Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1156/2021, dated 12.02.2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as Digitally signed by RAVINDRA under:- RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 16:00:50 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 79 "35. Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. There has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable doubt for any 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.
36. In Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12 SCC 158, this Court held that the principles for conviction of the accused based on circumstantial evidence are:-
"10.1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established.
10.2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
10.3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else.
10.4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
47. Keeping the above test in mind, we have no iota of doubt that the Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused Respondents.
There is a strong possibility that the accused, who was as per the Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07
16:01:05
+0530
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu
FIR No. 1883/2014
80
opinion of the doctor who performed the autopsy, intoxicated with alcohol, might have accidentally touched a live electrical wire, may be while he was asleep. The impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
48. It is well settled by a plethora of judicial pronouncement of this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This proposition has been reiterated in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam reported in AIR 2013 SC 3817.
48.1 In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, this Court observed:-
"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought is to be established by circumstantial evidence."
48.2 In the case titled as "Anjan Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Assam" (2017) 14 SCC 359, it was observed:
"(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' not and 'may be' established;
(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 the explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07
16:01:15
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530
FIR No. 1883/2014
81
guilty;
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature of tendency; (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be provided; 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 shown that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused (See: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashra (1984) 4 SCC 116; M G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200)."
48.3 The principles with regard to appreciation of circumstantial evidence have also been explained in Gagan Kanojia Vs. State of Punjab (2016) 13 SCC 516.
Therefore, the principle, as laid down in aforesaid judicial dicta, is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The various circumstances in the chain of events must be such so as to rule out the reasonable likelihood of innocence of accused. The missing of important link snaps the chain of circumstances and the other circumstances cannot in any manner establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
49. The terms murder has been defined U/s 300 IPC and same is reproduced as under:- Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR Section 300 IPC- Murder:- KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07 16:01:27 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 82 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--
2ndly.--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-- 3rdly.--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-- 4thly.--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. Illustrations
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 16:01:55 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 83 death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.
(c) A, intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z's death.
(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.
Exception 1.--When culpable homicide is not murder.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:--
First.--That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly.--That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly.--That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation.--Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu PANDEY Date:
FIR No. 1883/2014 2024.05.07
16:02:04
+0530
84
question of fact.
Illustrations
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills Y, Z's child. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight.
A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.
(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) A appears as a witness before Z, a Magistrate. Z says that he does not believe a word of A's deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.
(e) A attempts to pull Z's nose. Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was giving by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage.
A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B's rage, and to Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
RAVINDRA PANDEY
KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07
16:02:18
+0530
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu
FIR No. 1883/2014
85
cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder. Exception 2.--Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Illustration Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide. Exception 3.--Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.--Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 16:02:25 +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 86 manner.
Explanation.--It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Exception 5.--Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
Illustration A, by instigation, voluntarily causes Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder.
50. The punishment as provided U/s 302 IPC for commission of offence murder is reproduced as under:-
Section 302 Punishment for murder--Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
THE REASON FOR DECISION
51. The case of prosecution is that in the intervening night of 06/07-10-2014 and at around 01.45 am to 02.00 am, on the Chatterpur Road near Chatterpur Road T-point/MCD Park, accused Robin Messey @ Monu had caused injuries by hitting with bricks and stones to the victim Dharmender @ Dharmu with intention to kill him and which resulted into the death of the victim.
51.1 In order to prove the charge of offence punishable Digitally signed by RAVINDRA U/s 302 IPC against the accused Robin Messey @ Monu, the RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 16:02:35 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 87 prosecution has relied upon the testimony of eye witnesses of the incident, circumstantial evidence, the last seen evidence, scientific evidence including expert opinion.
51.2 The prosecution has duly proved through the witnesses PW-4 Akash, PW-8 Rahul, PW-9 Arvind that in the intervening night of 06/07-10-2014 at around 01.30 am to 02.00 am, accused Robin Messey @ Monu and victim Dharmender @ Dharmu alongwith two-three more persons were present at the Chhatterpur Road near Chhatterpur T-point, MCD Park within the jurisdiction of PS Mehrauli.
51.3 The prosecution witness PW-4 Akash has categorically proved the fact that accused Robin Messey @ Monu and deceased/victim Dharmender @ Dharmu were arguing with each other at that time and both were having half piece of brick in their hands and accused hit the piece of brick on the head of the deceased/victim who fell down on the ground. He also deposed about the presence of the other public witness PW-8 Rahul who used to run a Tea Stall near the park and he came there out of curiosity to see what was going on there. PW-4 also categorically stated that when deceased/victim fell down on the ground, accused Robin Messey @ Monu picked up a big stone and hit to the deceased/victim who was lying on the ground and he hit the deceased/victim continuously for 4-5 times on his head. 51.4 He also categorically stated that when accused Robin Messey saw the PW-4 and PW-8, he picked up a piece of plywood lying near the spot and came towards PW-4, upon that PW-4 run away from the spot and reached at his home. He also SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu Digitally signed by RAVINDRA FIR No. 1883/2014 RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07 16:02:50 +0530 88 deposed about the presence of the public witness Arvind/PW-9 who met the witness PW-4 Akash and PW-8 Rahul across the road at the time of incident. He also deposed regarding the reason of his presence at that time at that place and he explained that he alongwith his maternal uncle Jitender used to sleep there to look after the under construction house and building material lying at the site of the construction and prior to the incident, he woke up to attend the call of nature to pass urine.
51.5 The witness PW-4 Akash is the public witness and during his cross examination, nothing material came to rule out the possibility of his presence at the time of incident contrary to the case of prosecution.
51.6 Similarly, the version of prosecution case is also corroborated by the prosecution through the examination of public witness PW-8 Rahul who also similarly deposed against the accused and identified the accused as the same person who killed the deceased/victim.
51.7 The accused took the defence that PW-8 Rahul did not support the case of prosecution during his cross examination recorded on 02.11.2018 regarding the incident or his presence at the spot at the time of incident and argued that the PW-8 had deposed against the accused on 28.03.2017 under pressure of police which came on record during cross examination recorded on 02.11.2018. However, the defence of the accused is not sustainable as no material came on record to the effect that police official including IO had ever contacted the witness prior to Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 16:03:12 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 89 recording his statement on 28.03.2017, neither the witness lodged any complaint to any authority or to the Court regarding the alleged pressure given to him by the police. It appears that witness PW-8 when subsequently cross examined on 02.11.2018 on behalf of the accused, he was influenced by the accused and he deposed contrary to his previous version which was recorded on 28.03.2017. Even otherwise, the case of prosecution and version of the PW-8 regarding the incident was also corroborated by the prosecution through the other eye witnesses of the incident i.e. PW-4 Akash and PW-9 Arvind and both these witnesses also deposed regarding the presence of the PW-8 Rahul near the spot at the time of incident.
51.8 In case titled as " Ram Bhukan Vs. State" AIR 1994 SC 561, it was held that evidence of eye witnesses including the injured witness cannot be discarded on the basis of vague evidence of other witnesses who was declared subsequently hostile.
51.9 In another case titled as " Prithvi Nath Pandey Vs. State" 1994 Cr.LJ 3623, it was held that the testimony of prosecution witnesses which is found to be false in respect of one fact cannot be rejected outright as a whole, it can be accepted on cumulative evidence and other material on record.
51.10 Similarly, in case titled as " Vahula Bhushan Vs. State, AIR 1989 SC 236, it was held that conviction on testimony of solitary witness is legal, if he is fully reliable and the same is Digitally signed corroborated by medical evidence. RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07
16:03:22
+0530
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu
FIR No. 1883/2014
90
Hence, the defence as taken by the accused to the above noted aspect is rejected and it does not hold any merit.
51.11 The other public witness Arvind/PW-9 also deposed about the incident in similar manner as deposed by PW-4 and PW-8 and he also identified the accused as the same person who had killed the deceased/victim by hitting with bricks and stones.
During the cross examination, no material contradiction came on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW-9 Arvind. The witness PW-9 has duly explained the mode and manner of commission of offence by the accused. The witness PW-9 has also explained duly regarding his presence near the spot at the time of incident.
51.12 The version of PW-9, PW-4 and PW-8 is also corroborated by the prosecution through the police witness PW1 HC Mange Ram who went to the spot being PCR official on duty and when he was about to reach near the place of incident, witness PW-9 Arvind met him and he informed about the incident and indicated about the place of occurrence to the PCR officials.
51.13 The prosecution has duly proved that after the incident the accused Robin Messey @ Monu was apprehended from the place of occurrence by the PCR officials including PW1 HC Mange Ram and he alongwith the deceased/victim were shifted to the Fortis hospital by the PCR Van.
51.14 The statement of PW-1 HC Mange Ram was recorded by the Inquiry Officer as Ex. PW1/A and HC Mange Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA Ram/PW1 had handed over the custody of the accused to the KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 16:03:32 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 91 Inquiry Officer SI Govind. The prosecution has duly proved the complaint/rukka Ex. PW1/A and Duty Log Book of PW1 and other police officials in the PCR Van Ex. PW1/B. The other two police officials of PCR Van i.e. PW-2 Ct. Jaideep Narwal and PW-3 Ct. Parveen also corroborated the prosecution case and statement of PW-1 HC Mange Ram regarding the apprehension of the accused from the spot and the shifting of the accused as well as victim to the Fortis Hospital by the PCR officials.
51.15 It is duly proved by the prosecution through the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that after the incident, accused Robin Messey was apprehended from the spot where victim was also lying on the ground and the police officials of PCR Van had shifted the accused and victim to the Fortis Hospital in the PCR Van. No material contradiction came on record from the cross examination of PW1, PW2 and PW3 to discard or disbelieve their testimony in any manner.
51.16 The incident was also recorded in the CCTV camera installed near the place of incident in the house of Laxman Singh/PW-12. The DVR of the said CCTV footage of the incident was seized during investigation and this fact is duly proved by the prosecution and no material contradiction came on record. The CCTV footage of the date of incident covering the incident reflect that the incident took place between 01.40 am to 02.00 am on 07.10.2014 which corroborates the case of prosecution regarding the time, date and place of incident.
51.17 The accused took the defence that the seizure of the Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07
16:03:43
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530
FIR No. 1883/2014
92
DVR as belonging to PW-12 is not duly proved and there is also contradiction in the testimony of PW-12 regarding the mode and manner of seizure of DVR of the CCTV footage. However, the said minor deviation of the statement of the witness PW-12 from his earlier statement given to the police as recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC is not so material to discard his entire testimony and the fact that the incident was recorded in the CCTV camera installed in the front of the house of the witness PW-12 is duly proved and it also duly proved that police seized the same during investigation.
51.18 The CCTV footage of the incident was genuine and there was no alteration in the same and this fact was duly proved by the prosecution through witnesses PW-16 Dr. C.P Singh and PW-17 Dr. Geetesh Patel, the expert witnesses from FSL, Rohini, Delhi who proved their opinion regarding the same as Ex.
PW16/A and no material contradiction came on record during their cross examination. Similarly, the contents of the DVR/hard disc of the CCTV footage were opined to be recorded on 07.10.2014 from 07.40 am to 02.00 am from camera no. 2 and the prosecution has corroborated the same through the expert witness PW-18 Sh. Ajay Kumar who proved his report regarding the same as Ex. PW18/A and no material contradiction came on record during the cross examination of the witness.
51.19 The fact that victim was hit by the accused is corroborated from the CCTV footage of the incident recorded in the CCTV installed at outside the house of the witness PW-12. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY The fact that victim was Dharmender @ Dharmu in the said KUMAR PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 16:03:50 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 93 CCTV footage is proved by prosecution through witness PW-10 Jitender apart from the other witnesses as discussed above. PW- 10 Jitender is the brother of the victim and he deposed after seeing the CCTV footage that victim in the CCTV footage was his brother Dharmender @ Dharmu.
51.20 He also deposed that during investigation, he had identified the dead body of his brother Dharmender @ Dharmu.
No material contradiction came on record during the cross examination of witness PW-10 to discard his testimony or to create any doubt in his testimony. The accused Robin Messey @ Monu took the defence that in the said CCTV footage though the incident was visible. However, the faces of assailant or victim or the witnesses who were present at the spot were not visible. However, as discussed above the witness PW-10 had identified his brother as a victim in the CCTV footage after seeing the CCTV footage and it corroborates the prosecution case that victim was killed at the spot. The said CCTV footage also establishes the fact of genuineness of the incident, its time and place and other circumstances of the place of incident.
51.21 The prosecution has duly proved that the deceased/victim was killed by using the stone, stone pieces and the blood sample which were collected from the spot and from the bricks stone and stone pieces collected from the spot was belonging to the deceased/victim who was killed in the incident. The prosecution witness PW-21 Dr. B.K Mahapatra through his biological examination and DNA profile report Ex. PW21/A and Digitally serological report proved in this regard. No material signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu 2024.05.07 FIR No. 1883/2014 16:03:58 +0530 94 contradiction came on record from the cross examination of witness PW-21.
51.22 The prosecution has also duly proved and corroborated his case regarding the fact that accused Robin Messey @ Monu and deceased/victim Dharmender were in drunken condition prior to the incident and this fact is proved by prosecution through witness PW-24 Ms. Kavita Goel, FSL, Rohini through her report Ex. PW24/A and no material contradiction came on record from the cross examination of PW-
24. 51.23 The cause of death of the victim is proved by prosecution through witness PW-26 Dr. Hari Parsad who proved his detailed postmortem report bearing no. 1327-2014 Ex.
PW26/A. As per the opinion of PW-26 on the postmortem report, the cause of death of the victim was shock due to head injury caused by blunt external force/impact and all the injuries were fresh and ante mortem in nature. No material contradiction came on record to discard the prosecution case regarding the cause of death of the victim.
51.24 The prosecution has duly proved the registration of the FIR through witness PW-7 SI Shri Ram who deposed that he registered the information received to the police vide DD No. 5- A Ex. PW7/A regarding the incident and he also deposed that the inquiry was marked to SI Gopal. He also deposed that at about 02.30 am on 07.10.2014, another information was received Digitally which was recorded as DD No. 6-A Ex. PW7/B and the said signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 16:04:08 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 95 information was brought to the notice of SI Gopal and SI Sunil Dhaka. He further deposed that he registered the FIR on the basis of rukka produced by HC Tejpal and he proved the registration of FIR No. 1883/2014 PS Mehrauli Ex. PW7/C and he also proved the endorsement by him. No material contradiction came on record during the cross examination of the witness to discard his testimony.
51.25 The prosecution has duly proved the case of prosecution regarding the initial inquiry as conducted by first IO SI Gopal/PW-15 who reached to the Fortis Hospital on 07.10.2014 on receipt of DD No.5-A, where he met with Incharge of the PCR HC Mange Ram/PW-1. PW-15 also proved the fact that accused was produced to him by HC Mange Ram and at that time, IO Inspector Sunil Kumar came there. He also deposed that dead body of the victim was shifted to AIIMS Hospital from the Fortis Hospital and name of the victim was revealed as Dharmender @ Dharmu and name of the accused was revealed as Robin. No material contradiction came on record during the cross examination of the witness.
51.26 The photographs of the place of incident including the circumstances, stones, bricks and slab used in the commission of offence and place of occurrence and crime scene report was proved by prosecution through PW-19 HC Jaiveer Singh and PW-20 Inspector Mahesh Kumar. The prosecution witness PW- 19 proved the photographs of the place of incident as Ex.
PW19/P1 to Ex. PW19/P-14 and its negatives as Ex. PW19/P-15 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA to Ex. PW19/P-28. Similarly, the scaled site plan is proved by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 16:04:16 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 96 prosecution through witness PW-20 Inspector Mahesh Kumar who proved his report Ex. PW20/A. No material contradiction came on record during the cross examination of PW-19 and PW-
20. 51.27 The material part of investigation was carried out by PW-23 Inspector Sunil Kumar who deposed that he went to the Fortis Hospital where Incharge of the PCR Van HC Mange Ram had handed over the custody of accused Robin Messey. He also deposed that he collected the MLC of the injured from the hospital and interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement. The witness PW-23 proved the recording of statement of HC Mange Ram as Ex. PW1/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW23/A. The witness PW-23 also proved the arrest of the accused and seizure of the case property. The witness PW-23 also identified the seized case property as the same which was seized by him during investigation.
51.28 The accused took the defence that CCTV footage of the incident was not duly seized during investigation by the IO PW-23. The accused also took the defence that IO had not associated the other persons who were allegedly present at the spot at the time of alleged incident nor associated or verified the presence of the auto driver at the time of incident at the spot.
The legal position in this regard is already settled in case titled as " Varghese Thomas Vs. State" AIR 1977 SC, 701, in which it was held that all the eye witnesses to the murder need not to be called to testify and only because some of them were Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.05.07 16:04:27 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 97 not examined will not be fatal for prosecution for their non examination, if the prosecution gives satisfactory explanation for their non examination.
Accordingly, the defence of the accused does not hold any merit in the eyes of law as these are not material to discard the entire case of prosecution and evidence as produced by the prosecution during the trial.
51.29 The accused also took the defence that motive of the commission of offence has not been proved by prosecution and none of the witnesses of prosecution including IO has deposed anything regarding the motive behind the murder of the victim as allegedly committed by the accused.
51.30 The legal position in regard to the proof of motive is well settled in case titled as " Dhanajay Shanker Shetty Vs. State", AIR 2002 SC 2787, in which it was held that " it is well settled that merely because motive is neither alleged nor proved, the same would ipso-facto not affect the prosecution case but in case there are circumstances to create doubt regarding the veracity of prosecution case, this may also become material".
51.31 Similarly, in case titled as " Mani Kumar Thapa Vs. State", AIR 2002 SC 2920, it was held that " assuming that evidence is insufficient to establish the motive for murder even then if the prosecution is able to establish beyond all reasonable doubt from the other circumstantial evidence that it is the Digitally accused alone who could have committed the murder, the RAVINDRA signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY absence of motive will not hamper a save conviction". PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 16:04:35 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 98 51.32 Similarly, in the case titled as "State of U.P. V Babu Ram", SC 2000 (11) AD 285, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court :--
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.
51.33 In Dr. Tarseem Kumar Vs. Delhi Admn (1994) Supp (3) SCC 767, it is held that:-
"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 Digitally signed by produced before the Court the motive loses its importance. But in RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 16:04:43 +0530 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014 99 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."
51.34 In the present case, no material contradiction came on record during the trial to discard the case of prosecution regarding the incident in which accused Robin Messey @ Monu had killed the victim on the place of incident and at the time of the incident. Hence, the defence taken by the accused regarding the fact of not proving the motive is not material and is accordingly rejected.
52. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the considered view that accused Robin Messey @ Monu was the person who killed the deceased/victim Dharmender @ Dharmu on 07.10.2014 in between 01.45 am to 02.00 am on the Chhaterpur Road, near Chhaterpur Road T-point/ MCD Park within the jurisdiction of PS Meharuli by causing him multiple injuries while using bricks, stones and stone slab. Accordingly, the case of prosecution against the accused Robin Messey @ Monu regarding the charge of offence punishable U/s 302 IPC is Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Robin KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2024.05.07 16:04:52 SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu +0530 FIR No. 1883/2014 100 Messey @ Monu S/o Yakub Messey is held guilty and convicted for offence punishable U/s 302 IPC.
53. The convict Robin Messey @ Monu and State are directed to file their respective affidavits within a week from today in terms of judgment titled as " Karan Verma Vs. State, GNCT of Delhi".
54. The Jail Superintendent is also directed to file the nominal role of the accused before the Court on next date of RAVINDRA Digitally signed by hearing. KUMAR RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2024.05.07 PANDEY 16:04:59 +0530 Announced in open Court (Ravindra Kumar Pandey) on 07.05.2024 Additional Sessions Judge-3 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi SC No. 7141/2016 State Vs. Robin Massey @ Monu FIR No. 1883/2014